Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Moreschi (talk | contribs)
Line 718: Line 718:


In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Steve_Crossin.2C_Chet_B_Long.2C_PeterSymonds.2C_and_inappropriate_account_sharing this], can you find any consensus to ban steve for any period of time? if not (cause there isnt) why did arbcom still act? [[User:Promethean|<b><span style="color:#FF0000;background:white">&nbsp; «<span style="color:#736F6E">l<span style="color:#736F6E">|<span style="color:#151B54"> Ψrometheăn ™</span>|</span>l</span>»&nbsp;</span></b>]] [[User_talk:Promethean| (talk)]] 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Steve_Crossin.2C_Chet_B_Long.2C_PeterSymonds.2C_and_inappropriate_account_sharing this], can you find any consensus to ban steve for any period of time? if not (cause there isnt) why did arbcom still act? [[User:Promethean|<b><span style="color:#FF0000;background:white">&nbsp; «<span style="color:#736F6E">l<span style="color:#736F6E">|<span style="color:#151B54"> Ψrometheăn ™</span>|</span>l</span>»&nbsp;</span></b>]] [[User_talk:Promethean| (talk)]] 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:Hate to break this to you, IRC fanboy brigade, but '''YOU ARE ALL PEONS'''. If the ArbCom decide they want Steve banned for six months, that's just how it goes, and you can merrily piss into the wind for all it matters. You elected these guys your overlords, your godkings. If you didn't realise this at the time - well, you should just have paid a bit more attention when voting. And you get the chance to remedy the mistake, if that's how you view it, in another couple of months at the next round of elections. Frankly, messing around with admin buttons when the community has not entrusted you with them should really get you ''permabanned'', so Steve can count himself very lucky with six months.

:BTW, it is worth noting while in theory arbcom authority is set in stone, but if the community of admins collectively decided not to enforce an arbcom ruling - or to act contrary to it - arbcom probably would be forced to change their minds, as the alternative is Jimbo desysopping a couple hundred of his regulars, which would lead to chaos. But in this case, I doubt that's going to happen. So, if you disagree with an arbcom decision, and they won't change their minds, and the admin community collectively agrees with the arbcom - or even is undecided about the matter - there ain't squat you can do. Tough. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 14:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:51, 27 September 2008

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

    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.(archivessearch)


    Procedural question - admins recovering deleted article content...

    Resolved
     – No harm, no foul--Tznkai (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ...if they are "involved"? What is the policy on this? This is specific to this question here. The Prem Rawat Foundation was deleted through AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Prem Rawat Foundation. I noticed Talk:Prem Rawat/TPRF had been created by User:Jossi, who !voted on the AFD, and is certainly "involved" on any Rawat articles. I moved it over to Jossi's userspace here, as I didn't think it should be over in article or article talk space without having gone through DRV... it was only literally deleted hours ago. It appears that Jossi recovered and re-posted the deleted materials himself outside of user space.

    Is this OK? If it is, please just archive this section. I'm not sure what the policy is on using admin tools to recover validly deleted materials and repost them without DRV outside of user space when you're an involved editor as well. Thanks. I left Jossi that note, but I wanted outside eyes here and all that since he and I are arguably involved too deeply right now, with the pending Wheel War arbitration and the evidence I put in against him. I'd rather just leave this for all of you if theres anything or nothing to worry about. rootology (C)(T) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say who the admin is is irrelevant. Re-posting an article deleted at AFD in substantially the same form is not okay, involved admin or not. Userfying a deleted article that doesn't include copyvios, BLP issues, or other problematic content, is fine, involved admin or not (assuming it's not being userfied to just lurk there indefinitely, that is). I'm not sure what Jossi was trying to do in this case; probably best let him explain it. Kudos to you, though, for userfying and asking him rather than just tagging it as a G4, which probably would have been unhelpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd assume it was a mistake. going to echo the praise above about asking/userifying rather than nuking from orbit. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. Good move too, since userspace can be used as a holding pen so with Jossi's track record I agf as well. Keegantalk 07:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: to comply with Wikipedia's GFDL, the deleted article's history should be merged with Jossi's userfied version, so the contributors to it are properly credited if/when he moves it back to mainspace when he's finished working on it. Steve TC 07:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely ridiculous. Having material that was deleted in a AfD to a sandbox in article talk page is entirely appropriate as editors may want to use some of the sources in the deleted article, and has nothing to do with DRV procedures. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was deleted on the grounds of lack of notability, but the material and sources in the article could be useful to expand related articles. We have a dozen or more sandboxes under Talk:Prem Rawat as placeholders for such material, and there is nothing wrong in having that short article and its sources there for consultation by active editors there. Rootology as the nom of this AfD, should know better than raise hackles in this instance, and stop raiding my contrib list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please retract the allegation of stalking, as you might be seen to be harassing me in retaliation for posting evidence against you in RFAR about abuse of your admin tools. We've never, ever had any interatction before all of this. I nominated an article for deletion, which I am allowed to do, as it had virtually no sourcing, and there was--except for one person and a few SPA accounts, nearly unanimous consensus to delete it. I noticed it recreated in a portion of article space several hours later--I had clicked on your contributions after noticing the deletion to see if it had been perhaps DRV'd, which I am allowed to do. I noticed you had recreated it, and on top of that, using your own admin tools out of line as an involved editor, AND you may have violated copyright and GFDL attribution by falsely claiming sole authorship of the article. As a courtesy I moved it to your userspace--I could have G4'd it as someone said and validly had it blown immediately away as a speedy delete, but I didn't as a courtesy and because I'm not a dick. Once I realized this was a little over my head, I asked on AN. Everyone said, "No big, lets move on," until you come here with a false and malicious accusation of stalking. You are out of line, and this is a very sensitive area for me, having been falsely accused of this in the past. Jossi, stop harassing anyone who disagrees with you, and stop using your admin tools in any way in anything you have a COI in, such as being an admitted acolyte of Prem Rawat. rootology (C)(T) 15:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest adding the details of this incident to the current Palin ArbCom case and also to the Arb notification board as a possible violation of the Prem Rawat ArbCom case decision. Cla68 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather someone else do it. If I'm going to be hit with the usual charges he levels at others that disagree with him now of stalking and harassing him (which applies to most folks that disagree, it seems based on the recent evidence), I'm going in self-imposed hands off from him for a few months at the minimum. I don't need to be harassed, when I have articles to write. rootology (C)(T) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm about to board a plane for a 13-hour trip back to my country of residence. Could an uninvolved admin or editor please report this to the Arb enforcement board, including Jossi's personal attack on Rootology? Cla68 (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Jossi has a self-imposed restriction a bit IMHO. At the time, he vowed not to edit the articles - now he's going as far as re-creating a deleted version of one of them? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted the copy of the article, and listed the sources used in that article in a related talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already reported it [1]. Cla68 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have compared the deleted article with what Jossi posted to "Talk:Prem Rawat/TPRF", now at "Special:Undelete/User:Jossi/TPRF", and it is an exact copy of the deleted article sans infobox, and including additional sources (presumably found during the Afd?); it is worth noting that the recreated copy includes changes made to the article made during the AfD. The typical practise at Afd is for people to opine that they would like the article to be moved to userspace if they intend to salvage/reuse it, or ask the deleting admin to do so if the Afd is closed as delete. Otherwise, it stays deleted. Whether or not Jossi obtained the text from his own disk or via Special:Undelete/The Prem Rawat Foundation, the recreation in article talk space is very unusual, and it is not surprising that rootology thought that it should be userfied. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional question, Jossi = Momento?

    Jossi claimed that he was the original author of The Prem Rawat Foundation. How is that? Jossi, are you claiming YOU are the editor Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He is the original author, as I just noticed here. rootology (C)(T) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that enough evidence to support a checkuser request? Cla68 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have got to be kidding... By all means do a checkuser if that is what you want to do. LOL! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So were you the original author of The Prem Rawat Foundation as you claimed? That's all I'm asking. rootology (C)(T) 15:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I contributed a large amount of the content. If all you wanted was to ask, you could. Instead you make an allegation of Jossi = Momento. You have some chutzpah. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not chutzpah, that's asking why you claimed to be the author who was Momento and not you, broke GFDL and copyright by reposting it with no history using your admin tools if you're not Momento and that's not his original draft, and that's it. Again, I'm done with this, and leave it to others to sort out and post to the various RFARs if required. And please leave me alone and stop lobbing accusations of harassment at anyone who disagrees with you. It's a civility violation. rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 20 September 2008
    If I feel harassed, I feel harassed. So please stop this silliness. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another silly allegation: I do not need to use my "admin tools" to keep a copy of an article on my file system. See what I mean by feeling harassed by you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone needs to slow down here, take a deep breath. Its Saturday. According to the (admin only) [article history], Jossi was a major contributor to the article, (and moved it at one point from Prem Rewat Foundation to The Prem Rewat Foundation. I'd be very hard pressed to conclude that Jossi is under any reasonable suspicion of socking, merely a major contributor to the article. Nothing wrong with having a userfied copy to "prepare" for recreation/DRV. Rootology did the right thing moving it from Talk:Prem... to User:Jossi/Prem..., as is customary for userfied copies. Keeper ǀ 76 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

    The article was deleted for failing notability. Jossi restored the material and sources to a sandbox in talk space. Steve's right about the history merge. That's pretty mundane stuff, doesn't violate Jossi's self-imposed restriction as far as I can see, and is something anyone would do on request for an established editor. Moving it to userspace was fine too, though if there's as much enmity as there seems to be it might have been better to ask someone else to do it. Trying to find any wrongdoing in this, let alone justification for a checkuser, seems like a stretch. Tom Harrison Talk 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jossi says "I had a copy of the material on-disk, before the AfD (I was the author)." In that context it is a simple leap of reason to see he is explaining why he has it on disk - he had been involved in the authoring of the article. The article was created on January 14, 2006 by Momento, edited by Jossi on January 20 and February 7 in 2006, and January 9, February 1 and March 14 in 2007. It is a very strange point that Jossi is making, as his on-disk copy is irrelevant, and he wasnt neither the initial or a recent author; but, he is the primary author of the article The Prem Rawat Foundation. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Back on topic

    Ignoring the rambling discussion on individual editor's merits, behaviors, and so on, and back to the topic of is it OK to use admin tools to recover deleted content in that fashion:

    In my opinion yes. There is no harm here, involved administrator or otherwise. Article deletion does not mean "wiped off the face of wikipedia." It means "This article doesn't need to be here" unless there is copyright violation incidents in which case its "this content cannot be here." In otherwords, its just an article talk page he moved it to. No big deal. Its substantially the same thing as watching an article about to be deleted, copying and pasting the content onto an article talk page in preparation for merging the content.--Tznkai (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin, users have asked me for copies of pages that have been deleted, either for private circulation or in their userspace. So long as there is no BLP, threats or other major problem with the content, I have always done so. If they attempt to move this into mainspace and dodge the AfD by stealth, any admin (including the one who restored it) can use the "already deleted" speedy criterion to blat it. As I see it, if it can potentially improve the encyclopaedia or is at worst harmless, then there is no risk to the project. Orderinchaos 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, no big deal, perfectly normal practice to give out deleted content in response to good-faith requests, and no need for any silly bureaucratic restriction stopping admins from doing it for themselves. If it's not ready for primetime in a month or so I am sure Jossi will quietly nuke it. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A discussion has been underway for some time at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval regarding a proposed adminbot - FA Template Protection Bot. Following the recent RfC on adminbots, an addition was made to the Bot policy which was felt to reflect the consensus of that discussion: Wikipedia:BOT#Bots with administrative rights. The crux of this addition is to allow the approval of adminbots without the need for the operator to run a separate RfA. Instead, both the technical merits of the task and community consensus for it will be determined at WP:RFBOT and final approval is subject to bureaucrat (rather than BAG) discretion. As ever, as a bureaucrat asked to consider granting rights I need to consider community consensus. The RfC on these bots does suggest that there is no longer a general acceptance that RfA should be needed for such bots, however some form of community approval remains expected. Opposition to this addition to the Bot policy has so far come from existing operators of adminbots on their own accounts, who are unwilling to subject themselves to even this lesser approval process, rather than from those unhappy with rights being granted outside RfA. The change has been fairly well advertised.

    This post is intended as a notification that I am minded to approve an adminbot based on the addition to WP:BOT that resulted from the RfC provided that I am satisfied:

    1. That sufficient scrutiny of the code has occurred
    2. That the potential approval was brought to the attention of the community
    3. That there is a general consensus that the approval of the adminbot is beneficial
    4. That the bot operator accepts that, should a bureaucrat later determine that the consensus for the bot to run no longer exists, they may request that a steward removes its admin rights

    Should anyone be unhappy with adminbots being approved in this manner, please state so here or at the relevant discussion at WT:BOT. WJBscribe (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is workable. I think there's sufficient support for admin bots to be approved by BAG, with concurrence and +bot flag from a crat. And yes, the question of what to do with the pre-existing admin bots, especially those that aren't well-written is a stickier issue. RlevseTalk 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I do not have any objections to this bot receiving the +sysop without an RfA. I don;t know if me saying that matters or no.... J.delanoygabsadds 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does matter, thank you for expressing your opinion. There's nothing worse than making a bold pronouncement and finding that the response is pure silence. WJBscribe (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one support this bot being approved per the consensus regarding the implementation of adminbots at the RFC. It has been running on trial for a month without any problems, the BRFA was advertised at numerous forums (WT:RFA, AN etc.), the task is very beneficial as the bot saves the hassle of not only an admin having to add the templates to the protection page but having to find each template in an article and prevents the possibility that a template is missed. Admittedly, there has been very little community response but the RFC itself makes up for that. This is a very uncontroversial task so I feel it would be better to give it the bit and see what happens; my bet is no one will even notice that this is now being done by a bot rather than by the operator's own account. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a query for #1: sufficient scrutiny of the code has occurred. Could you elaborate on this? Does the code need to be open? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And further to that, what do you have in mind re #2? --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I anticipated that, as in other areas, bureaucrats may form different views on these matters and so didn't want to be too prescriptive. As to #1, I personally would not approve such a bot on the say so of a single BAG member. I would expect to see a number of users - BAG or others with experience as to coding - endorsing the scripts the bot will run off. I would not require the code to be in the open, provided that there remains a community consensus for the task to run in spite of any secrecy regarding the code. As to #2, I would expect sufficient publicity to ensure a fair spread of opinion - posts to the relevant noticeboards etc. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's my view on it:

    1. That can be arranged easily. It appears that the code is working well, and it has been looked over. If it's not enough, there's always Cobi over there.
    2. Is crossposting to WP:VPM, WP:BN, ad WP:AN enough?
    3. Aside from general concerns for "SkyNet" incidents, and concerns that are no longer valid, there is very little opposition.
    4. I believe that anyone filing for an adminbot already understands this, and if it was shown they didn't, I'd be surprised if someone doesn't rase opposition.

    Xclamation point 10:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note on point 1, the code is on svn for anyone who wants to see it --Chris 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very Serious Concern. I'm not pleased to see the bot operator diminishing concern over Nuclear Holocaust Skynet; Just one mistake and boom - it's "Come with me if you want to live" time, which I don't find appealing. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement confused me, what do you mean? Xclamation point 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The operator is User:Chris G, the dude dismissing the concerns on skynet is User:X!, please don't hold X!'s comments against Chris :) MBisanz talk 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all; I've already supported, below. I simply found the comparison between an admin-bot and An Artificial Intelligence that takes control of our Nuclear weapons and nearly annihilates humanity to be interesting, and tried to make light of it. Given that I apparently can't read, it ended up as a moderate fail - but meh, it's Monday. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make it so. HiDrNick! 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Objection. I had one concern on point, and have inquired with Chris, but it's not a bot issue per se. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's do this thing! MBisanz talk 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WJBScribe, could you hold on to closing this? I have some fresh concerns that I need allayed about adminbots. As I am heading off to sleep right now, I'll post them in about 18 hours from now, when I log on next. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, lets prove that the admin bot approval system works, so that all the unauthorized ones can be approved... or blocked. Prodego talk 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nichalp: Of course, I had intended to wait several days to ensure that there was a consensus that approving admin bots in this manner was appropriate. WJBscribe (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sounds good to me — It's high time for separate processes for handling the granting of human adminship and bot adminship, which have completely different area of concern for each. --Cyde Weys 15:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Risk analysis

    I'm not against adminbots, but there are a few things that I thought of that needs closer scrutiny.

    Now, as we know, with admin privileges, a user account can skim a block, edit protected pages, block users. With a bot flag, edits by a user account do not show up on recent changes. Now integrate both. You now have a super account that can do all the above without human intelligence. Now if you have a bot that malfunctions, its going to be difficult to do something about it. We can't block an adminbot, as it's just going to skim over the block. With a bot, or automated script to be precise, the bot can operate much faster than a human. A human can edit at most say, ten pages a minute, but a bot can well do over sixty. Now as we know with coding, nothing can be assumed to be bug-free. So, assuming a bot goes beserk or rogue, edits at a higher rate, or makes junk edits; what mechanisms are there in place to pull the plug on the bot immediately? Remember, we cannot effectively block an admin bot. Also, as the edits do not appear on the recent changes list, its going to be quite sometime before someone notices a beserk bot. The only way I see it be stopped is by removing the +sysop flag, and then blocking it. For that to happen, one needs to flag the attention of a steward, for which there will be a lag. In the meantime the bot may have marred some 2,000 pages. Another scenario: We have had rogue admins in the past. Similarly, what operator trust levels are needed before we approve an adminbot? A skillful programmer, but "non-admin material", may write a very useful bot. Once that is approved, all s/he needs to do is to change to code to do something malicious. I think the trust of an operator should also play a key role in approving adminbots. As I said above, I'm not against adminbots, but a thorough risk-analysis needs to be carried out to mitigate the occurrence of unimaginable scenarios. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In theory this is an issue. But the FA protection bot is not editing thousands of pages, it is simply protecting a few pages each day. More generally, it's hard to see why a bot that needs to edit thousands of pages would be an adminbot in the first place - the admin features could be separated from the editing features, and run under a different username. I would favor that system in general, where the adminbot part performs relatively few non-privileged actions, and relies on a non-adminbot helper for any large-scale editing.
    A mitigating factor is that anything that an adminbot can do, another bot can undo in about the same amount of time. There's no permanent damage an adminbot can do that a malicious admin couldn't already do, and we are comfortable with the risk analysis for malicious admins. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. All administrative actions can be undone except page history merges. I don't have any concerns for FA bot, it's scope is limited and well defined, code is open, and the operator has provided an "off" switch. So things seem good. To answer the revert part: a bot can undo the damage, but then will we have the service of an undobot to do such a thing when it happens? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming the only damage is a large amount of edits to revert then yes --Chris 10:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) I don't know much about bots and their running but, as a general comment, it seems to me that the broader proposal would result in bots with greater power being scrutinized less. Not, in general, a good way to go about things. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What's being scrutinized less? From what I see, this is about 3 times the scrutinization that a regular bot gets. Xclamation point 20:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I misunderstood this. Does final approval is subject to bureaucrat (rather than BAG) discretion mean that the bot does not go to BAG, or does it mean that it does but a bureaucrat has to approve it? --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Idealy the bot will have three approvals:
    1. The bag member who approved it for trial
    2. The bag member who approved it after the trial
    3. The crat who gave it +sysop and +bot flags --Chris g (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thanks. Objection withdrawn. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My main concern is that, like other 'bots, adminbots should run on separate 'bot accounts. That makes them easier to audit, stop, or undo when necessary. So the approval of a new adminbot should include the creation of a 'bot account, with administrator privileges. Over the next few months, existing adminbots should be migrated to their own 'bot accounts. --John Nagle (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with that? IMO migrating the admin bot's to sepeate accounts is a good thing --Chris 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think requiring an admin bot to run under a separate account is a good idea.RlevseTalk 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed I was under the impression that that was one of the things every one could agree on --Chris 09:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Get my damn bot's actions out of my contribs already, it makes it exceedingly difficult to find human actions in my Special:Log. --Cyde Weys 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    +Sysbot?

    Forgive my limited comprehension of these issues, but picking up one response to Nichalp's thoughtful doomsday scenario was that this particular bot is limited in scope to FA page protection, so can't do much harm anyway. Separating +sysop powers and granting them piecemeal is a PEREN at WT:RFA, but perhaps there's a strong rationale to ask the developers to create a +sysop flag for Bots (+sysbot?) that is stripped of the elements that we would never seek to permit for a Bot. For me that lsit would be delete, recreate, block and unblock; we can debate those specifics, but I'd be more comfortable with agreeing with this proposal on that sort of basis. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, all of those capabilities are used by currently operating admin bots. Cydebot, for instance, has been performing deletes of old category pages uncontroversially for over a year, and is currently going through the BFRA process. We have bots that automatically block socks of people engaged in very specific types of move vandalism (for instance, Grawp and Willy on Wheels). So I don't think these restrictions make much sense. What people need to realize is that a bot is not capable of doing things it wasn't programmed to. Cydebot is only programmed to delete category pages; it cannot do anything else. All of these doomsday scenarios are predicated on one of two factors:
    1. The advent of strong AI, which would truly permit bots to run amuck. Needless to say, this is still decades away (if that), and not a concern at the moment.
    2. A person going insane using the admin bot account.
    Number 2 is actually a bit more of a reasonable concern, but I'm not concerned that the risks are any greater than a normal admin going crazy. I don't want to have a WP:BEANS moment, so I won't go into any specifics, but there are lots of ways to do all sorts of damage without needing an admin bot account. --Cyde Weys 15:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the biggest thing the devs could do to make people less scared would be make a sysop flag that can't unblock itself. The primary, root, fear I see is a bot account unblocking itself and continuing to do whatever bad thing it was doing. Creating a flag that cannot unblock itself would solve a lot of fears. MBisanz talk 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now that's an excellent idea. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now this is an amusing idea that I don't have any objections to. I'll admit that I've always wondered why administrators can unblock themselves at all. --Cyde Weys 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyde, I think it was from the days of 40 admins on the entire site and only Jimbo with a server password, so a single admin account being compromised would mean lots of havoc. Today with Stewards on around the clock, the response time is generally under 5 mins, so yea, I don't know why we still have that feature. MBisanz talk 00:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop looking for problems where none exist. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I too think this is a solution looking for a problem. Think about it. Setting aside whether admins in general should be able to unblock themselves, the only way a blocked adminbot could unblock itself is if it was programmed to. Since no operator would want their malfunctioning bot to continue causing problems, they won't program it to unblock itself. Thus, there is no problem. (Unless the operator goes rogue, in which case restricting the adminbot from unblocking itself achieves nothing because the rogue op can just unblock the bot from his or her main account)Steel 01:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a solution to the perception that bots can go rogue. If adminbots can't unblock themselves, the skynet-phobics will have one fewer reason to fear them. --Carnildo (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) ... or we could just ignore those irrational arguments / users and instead encourage developers to focus on actual problems. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange editing by IP account

    I've encountered a user editing from an IP account (see Special:Contributions/82.109.91.181), and I'm having some trouble figuring out the account's edits. For example:

    • inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [2]
    • inserting a reference to a "John William Fearon" [3]
      • moments later changing it to "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [4]
    • changing the name of a person from "Martin" to "Todd" [5]
      • changing it back a minute later [6]
    • inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [7]
    • inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [8]
    • changing the date of birth to an incorrect year [9]
      • changing it back two minutes later, but with a loss of other information [10]
    • inserting a reference to a "William F Fearon" [11]
      • changing it to "James D Fearon" a minute later [12]
    • inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [13]
    • removing a link from a disambiguation page [14]
    • inserting a reference to a "Guillermo Roy Fearon" [15]

    Despite the 'claims to fame' made in some of these diffs ([16][17]), there seems to be no online information at all about Guillermo Roy Fearon (see Google results). In addition, some of the edits (e.g. changing names/dates back and forth) can only be justified as testing, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.

    I started a discussion with the user on just one of the issues (I noticed the other issues only later), but s/he seems to have stopped responding. My first instinct was to rollback all edits by the IP (all of the edits are essentially variations on the examples above), give a warning, and keep an eye on future editing by the account, but I would like a second opinion before I do that. In the event that these are legitimate contributions by a new user (perhaps writing about himself), I don't want to jump to the wrong conclusion and unnecessarily bite him/her. Thoughts? –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP editor has already been blocked once for 24 hours, on 20 September, but here may still be hope of educating him about our policies. I notified him that he's being discussed here. From the Fearon DAB page, he removed a link to a real article about the criminal Brendon Fearon, and added an entry to the 'Fearon' song which has no article. Sounds like he's trying to burnish the reputation of the Fearons of the world. He seems to never add sources. If there is no appropriate reply from him, I'd agree with reverting all his edits. Some of them look quite strange. ('Martin' to 'Todd' where the article is clearly about Martin). EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't a single mention in either JSTOR or LexisNexis of Guillermo Roy Fearon (I tried multiple search variations), so I'm fairly convinced that this is either exaggerated self-promotion ([18]) or a hoax. Someone who has supposedly had two islands ([19][20]) and a football stadium ([21]) named after him would surely be mentioned somewhere.
    In light of WP:BURDEN, is it worth waiting for yet another response before reverting the edits? –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's time to revert all the edits. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I posted an explanation/warning/invitation on his/her talk page. Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user continued making the same edits as before, with no effort to communicate with anyone, using another IP address. I have blocked 82.109.91.180‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 82.109.91.181‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two weeks. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Democratic Party

    It seems if on September 18 User:Duuude007 decided to rename a slew of political parties with the words "democrat" in their name them to read "democratic." I've moved the titles of a bunch of them back to where they are supposed to be, but now I see that he's also changed the text of the articles themselves. I just don't have the time to go back and correct this guy's mess. Maybe some of you do. --Visitweak (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a symptom of petty partisan bullshit going on elsewhere on the internet. Revert and block as neccesary and hopefully that will take care of it. Jtrainor (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of these are translations of foreign language names (so I've no idea if it's a noun or adjective in that context). However, at least New Zealand Democrat Party (1934) is called "Democrat Party" here. However, the google results for Christian Democrat Party of Canada, indicate Democratic is right. (This is all assuming that the organization's name for itself is the right name.) What's the grounds for this claim about partisanship, Jtrainor?--chaser - t 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lately there have been people getting pissy about the US's Democratic Party being referred to as the Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party. I don't really feel like going into detail as it's utterly retarded and banal. Jtrainor (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is petty and banal, but Republicans use "Democrat" instead of the party's preferred terminology, just to be petty and banal. Democratic is right, Democrat is wrong. Corvus cornixtalk 05:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be true for the United States Democratic Party, but it certainly doesn't apply to the vast majority of parties elsewhere moved by User:Duuude007. For example, the [[Democrat Party (Thailand)) really is "Democrat Party", and there are even references aplenty on the talk page to attest to this. Jpatokal (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I was responding to Lately there have been people getting pissy about the US's Democratic Party being referred to as the Democrat Party. It seems pretty clear that I was discussing a US context, especially since I was also discussing the "Republican Party" as well. Corvus cornixtalk 18:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was Social Democratic Party (UK) moved? That was the party's name (see the bibliography). This feels like two way pettiness on the whole "Democrat as adjective" issue. (And in the UK no-one ever gets worked up about it being used that way.) Timrollpickering (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The word Democrat can exist on its own, in the English language; When it is used as an adjective, it is grammatically meant to have an "ic" on the end. People have begun to drop the ic out of laziness, not out of grammar improvement. It is proper english, not partisanship. See Democrat Party (phrase). And by the way, the moment someone sent me a message asking me to stop making changes, I did stop, so I do not very much apprecciate the attacks. Duuude007 (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However, some parties, such as the Democrat Party (Thailand), have "Democrat" as part of their name, not "Democratic". One shouldn't correct proper names for grammar. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not just "laziness" but a growing trend in linguistics to use the same word as both a proper noun and the derived adjective. Hence you get terms like "Iraq War", "Alaska Governor" (including on the position's website), "Ontario Liberal Party", "Liberal Democrat leader" and so forth. Even when it doesn't make a lot of sense it still happens - for instance the Australian Democrats' website appears to use "Democrats" as the adjective for the party itself. See also this piece on the trend: http://blogs.csmonitor.com/verbal_energy/2005/01/index.html#entry-3357788 Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, I think you are misinterpreting the word's noun-verb usage. The very examples you provided actually use the words democrat, democrats, and democratic in the proper syntax. There is nothing wrong with saying "Liberal Democrats" Party or "Australian Democrats" Party. They added the s, which makes the grammar acceptable. If you drop the s, the proper alternative is -ic, not leaving it as-is but again, I havent made any more changes... Duuude007 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No the British party are the "Liberal Democrats" (plural; and never "Liberal Democrats Party"), an individual member is a "Liberal Democrat" (singular) and the adjective used is "Liberal Democrat" not "Liberal Democratic". Similarly for a party normally called "the Democrats" the instinctive adjective is "Democrat". Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is, the word "liberal" is the modifier (aka the adjective), and the word Democrat becomes the noun in the context they provided. It would be wrong in this context to add ic, (they aren't the Liberal Democratics). Hence they used the term correctly. On the other hand, when you speak of the term "Democrat" as a modifier instead of the noun, it needs -ic on the end. Just like we don't call the other party the "Repub Party" (I was tempted to use "Republic" as an example, but then realized it has an -ic in it too. That wouldn't pass in this new grammar you are suggesting). Duuude007 (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, this thread is soo off track. The proper conclusion is simple - we use 1) the name a group is most commonly known by in reliable sources and 2) their official name, each in the appropriate place. We don't care whether or not either of those names is grammatically correct. We no more grammatically correct something's official name than we would change a centuries old quote to make it conform to modern spelling and grammar. All the discussion about trying to be gramatically correct is irrelevant - we don't make such changes. GRBerry 19:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing and spell checking GRberry's point. Seriously though folks, go find out what the reliable sources and the parties call themselves, and let that be your guide.--Tznkai (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Out Attempt

    User Longchenpa attempted to out user zulupapa5 on talk longchenpa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.75.123 (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Longchenpa attempted to out user Gyrovague108 on talk jetsunma_ahkon_lhamo. 72.66.75.123 (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs so we can see what you're talking about. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed what I think is an attempt to out, or at the very least, bait a user. Comment on content, not the contributor. I believe there are three diffs that are problematic: [22], [23] and [24]. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs [25] [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.250.60 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Pete" is not identifying information.
    As for Gyrovague, he makes it clear here that he is not hiding his identity, which he isn't. Longchenpa (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: I've asked this elsewhere, but I'll ask here, too. ZuluPapa attempted an outing of me a few months back: ZuluPapa's attempt at outing. It didn't bother me much because it's not me. But should I have reported it? Longchenpa (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While he/she says it will not be hard to find his/her identity, it does not mean you go round trying to dig it up. ZuluPapa appears to be uncomfortable with this despite the statement, for good reason. I believe ZuluPapa disclosed his/her COI there anyway - is there any need to find out any more information? x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ZuluPapa and Gyrovague are two entirely different people.
    Gyrovague has stated clearly that he has no interest in hiding his identity. He makes it clear on his User Page: "I have been a Buddhist practitioner in the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and a member of the Kunzang Palyul Choling[27] temple in Poolesville, MD, since 1990. I received novice ordination as a Buddhist monk in 1993, and full ordination in 1995. Since early 2005, my home base has been Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, where I serve as Director of KPC's Mongolian Buddhism Revival Project[28]." That link from him goes directly to his name.
    ZuluPapa is the one who's voiced concerns (207.188.250.60 is ZuluPapa), yet has made an attempt to out me in the past, and has a consistent history of wikilawyering on the Talk page and using policy to attempt to bludgeon other editors.
    Bottom line: ZuluPapa doesn't like my editing the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo page at all. There's a biography by Random House about JAL that I've used that ZuluPapa didn't want in the article because it has some pretty negative information. The biography has a blurb from Bob Woodward. JAL is a Buddhist Lama who was arrested 1996 for beating a monk and nun, has a swimming pool, three houses, and a salary of $100k a year.
    Last December, ZuluPapa started with a veiled threat: "I haven't investigated, however there are wiki procedure to exclude folks from contributing to articles".
    ZuluPapa followed it up with an RfC insisting that JAL is not a public figure, and thus this biography should not be included. Eventually Mike Godwin weighed in on the subject: The book is in.
    ZuluPapa went to the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons page to work to get this book removed there, as well as to the Biographies Noticeboard, pressing a for policy changes that could get this information removed. ZuluPapa asked Protonk to weigh in. Protonk did, and also found that JAL was a public figure.
    Then ZuluPapa did sweeping edits on the article, removing anything negative that was from that book -- but kept everything that was positive from it. Then, ZuluPapa preemptively cited me for a 3RR before I'd made a single change. My changes were normal edits. ZuluPapa was informed by Blanchardb that "None of these edits can be even remotely regarded as reverts."
    But ZuluPapa accused me elsewhere of multiple reverts, even though this was not true.
    More recently, ZuluPapa accused me on the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo Talk page of being a biased editor that only edited JAL's page. When I provided proof that was quite untrue (I can be accurately described as a pro-Tibet editor), ZuluPapa accused me of "boasting."
    ZuluPapa's own edit history is a combination of writing the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo page, and minor edits to link to JAL. There are a few edits to prostate pages that began after ZuluPapa first threatened to try have me removed from editing the article.
    1) ZuluPapa should not attempt to out me if he finds it so disturbing, 2) a first name is not identifying information, 3) ZuluPapa should stop using policy to bludgeon the other editors, should stop baiting and flinging accusations at me on the [Talk Page] (I count an average of two per comment) and instead focus on writing the article. It's been an interesting tour of every avenue of complaint, but when it comes down to brass tacks, that book is solid. And whether ZuluPapa likes it or not, I'm not going anywhere. Longchenpa (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that no one here has been outed. ZuluPapa's attempt to out me was way off. ZuluPapa has not been outed (unless a first name is a problem, which I'll be happy to remove from our conversation on my Talk page if so). And Gyrovague has not only not complained, he linked to his own name. Longchenpa (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My view: He was wrong to attempt to out you or something and a first name is identifying information as it is still personal information. I have no opinion on the article except that there could be a need for some more eyes. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I'll be happy to remove the instance on my Talk page with his first name. If Gyrovague changes his position about being open with his identity, I'll handle that then. Toodles. Longchenpa (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the notification to this discussion x42bn6. I am concerned about Longchenpa's outing (this user has demonstrated little regard for privacy and human rights in a living person biography [29]) and I view this outing as a provocative effort aimed at me after I gave warning about Gyrovague108 [30]. Now the presumed provocateur rant cries foul to this ANI and has yet to correct themselves, even defiantly stating "no one here has been outed" shows further contempt for WP:OUTING as if to fish for validation. Regarding my accused outing attempt, I'll say I was interested in the POV, there was not a real request for personal information and I apologize if it was interpreted as such. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Longchenpa's other Outing Attempts to invade privacy. [31] [32] [33] [34] These and more, demonstrate a pervasive history, with warning, that now must be corrected: Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, don't be ridiculous. These people are all quoted and named in The Buddha From Brooklyn, Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo's biography, published by Random House. Longchenpa (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Longchenpa, I take these attempts seriously because, I've read The Buddha From Brooklyn and see that personal info are in these posts that effectively invade these people's privacy. They are most certainly not public figures. I assume this is for your POV pushing purposes. It upsets me that after I've gave warning about these several times, I am provoked with an out attempt and your dismissals continue on the privacy issue, while you repeat the attempt again in this article. It seems you are seeking assurances that you outed me correctly, which is further outing. LET IT GO. This seems uncivil, troublesome and selfish with little regard for folks and wiki privacy standards. Wikipedia:Respect privacy. I must let this go now too. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've not yet made up my mind about this, but want to give you full credit, ZuluPapa, for a great belly laugh in asserting that Mike Godwin might somehow have a COI in giving an opinion when he was asked for one! That is his job, you know. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, it might be best to ask Mike what his job is, to represent Wiki or to represent users or BLP article subjects? An analogy might be, would a management attorney represent labor? He's the one most able to declare a COI, not me. COI's should be disclosed. I don't believe it's beyond Mike's duty to bring law on a user on behalf of wiki. Does this bias his editorial input, well that's a bigger question. Honestly, I was dismayed by the weasel works in his response. This issue might be better discussed elsewhere than this out attempt article. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mike's job is foundation legal counsel, i.e. providing legal counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation. Because Mike is a nice guy, and wise i the ways of the law, he is also very helpful in answering questions about how content hosted on Wikimedia Foundation servers might affect the liability of the users of those servers. I think you are tying yourself in unnecessary mental knots about something which has vastly less significance than you seem to think. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could be knots? It's not worth it here. see: [35] After Longchenpa has repeated the first name out attempt on this article and on their talk page, in spit of warning and policy notification ... Right now I am losing faith in Wiki to protect personal info and privacy no mater Mike's job. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (UK) Telegraph rips-off Wikipedia article, verbatim

    I don't suppose there's anything that can be done about it, but this obituary for James Crumley, which appeared in the (UK) Telegraph, is almost entirely a verbatim rip-off of an earlier version of our article on Crumley. I recognize it because I've been working fairly extensively on the article since Crumley died, and had a hand in shaping it before that. With a little work, I could probably pin down the version used fairly well, from what was included and what wasn't.

    Too bad some of our journalists are so adverse to doing their own work, and don't even have the decency to credit their sources! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, new journalistic lows. You should e-mail that journalist and demand compensation! *grin* L'Aquatique[talk] 06:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *Mumble something about the sincerest form of flattery*. Protonk (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In all seriousness, though... even though it's not a copyright violation (at least I don't think it is, you might have to check the wording of the GFDL) that journalist's supervisors would probably be none too happy with this information... L'Aquatique[talk] 06:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and wrote an email to the Telegraph to point out the similarities. It's not good for a newspaper's reputation for them to be copying the structure of multiple paragraphs from Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Loosing reputation should not be much of a problem for the Telegraph, of course... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the first time and it won't be the last. A more insipid example of this is Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 which was quoted verbatim by The Scotsman, then promptly "referenced" by the original Wiki author, who had created it here as COI OR. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any chance that this was picked up elsewhere in the media? Would be nice to have a reliable secondary source for it, such that sticking it in the Torygraph article would be acceptable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You serious? How on earth is "British journo cribs article from Wikipedia" noteworthy? ;) --Bsnowball (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On my reading of Wikipedia:Copyright#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations, the Telegraph are required, amongst other things, to make the article GFDL. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All told, this tale sounds kinda cool to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Contact the newspaper. Any serious newspaper will take this kind of thing quite seriously. MastCell Talk 15:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IANAL(Yet) but as I recall, GDFL requires all future material to be freely distributable as well, else copyright infringement. That would be a matter get OTRS and WMF involved I think. There is a second issue however, of plagiarism which is a big journalistic ethics no no.--Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know for a fact, but I find it quite easy to believe that encyclopedia-makers, the writers, editors and publishers of print encyclopedias, have seen this many times down the years. I wonder how they handled it? Did they shrug it off, as one of the hazards of the business, or did they act to protect their intellectual property? I can see either course as defensible.

    If there's a communication to the Telegraph, I would prefer that it came from the rank-and-file and not from the Foundation, but that's just me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd be interested in looking more into this for Wikinews. Can people email me any contacts/information they have on this? brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org. --Brian McNeil /talk 08:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really appreciate if people could help nail down the specific revision copied and provide more details on The Scotsman incident. --Brian McNeil /talk 08:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You should also notify Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. This should be in our news. Kingturtle (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the Telegraph has pulled their obituary (the link now hits some "File Not Found" page). However, I thus far haven't gotten any response to the email I sent pointing out the problem. Dragons flight (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a response. :D The obit has been pulled pending an investigation. --Brian McNeil /talk 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I have a saved copy of the Telegraph obit text if anyone wants it. --Brian McNeil /talk 18:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:House1090 followed request for time off, asking for unblock

    Resolved
     – editor unblocked. Good luck and welcome back :) - Alison 11:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See:[36]. He seems to be genuinely asking for a second chance. The consensus at the prior discussion at AN: [37] was that he was not far enough removed from his most recent bad actions to consider an unblock at that time. Given that its been seven weeks, and I have not seen any evidence of sockpuppetry or other problems in all that time, perhaps its time to reconsider an unblock. What does everyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For more background, see:
    Those who argued against lifting the block in the last WP:AN discussion (Archive159) had some powerful arguments. If some of those editors familiar with the case, such as User:Amerique and User:Alanraywiki, were to change their view then I'd consider supporting an unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Provided Alanray is ok with it, i would be ok. i don't have a lot of time for editing WP these days, but i still check my watchlist daily so if/when he messes up in So. Cal. mainspace areas again i'll be aware of it. I appreciate him asking through an old account instead of starting up a new round of socks. Ameriquedialectics 17:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to give House a second chance. However, he should probably be required to stay away from articles involving the Inland Empire and related articles, like San Bernardino, California, Riverside, California, and other cities in that area. Almost all of his edits in those areas were disruptive. Those are my thoughts. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As checkuser, I was involved in a number of his sock cases already. I've been asked to comment here by an involved party. Per Alanraywiki, I've no problems with a conditional unblock, as he's kept his promise of late and seems genuine in his wishes to return 'properly'. However, I'd recommend that he be adopted/mentored by an experienced editor for a period of time, if that's at all possible - Alison 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried informally mentoring one of his accounts before that "Redspork" incident, but that clearly didn't work. He seems to have shown some maturity since then in his work through "Nelity," [38]. He hadn't apparently broken any rules through that account before it was blocked per AN consensus. I don't have time to mentor this guy, but if i see him messing up again I'll be sure to let him know about it. As far as I can tell he hasn't been using multiple socks to game 3rr or create a false impression of consensus on articles, so i would think ordinary alertness on the pages he edits would be enough for a normal consensus to counter any outrageous incidents of POV, bad formatting or grammatical errors on his part. So, if we are to let him back, I think it would be better to let him without restriction so he can prove that he is capable of working within consensus on all articles, rather than make some articles more tempting for him to edit via socks. Ameriquedialectics 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on these recommendations, I am prepared to unblock his account. I will let him know that he is on a short leash, and that if he returns to any more of the problematic editing and/or sockpuppetry that led to the prior block, he will see it return post-haste and that it will be less likely for anyone to unblock him again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD vs. PROD in a possible hoax

    I nominated Aubrey giplin for CSD on the basis of db-bio, since it was completely unsupported and seemed to be completely fabricated (the author was similarly named). XSG came in behind me, and said it wasn't A7 and nominated it for PROD here [39]. After looking at the article and googling the subject, I'm almost certain it's a hoax, and probably just an attack page by a new user pretending to be the subject. However, I'm not sure of the next step I should take. If it stays up as a PROD, it could stay for days before being taken down, and if it's a hoax/attack, it should come down immediately as per WP:BLP. Should I just let it stay as a PROD, or remove the prod and tag it with a hoax/attack tag? I appreciate the advice. Dayewalker (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    if it's BLP and it's uniformly negative, Nuke it. SirFozzie (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading it, I have deleted it under the clauses of BLP (Unsourced, negative information, no good version to revert back to). SirFozzie (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the naïve this may create an existential dilemma, as you cannot confirm that "BLP" applies until you know that it's not a hoax. This is one of the reasons I've always suggested that we pick one set of content standards and apply them everywhere. On a somewhat humorous tangent I recall one of my early experiences with deletion process, where I replaced a "prod" tag with a "speedy" tag. After an admin declined the speedy tag, I reverted back to the prod tag. But the admin said something to the effect of I couldn't do that because "you [Charlotte] contested the prod tag by removing it, so you must now open an AFD for it to be deleted". I wish I could say I was making this up, but I'm not. I'm not trying to complain about anyone in particular, in fact I can't even remember the admin's name, but from this lesson I learned early on to view highly structured processes cynically and with deep suspicion. Thank you, whoever you were. — CharlotteWebb 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. An unsourced biography article is either a BLP vio or a hoax. In deleting the article, SirFozzie either applied the do no harm principle, or improved the encyclopaedia by deleting unsourced nonsense. I defy anyone to say "you should not have deleted that article, it was a hoax!" SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not have deleted that article, it was a hoax!!!. I love to defy people. Great story btw, charlotte. It is so damn true its sickening. Keeper ǀ 76 18:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, luckily I'm not so coy about naming-and-shaming – iridescent 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD was closed speedy delete (A7 according to log). 160.83.73.26 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is only "negative information", it can be deleted under G10 as an attack page, and a hoax G3 as vandalism. G10 does not require that the attacked be a real person. It could be Kermit the Frog. I thought common practice was to choose the correct CSD if the first one didn't fit?~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been watching a fair amount of disruption at this article for several weeks now, and believe it could be helped by the general sanctions laid out by the Arbitration Committee, specifically the discretionary sanctions which would allow uninvolved admins to take measures to reduce disruption to the project. The scope of the Pseudoscience case, "interpreted broadly", is said to include but not be limited to all articles in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories. Although Chiropractic is not specifically categorized (by us) as a pseudoscience topic, it seems fairly obvious that Chiropractic does contain some ideas that are at least "pseudoscientific". For example, see this article,[40] titled "Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side". In fact, I'd say that the "pseudoscience" aspect of the topic, is one of the key sources of the problems leading to the disruption. So, I'm thinking that the authority from the case's discretionary sanctions would be an appropriate way to address the dispute. Anyone have strong objections? --Elonka 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chiropractic is pretty mainstream anymore; I'd be pretty hesitant to call it "fringe" given its level of acceptance by pretty conservative groups, like insurance companies and government health programs. There are pseudoscientific elements within mainstream medicine as well. The editing issues in this article are reminiscent of those seen on psychiatric articles. While there is something to be said for helping this article get into shape, I think it's stretching things a fair bit to say this should be considered pseudoscience. Risker (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker, I think you are confusing generic "mainstream" with "scientific mainstream", which is what is generally meant in this type of discussion. Insurance coverage and legal registration are notable for being influenced by political and economic pressures unrelated to the scientific legitimacy or illegitimacy of the subject. Even the most pseudoscientific of all alternative medicine subjects - homeopathy - is protected by special legal exceptions in the USA. If enough voters will sign a petition or write letters to their Congressman, or if an insurance company will earn money by it, anything can get "recognition". Chiropractic is at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine. It has characteristics of both, or as some reform chiropractors jokingly put it: "Chiropractors are alternative, but are pretending to be doctors." (Said in the context of how scripts are used in practice building, some of which have been leaked to the outside world as the manipulative things they are. They are normally used only by actors, but are also used by many chiropractors, showing how both professions are pretending (acting) to be something they're not.)
    The profession is a blend of obvious CAM, and yet has some mainstream characteristics, so it's "at the crossroads." "Chiropractic still maintains some vestiges of an alternative health care profession in image, attitude, and practice." The last two paragraphs in this article deal with this, as summarized in the introduction: "The medical establishment has not yet fully accepted chiropractic as a mainstream form of care. The next decade should determine whether chiropractic maintains the trappings of an alternative health care profession or becomes fully integrated into all health care systems." The implication is obvious: if the "trappings of an alternative health care profession" are dropped, acceptance and integration may follow. Many notable chiropractors have pointed the profession in the direction of dropping belief in the fictive vertebral subluxation and overreliance on spinal adjustments, and seeking acceptance as a back care specialty, akin to dentistry and podiatry. -- Fyslee / talk 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion - while chiropractic is a topic with some mainstream acceptance, in looking at what's going on on that page, it's being treated as another battleground for the pseudoscience wars between editors who are already under restrictions elsewhere. I think for the purposes of applying the discretionary sanctions it can be included, since it is being included in the same edit wars. This does not reflect any judgment on the classification of the subject matter but rather the classification of the nature of the dispute and its participants. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Morven. -- Fyslee / talk 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been involved in many of the disputes at Chiropractic, and have some comments.

    • Whether chiropractic is "pretty mainstream" depends on what one means by the word "mainstream". Although there's a strong consensus among reliable sources that chiropractic is not "mainstream medicine", there's no agreement about what category it should be in. To quote Chiropractic #Scope of practice: "Mainstream health care and governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization consider chiropractic to be complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); however, a 2008 study reported that 31% of surveyed chiropractors categorized chiropractic as CAM, 27% as integrated medicine, and 12% as mainstream medicine."
    • Chiropractic is an unusual profession in that so many of its practitioners are clearly WP:FRINGE, and at the same time so many practitioners are just as clearly mainstream (for some definition of "mainstream"). For more on this subject, please see Murphy et al. 2008 (PMID 18759966), entitled "How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry".
    • With the above in mind, I expect that it will take some expertise in the area to know whether a series of edits to Chiropractic is about the "mainstream" or the "fringe" parts of chiropractic, and that it will therefore be relatively difficult for uninvolved administrators to decide the best action for a dispute.
    • I should mention that User:Elonka and I had a discussion in July about the contents of Chiropractic, with respect to a relatively-minor formatting issue; see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 25 #Speedy deletion of former red link. After discussion, we ended up doing things Elonka's way. During the discussion, successive comments by Elonka on Talk:Chiropractic accused me of WP:CIVIL[41], WP:POINT[42], and WP:OWN[43] violations. These accusations were not helpful to the discussion or to Chiropractic, and if this is the sort of oversight that's being proposed here, then we should not do it.

    Eubulides (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether or not chiropractic itself is "mainstream" may not affect whether the wikipedia disputes about its article have a lot in common with the pseudoscience disputes, and whether the user/s in the dispute are those seen engaging in other disputes on fringe and pseudoscience articles. So I would not look whether the topic is mainstream, but more whether the nature of dispute is similar to the pseudoscience disputes. If it contains a fringe/pseudoscience element or associations, then it is quite possible those same kinds of aspects and issues are at the heart of the dispute here too. On the last point, perhaps a lighter touch in some ways would lead to less contention, but that's a separate matter. Brief comment only on application of a sanction. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Largely per FT2, I notice a strong correlation between the dispute over chiropractic and that over homeopathy and other examples of alternative medicine. The same people are involved and the same arguments used, although chiropractic is probably closer to the mainstream medicine side. There is a pending legal action in Britain between the British Chiropractic Association and an author who disputed the benefits of their craft - see Simon Singh - so be careful. My view is that articles about chiropractic do fall within the ambit of the Pseodoscience case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. This lawsuit is one of many of a similar type, and is another type of behavior engaged in by supporters of pseudoscience (Scientology, Hulda Clark, Matthias Rath, etc.) Such attempts to silence criticism, which are normally part of scientific disputes and discussion, are pretty much unheard of in the mainstream scientific world. Such disputes and criticisms are normally dealt with through discussion, rebuttal, and the provision of documented evidence, not by suing the one who is criticizing. If any editor receives threats (legal or otherwise) because of their editing here on these subjects, Wikipedia authorities need to be contacted immediately. -- Fyslee / talk 03:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect this belongs on WP:AE but I agree that while the content overlap is not 100%, the editor overlap is pretty high, especially if you consider those editors who are making a lot of noise. So it makes sense. In fact, I think that sanction is a sound and pragmatic approach to any long-running content dispute. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The presence of expert editors like Eubulides and Fyslee has helped keep the article balanced. Elonka's summary seems not to recognize this. Ludwigs2 has recently showed up on the talk page; Elonka champions him [44] very much like Jagz/161.243.114.45/Fat Cigar. Mathsci (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chiropractic is mainstream, the sources even say so. This one is a no brainer. AtticusLecter (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bye now. [45] Thatcher 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add that I agree with Mathsci comments. There are regular editors there that work hard to have everyone follow the guidelines for editing that article to try to keep it balanced. Eubulides works especially hard to listen to all comments and writes what they all want to put into the article on the talk page to let everyone edit it there until they reach a consensus to put it into the main article. It's actually very impressive to watch this routine they have set up. I don't think that Elonka needs to step in at this time. My personal opinion on this is that she is not 'uninvolved' since she did have the situation with Eubulides which wasn't pretty plus she has already been involved with a few of the editors there with her restrictions at other articles and isn't really received that well. This is just my opinion that I felt I should share from being mostly a watcher of this article. Thank you for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We operate by consensus. Arbitrators and administrators are nothing special. Their opinions here count no more than those of regular editors. Several involved editors have expressed doubts about Elonka's perceived neutrality in this area. I agree that the article can be covered by the pseudoscience case, and encourage her to make a request for sanctions at WP:AE, but to leave enforcement to other administrators. It is best if the parties to a dispute view the referee as a neutral party. Jehochman Talk 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a decision anyone can make, who wishes to act as an uninvolved admin. Looking at this thread, some brief observations:
    1. Elonka as I understand it, is not asking to sanction any editor. She is asking for guidance whether or not topic X may reasonably be construed to fall under Arbcom sanction/remedy Y. That is something anyone could ask, involved, uninvolved, anyone. There is no restriction on checking for views or suggesting it. In fact if a user were involved this would be where to bring the idea for consideration. Its a fair reasonable question.
    2. Elonka clearly feels that if allowable, the general sanctions would help the disputes on this page. If she has significant "history" (ie, roughly, bad blood) with any editor, of a non-admin nature (ie beyond that she has been an admin on issues related to them in the past) or would not be seen as neutral in warning, tools, or sanctions on them, then she has to weigh that up before making a decision related to that editor. And others may want to comment, or she may wish to ask another admin to review it instead of her. That's normal. but it's not salient for the question she's asking here.
    3. Elonka's main involvement as evidenced by QuackGuru's diffs, does seem to be of an administrative nature. This one is about civility, editors' roles and some content issues others need to attend to, and this one and this one about editor conduct. None of these three shows any significant involvement in the topic beyond that of an administrative nature.
    Hope that helps. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Three arbs have commented on this routine WP:AN thread. You don't see that very often! In any case, please review this conversion, and then this one for full cluefulness about why Elonka might not be the best before choosing an administrator to manage sanctions at chiropractic. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman, are you ever going to let Elonka get on with it without critiquing her approach? How many times have you declared an intention to "avoid Elonka" and yet continued to spring up to comment on threads that involve her? You disapprove of her conduct, the whole wiki probably is aware of that by now - we don't need periodic reminders... WJBscribe (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please comment on the merits of what I said. Did you read the links? It is not appropriate for you to attack me because of who I am. Please look at what I said and evaluate it objectively. You will see that I am pointing out an actual issue, citing evidence, and making my remarks in the correct forum, with perfect civility. I wish you would uphold those same standards. I have been active in both Homeopathy and Chiropractic. It is not necessary for me to run and hide when Elonka appears at a locus where I am already active. Jehochman Talk 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you are not required to, bar your own undertakings (e.g. [46]). You could have stuck to just commenting on whether the article fell within the scope of the Arbitration remedy being decided, but apparently couldn't resist needling an administrator you have been a perennial critic of. I don't see an attack in what I posted and my reason for commenting is nothing to do with who you are but rather your attitude with regard to this particular admin. WJBscribe (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you mentioned once yourself, Elonka and I both operate in the same areas of Wikipedia and will inevitably bump into each other quite often. I very much want to avoid strife for the good of Wikipedia. FT2's comment above seems not to be fully informed, which is why I posted the follow up, including links. There is history surrounding chiropractic that is not obvious. I agree with the approach being proposed, but suggest we recruit an administrator who does not have a history of disagreement with one, or two, of the main contributors to the article. Thanks for your input. I have edited my remark above to make it less personal. Jehochman Talk 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Striking while the iron is hot- not having read every bit of this thread: I think there are only three editors at that article who are likely to get sanctioned. I won't name them, but I think that since the main source of disruption is so limited, but quite pervasive, it would be a good idea to apply the sanctions. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If the number is so small, why don't you present evidence at WP:AE and then those particular editors can be warned or sanctioned individually. That way other editors need not be inconvenienced. We should aim to use the minimum force necessary to resolve a problem. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not suicidal, myself. It isn't an article where I have a lot of interest or involvement, and so I don't want to cause myself so much hassle. Further, it isn't as good a solution, because the problem is so totally about only a few of the editors who edit war and argue per IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page, the sanctions won't have any effect on the other editors. This is a good way to make it not about particular editors: just apply it, and whoever falls into the net, those are the ones who should be caught. So, the sanction is the minimum force. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The disruption at the Chiropractic article appears to be fairly complex. On the one hand, there does appear to be a lot of drive-by POV pushing, so some editors there have been doing good work in standing guard over the article and keeping it free of cruft. However, based on what I've seen of the history, I think that at times the article may be being guarded a bit overzealously. I have sometimes seen what appear to be reasonable edits from established contributors, added in good faith and with reliable sources, but the changes are still reverted within minutes. Edit summaries on the reverts range from things like "rvv" to "added without discussion" or "rv to consensus version". However, there does not appear to be an obvious consensus at the talkpage. Indeed, I could probably point out a few places where people in the discussion are saying that there's a consensus, but I think that other reasonable editors might disagree as to whether a true consensus existed or not. At times, some editors seem to be confusing the idea of "consensus" with "majority", which is definitely not in accordance with Wikipedia:Consensus. So with strong opinions on either side, the article appears to be in the middle of a large game of tug of war, being yanked this way and that.
    Another conflict at the article has to do with the sequence of edits. Some editors seem to be of the camp of "Discuss controversial edits before they can go into the article," and others are more following WP:BRD, meaning they're going to make controversial edits until/unless someone reverts them. And of course it's always problematic when an editor uses one method for themselves, but insists on something different from everyone else ("I can add anything I want at any time, but you have to get permission first before you can post something ...")
    In order to try and get the article back to a state of healthy editing via discretionary sanctions, this could proceed in one of two ways:
    • Sanctions focused on editors, meaning identify a few editors whose presence might be causing more disruption than it's resolving, and asking them to stay away from the article for a certain period of time to see if that helps stabilize things.
    • Sanctions focused on the article, such as to put it under a revert limitation, or other editing conditions such as, "Do not delete citations without discussion".
    My own feeling (which others may disagree with), is that one of the first things that needs to be done is to get people away from using the Revert button as an editing tool. So a revert restriction might help to calm things down a bit. I tend to like a "0RR except for vandalism/unsourced" restriction, but others may disagree. In my experience though, once an article's atmosphere can be changed to a style of, "Don't delete other people's edits, change them", that it can help get past the kind of roadblocks that this article is experiencing.
    What do others think? --Elonka 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has there been an extensive history of edit warring and protection? If so, I think we should allow a single revert (1RR) followed by discussion. We may need to ban A-B-C-D type revert wars where each editor does one revert. The problem with 0RR is that it puts good faith editors on par with tendentious editors. If something goes in, there needs to be an ability to take it out, and then follow up with discussion. That is the natural state of things. Ordinary dispute resolution and noticeboards can be used to help resolve disagreements, even when general sanctions are in effect.
    If there are limited number of editors who have been causing problems, can we identify them and apply warnings or restrictions? If so, I would very much support that idea. This article does fall under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Lastly, I recommend starting with the least intrusive sanctions, and then increasing the restrictions as needed until the problem resolves. Jehochman Talk 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some combination: something like 1RR, plus sanctions on disruptive editors. The problem with 0RR is that one can put in or delete anything, and no one can do anything about it. You could take out a whole section, and to put it back, an editor would have to re-write the whole section. Also, one can put in information which just should not be there- and no one can do much about it. So I don't think focusing on the article that way is a good idea: you are dealing with clever people here. However, a 1RR per day on the article coupled with editor banning for disruption or other violations might help a lot. (1RR helps because editors are much more conservative with their one revert, being as it's golden). The "Do not delete citations without discussion" might help. However, what you say about consensus- Is that true? My reading of it is that consensus = supermajority, between 75 and 90 percent, as I interpret it myself. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Martinphi says, 1RR coupled with article banning for disruption should work. Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a disheartening example of admin or ArbCom actions taking article editing out of the hands of some of our finest editors (eg Eubulides) and really making a mess of things. Anytime we're deprecating an editor of the caliber of Eubulides, we're on the wrong track; that appears to be where Elonka's direction has taken the article. This is ranking right up there as one of Wiki's greatest gaffes. Placing editors of the caliber of Eubulides (who actually know what they're talking about, are civil and courteous, and can cite high quality reliable sources all day long) on par with tendentious POV-pushing SPAs, and then deprecating his knowledge to second-guessing by admins who don't know the topic, does not bode well for Wiki's future. It's most discouraging for the many civil and knowledgeable science editors to see this happening. I hope that if Wiki persists in staying this disastrous course, taking editing out of the hands of the most knowledgeable, that we will at least bring in neutral, unbiased and clueful admins who are known to work well with others. I can think of many who could do a fine job here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever said Eubulides? I doubt it would effect him. He and I disagree about the issue of what is and is not OR/SYNTH, but he is not going to get whacked with this. And I promise that any admin who goes into Chiro and does anything they do based on what they think in a content dispute, rather than what they think of user behavior, I will take every action against them that I can. Yes, I've heard things like this have been done on other articles. Admins have no business in content disputes when they are acting as admins. But I'll certainly do my best to see that doesn't happen here. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basis of her past actions, Elonka would probably not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers. I would guess that she is probably a little out of her depth here: her analysis of editing behaviour was made independently of content issues, a bad sign. Her use of the word "overzealousness" is also disturbing. My fear is that her 0RR rule and push for micro-compromise will not result in a more scholarly encyclopedia article. It could create a borstal atmosphere on the talk page that could well alienate star contributors. It would seem more appropriate if one of the many administrators that have been more actively involved in discussions on WP:FTN could keep an eye on the page, e.g. Dougweller, MastCell, etc. Elonka's recent brush with pseudoscience was not particularly helpful, when she edited on behalf of a POV-pusher Zero g over a fairly minor matter. Elonka got caught up in her own pet conspiracy theories which she trumpeted on talk pages. A hands-off more informed touch is surely what is required when dealing with pseudoscience. Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, that three arbs have weighed in here in favor of Elonka's management of these articles, even after seeing diffs of her treatment of Eubulides, should give anyone reading a clue as to whether good, civil, conscientous, knowledgeable science editors are going to want to continue to engage these articles. How many editors of the caliber of Tim Vickers and Eubulides does ArbCom think we have; they don't grow on trees. This entire situation gives the appearance that we've turned article editing over to those who know the least about the topics, and we put knowledgeable editors on an equal stance with tendentious POV-pushing editors. If these articles need this sort of oversight, I can think of several knowledgeables admins who also have good interpersonal skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, you're missing the question being asked. Elonka asked whether the scope of Arbcom remedy X "broadly interpreted" covers topic dispute Y. That's why arbitrators have posted comments. It's to be expected when an Arbcom matter is the subject of the question.
    Separate from "can this sanction be applied", if you are worried that Elonka may misjudge Eubulides' editing, I'd encourage talking with Elonka herself about the legitimate concerns. Also consider asking on the talk page, that any admin using general sanctions to try and reduce edit warring might take extra care. Make sure you discourage editors on all sides from problematic behavior if they engage in any, as well, so that they are completely unaffected by any sanctions that may be in force.
    FT2 (Talk | email) 17:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Separately, some of your apprehensions are badly mistaken. You say that three arbs "weighed in to favor Elonka's management". In fact the question the arbitrators here were addressing was applicability of the remedy. Of these three, not one mentions Elonka, much less shows any "favor" for any named editor to "manage" the issue. My second post mentions Elonka in the context of correcting others' errors, and likewise doesn't "favor" anyone. Without great discussion, can you take care not to claim others to be saying or doing things they haven't.) FT2 (Talk | email) 17:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1) You're missing the question being asked. No, I'm answering the question that should have been asked and is implied in the question that was asked: the question goes beyond "should sanctions be applied" to "should Elonka continue to be among the group of admins monitoring such sanctions" considering the judgment she has already shown. As others have stated here and elsewhere, she does "not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers", so how effectively the sanctions can be applied is a function of who is applying them. 2) I'd encourage talking with Elonka herself about the legitimate concerns. My conversations with Elonka have already been linked in this thread, and you can see how they went. I can link you to other examples of other discussions with Elonka if you're interested. 3) Also consider asking on the talk page, that any admin using general sanctions to try and reduce edit warring might take extra care. Make sure you discourage editors on all sides from problematic behavior if they engage in any, as well, so that they are completely unaffected by any sanctions that may be in force. The editors I most often interact with are never in territory of having any sanctions applied to their editing. More importantly, with the heavy handedness already in evidence, what I am trying to make very clear is that I (like many other editors) have no intention of going anywhere near those pages. That is the problem being created and that is the question I'm answering, even if the wrong questions are being asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, your post clearly stated as a given fact that "three arbs" had spoken up to "favor" Elonka's "management" -- and that statement was one you knew wasn't accurate in any way. If the question you have is (quite reasonably) "should Elonka be one of those monitoring the sanctions", that's fine, discuss it. But don't ascribe to others, stances that they haven't in any way held, for the purposes of arguing against it. Like it or not, that is the very definition of straw man. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I said, Mathsci, content issues are not to be considered. Both the admins you mention, while of good intent, carry heavy POVs relative to the subject area, and DoughWeller has expressed a willingness to allow OR. So no- an admin willing to restrain herself to editor behavior is exactly what we need. Tim Vickers and Eubulides, I guarantee you, are not going to get whacked- certainly not over content decisions on the part of the admin, not without me making such a stink as you've seldom seen. However, again, any use of admin authority (including threats) to determine content is out. Thus, what the admin actually knows about the subject does not need to be that great. Rather, they need to know policy. If people here want to set up WP as something done or overseen by experts, fine, just change WP. But don't try to apply it in limited cases, or without officially changing WP. So, please leave off thinking that an admin should determine content. Else, I have a few admins I'd like to oversee articles and apply these sanctions. Not really (that is, I respect NPOV and WP too much), but you get the point. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Martinphi is a problematic wikipedian. He has made extraordinary statements about adminstrators Dougweller and MastCell. Elonka's interactions with Eubulides have been problematic. It is unclear why she feels that her intervention here will help matters; is she determined to make a point with one of her ill-fated "experiments"? Why has she made no mention of the beneficial participation of experts on this page? She has not said one positive thing about Eubulides, which surely must sound alarm bells for many wikipedians, including those on the arbitration committee. Elonka appears to have serious problems with expert contributors. Mathsci (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notification of Elonka's involvement at chiropractic

    Per WP:UNINVOLVED: Uninvolved admins An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, were involved in revert wars, or are under their own sanctions for that topic area, they do not qualify as uninvolved.

    Elonka has been involved in a content dispute with significant editor of this article.[47][48][49] and Elonka has participated in edit war against a significant contributor, Eubulides.[50][51] Special:Contributions/Elonka is not qualified as uninvolved. QuackGuru 01:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Those were all in July. Any evidence that she should recuse herself from the recent dispute? --erachima talk 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated. While Eubulides has edited the article recently, he is not a part of the current dispute, so past dealings regarding him should be moot. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is irrelevant whether Elonka is not part of the current dipute. Per WP:UNINVOLVED: If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question
    Since Elonka has been involved in a past dispute she does not qualify as uninvolved. QuackGuru 05:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    She isn't a significant editor of the page, and she wasn't in this content dispute but rather some trivial thing over redlinks that's unrelated to the issue. --erachima talk 06:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, this wasn't a content dispute, but rather a dispute over the style of formatting for references. This misrepresentation is typical of the disruptive editing that occurs at Talk: Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is irrelevant whether Elonka is a significant editor or is not involved in a current content dispute. Once an admin has been involved, then that admin is disqualified to be uninvolved.
    She has been involved in a content dispute in the past with a significant contributor[52][53][54] and was edit warring against a significant contributor.[55][56] QuackGuru 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Followup query

    Per the three links posted at the top of this thread, I see a message at Talk:Chiropractic stating: "FYI, according to discussions at the administrators' noticeboard, there appears to be a rough consensus among uninvolved editors and admins that the Chiropractic article falls within the scope of the Pseudoscience arbitration case." I'm not seeing that rough consensus; I'm seeing as much well founded doubt, concern and opposition as support. Does the consensus reside in the fact that the decision is under the remit of ArbCom per the previous case, and some arbs and former arbs are in favor, in spite of concern and warnings from other editors? I just want to make sure I understand what drives this process. Since the result of putting expert good faith contributors on par with tendentious SPAs and POV-pushers could be article deterioration, I hope we're clear on why we're doing this. I'm not yet clear if it's a good idea because I have yet to see it well implemented, but what I have seen is editors of the caliber of Tim Vickers bringing controversial articles like Evolution to featured status rather quickly; this is what we don't want to risk losing by putting our finest editors on par with tendentious SPAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WTH?

    Resolved
     – wrong place, no vio--Tznkai (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anybody know who Andrei Volkonsky is? This is a non-notable person. I asked some user who he was and he gave me a message in Russian. I don't understand Russian. I think this article should be deleted. Fclass (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fclass, AN is not the place to suggest an article for AfD. Moreover, the bibliography at Andrei Volkonsky clearly shows he has been covered by reliable, independent sources and that he scored a number of Sov era films. You might think about spending less time trying to get articles and images deleted by posting here and on talk pages (rather than on the fitting XfD project pages) and more time learning about Wikipedia policies whilst adding sourced content the the encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm being deliberately obtuse or anything, but he "was a Russian composer of classical music, conductor and harpsichordist" and "is the key figure in Early Music Revival in Russia." Looks fine to me. If you would like to have an article discussed for deletion, try using the steps outlined at WP:AFD instead of bringing it here, but please be sure that deletion is the only option first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, not the easiest subject to verify in English, but not the hardest either. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    .бг unauthorised

    Resolved
     – Page created--Tznkai (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was looking to create .бг, given the Bulgarian government has specifically announced its intention to register this internationalised country-code top-level domain (see [57] and [58]), but the article is unauthorised. Any chance it could be excused from the blacklist? — OwenBlacker 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

    Worked fine for me, try this link if you want to create it. I didn't think admins could overide the black list, but I could be wrong. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think admins can override the title blacklist. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, admins can override most (if not all) local blacklists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try it now, hopefully it should work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I signed in as my alternate account and created the page, so it is working fine. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome. Thanks, guys; I'll go do some work on that article over the next few days then! :o) — OwenBlacker 07:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    Muhammad in Hinduism again (again)

    Resolved
     – Nobody has edited Muhammad since 24 September. Various socks have been blocked; there are no other issues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am reposting this from the Incidents archive since, as predicted, the problem has simply reemerged again as new sockpuppets have been created: user:CMJTHY, [59] and doubtless others. I don't know whether there is any technical meams to deal with this, but I think that page protection will only be temporary, since there is no possibility of meaningful discussion with this guy and that the particular edit (the specific claim he makes repeatedly) should simply be eliminated on sigh and repeatedly reverted as vandalism. Paul B (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We have had a repeated problem on numerous articles with a virulent sockpuppeteer who is continuing to get way with misrepresentation of facts and is now acting almost entirely openly as an edit warrior repeatedly reinserting the same content - which has been repeatedly rejected - in articles. He is continuing to get away with it because of his unrelenting sockpuppetry and persistence. I am sick of reverting and sick of raising the same issue over and over and over. Essentially this editor wishes to assert that Muhammad was "predicted" in the Hindu scriptures and has assembled a text which superficially looks to be well cited, but is in fact a compendium of ultra-fringe sources which completely ignore mainsteream scholarship. See See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RajivLal (2nd).

    This editor, now under the names of User:.alchin007 and User:RedMonkey39 is no longer even bothering to conceal his sockpuppetry, as his edits summary clearly indicates. Making Sockpuppet and checkuser requests is time consuming and pointlerss when this indivisdual can apparently recreate himself so persistently. I think that this particular edit (he makes the same assertions over and over) should be recognised and treated as vandalism. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:.alchin007 and User:RedMonkey39 indefblocked. Perhaps you might have a case for requesting full page-protection (see WP:RFPP)? EyeSerenetalk 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like a case of Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) POV-pushing. I'd suggest letting Dbachmann (talk · contribs) know; he's had a fair amount of experience with such issues and I'm sure he'd be able to advise. Notifying the fringe theories noticeboard could also be useful. I think there may have been a previous arbitration case about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alchin was adding to Buddha that Buddha translated to Awakened one in Arabic, in addition to Pali or Sanskrit. Generally unwilling to engage, but didn't seem particularly troublesome, just stubborn.--Tznkai (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite its vague title, this AN item is about edits to the Muhammad page. There are no new edits on that page since 24 September, so I'm taking the liberty of marking this Resolved. User:CMJTHY, mentioned above as a possible culprit, has never edited Muhammad at all. The various warriors mentioned above, like .alchin007 have been blocked. The blocking of these editors seems to take away any reason to give full protection to Muhammad. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A persistent user is creating new articles with material from existing articles.

    User:Slikkidrajs is creating articles with different variations of misspelling of the dinosaur Rajasaurus: Rajsaurus Narmadensis‎, S. Rajsaurus Narmadensis‎ and S.Rajasaurus Narmadensis‎ with basicly the same content as Rajasaurus. I have tried to communicate with him on his talk page but is met with silence. I have placed a template box at his Rajsaurus Narmadensis‎ article [60] which was deleted without an explanation.
    After a warning on his talk page he has begun to replicate material in new dog articles Cane Corso versus CC.Italian Mastiff, Cane Corso versus IM .Corso (w. another image). I don't know if this is an advanced type of vandalism or what? Please help. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You can just redirect them to whatever they're a copy of, if it seems like a searchable term. Otherwise, they're not terribly useful, and should likely be deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of a whole army of administrators and users redirecting and deleting Slikkidrajs' unnecessary articles and keeping him under surveillance, it would be better to send him a signal. If he and his IP address are blocked he can still write on his talk page. Then he can explain his intentions and if it's a green user he can be unblocked. If it's some kind of bet regarding creating as many articles as possible - Wikipedia's resources could be better spend. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of harsh measures, you could see if the education efforts and redirects above have the desired effect. Maybe he just didn't know how to make redirects? You dn't appear to have told him how, either. I will leave a note for him. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having had a look at the pre-redirect versions, I suspect that the spelling "Rajsaurus" is not necessarily an error. The only substantial change from the real Rajasaurus article is the substitution of "Raj et al. 2000" as the authors. Perhaps these are attempts at combination spoof/vanity articles by a person either named Raj ("slikkidrajs"=Slik Kid Raj S."?) or associated with someone named Raj? In any case, I would support deleting all of these redirects, particularly the redirects that start with "S.", which are extremely unlikely search terms as they have no obvious connection with Rajasaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point on those two, they've been nuked appropriately. I'm leaving the other, as I believe it's a typo people might actually make. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another violater who has had about 10 images uploaded and deleted without any kind of warning, for editors who constantly violate like this, is more than a warning not needed? will someone please delete her latest upload Image:womanizersleeve.jpg Ogioh (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh the irony of you reporting someone for misusing fair use... Go to WP:PUI and follow the instructions at the top. This isn't the place to report this. – iridescent 20:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (adding) I've fixed the fair use rationale. This looks perfectly valid to me, she'd just misspelled the song title in the FUR. – iridescent 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't take well to insults this is the place evryone else goes to report copyright violaters. And please Irisdescent get over the britney image I uploaded two copyright violations is deifferent to 10 or more. Ogioh (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think saying "these type of people" is more of a personal attack than referring to someone's earlier contributions. It might be best to just let it go, eh? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my comment so that it is maybe less offensive. I have let go of the past but evidently Irisdecent and a couple of others aren't willing to. Ogioh (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the above image is listed at Possibly unfree images. Shall we call this one resolved? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly, this isn't actually the place to report copyvios. The header at the top seems to say the place to do that is WP:CP. So, please take these things there in the future. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up, i only came here because it's where i was taken but now i know where to go. If the user gets a block warning i'd say we can call it resolved have you taken a look at their talkpage! Ogioh (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The user has had a block warning. Issue resolved. Ogioh (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Womanizer (song) - Photo trouble

    Hi traffic article, crazed Britney fans are uploading many many many fake single covers. Admin assistance needed to watchlist articles, remove unsourced material and delete fake images. — Realist2 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how many pictures iv flagged in the past hour. It's ridiculous. I'm not sure of you time-zone but i can only stay up for another hour at max, i've school in the morning and need to get up at half 6 Ogioh (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure education is more important than Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes i know but i do take wikipedia seriously and i don't have a problem with being a ittle tired for school just once. Not to mention i'm an avid fan of britney Ogioh (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having a look through now. I personally consider the uploading of (knowingly) fake album/single/DVD cover images to be vandalism of the most sneaky kind. It also happens far too often for me to believe that everyone who does it is doing so in honest good faith, after having seen the pic on a fansite or something. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody could have simplyfied it in finer words. Ogioh (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In relation to all this about half an hour ago i put a copyright vio notice on Image:Womanizer Cover.jpg and left a message on User: Superpop's page yet she removed this notice and put it on the page again. Will somebody please give her a block warning. Ogioh (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (after edit conflict) The image currently in the article (the purple, black and gold text-y one) - whichever version of it is there (heh) when you next check back is definitely real. See here for confirmation. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Superpop's upload looks fine to me now, considering that I have now established that this is actually the real cover... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    yes i removed the copyright tag and apolagised. According to the site there'll be a surprise in a couple of hours so expect an unprecedented amount of traffic. But, now i need sleep so you'll have to deal with it on your own maybe. Goodnight Ogioh (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good Article Nominees

    A user, A State of Trance, has nominated at least 5 articles at GAN without being a major contributor. For some of his articles, he hasn't even edited. All of these articles do not meet criteria. What should be done about this? He is disruptive to and only creates a backlog at GAN. You can check the contributions of the user here. I'm removing these submissions from GAN.--LAAFansign review 01:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've removed submissions before. I think that the GAN process is kept free from binding rules (like those for FAC) in order to maintain the somewhat informal atmosphere. If they don't appear to be reasonable noms and he isn't a main contributor, I would endorse that decision. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a side note, you don't need to be a major contributor to nominate an article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would to file a complaint about a user named The Virginian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he continually derides others for there edits, rejects any assistance other editors try to give to him in proper wiki ediquett by deriding new users for simple edit mistakes even though he himself is not exactly an expert in editing himself, and currently to prevent from being warned by others locked his talk page and prevents access to it by setting it to redirect to another page when others try to access it and leave him a message, I wish to remain anonymouse but I believe his antics have gone on for too long and feel you should look into his actions and dicipline him for his antics.- Deus257 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm... this, this, this edit war (which I apparently stopped, wasn't aware I was involved until I started checking his contribs), and his habit of redirecting his user talk page to Code Geass all look rather unacceptable, but it's not all recent behaviour. An admin should probably talk to him. --erachima talk 07:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dropped him a line. If you continue to have problems, see WP:DR. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's since been blocked by Xenocidic for redirecting his talk page to some random article. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked him for 3 hours for repeatedly ignoring the requests not to redirect his talk page and noted that further redirection will result in blocks of progressively increasing length. –xeno (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Straw poll for "view-deleted activation" now open

    In June 2008 the Arbitration Committee announced a request that the English Wikipedia consider allowing some non-administrators the ability to view deleted material. The summary of the announcement was

    The activation of the passive "can view deleted" right, and a policy allowing its grant for good cause, would allow non-administrator users to gain wider participation in the English Wikipedia community. For details and discussion, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Activation of view-deleted-pages

    Note that this is a request that the idea be considered, nothing stronger. The announcement led to this proposal. As this conversation has gone on for several months, the proposal has shifted around quite a bit. This makes it very unclear where editors are currently giving their support or opposition. For the sake of clarity, I am attempting to pick out the main proposals, and create a straw poll around them. Please share your opinion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think this is a good idea, it would help non-admin participants at DRV for example. Many heated debates are caused by a confusion with what people believe an article might have said, and what it actually said. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Anything which can get me agreeing wholeheartedly with Guy has got to be a good thing :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless I can mark certain deletions as "BLP", "copyright violations" or "sensitive material", which are not viewable by people with this userright, this will be an absolute disaster. Daniel (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. What makes admins anymore special than normal users in that they can be trusted with deleted content? If it's really bad it should be oversighted. -- how do you turn this on 13:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because it has been established that they have community trust. Oversight is harder to do, there are less oversighers than are able to do the work. ffm 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RFA is not a brilliant way of determining community trust. -- how do you turn this on 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a user flag, so DRV particpants would be able to see all deleted material, not just the articles in question at DRV. As a non-admin, I would find this useful in researching page recreations, or looking at deleted contribs of suspected sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree; It's a good way of determining if the community trusts someone, but the community isn't always the best judge of character. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have to agree with Daniel - and also up the ante by noting that all previous deleted content would have to be flagged by default since only net-new deletions could receive the flag. –xeno (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not (and there may be a very good reason) approach it from the other direction. Rather than having a user-level flag, why not have an article-level flag which can be set by an administrator in the same way that, say, protection is. If an article comes up at DRV, someone sets the flag - all users can then see the deleted revisions of that article, but cannot see the deleted revisions of all articles...deletion review closes, flag gets unset. I don't think allowing everyone to see all deleted revisions is really a way forward, and about the only valid argument that people are putting forward is "it would be helpful in DRV". GbT/c 16:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. If nothing else, it would stop the constant flood of [[WP:CSD#G4|]] tagging of articles which happen to have the same name as a deleted article. – iridescent 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment can people stop supporting or opposing here, and go to the straw poll instead? Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Adminship is no big deal. Thus it's no big deal for trusted users who have been editing the wiki for years (3+ in my case) to see a few deleted revisions. If it's really bad then ask for oversight. It's really not that big of a deal. Bstone (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help-Complaint

    Resolved
     – OP was sock of banned user. Blocked by Thatcher. Nothing more to see here.

    Hi

    I am having a problem with a wikipedia administrator whom is stalking me all over the net. How and where can I can forward a complaint with logs.

    Thank you. --Otsira (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see any evidence of anyone stalking you, or even communicating with you, on your account, which was created only a few days ago. What other Wikipedia usernames are you using, and can you provide links that would show this stalking? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User On.Elpeleg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive169#On.Elpeleg.27s_indefinite_block_--_review_requested. Thatcher 14:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, gosh, that doesn't look like an administrator stalking a useful editor at all. How strange that this user misunderstood the rules and the consequences of breaking them so profoundly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, is Otsira = On.Elpeleg??? If so, why is Otsira not blocked? If On.Elpeleg wants an unblock, why not go through the normal channels and request one? Or am I confused by this situation? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, [61]. Thatcher got it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Straw poll closure

    Resolved
     – Closed by User:EdJohnston. MBisanz talk 18:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an administrator close out the straw poll at WT:NYSR? They don't need to execute the results; they can just put the closure templates on. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Help Needed about certain user

    Resolved
     – The last two warnings (which had nothing to do with Realist2) were a mistake and have been removed. No need for administrative intervention. Not the place for discussion on the reliability of sources. Cenarium Talk 14:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have recieved block warnings for this edit to User talk:Realist2. and this edit to Talk:Womanizer (song). This isn't vandalism User:Realist2 was disregarding information from an official website that had its credibility clarified the night before. This past week or so Realist2 has practically been wikistalking me reverting a lot of my edits and succeeded ni getting me blocked. I have tried to make ammends as you can see on his talkpage but he continues to be difficult and awkward for no real reason. I am at loss here as to what to do. This is my last resort before i get blocked for no reason. HELP NEEDED! Ogioh (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol, if you call watchlisting the article wikistalking you need to calm down. Also I only handed you one notice today I believe. — Realist2 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also if Ogioh was blocked it was because he deserved it eg. clear copyright violations. Speak with User:Iridescent about that if needs be. — Realist2 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe wikistalking isn't the right word exactly but you know you have been intentionally awkward. I've been made to feel very nervous and uncomfortable when editing wikipedia. Ogioh (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Realist's only edit to your talk page recently was this warning about your edit to Womanizer (song). The warning regarding Realist's talk page was actually issued by RyanLupin here. Useight (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really sorry that you feel uncomfortable editing wikipedia. I handed you one warning today for adding poorly sourced info to an article. The other warnings have NOTHING to do with me. — Realist2 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He also reverted my edits on womanizer (song) User talk:Realist2 and Talk:Womanizer (song) and declard them as vandalism. Anyone who looks at these edits will recognise straight away they aren't. Most of this is going on OFF my talkpage. Ogioh (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This hardly involves me at all. Please strike comments against me, they are false allegations. — Realist2 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The admins can say the allegations are false when they go through the edits of mine you've reverted and check why two very recent edits were declared vandalism. Ogioh (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never called your edits vandalism, just material added by a poor source. — Realist2 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First off you know the site's her official site. You didn't bother to check the source you claimed it was fro popjustice. Besides your not the person i need to be having this discussion with. I tried to make amends on your page but you carried on as usual the next day. Thats why i'm here you don't ant to co-operate. Ogioh (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No Ogioh, neither Popjustice or the fan blog section of Britneys "official" site are considered reliable. Particularly when Billboard with come around in a few and release a piece. This is a content dispute that can be resolved quite peacefully anyway, no place for AN. — Realist2 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am asking for admin assistance here!? Its this type of ignorance that i'm talking about because YOU against the vast majority say its unreliable YOUR right. Your talkpage clearly shows other examples of this. Ogioh (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sock puppets and trolls have accused me of a lot this week, thankfully I got them all blocked. I haven't gone completely insane to the degree that I can't differentiate reliable sources for GA or FA criteria. — Realist2 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am neither sock puppet nor troll. Please admins help!? Ogioh (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't accuse you of being one either. — Realist2 00:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you went as far as you could before it came obvious that it was a blatant insult. This thread needs admin help thats why its here. Whenever an admin steps in please feel free to resume your comments.Ogioh (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was telling you that you should listen to half the crap on my talk page because it's from blocked sock's and trolls. Stop accusing me of stupid things like stalking, personal attack, making you feel uncomfortable. Hell, I wanted to watch this Presidential debate in peace. Obviously won't be happening tonight. — Realist2 00:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you, enough is enough. This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Realist, as I've already told you, stop reverting Ogioh unless you see a truly blatant problem - it's not like Britney Spears is exactly an unwatched article; Ogioh, stop uploading copyvios and read WP:RS before you add information sourced from blogs. OK? – iridescent 00:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    The copyright vios have stopped and its her official site. User:Gwen Gale has already said so on the womanizer talkpage and i don't know much about her other than that she is a respected admin. He's no excuse to be reverting my edits maybe did a week or a week and a half ago but not this past few days as he has been doing.Ogioh (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (To Irid) Fine, I was only trying to make something of the Womanizer (song) article. I'll just go back to my Michael Jackson collection then. — Realist2 00:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the two warnings addressed by RyanLuppin, I don't view them as justified. I don't think an administrator would block you for that. When editing, keep in mind our policy on verifiability and reliable sources and it should be fine. Blogs should generally not be used as a source, discuss the reliability of a source on the talk page if in doubt (we also have WP:RSN). Cenarium Talk 01:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ogioh (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this be closed as resolved? Hardly any of this has anything to do with me, I no longer want to edit that article anyway, Ogioh quickly reinserted the blog (oh well), nothing should happen to RyanLupin, and let's just leave that article to disintegrate. Case closed. — Realist2 03:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I marked this resolved. Cenarium Talk 14:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate it's against the Spirit Of Open Editing, but I've put a 12 hour semi-protect on Ted Kennedy. His "death" has been added six times in the last 10 minutes, despite not being announced (or even intimated) on any reputable source. As many eyes as possible would be useful, especially if the semi's lifted. – iridescent 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    I've added the article to the #wikipedia-en-blpwatch IRC feed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat?

    [62] "look wikipedia your starting to be a pain in my but stop or i will sue you"

    I can't seem to figure out what his problem is though and the IP only has those two recent edits and another one in May 2007? sicaruma | contribs 04:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a potential BLP issue to me. The IP is obviously unexperienced with Wikipedia, and tried to add "age 67" to the biography of someone we are saying was born in October 1943 (so he should be age 64). This couldhe be the subject himself, trying to correct a widespread wrong date of birth. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be, but I doubt if an English actor would use the phrase "pain in the butt" (and then spell it wrongly as well). Also, the IP resolves to the USA. Black Kite 08:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, John Nettles is stated to have been born in 1943 on imdb [63] and being 64 in a Telegraph article from this year [64] which makes me doubt that it's him. sicaruma | contribs 08:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There seem to be a lot of people called Nettles in Dallas. Anyway, it seems best to ignore the IP. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What Black Kite said. Language is not compatible with this individual, who is well-educated and eloquent, and speaks British English at that. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    I have stubified this article after realising that the original version was a copyright violation of [65] and most of the subsequent the subsequent versions were derivitive works which I unwittingly created. The article is currently undergoing an AFD discussion so keeping the current sourced one line version which is not a derivitive of the copyrighed piece might be preferable. Would it be possible for someone to delete all previous versions of the article preceding this one? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of you know the history here, so I don't think I need to go into that much detail but stick to facts as best as I can. This is more like a review, as requested on his talk page.

    PeterSymonds: a password was given to Steve to use this admin account, and a large number of actions were taken. As far as I can tell, (and no one has said otherwise; the community or arb com) all were proper actions save for the fact that they were not performed by an admin, but by steve.

    ChetBLong: Steve requested Chet's password, and Chet gave it to him after they had a discussion because he trusted Steve; a few days later Steve protected an article with Chet's admin account. In the end it was a non controversial edit (two: placing a protect template up, and protecting a page), which did no harm (not to excuse them)

    Steve has been on wikibreak enforcer for a little over a month now. ArbCom did not specify the length for his break, but this was more like a general agreement between ArbCom, and Steve. He was the one who requested the length of one year be applied to his monobook.js in good faith and ArbCom noted that the community may be asked regarding when he may resume editing on Wikipedia. From what I can see, there is no block or ban placed on Steve. Given the nature of the situation, I would like to propose that Steve be given another chance to redeem himself to the community. The idea of a mentor comes to mind, but I don't think one is needed (they are usually for new editors, and Steve is not a new editor). I'm sure there might be someone (an admin) who would be willing to watch him closely if that is in fact needed, though Steve would prefer it. Of course, most importantly, Steve has promised to use only one account with no shared accounts, and agrees to any restrictions the community decides. I think time served will best describe this proposal. Synergy 10:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it is quite clearcut that steve wont do this again, nor would any admin I support this proposal without mentoring. I feel that present situation of a enforced "wiki break" is punitive and not in the interest of the wikipedia community or its goals. My justification of my support is In such situations one must put aside personal feelings and think what is best for the prject, it is clear that steve is a very dedicated contributor and chances of him making a taboo like he did, again are extremly low. One must also take into account is good behavior, morals and standards (up untill the discovery of the incident that lead to his premature fall), they were of an above satisfactory standard.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Henrik has already cleared the monobook.js and the account is not blocked. No further action necessary, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a valuable editor and I support his request to return —— RyanLupin(talk) 11:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure he's learnt his lesson. No doubt he won't be silly enough to do something like this again. And if he did, the consequences would likely be more severe. -- how do you turn this on 12:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:As Steve Crossin knows, the Committee gave him a 6 month ban, but we did it in a friendly manner by not blocking his account. This was well understood and agreed to by Steve. I'm afraid that he can not start editing by simpling having his wikibreak enforcer removed. If he wants his ban appealed then he needs to talk to the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And if the community agree to unbanning, what happens? ArbCom aren't above the community. -- how do you turn this on 12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed you blocked him. Why was that? Isn't that violating the part of the block policy which states blocks should not be punitive? -- how do you turn this on 12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is the modern world we live in. Where the people we elect see fit to override those who voted for them some what of a paradox and Ammusing to say the least. The block is a farce and is punitive. This is how we thank one of our better editors and more importantly, how Arbcom choose to behave. An interesting thought, who asked to commitie to interfere here with steve's restrictions? I thought that should have been left to the community after all. More conrcerning is the notion that Arbcom had ignored emails from steve, to my knowlege the community DID NOT elect arbitrators so they could ignore emails about thier enforcements.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think there was not really enough discussion to merit a lift of the ban. If he was banned, a thread here with 3 supports cannot lift it, even if ArbCom is not above all the world. There has been a great deal of discussion which lead to the ban if I recall correctly and I'd say it needs some larger discussion to reverse that ruling. Personally I think he should have appealed to the ArbCom first but even if we decide to discuss the matter here, we should discuss it in length, not just removing the wikibreak enforcer. I do not think that creating a conspiracy theory on the ArbCom's actions is really helpful and if they made mistakes (like if they really ignored mails from Steve), we can discuss this too in the correct places. SoWhy 13:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question to the arbitrators: Why did you ignore steve's email? Probable Answer: All good things to those who wait.. Well lets see, I first of all would like to see the arbitration request that had steves name on it as im sure the ANI thread att said no further action should be taken, the was the consensus.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Promethean, the ordinary course of such matters is that a request is received, that receipt is acknowledged (as happened here, Steve was informed that the Committee would consider the matter), the Committee discusses the matter, seeking further dialogue where appropriate, and a decision will be made one way or the other. We are still at the third stage here. That has already lasted a week, but it is an unfortunate fact that the Committee has many priorities, and this is but one of them. --bainer (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1)ArbCom rulings are not optional. 2)When we give them in the friendliest manner possible, by not blocking the account, we do it because we trust the editor to follow the ruling. 3)It is my judgment that Steve Crossin is not following the letter and the spirit of the ruling which was for him to take a long break from Wikipedia for the benefit of Steve and the Community so I blocked his account. (We discussed and agreed that 6 months was a good length of time for his break/ban.) 4) The Committee deals with many issues on a daily basis. We prioritize them based on what is best for the Community. Steve Crossin's email was answered but not given top priority because getting him a mentor was not seen as a pressing issue.

    I have other Committee work to do now so I might not reply here to further comments in a prompt manner. That does not mean that I don't care about Steve or the Community's views. It means that other issues are more pressing at the moment. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a very unfortunate attitude. What if the community no longer thinks they're better off with him banned? I'll repeat what I said above: arbcom is not above the community. We only look to arbcom when we can't decide. ArbCom should not be taking things into their own hands. -- how do you turn this on 13:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Steve has always been a great editor and should be allowed back. He didn't do anything harmful to warrant such a lengthy block - 1 month has been plenty long for him to learn from his mistakes and I'm confident he won't do it again. SeanMooney (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - he made one mistake. If ArbCom aren't interested in letting him appeal, the community can instead. ArbCom do not exist to tell the community what to do. They are not above us. -- how do you turn this on 13:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      See m:Foundation Issues - Point 5 - "The Arbitration Committees of those projects which have one can also make binding, final decisions such as banning an editor.". So yes the committee are empowered with decision making over the community. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Six month ban is not very long for suborning an admin and it does rather look as if Steve has abused the good faith of others in this matter, since it sounds very much as if he was told that a lengthy break was needed, not a couple of weeks. I have no problem with this. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A great editor maybe, but the actions of Steve for this 6 months ban were not insignificant (not exactly "one mistake"). There's no reason the arbcom ruling should not unfold as expected. I'm not against considering a review or an appeal, but I'll certainly not support an unblock or unban in the present situation. It's not the way to proceed anyway. Cenarium Talk 14:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone was to "not edit" for 6 months, but chose to go on voluntary WikiBreak, rather than being blocked, but then they return before the end of that 6 months, they indeed should be blocked. Just because the arbitration committee was being considerate in how the "no editing" time period was applied, doesn't mean that the 6 month "no editing" restriction was lifted.

    And honestly, do you really want to set the precedent that any time the arbitrators are considerate, others may undo their actions? That's about a fast way as possible to end such consideration. - jc37 14:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Arbcom should have Never impossed that ban so steve is not evading a ban at all really. Arbcom were out of line, the community consensus at the time said no further action was required but instead they decided to basically blackmail (go on a long break or have a block) steve into a ban knowing that steve would not want a block and that the community would not support one. and now they pipe up and cry foul becuase steve wants it reviewed.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom did impose the ban, if you don't like it then appeal it, you don't get to decide who is banned and who isn't based on who you like or what you think of the outcome, if we do not respect ArbCom bans then we have absolutely no workable means of controlling abuse of the project, and any admin who unblocks an ArbCom banned user in defiance of the ban will be lucky not to be banned in turn. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy is quite correct. Furthermore, this user has breached trust and was lucky not to be banned for life. That he is agitating for a return so soon, and is trying to play emotional blackmail by talking of how he didn't sleep for 40 hours and nearly broke his nose (see his talk page!), suggests this place is not for him George The Dragon (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve did appeal it, but got ignored. -- how do you turn this on 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong on two counts. First, he did not get ignored, the response just took longer than he wanted (dock the ArbCom an hour's pay, whatever). Second, it's not up to you to handle the appeal and unilaterally decide that it is granted. No response means no change in this case, not acceptance of the appeal. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response to Promethean above on this point. --bainer (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    In this, can you find any consensus to ban steve for any period of time? if not (cause there isnt) why did arbcom still act?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hate to break this to you, IRC fanboy brigade, but YOU ARE ALL PEONS. If the ArbCom decide they want Steve banned for six months, that's just how it goes, and you can merrily piss into the wind for all it matters. You elected these guys your overlords, your godkings. If you didn't realise this at the time - well, you should just have paid a bit more attention when voting. And you get the chance to remedy the mistake, if that's how you view it, in another couple of months at the next round of elections. Frankly, messing around with admin buttons when the community has not entrusted you with them should really get you permabanned, so Steve can count himself very lucky with six months.
    BTW, it is worth noting while in theory arbcom authority is set in stone, but if the community of admins collectively decided not to enforce an arbcom ruling - or to act contrary to it - arbcom probably would be forced to change their minds, as the alternative is Jimbo desysopping a couple hundred of his regulars, which would lead to chaos. But in this case, I doubt that's going to happen. So, if you disagree with an arbcom decision, and they won't change their minds, and the admin community collectively agrees with the arbcom - or even is undecided about the matter - there ain't squat you can do. Tough. Moreschi (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]