Changing your password is the only thing you can do. Please ensure that you areusing a mix of numbers and letters, and something that is not easy for someone who knows you to guess. You should also reset your email password, in case this person also has the pw for that and can reset your pw that way. You may also wish to reset any other passwords you use, depending on how much similarity there is between them. → ROUX₪18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have an email account associated with your Wikipedia account then change the email password too. If someone has access to your email they can change your password anytime.Chillum18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you not trace the audit trail, sou you can define not only the user ID but also the destination IP that made changes in question? Obviously, I am cencerned because this person could change anything under my name, such as vandalise under my name, getting me blocked on Wiki.Police,Mad,Jack(talk·contribs)☺18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the edit toWindows Live Messenger, the most likely explanation is that you accidentally hit "rollback" when viewing your watchlist, page history, another user's contributions, or using an anti-vandal tool. It's very easy to do this and not realise.CIreland (talk)19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Change your password using the Secure Server ([1]) so the action is encrypted. Get anti-virus or anti-spyware if you do not have it already.Malinaccier (talk)19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser shows the edits are from your current IP address. You may have a little brother or roommate who took advantage of the fact that your account was logged in, or a poltergeist, or you hit the wrong buttons by accident.Thatcher01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Erm, yes, I didn't notice Thatcher already did the check, and I was coming here to report the very same result. I'd ask around your household to see if you had someone else browse Wikipedia not noticing they were doing so under your identity. — Coren(talk)02:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I am very surprised to learn of that. My first thought was of other people like you both have said, but the pages in question which *I* have reverted are not in my computer history.Police,Mad,Jack(talk·contribs)☺09:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
If you had accidentally hit rollback they would not necessarily appear in your browser history (depends on where you accidentally hit rollback - when viewing a user contribs, for example, if you rollback an edit for there, you will never see the page you rolled back.)
How do I search for someone in an indef blocked user list?
I remember that there is a list of blocked users. I think I am dealing with an IP address that acts suspiciously like someone we've seen before. I am checking first before filing the SPI. Some assistance, so I don't cock it up would be helpful. -Arcayne(cast a spell)05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Well, no, but both are pretty useful. Here's the thing: I've been dealing with an anon with some pretty familiar editing patterns. I did a IP lookup on the recent IP's used by the contributor, and they all appear to be contained within a fairly small geographic location. then I looked over the IP addresses used by an IP user who had stalked me some months ago. the results of an ANI report were that they stay away or be indef blocked. The edits from this older IP address list are - you guessed it - locatedin the same geographic area. Now, its entirely possible that two different users from the same geographic area would be pissed enough at me to follow my edits around, but the similar methods of posting and commentary are very similar.
The beginnings of the IP addresses aren't the same, which is what threw me, and as well, the location of the IP's aren't static. As I don't know a lot about the tech of IP addresses checking, my first supposition was that the person was posting from a mobile device, but frankly, i don't know. I still don't think I've got enough for an SPI or RfCU, as the former IP was just warned, not blocked. It seems something of a pickle. Thoughts? -Arcayne(cast a spell)08:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
copyright problem
Resolved
Excuse me for bringing this here; I'm not sure of the right place to take it. I markedDoctors of Deception as a "suspected copyvio" even though it was a blatant copyvio, because it was lifted from two web pages and the db-copyvio template only seems to work for material taken from a single site. The author of the article agreed that deletion is the correct thing to do, but nothing has happened. At this point I'm lost in the bureaucracy and don't know what the next step is.Looie496 (talk)03:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Marking it as a speedy under G12 would have been fine, as would marking it as a G7 once the author agreed that it should be deleted.Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that with{{copyvio}}, nothing issupposed to happen for 7+1 days. The delay is to permit time for verification of permission or rewriting of the article in temporary space. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the blanking and dropped a quick note on the user's talk page. Also, editors are just as welcome as admins to post notices and warnings on other user's talk pages. :)Icestorm815 •Talk14:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It's come to my attention thatkgb_,Cha Cha (search engine), and possibly other companies are directly copying Wikipedia's articles in their answers. Attribution is only given on their sites, and only if a user logs in to view their previous answers. No attribution is given in the answers themselves, and no links are given to the GFDL. Can a copyright aficionado comment on this? I can send off a letter to them if required.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk)15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a live mirror. They take the relevant sentence from our article - for example "Baghdad is the largest city and capital of Iraq" - and copy and paste it into an answer. Then they hit send. Take, for example,this question - the source is given as www.serendipity.li/iraqwar.htm, when in reality the answer is a direct copy of part of the opening paragraph ofIraq War - "...Gulf War, the Occupation of Iraq, or Operation Iraqi Freedom,is an ongoing military campaign which began on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq ...". There are hundreds more examples of unsourced 'lifting'. This seems to me to be a problem - is it?Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk)16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, unattributed mirroring of WP content is quite a big problem (seeWP:MIRROR); people don't seem to realise that attribution is necessary. If you fancy sending them a not unfriendly reminder to link to the WP article when reusing the content, they may oblige. If they don't, there is the route ofDMCA takedown notices if you are the one whose rights are being infringed, but the only route after that is for a contributor to take actual legal action. –Toon16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Letter sent:
“
Dear ChaCha Search:
I am pleased to see that your service uses content from Wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/>), the free encyclopedia. This is the sort of reuse that those who contribute to Wikipedia, as I do, wish to promote.
However, you must follow the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CC-BY-SA), which governs all Wikipedia text. Only the CC-BY-SA is legally binding. However, we do make certain recommendations about how to comply. First, I would like to point out that when you use content from Wikipedia you should include a link back to the source Wikipedia article as is suggested on Wikipedia’s copyrights page, which is located at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights>. Additionally, you should also include a CC-BY-SA notice. One way of doing this is to add the text "This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license", and provide a link to a copy of the CC-BY-SA. Text such as "This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" is a good way to acknowledge the general source of the text.
Please add the required links and acknowledgments to all parts of your site that use Wikipedia content promptly, and be sure to correctly attribute resued content in future. Thank you.
As they've only posted it twice I've reminded them instead that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not offering random opinions on the article topic. If they persist, you might post a vandalism report toWP:AIV. The username doesn't bother me that much, butWP:UAA is a good place to go if you would like this looked at.Euryalus (talk)12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
And there's the fact that the template is functioning perfectly correctly in displaying the ombox style in template space, and that no good reason to change it seems to have been presented.Happy‑melon21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't actually work out quickly why that is; I don't think it's expected behaviour. Certainly I'm not convinced that it is desirable.Happy‑melon22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Edit warring and violation of 3RR. He's an edit war vet' and he's deleting sourced material and edit warring on a number of pages. He's been blocked 8 or 9 times for it, bu he continues. - - 1[2] - 2[3] - 3[4] - 4[5] - -Dapi89 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Please take this toWP:AN3Triplestopx301:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone (admin or otherwise) head on over toTalk:Grief porn and try to mediate between99.135.175.107 (talk·contribs) andArcayne (talk·contribs) ? I can't really fill this role since anything with the word "porn" is firewalled here (don't worry though, it's SFW) and due to past history with participant(s) I'm recusing. The situation has been spilling out into numerous other forums and there's even an RFC tag up there (which I think should be removed, it needs a mediator, not an RFC). Thanks in advance, –xenotalk13:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It's humorous, in a sad way, when two editors continually revert each other with edit summaries that are variations on the phrase "Stop edit warring!". I've commented on the RFC, but I'm not sure a mediator is what's needed, so much as a knocker of heads together. --Floquenbeam (talk)14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I don't review enough edit wars, but this is the first time I've seen one side so passionate about The Truth(TM) that they revised the DYK template. Isn't that going a little too far? --llywrch (talk)19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As one of the participants, i would appreciate the assistance. Only one other editor, Padillah, has beenworking in the article discussion, trying to mediate. He is to be commended for his efforts. -Arcayne(cast a spell)22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed on a number of other locations thanks to some forum shopping going on, so claiming that only one other editor is involved with the discussion is severely misleading.DreamGuy (talk)21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Admins please note thatUser:Arcayne has already been strongly cautioned aboutWP:OWN issues and incivility with this article atWP:WQA and that the discussion has also continued to the RS Noticeboard and, oddly,WP:FRINGE (the pseudoscience of misery lit?), where it looked like the conflict was pretty well resolved except forWP:IDONTHEARYOU problems.DreamGuy (talk)21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Dreamguy's very neutral comments aside, the anon was identified as a indef-banned IP user, there to harass me (remember the joyous fun that occasioned the 75 anon user back in March?). Some actual work might get done now. -Arcayne(cast a spell)20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear: when I try to change it into a disambiguation page I get a: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism" message telling me to use this noticeboard to change the title.—Precedingunsigned comment added byOliorn (talk •contribs)11:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
What am I missing?Asbru does lead to the DAB page. Nothing I see was ever protected. Has whatever problem that existed been resolved?Tan |3915:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears it wasn't a page protection issue, but a local or global blacklist issue, as Oliorn notes in his comments above. It seems I can edit it now (although I didn't hit "save", and maybe that's when the blacklist kicks in?), so maybe it was a poorly written blacklist item that's now been reverted? --Floquenbeam (talk)20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Protected TFA page
I would like to add the following sentences to aprotected TFA page. The protection instructions against vandalism brought me here. The sentences should be added just after the sentence ending with "inBasel".
Calvin was mainly based inGeneva where he promoted reforms in the church. He introduced new forms of church government andliturgy, despite the opposition of several powerful families in the city.
There is no sentence on that page ending with "in Basel". There's this:
After religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, where in 1536 he published the first edition of his seminal work Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Sorry. Could you put the suggested sentences right after the one that ends with "Institutes of the Christian Religion". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk)02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Question about Golan consensus
Not really sure if this is right place to ask this. Since there is a consensus right now at the Golan Heights page that Golan is onlyIsraeli controlled, and not a part of Israel proper, shouldn't we then follow that consensus at other pages? I mean are we supposed to have the exact same discussion at 100 different talkpages that mentions Golan? I'm thinking about the Sea of Galilee article, Druze article and also the Anti-Lebanon mountains article.
Seriously, good luck with that. I think linking to the consensus discussion at Golan Heights in your edit summaries, and on talk page discussions where you make the relevent changes is a good idea. But, given that this ethnic conflict is not going to be solved by a consensus discussion at Wikipedia, expect to receive a whole lot of shit for doing so, even if you are in the right here, based on that consensus discussion... --Jayron32.talk.contribs17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I really need some more help then "Good luck with that" .. the one changing "Israeli controlled" to Israel is this userhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fipplet I have already told him when I change back the article that we should follow the Golan article but he keeps changing it. I'm sure if an administrator sent him a message that we should follow the Golan heights article, he would listen.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk)18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The editwar in question has been over for many hours, since the sockmaster and puppets (the ones adding the 'information') were indeffed. → ROUX₪00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet?
MarkusBJoke (talk·contribs) possible Sockpuppet ofJudo112 (talk·contribs).MarkusBJoke took part in about 15 Afd's since creation. In all of them supporting Judo112's position. The votes are very often made in a close timeframe to Judo112[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]. Comparing their edits history i would say they come from the same computer. MarkusBjokes's first edit after account creation was a supporting vote for Judo122[13] that made Judo122's position win. Maybe they are twins or wife and Husband or otherwise close connected as this behavior is ongoing in arecent Afd i would like you to have a look at it.Iqinn (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Sorry, my mistake, this should have gone to the Incidents board.Iqinn (talk)03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)
User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of24 June) is enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)
On June 27, following a request from an uninvolved editor to intervene in an edit war, I edit protectedGlass transition and blocked one editor for 24 hours over edit warring on that article. I have no knowledge of the subject at all, but the problem appears to be a fairly typical disagreement between two editors over article content and structure. The editor who I blocked has said she'll be away for a short time. Meanwhile, I'm getting nowhere at all with trying to determine the rationale for the other editor's preference for his version and with trying to create some kind of consensus. I have posted requests at RFC, 2 relevant project talk pages, and 2 related article talk pages as well as at theWikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page section related to the dispute, but so far no other editors have provided any input. A third, apparently otherwise uninvolved editor is urging me to revert to the preferred version of one of the involved editors; meanwhile, other editors have said that his editing has caused problems on other science-related articles. My repeated requests for discussion and consensus building have been met most recently with a bewildering technical mini-essay that, to my mind, accomplishes nothing. My concern is that the protection will expire and the edit warring will simply resume. Assistance most welcomed.Exploding Boy (talk)21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you posted this, several new editors who may help find a consensus version seem to have come by. I hope this is true, as I suspect that quite a few of us will be as lost in the subject as you are. Perhaps the thing to do here is step back and see if your requests for assistance from the various project pages will result in forward progress among the regular editors in the area? If several of them reach consensus, it may be easier to identify the odd man out if edit warring resumes. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For some tangantally related events, please seehere,here, andhere. At the core is the same two warring "experts" as at the transition page listed above. Short summary, Editor A and B are warring about the page. B files an AFD on the page for a number of reasons, including almost as an aside two links of possible copyright violations. I see the copyright allegations while doing deletion sorting, quickly validate that they do indeed appear to be violations, and that the bulk of the article was added in a single initial edit. IMHO the entire article is thus suspect for copyright, and I hit CSD G12 on it. Editor A complained to his mentor, who then engaged me on my talk page, with the end result of me userifying the deleted article to the mentor's user space, with a promise that the copyright violations would be cleaned up.
I still do not know really what to think of this all. Editor B has expressed that, to him, the copyright issues are of lessor import. To me theyare a serious issue, and I really do not know what to make of them. I want to AGF, but I see the hints of what could be a major copyright issue. OTOH, the subjects are highly technical, and the original sources, if there are such, may be offline books, and thus hard to pin down. All in all a mess, and I have no real idea where to go with it next, if anywhere. -TexasAndroid (talk)18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, TexasAndroid. There has been some additional discussion on the talk page since I posted this, which is good, so for the moment I'm leaving it as is--the protection is set to expire in a couple of days anyway. If there are copyright issues, however, then the copyvio portions of the article should be removed immediately per the policy. The highly technical aspect of the subject is another problem with the article, as it seems to me that it's not being addressed to a general audience, but rather to a specialist one.Exploding Boy (talk)22:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing exists that I can see that currently violates the copyright poli, but I am going to take my time with this and evaluate fully before I repost it to the mainspace for logger9. If you guys see anything in any article or draft article, please blank (or better yet, comment out) that section so that it may be rewritten.NW(Talk)01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that per the policyclear copyvios must be removed. Suspected copyvios can be tagged for further investigation.Exploding Boy (talk)16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
With all of the death hoaxes in the past week I think its time we sorted out our consensual policy on this matter. I've created a one-line article atCelebrity death hoax and created anRFC to go with it. Interested editors (including admins) are invited to give their opinions.Manning (talk)00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Um. Was it your intent to create that page in mainspace, rather than in project space? I think the latter would be more appropriate if the goal is discussion of policy.SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure if RfC might be more appropriate for this, butUser:Ezhiki has requested I post here.
Ezhiki has created an infobox at the top ofWP:Userboxes/Politics which carries a recommendation against the use of userboxes indicating "support for a pro-fascist, far-left or far-right ideology".
Ezhiki citesthis discussion withUser:Dc76 on his (Ezhiki's) talkpage as evidence of a consensus in favour of the box, but it the idea doesn't seem to have been raised in that discussion, and there doesn't seem to have been any (open) opportunity for other input before the box was put in place.
The box has now been there for at least six months. Three editors have objected, and I have asked Ezhiki to remove the infobox, but he refuses, claiming that he was properly discharging his duties as an admin by putting it there and that it is up to me to post here if I object. You can see the discussionhere.
My view is that for a big yellow notice like that to be stuck on a page, there should be a prior process of presenting a draft and gaining a consensus (perWP:DISCUSS) and that the MoS for infoboxes should be followed. Ezhiki should remove the box and instead set that process in motion.WP:BOLD does not apply, because this is not about mainspace.
I don't think it matters, BTW, whether the basic idea of the box is a good thing or a bad thing. My point is that it isn't appropriate for one editor to create an infobox which gives a misleading impression that it reflects policy and the views of the community when no process has been gone through.
If I am right, I would be grateful if someone could explain this to Ezhiki.
I just want to clarify that I do not citethis discussion as the evidence of consensus. I cite it as the base on which an (administrative) decision to create and post the big yellow box was made (in order to remind editors of astanding guideline). Other than that, FormerIP's assessment of the essence of the conflict is correct (although I obviously disagree with the arguments he set forth), and I would wholeheartedly welcome further comments regarding the situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:45, June 26, 2009 (UTC)
I might perhaps approve of some of the sentiment, but not so dramatically prominent. No one ed. ought to in this way assert ownership over a policy.DGG (talk)16:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Administrators are supposed to serve as the first line of defense when enforcing/promoting/educating about existing policies and guidelines. How are these actions "ownership"? If, when doing the said enforcement, I stepped over a line, I would appreciate being explained where the line is and what I did wrong—that's precisely the intent of this inquiry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, June 26, 2009 (UTC)
The intent of the rules onWP:USERPAGE is to keep people from having offensive or disruptive material on their userpage, not to prohibit people from stating their political affiliations in itself. In other words, if you can find a way to state that you support, say, ethnic cleansing in an inoffensive manner, then you can have that statement on your userpage; likewise, if state your support for a moderate, mainstream cause in a way that causes people to have reasonable concerns, then you have to remove it. IMHO, I don't see why anyone feels the need to announce their political, social or sports loyalties on their userpage: doing so always risks the charge of aconflict of interest & keeping people from assuming good will. --llywrch (talk)19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that much is obvious—I myself wouldn't go as far as to pronounce every single box onWikipedia:Userboxes/Politics to be "offensive or disruptive" (every one of them is, however, completely and utterly useless, in my opinion). The crux of the dispute is whether the big yellow banner at the top of WP:Userboxes/Politics should stay there (as a reminder of WP:USERPAGE and overall collaborative philosophy of the project), or if it should be taken down, toned down, or completely re-designed. From those in favor of taking/toning it down, the only thing I want to hear is a good, coherent explanation of why having a collection of userboxes in question does not fly in the face of WP:USERPAGE and the spirit of constructive collaboration. From those who think I myself am "possessive" of this banner I would like to hear a suggestion of other ways in which WP:USERPAGE can be enforced in regards to this particular collection. That's all there is to it, really.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, June 26, 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment of the big yellow box, it is however, very yellow. On a related matter I believe that these and ideally all non-wiki related userboxes should go. Ideally we are here as wikipedians, identify ourselves through our actions and leave partisanship for sports and blogs.Unomi (talk)19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I take the view that this is not primarily about userboxes and whether they are a good or a bad thing. Even if Ezhiki's userbox is deeemed to be the greatest thing ever, it should still go pending a chance for people to discuss it. No innovation without consultation.
Ezhiki: You ask for alternative ideas for enforcement, but this presupposes that enforcement is appropriate, and it also presupposes a particular interpretation of what exactly is to be enforced. Neither of these things seems clear cut, even looking at the few comments above. These are just two of the reasons why wider discussion should have been solicited before creating the box. Having to gain people's consent might take time, but I think it is essential to good policing. --FormerIP (talk)20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ezhiki, the userbox war was fought three years ago. It ended in a cease-fire when those opposed to userboxes learned that ridding Wikipedia of them would take too much time & effort to accomplish -- time most of them would rather spend on other things. Moreover, it's fair to say that a userbox collection can reveal one useful thing about the user: there appears to be a strong inverse correlation between the size of a Wikipedian's userbox collection & the number & quality of edits that Wikipedian has contributed. In short, if you want to do something that will truly improve Wikipedia, it won't be anything connected to userboxes. --llywrch (talk)06:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The box looks like policy rather than an opinion. I'd say first of all, a less glaring yellow, and second, a slight rewording reflecting its actual status. I personally think there is no problem with a user saying they are associated with a fringe party so long as the userbox does not exhibit sentiments. i.e. a neutral "This user supports/sympathises with theBulamakankan National Defence League", not a POV "This user thinks that Yoobalubian migrants are impure and should be exterminated on sight by any man with a gun."Orderinchaos05:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)P.S. The names are deliberately nonsensical as I wanted to get the point across without distraction.
If anyone could propose the new wording for the whole box, so that could be discussed, that'd be appreciated. As for the yellow, I have no problem with changing the color (I have the problem with not displaying a message :)).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:24, June 29, 2009 (UTC)
The warning box - if it is to remain at all (and I am not strictly convinced it should be) - needs to be toned down a lot so as to remain neutral. There is a somewhat dangerous precedent in our telling users which political views may or may not be "acceptable". For example, telling someone that a pro-facist opinion might be problematic is, while probablytrue, not exactly neutral. We should not be in the habit of judging political viewpoints one way or another. Instead, any such "warning" at the top of this page should be a neutral statement to the effect of "Placing a user box espousing any political affiliation or ideology on your user page, while not prohibited by any Wikipedia policy, is not recommended. This recommendation aims to remove one instance of disputes about settling a precise line of division between allowed and non-allowed content in userspaces. Although you are not required to follow this recommendation, if you do follow, you will be part of a large group of people that renounced posting similar content on their userpages for the sake of building a better environment. By refusing to post such userboxes you in no way renounce your right to hold an opinion."Shereth15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to post here so late, I was busy in real life. Personally,I think there is nothing procedurally wrong in one editor (doesn't have to be admin!) crafting a common-senserecommendation box. In fact the only reason why Ezhiki and not I did that is that I was lazy. (I am not an admin, never applied to be one, because I am not a computer professional and I don't like having regular duties more than what I already have in real life.) Ezhiki has not drafted an official policy, but a common-sense recommendation, and to check his common sense he discussed it with me. ThereforeI suggest we discuss here how to modify this box to be more useful. If all you are interested is following the "right procedure", then I respectfully ask to be shown when is the rule that forbids us doing good things without following "the procedure". Everything that is not explicitly forbidden (by WP or real life norms) is allowed.
On the other hand, the box can be improved, and why don't we all be bold and do changes. From the discussion above I don't see anyone contradicting anyone else content-wise. Why are you afraid to edit then? The bright yellow color can and should be changed. The wording can be changed also. I agree to take Shereth's edit as a basis for drafting a better text. I have two suggestions to improve Shreth's proposal:
It doesn't have to be so long. The shorter the better. The more to the point the better.
This box comes as an answer to a real problem, not out of the blue. Therefore, while I appreciate Shereth's very diplomatic formulation, I believe it is somewhat too diplomatic and not specific enough given the fact that this is not a US statement to Iran. If there is negative reaction to the box being too specific in mentioning pro-fascist, extreme left and extreme right, we can alter the text of the box, something noone can do to a diplomatic statement. "Extreme left" here is clearly a synonym to "hardcore communist", and "extreme right" is clearly a synonym to "hardcore fascist that do not like the term fascist". People that feel so strong about these ideas that they need to put them under their name or avatar, would not find a friendly environment when editing WP. (There is nothing wrong in that. WP is amainstream encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promoting fringe or "alternative" theories. Unfortunately, in reality there is big pressure from that direction.) IMO, there is no point in lying to such people and telling them they are welcome to join but not welcome to edit.Dc76\talk18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for promoting fringe theories (or fringe ideologies) - nor is it a place for promoting mainstream ideologies. Just because saying "I support Totalitarian Communism" is less popular than saying "I support the Republican Party" does not mean anything iswrong with it. If we are going to warn users against the pitfalls of endorsing political ideologies and platforms on their user page, the warning should apply to political ideologies equally across the board, and not just to those which we happen to find "extremist".Shereth18:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No, not warn users against the pitfalls ofendorsing political ideologies, I would be totally against that. Please note the very last, underlined sentence of the box. It was only when Ezhiki agreed that it is essential that I started to support his suggestion to suggest removing political boxes. "We" want to somehowwarnrecommend users againstthe pitfalls ofediting WP with a political ideology in mind. Political boxes would be absolutely ok if they would be on a forum's userpage. But WP userpages are userpages ofeditors. People write there what is relevant to them as editors. I do know that many people use their WP userpage as a sort of personal webpage (sometimes even uploading their CVs), and I would not support a drive to undo such things, because most such instances are totally innocent, like students that find it easier this way than to have to re-create the webpage at the start of every academic year. (They stop doing that when they grow a little older.) But let's be frank: such people almost never are promoting some ideology. My conclusion: it seems that I read the text of this box with one meaning, and you read it with another. Let's then edit it in such a way that there can be no confusion. Do not be hold back to edit this box.
I disagree with you about promoting mainstream ideology. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is the meaning one gives to these words. I believe that every time we talk about history, or social sciences in general, especially 20th century history, we do express a POV. IHMO it is impossible to talk about World War II without saying what was right and what was wrong. What we can do is make it very clear to the reader where the right/wrong assumption lies, so that the (intelligent) reader can trace the entire logical chain. Of course, I agree that we can write "World War II was a war faught by humans between 1939 and 1945 as a result of which 50 million people died." But that would be too dry, because we could not mention such obvious things as who and how started the war, who and where has committed war crimes, including holocaust. I am afraid that even the number of casualties and the start and end date could in some interpretations be regarded as non-neutral. Therefore I don't believe that neutrality is the key feature of WP, but information given inneutral tone, information that reflects themainstream understanding of things, and that is presentedclearly enough so that the reader knowswhat things exactly the mainstream interprets and how. However, I would like to repeat that this in my view has nothing to do with the box we are discussing. It is nothing more than my general regard at things. I am sincerely convinced I am right, but I am known to have committed errors of thought in the past (to put it diplomatically :-) ), so pls do not be held back to contradict me, I would think seriously about the meaning of everything you tell me, and do my best to understand what you mean.
BTW, originally me and Ezhiki came at this issue because I had a userbox saying that I support independence of Chechnya, which is nothing ideological, nothing extreme. In our discussion I had to ponder about one thing: how important is this belief of mine to me as editor? did I ever made one edit based on that? I understood that it is illogical to put on the userpage anything political, even support for a mainstream party. Because it is one's human integrity, not political views that are important to being a good editor. Human integrity is important because we trust editors to copy correctly when they cite sources, when they summarize in good faith meanings of larger texts, even if one has a very specific opinion about the issue, when they create articles based on logical (as opposed to political) organization of the subject matter, etc.Dc76\talk20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your well worded response. In order to keep things on track, I will point out that (unless we are trying to broaden the scope of this discussion) the original concern is about a recommendation with regards to the addition of certain politically-themed userboxes to one's user page. Without touching upon neutrality in general, user's editing habits, or any additional content that is allowed on user pages, it is my assertion that it is inappropriate for this "recommendation" box to single out certain types of politial viewpoints. At its root, the existing infobox is telling users to consider avoiding the use of userboxes that endorsecertain political viewpoints. My point is to simply say that, in the interest ofneutrality (which is, after all, one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia), any recommendation to avoidcertain politically-themed userboxes should, in fact, be a recommendation to avoidall politically-themed userboxes. Even something as simple as "To promote harmonious editing among Wikipedia editors of differing backgrounds and opinions, please consider avoiding the use of the following politically themed user boxes" would be a vast improvement over what exists currently.Shereth20:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be partly satisfied if wording more like that proposed by Shareth can be achieved, which means two things:
Not arbitrarily singling out particular points-of-view deemed extreme.
Not making a "recommendation" where the provenance of the recommendation is unclear.
However, one thing that strikes me is the claim by Dc76 that what is not forbidden is allowed, and his request to be shown what the procedure is. There are two green-checked procedures which I think are relevant. FirstlyWP:DISCUSS sets out that an infobox should be presented first as a draft for discussion, but this has been bypasssed in this case. Secondly,WP:Manual of Style (infoboxes) sets out that infoboxes should be created as templates and in a certain format. The effect of not doing this is that certain things cannot be done with the infobox (eg it cannot be transcluded and it cannot be AfD'd). Also, the policies are there because some feel that visual style is important, and this ought not to be disregarded.
You might think this is a bit lawyerly, but why should these rules be disregarded? If the job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly.
Lastly, there may be a legitimate case for dealing with Nazi and neo-Nazi userboxes differently, on the grounds that these userboxes are offensive on entirely non-political grounds (because they may cause general offence, contrary toWP:USERPAGE). I have great sympathy with this, but the whole category of political userboxes should not be dragged down on this account. --FormerIP (talk)23:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, there doesn't seem to be an appetite for actually removing the notice (I still maintain that that is what should really be done), but there seems to me to be a clear enough body of opinion that it should be changed, so that's what I'll do. You'll be able to see the resulthere, please comment here or on the talk page if you think I've got it wrong. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk)21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Miesianiacal
Many of you will remember the contretemps I had withUser:G2bambino now known asUser:Miesianiacal. Unfortunately it seems to be slowly brewing again.
Over the past little while I've been looking at articles I have contributed significantly to, with the aim of getting them bumped up a level or two in their assessment rating. One of these isArms of Canada, which per thehistory he has never edited, though he says he did in 2005-2008. He is now making edits (very, very poorly sourced edits in favour of his usual pro-monarchist POV, but that is relatively easily dealt with) to the article, and based on a discussion just starting there I can see his usual pattern starting again.
Without creating a whole lot of drama, it is worth noting that under his previous username, Miesianiacal wasblocked for three weeks for harassing and wikistalking me. The stress he caused was severe enough that I left all articles relating to Canadian and British monarchy--the very reason I finally created a login in the first place--in order to avoid his behaviour. But I predicted that he would slowly start coming to the articles I was working on. A couple of days ago heshowed up at the talkpage of an article he has edited twice[14][15], (under yet another previous username),whose tpage he had touched oncein 2006, and once inSeptember 2008 in order to leave a comment needling me further about a dispute we were having at the time.
Neither of these two articles have been anything like a focus of interest for Miesianiacal. For me, I gotArms of Canada back to GA status, and assistedUser:Ecjmartin in gettingCoronation to GA status; Ecjmartin,User:Surtsicna and I are currently working on improving the latter article even further, whileArms of Canada andanother article are just beginning the peer review process.
I asked politelyhere if, given the amount of stress he has caused me in the past, he could stay away from the article. His response has been, minus a lot ofverbiage, 'no', with anaccusation of article ownership. I asked forclarification three hours ago so as to be crystal clear. He edited continuously for an hour afterwars, so I can only assume he has seen the message.
I would like to ask for an uninvolved admin to please request that he stay away from me rather more forcefully. I have poured a lot of hard work into these articles and do not want to have to leave them, whereas for him not to edit them is hardly an issue, given how little he has contributed. I have assiduously avoided him for months and wish to keep doing so without having to walk away from something I have worked on. → ROUX₪22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the difficulty but on this occasion he doesn't appear to have broken any policies or guidelines. Try to ignore his needling, and amend poorly sourced contributions appropriately and sensitively.DrKiernan (talk)09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is knowing his pattern of behaviour, particularly his pattern of behaviour towards me, and the amount of stress it causes me. I cannot work on this article knowing that he is going to show up again. Given his history of behaviour towards me I do not think it is inappropriate to request that he stay away from the articles in question. The bad-faith/unsubstantiated accusation of ownership is also concerning. → ROUX₪17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Without knowing anything of the history behind this (sorry), it appears indeed inappropriate to request that he stay away from the articles that you want to work on. Such a request does come close to an assertion of ownership, and our policyWP:OWN is rather clear in that regard. As long he does not violate any norms of conduct - and I can find no fault in his replies to you that you link to - I see no grounds to impose any restrictions here. On the other hand, if there were concrete evidence of wikistalking, that would be sanctionable, but with blocks rather than article bans. Sandstein 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with the history then, as it will explain the problem. For the quick version, please see [his block log (three weeks by Fut.Perf for harassing me,RFC/U on his behaviour (and in the purposes of full disclosure the retaliatory one he filed on mehere), and the last AN thread regarding him ane mehere; note please that I had to leave all monarchy-related articles due to his behaviour; other users (note Franamax' comment at the last link,"My interactions with G2b on this wiki have been limited - in large degree, because one of my goals has been to avoid interactions with G2b[Miesianiacal now] on this wiki.") have had markedly similar experiences with him. I don't wish to turn this into another RFC/U on him; I just want him to leave me alone to edit in peace. He drove me away from an enormous swath of articles, and I am just asking him to leave me alone where I edit now. → ROUX₪19:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
And indeed I didpredict that he would start doing this (showing up at articles he has never or barely ever touched that I edit; relevant quote:"I can't edit the one article area I have left--heraldry, specifically Canadian--in peace, because I know sooner or later he's going to set his sights on it." That had been sent in a private email toMayalld as noted, while I had briefly left the entire project due to a complete lack of interest in anyone dealing with his chronic tendentious editing. It has even been pointed out to me via email recently (~4 weeks or so) that he is doing on at least another page exactly what he pulled with me and countless other users; wikilawyering, refusing to provide sources when asked directly, arguing around the issue, misrepresenting sources, using biased sources to support his POV, etc etc. Given that so many months have passed since I started avoiding him and he isstill behaving in exactly the same manner, I cannot face trying to get a couple of articles to FA status knowing that he is incredibly likely to come and do the same thing, as indeed he has already started doing atTalk:Arms of Canada#In Right of Canada. All of this is why I am asking for him to be explicitly required to stay away from me. In case there is any concern, I will happily continue staying the hell away from him, away from articles regarding the British and Canadian monarchies (apart fromCoronation, which only tangentially touches on the subject and is mentioned in my initial complaint above), and will in short not touch any articles he regularly edits or could be presumed to edit on a regular basis (Canadian/British monarchy, Governors and Lieutenants-general, and so on) even if he has not yet edited them. → ROUX₪20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
←I have been asked to comment here by Roux as I am very aware of the history here. After reading over the thread I feel that I must echo the majority of the statements made by others above. Those being, I have yet to see any policy violations on Miesianiacal's part, and simply editing the same article as another person whom he has had previous issues with is not against the rules. That said, I can see where Roux is coming from. After almost a year of blocks, RFC/Us, AN/I threads, and variousprobation requirements the likely hood that both Roux and Miesianiacal will interact in a positive manner is unlikely (though, I note there have yet to be any large conflicts for close to a year). Roux, I think the answer is this: There is little that can be done to stop Miesianiacal from editing the same articles that you do (though I will note it would be wise for him to try and do so), and I think you should give this a try. So far he has not made any disruptive edits, something that you should welcome and until he does you should try and edit in "harmony" (wow, that sounds cheesy) with him. If there becomes an issue, feel free to contact me or take the situation back here. And Miesianiacal, please keep doing what you have been doing. None of us want to go through "that" again.Tiptoetytalk02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe you or anyone else who has commented here understands the sheer amount of stress he has caused me and continues to cause by showing up. So, alright, based on feedback here and a couple via email, it seems that nobody cares that this is a problem. Someone else can take those articles to FA status. Tiptoety, 'that' is also happening again,here, amongst other related places. → ROUX₪04:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Roux, please don't say that. I think I can understand and sympathize with the amount of stress working with Miesianiacal gives you...but I guess I am at odds as to what to do about it. I can not just tell him to stop editing any article you have touched, nor can I block him for making you stressed out. I guess I should ask, what would you like to see happen here? As for "that", can you link me to a specific thread?Tiptoetytalk05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't asking forany article I've touched, just a specific topic area that he has hitherto showed little to no interest in, so it wouldn't be much of a hardship for him. As it is, nothing can/will be done so I have removed the articles from my watchlist. As for 'that', starthere and keep going into the vote section below. His behaviour there--especially refusing to provide any sources--is precisely the same as thathere andhere, eight months ago, and God knows how many before that. Nothing about his behaviour has changed, which is why I need him to either be required to leave me alone (declined), or have to leave the articles, as I have done, in order to avoid getting sucked into the same mess all over again. I accept that no administrators will do anything about this, so I have done so myself. → ROUX₪05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Roux, I believe I know what you are feeling. Despite how I might sometimes come over I also feel stress when other editors revert my work for reasons I believe are unfair. I suspect I'm not the only one active on Wikipedia who does. My reaction, if the exchange is too stressful, is to simply move on to another article: Wikipedia has almost 3 million of them, almost all of which are in need of some attention. If this person follows you there, jump to another article once or twice more; if he follows, then you have him for Wikistalking; if not, then you are rid of him, & after a few months' time return to the original article & resume your work. --llywrch (talk)19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Llywrch, it's not about being reverted. It's a pattern of behaviour that has been going for nigh on four years now with no indication of stopping; intense POV-pushing, wild misrepresentation of sources, arguing in circles, refusing to provide sources when directly asked. I have already left the articles in question. → ROUX₪20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Gaelcholáiste Reachrann
Could someone take a look atGaelcholáiste Reachrann? Again and again, going back to March 2009, IPs, as well asUser talk:SkynetBot2201 once (SkynetBot is already blocked) have been persistently inserting "due to claims of abuse" or "claims of sexual abuse" into the same sentence about the school being reported in the national media. May well be the same person with a shifting IP coming back every few days. Thanks.Tameamseo (talk)21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted back to the last clean version (yours) to remove the defamatory edit. As this has been going on for just short of four months with three distinct IP addresses involved, I have semi-protected for one month. We will need to watch for accounts being created to continue this vandalism. --Malcolmxl5 (talk)21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. A Man In Black's (AMiB) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. AMiB is topic-banned from theArticle Rescue Squadron. AMiB is placed on a standard editing restriction for one year. Ikip is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing and from directing rude comments to users with whom he is in dispute. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.AGK23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it then. Another winner from ArbCom which will cause more detriment to the encyclopedia. Well done, everyone.Black Kite18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, becauseeveryone knows that socking, incivil, edit-warring, block-evading administrators are net positive producers.Jclemens (talk)20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And oddly enough, my comments were absolutely nothing to do with the sanctions on AMIB himself - but clearly your mileage may vary on that one.Black Kite22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Since that time, a number of sockpuppets have shown up, both confirmed and suspected (WP:DUCK has apparently proved a reliable principle with this user). All have allgone the way of the original account; relevant links are in the above template.
The latest account,Akemi Loli Mokoto(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), wasblocked by me on 25 June this year following a report on ANI, now archivedhere. Initially this was a username block - I felt that 'Loli' was an inappropriate reference, given their userpage advocacy of lolicon (and related off-site activities found via googling the username). Their actual edits, however, seemed ok. During the ANI thread it transpired that this account was another Saikano sock, so I reblocked indefinitely. However, betwixt blocks and missed by me, the user had managed to get anunblock request in where they disclosed their former activities and made an apology and request to be allowed to edit Wikipedia legitimately once again. The talkpage of the Akemi Loli Mokoto account has been unprotected (thanks Hersfold, I forgot!) so they can follow through their unblock appeal, and some dialogue has since taken place. Their latest, and apparently last-ditch, appeal wasthis afternoon.
I believe the user is sincere in their wish to contribute positively to Wikipedia, although I have some serious reservations about their personal beliefs and in what form these may manifest if permitted to resume editing. I'm aware that my distaste for their preferences is influencing my judgement, so, in the best tradition of passing the buck, I hand this one over to the community...EyeSerenetalk17:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nihonjoe - I realise you were handling the unblock request, but as your last post was a while ago I have to admit I thought they'd dropped off your radar (for which I apologise). Do you believe there are more than they've already admitted to? I suppose a CU might be useful.EyeSerenetalk19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a disruption between editors. A discussion can befound here. I am not involved with the dispute, and am not sure of all the details. It appears to be a possible COI and series of Personal attacks. Editors have turned to me for help and I have none to offer. Is there any suggestions that can be given to them to help them out? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd get involved but this nonsense has been going on for months. As I notedbefore,User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is trying to clean up some walled garden of buzznet articles, and keeps getting accused of a COI because everything thinks he lives in LA and personally hates them. The fact thatone of the subjects in question keeps on going on about how he think that Hullaballoo is "editing from a library a few miles away from my home" and so shouldn't be allowed near his articles is how far this is going. On one side we have an editor who is aggressively cleaning up a bunch of articles (most BLPs) in accordance with policy, not just these articles. One the other side, we have a group of SPAs who want things likewedding speeches inserted into these articles and will filesockpuppet reports at the drop of a hat. (realWP:AGF there from Granny). Gordonrox24, do you have any ideas as to what to do? --Ricky81682 (talk)20:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ban them all (not Hullaballoo, obviously; the disruptive SPAs), and get on with building an encyclopedia? → ROUX₪20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Would an outside admin like to consider it? On a serious note, I don't think this is going anywhere short of anWP:RFC or other method. If anyone else will wallow into the fun of these articles, I'll consider going back.I just don't want to deal with people likeUser:Tallulah13 (who clearly has NOT vanished]]). --Ricky81682 (talk)20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This has been going on for ages, and new threads appear here like clockwork. I don't know why admins haven't done anything about it, but liberal use of the Big Red Button with 'indef' selected would largely handle it. A CU could opine on rangeblocks. → ROUX₪20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm too involved, but one problem is the clear meatpuppetry coming by. What do you do with something likethis plusthis? We have 2 SPAs, an explicitly-stated COI (I'm guessing his editor would want more works published), and a smattering of personal attacks, and nothing approach a consensus. Block them all? Any attempt to tell them to knock that stuff off results in rounds of "YOU'RE A COI! YOU'RE A HATER!" and a new round of users, plusthe other character(s) I seem to have attracted (although he has an issue with me for a variety of reasons). --Ricky81682 (talk)00:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that if you or anyone else wants something done about it, youcome up with a detailed and specific set of administrative actions to take, rather than vague blanket suggestions whichat least two administrators have already declined to enact.Uncle G (talk)00:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Request block on Vandalism-only account
User:195.229.237.37Reverted an edit from this user today and noticed a few other warnings. Check his contribs and it appears that 100% of this users edits over the past year+ are vandalism. Granted they are spaced out, but the above fact stands. --MiloKral (talk)09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
IPs are not accounts, so they cannot be "vandalism-only accounts" (seeWP:Vandalism-only account for more information). In the future, however, if an IP or a user is vandalizing, you'll get the bets response posting it atWP:AIV. As for now, this IP has had only one recent warning, which doesn't warrant a block at this time. If the IP continues vandalizing after a final warning, please report at AIV.hmwithτ14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I do have some further questions however. WP:AIV does not apply to this case for the reasons you mention, granted. How is one suppose to handle IPs that fly under the radar by only vandalizing a couple times a month, but have history of vandalism nonetheless. It seems they fall through the cracks of the system since they do not qualify for for blocks in the short term, and as such also do not qualify for theCategory:IP addresses used for vandalism by avoiding short term blocks. Is there nothing that can be done in these specific circumstances?? --MiloKral (talk)23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Three separate but related topic ban proposals for NYScholar
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
NYScholar is community banned from editing the English-language Wikipedia. 22 editors supported the community ban proposal, whereas 7 editors opposed the proposal (75.86% supported the proposal). I analyzed the arguments of both sides. People who supported the community ban proposal gave solid reasons why NYScholar should be community banned.AdjustShift (talk)12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I closed the discussion at 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC). I analyzed the arguments of the both sides for about 50 minutes (12:00 UTC to 12:50 UTC).Maunus opposed the community ban proposal at 12:54 UTC. I missed his argument because by the time Maunus posted his argument, I had already finished my analysis. When we add Maunus' argument, 8 people opposed the community ban proposal. But, 22 people supported the proposal, and their arguments were strong. The rationale given by Steve Smith was very strong. 73.33% editors supported the community ban proposal. There is aconsensus tocommunity ban NYScholar.AdjustShift (talk)06:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
NYScholar does a lot of work on copyright issues. Unfortunately, he/she combines a very poor understanding of the relevant issues with zeal, persistence, and an absolute conviction of her/his own correctness, even in the face of unanimous disagreement from other editors. Most recently, this has manifested itself in discussions about an image ofHarold Pinter; these discussions can be foundhere,here,here, andhere. It has become apparent to those of us participating in the discussion that NYScholar does not understand eitherfair use orWP:NFCC, continuing to make the same point (that the disputed image is under copyright, which is acknowledged by all) in numerous lengthy and often difficult to decipher posts. This has been an issue with NYScholar for some time: to see older examples, seethis discussion and pretty much these entire talk pages:1, and2.
In light of this continued pattern of behaviour, I do not believe that NYScholar is ever likely to be able to contribute usefully to discussion of copyright issues, and that his/her involvement in such discussions is necessarily disruptive. Also note that I anticipate this section being overrun with lengthy posts very shortly, and so am taking the initiative to hive off a polling section immediately, notwithstanding polls being evil.Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
teb728tc 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC) In particular NYScholar should be banned from saying that an admittedly fair-use image may not be usedbecause the copyright owner does not agree to its use. (comment added —teb728tc22:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
There are very often free images of well known people in the public domain, and there is at least a decent argument that if someone was alive after 2000 that this will be the case. "Free use" is then a crutch for laziness. Please see[16] for discussion of one particular case.AKAF (talk)07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Er, what does this have to do with what's being proposed? So you don't like fair use images of recently deceased people; that's fine. There's room for a wide diversity of opinions on the extent to which fair use images should be used. Nobody's proposing topic banning NYScholar from copyright issues because of her/his beliefs; we're proposing the topic ban because NYScholar i. repeatedly makes flagrantly incorrect statements of fact, and ii. when told by literally everybody else in the discussion that these facts are incorrect, he/she refuses to budge. This has been, as indicated above, an ongoing problem for more than a year now, and not just with regards to fair use images (see, for example,here, where NYScholar disrupts a debate that he/she initiated by posting enormous amounts of irrelevant text on the subject of an entirely free image).Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)07:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It is the rather pertinent fact that "not liking" fair use images of (recently) deceased people is the default wikipedia/wikimedia position. Your position is hindered by being wrong on this topic, and there is a fair amount of precedent to show that for most famous persons that free images exist if only one is prepared to search. NYScholar may have made a pest of himself, but he happens to be right in this particular case. It appears that there is an ongoing acceptance on non-free images in the Harold Pinter article which is contrary to best practice. As far as the copyright discussion which you cite: Unfortunately on wikipedia "literally everybody else in the discussion" can be a bunch of 12 year olds in the school library, and so is hardly a great argument. I find his arguments on the image you cite persuasive, but interpretation of copyright law is not democratically decided.AKAF (talk)09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"My position"? As notedhere, I'm not even convinced that this image passes theWP:NFCC. This is not a debate over whether/when non-free images should be used.Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)18:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually there have been exhaustive attempts to find free images of Pinter on the web, both by NYScholar and others. I have five requests oustsanding using the boiler-plate image request emails, and have had three poltiely turned down.Jezhotwells (talk)13:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
He's wrong on many accounts, but that doesn't mean he needs a topic ban. Most actions seem to stem from the pastweek about a single image. While I admire his zeal, it certainly is misplaced. Other actions should be takenbefore a topic ban.— BQZip01 —talk02:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It’s not just a recent problem: I first encountered NYScholar's strange copyright theories in 2007 athere where he/she insists that the (1903) design of Nobel Prize medal is not public domain in the US. —teb728tc06:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand that tensions are rising due to the "Someone is WRONG on the Internet" effect, but I don't think a topic ban is an appropriate response. Though I believe NYScholar is wrong about fair use, the more relevant problem is NYScholar's attempted "ownership" of the article and its discussion, and so the article is the more appropriate scope for a ban.rspεεr (talk)07:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Given more background information about NYScholar's history of wiki-lawyering, I am moving to support.rspεεr (talk)20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Ssilvers should be along shortly to provide more detail on this proposed ban, on which I have no opinion. I'm just putting this here as a placeholder and to make people aware that it is also proposed (though I'm not aware of the proposed duration or scope).Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
NYScholar has presented a very seriousWP:OWNership problem atHarold Pinter. For many months, and even years, he/she has blocked all attempts of other editors to revise the article. In its current form,Harold Pinter is so difficult to wade through, and the citation format is so Baroque, that numerous editors have been discouraged from even trying. See, for example:[17] A peer review was recently opened, but the main suggestions about simplifying the referencing style were not accepted by this editor. NYScholar is so prolific, that he/she buries any objections under a flurry of talk page discussion so voluminous that it is nearly impossible to read (note the talk page's voluminous archives). A quick look at the footnotes inHarold Pinter will, I think, show the seriousness of the problem. As Steve Smith wrote with respect to the copyright issue above, Scholar edits with zeal, persistence, and an absolute conviction of her/his own correctness, even in the face of unanimous disagreement from other editors. His/her former mentor wrote:[18]. Another editor wrote:[19]. S/he also removes other editors comments from the talk page if he does not deem them relevant. See, e.g.,[20]. Since NYScholar's last ban[21], s/he has continued to bar other editors from working on the article] [Updated evidence. --Ssilvers (talk)05:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)].
In light of this continued pattern of behaviour, I do not believe that NYScholar is able to contribute usefully to theHarold Pinter article, and I believe that his/her involvement in the article is disruptive. Since the article requires so much repair, I suggest a ban of some number of months to permit other editors a chance to try improve the article without his/her interference. --Ssilvers (talk)23:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Will Beback: This user has made 2765 edits to the article, while the second busiest editor has made just 60 edits. This editor has also made 2/3 of all talk page contributions, and a review of the recent ones shows ownership problems which the editor has failed to correct despite having them pointed out to him repeatedly. The editor is passionate about the topic and dedicated to improving the article. However this is a collaborative project and the editor does not seem comfortable with that reality. Will Bebacktalk 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) PS: I do not think the user should be allowed to edit the talk page nor other articles closely related to Pinter. Will Bebacktalk21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Abd (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) However, I'm uncomfortable with the total exclusion of NYScholar, who should be able tosuggest changes. Page ban to the article may be more appropriate, with self-reverted edits to the article allowed; in that way, NYScholar may be able to efficiently suggest article changes, but they must be "seconded" by another editor and accepted directly or with modification. I have seen this result in improved cooperation, it forces the "expert," who may, indeed, know more about the subject than other editors (which explains at least part of the voluminous discussion), to engage and convince them instead of merely overpowering them. Tl;dr editing to the Talk page is also a problem, but there are ways of effectively addressing the legitimate part of objections to this. Overall, NYScholar should find and keep a mentor, who should have the ability to suggest to the administrator who closes this ban, and who should be responsible for maintaining and interpreting it, that NYScholar be further restricted, or that the restrictions be lifted, without further ado. If he cannot find such a mentor, acceptable to the closing administrator, that should be a sign to him that he's the problem, or that the world isn't ready for him. --Abd (talk)13:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
teb728tc22:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I hesitated to endorse this ban, but having read NYScholar’s comments below, I see that NYS *does* think (s)he owns that article.
I am disappointed to see that the mentoring has failed and that we are back here with the same problems once again. I endorse the proposals here, but I must note that in reference to Abd's comments above about "self-reverting edits" for page banned users, I would caution any such editor from doing this as it does not have the support of the community and is likely to wind up with such an editor being blocked (and it's worth noting that Abd ended up blocked for doing exactly that). When a user's disruption gets to the level of requiring the community to step in and issue bans, there are serious problems and flouting a page ban with self-reverting edits is likely to end up with that editor blocked and users who make any edits to pages they've been banned from - self-reverting or not - do so at their own risk. If NYScholar ends up page or topic banned, I expect that to mean that he will not edit those pages, period, or risk being blocked, and that is what I am endorsing, not some sort of get out of jail free card wherein he continues making edits but self-reverts them so a friend can come along and restore his edits for him, thus continuing his problematic behaviour via proxy. Even if this kind of thing had broad community support (it doesn't) in NYScholar's case it would be extremely problematic due to the sheer volume of edits he makes flooding pages - 2765 to this article alone and 2/3 of the talk page's total edits. No, banned means banned. And perhaps if his flood of edits can be controlled other editors will be able to go in and make progress and reach some consensus for resolving some of the problems on that page.Sarah02:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Not for "being wrong", but for "ownership" and repeated inability to discuss the article constructively.rspεεr (talk)07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Serious ownership issues, failure to discuss agreements with other editors (I just took a look toHarold Pinter's peer review). Myself, I saw problems with refusing to accept the fair use policy on images, and readding wikilinks multiple times after multiple editors removed them and explained why they shouldn't be there. Also, in the talk page, I see him making tl;dr replies that don't address the issues at hand. --Enric Naval (talk)11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse for the time being, until he has demonstrated history of good editing practices elsewhere. (Also think the block should explicitly cover any Pinter-related article and not just the main one).DreamGuy (talk)21:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
But let's not confuse this with support for his actions. A short term block for disruptive behavior is in orderbefore we go all the way to a ban.— BQZip01 —talk02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I spent several weeks working collaboratively throughout the late summer/fall of 2007 with a good article reviewer namedWillow [need to find user link later (did so now)] (she is possibly still inactive as she has been for the past few months) to bringHarold Pinter through its "good article" review, which was successful in October 2007.User talk:WillowW/Archive11#Harold Pinter (cont.)
After Pinter's death was announced (25 Dec. 2008)User:Jezhotwells, who at that time had recently returned to Wikipedia, entered the article (which had been stable for a very long time) and began to complain vociferously and continually about its prevailing citation style and other things; whenever I and other editors did not support Jezhotwell's views, the editor would file RfC and [mediation] requests and [various] project page complaints about me and the article, getting very little to no support. The RfC ended with two editors finding the citation style "reasonable" and agreeing with what I said about it, respectively; then Jezhotwells took the matter to "peer review", where some editors found the article of very high "quality", while Ssilvers jumped on Jezhotwell's bandwagon about citation style. The comments Ssilvers makes are all taken out of context, and highly partial. The article stands on its own two feet. One can simply read it and work to "improve" it, and then see if those edits stand up to further editors' consensus. I've contributed most of the work on the article (between approx. June 2006 and now), including providing the source citations; the material is there. Other editors are free to work on it further. It's been a great deal of work, unappreciated by Jezhotwells and Ssilvers, and some others, but appreciated by Willow and several other editors, including those commenting in the current "peer review". To ban the main contributor with the most expert knowledge of the subject from working on the article is, in my understanding of "improvement" and how Wikipedia works, wholly outrageous and even highly offensive. It shows a total lack of respect for hard work. There is no way that I am preventing anyone from working on the article. They seem to choose to want to talk about it in talk pages and review pages rather than actually to contribute work to editing it. They are of course free to work on it. I will be engaged in doing other work outside of Wikipedia, as my talk page notice states. --NYScholar (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC) [Added link to WillowW's user name and to her talk page w/ good article rev. disc. for convenience of others here. These links are provided already inTalk:Harold Pinter. --NYScholar (talk)03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)]
Please see the 2 secs. onTalk:Harold Pinter/archive7#RfC: Article style secs. re: its current citation (MLA) style. [One sec. was inadvertently archived prematurely and restored right afterward (contrary to Ssilver's insinuations above.]: only 2 editors responded to Jezhotwell's RfC:
(1) IceCreamExpress said that it was "reasonable" but that s/he could "imagine other choices that would also be reasonable": (added the dir. quotations for convenience here:)
Use of MLA citation format seems like a reasonable choice to me. Did you have a different template in mind? I can imagine other choices that would also be reasonable. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
IceCream's request of Jezhotwells for suggestion of an alternative ("different template") got no reply.
(2)In response to my explanation of the style (see the link to the RfC if wish to read it), Levalley wrote:
"I just want to say that I agree with pretty much everything NYScholar says (which is a rare moment in time, that I agree with anyone and don't feel like adding a lot). Consistently is the main standard. If you start holding we who actually want to fix and add substance to articles to arcane disputes about style and citations, well, Wikipedia is the same as dead. As long as it is consistent, any reader of English can figure out what is meant, even the marginally competent. I am not at all being uncivil, I mean this in the most sincere way possible.Levalley (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley" (Q added from RfC sec. 1 link above).
I have stated that I have no intention of participating in any "featured article" review. What happens to the article as it goes through that process will have no input from me. I do not see how my views of citation style have anything to do with that process. I have supplied a consistent MLA style sheet format for the article. What happens to it after it might be "stable" enough to be nominated for a FAC, has nothing to do with me. I stated that in the peer review. (cont.)
How I am preventing anything I do not know. I provided enough consistency in the style citations so that anyone can read them and understand them. But one has to be willing to do so. What I see is obstinant unwillingness to accept the views of the editors responding in the RfC. I can't do anything about other people's attitudes. They are responsible for them. I can only say that I worked hard to provide content and a consistent format for the article. If others do not appreciate that, it is not my responsibility to try to change their minds. They themselves have to be flexible enough to adapt to changing disciplinary documentation styles, which are continually evolving in writing and scholarly and critical research. --NYScholar (talk)01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Without wading into any of the other issues raised here, it looks to me as though the citation format used in the article is largely unlike that used at any other article I have seen on Wikipedia. It is unnecessarily complicated for the layman to follow; the preferred format (by extensive usage across Wikipedia) is for statements to be cited to specific portions of specific works. This has the double advantage of being extremely simple for readers (who outnumber editors by many orders of magnitude, so we must always remember to write for themfirst); click the convenient superscripted number[1], and get taken directly to the relevant entry in the references list, with either handy links to the reference itself or sufficient publisher data to enable the reader to find the reference online or in a library system. The second advantage is that stylealso makes it much simpler for editors to bothverify and edit/update content in the article. The citation style as it stands, while it does conform to MLA standards, is much better suited to academic essays that will be read by experts who in many cases will have at least a passing familiarity with the sources than to articles on Wikipedia which in the majority of cases will be read by laymen. As it stands now, readers must read the article, then go to a reference and read an exegesis on the references which support/disprove the statement in question, andthen go through a very long list of references to find the relevant work(s). This does a disservice to our readership, which is the overriding concern, as well as making it functionally impossible for other editors to add or edit references and content. Again, I don't wish to weigh in on anything else, but this problem alone calls for a large restructuring of the article to be more reader friendly, while still retaining the extensive sources used. //roux03:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly so. Unfortunately, NYScholar has been resisting all efforts by editors for over a year to change to a simpler and more WP conventional reference style. --Ssilvers (talk)04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an outright false statement. It's patently untrue. Jezhotwells didn't even come along to this article until Dec. 25, 2008. Up until then the article had passed a "good article review" in Oct. 2007,with MLA style in it.
Moreover, I've had made continual changesto accommodate Jezhotwell's various requests since late December 2008.In January 2009, as a result of all those efforts by me, Jezhotwells declared the article "vastly improved"; I suggest you look at the "mediation" s/he filed then [now archived in its talk page].
There is abuse in it directed at me which should not be there, but it is by someone who has not returned, and who has a history of engaging in such abuse of other editors.
Jezhotwells never even responded to the question addressed to him/her in the RfC as to what alternative style s/he wanted. Just read the talk pages and editing history. Apparently, Ssilvers has not takent the time to do that. Every time J. made a comment, I tried to respond by adjusting to the request.
My mentor Shell did not really take the time to follow all that was going on and just accepted Jezhotwells' version of the story. She was too preoccupied with personal things and lost her patience with the whole thing.
I have no interest in participating in any featured article review process with this article or any other article. How Ssilvers sees that as standing in the way of allowing other editors to edit this article I cannot fathom. I leave that to others when the time comes. --NYScholar (talk)06:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please address my concerns with the citation format, as outlined above, particularly with regards to the difficulty faced by editors wishing to edit content? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that was your goal; it's an unintended consequence. //roux06:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No, of course that was not my intention. I supplied content from a great number of print sources in my own personal library (I've a large collection). I have over 40 years of accumulated books, articles, and other sources, all of which are carefully documented in publications of my own and others. I cannot help the fact that print sources are the most reliable sources on Pinter (as on most literary subjects), but that is a fact. Online sources can be notoriously unreliable, repetitive, and cliched. Newspaper articles are hardly as reliable as carefully-researched peer-reviewed articles and books. They are simply easier for amateur writers to cite because they are online sources and more accessible, but they are not necessarily correct or accurate. Indeed one of the Guardian's reporters reporting on Pinter's Nobel has a significant error of fact in her article, and I won't link to it for that reason or cite it as a reliable source.
My goal was to provide content and documentation of source citations to verify it in a thorough account of Pinter's life and work (via the related articles too). If they are print sources, they have to be verified in articles and books from libraries or personal collections. I don't know how to address your concerns about what other editors, who do not have access to these cited souces are to do if they are adamant about changing the prevailing MLA style of citations in the endnotes and Works cited. I think that they need to be more respectful of the work already done, in my view, as it is being done by one of the principal authorities in this field (me). Instead of trusting my judgment, they have been maligning me in the most offensive manner. That is unfortunate. It is really not my inflexibility that is going to create future errors in this article; it is the inflexibility of other editors who know relatively little about the subject and their commensurate unwillingness to accept that an academic scholar knows enough to write a "good article" in Wikipedia. (Remember that the article already passed a "good article review" in the course of which it was already revised considerably. Then Pinter died, and the article needed considerable updating.
The other editors, by virtue of this kind of "ban" request filing and earlier incivilities toward me, have just made it so unpleasant for me to continue working with them, that they have forced me into a position of no longer wanting to take part in working on the article beyond its current stage prior to its possible submissin (later) as a featured article candidate.
Editing here is a voluntary act. I have not got the time to become further upset by this process, and I have decided not to take part in any feature article review that might go on in the future.
I have no advice other than to consult the sources cited. They are accurately and correctly cited. If they are print sources, one needs to use libraries and/or bookstores to obtain them. Otherwise, one will simply be mimicking (possibly plagiarizing from) already published online articles in other encyclopedia and websites, as often occurs in Wikipedia when reliable third-party sources are not consulted firsthand. The farther one gets from examining sources firsthand, the more likely to be mistakes that will mislead readers. I have already streamlined many of the notes. No one seems even to have noticed that; I did a lot of that work over the past few days. There are editorial interpolations visible in editing mode. If you go into editing mode, you will see them. I'm not sure I really understand the above editor's questions addressed to me. I am just guessing at what you may be getting at. If I missed it, please restate. In general, one cannot expect a general Wikipedia editor who is not a specialist in a field to have as much knowledge about the subject and the sources as an academic specialist in the field. This is the case with "Pinter studies": it is a field in which advanced level graduate students write Ph.D. dissertations citing sources written by people like me and my colleagues. This article is not written in "advanced academic idiom"; it is written for the general reader. But the sources are the quality of advanced Pinter studies. Some of them are the best available sources in this field. --NYScholar (talk)06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You didn't really address anything I said. At no point did I criticise thecontent of the references; the article seems excellently sourced. For anacademic essay, the format is, as I said, reasonable when one is presumably putting the work in front of experts who are already familiar with the subject. That is not the case with the vast majority of our readership, and the current citation format in the article is not only significantly more difficult for the layman, but is also incredibly difficult for editors to navigate around, as opposed to the Wikipedia-wide standard of using e.g.{{cite book}} to format references for statements in articles. I am thelast person on Wikipedia to complain about experts writing articles; frankly, we should be encouraging it. Our antipathy towards experts is stupid and self-defeating. But my concern is that with your obvious familiarity with writing for your contemporaries you have somewhat missed the fact that we are writing for laypeople--as well as making editing easier for each other whenever possible. It has been alleged that you are stonewalling attempts to move all the citations to the general sitewide norms; without commenting on whether or not that's accurate (and for the purposes of this question I simply don't care), would you be willing to work with other editors to bring the referencing for that article in line with what is practiced across the majority of the project? //roux07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of patently untrue, a summary of the mentorship might be helpful at this point. NYScholar agreed to mentorship last September after a discussion on AN/I about the possibility of a community ban.[22] Some of the issues were resolved, for instance, NYScholar no longer makes an issue of gender pronouns during discussion. Others we were unable to resolve, for instance the immediate accusations of abuse and personal attacks when someone disagrees with xem or the extreme persistence when NYScholar believes xemself to be correct. When the same problematic behavior occurred on the Harold Pinter article, I attempted to address the issue. I was a bit shocked when NYScholar's reply included a lengthy justification for the behavior mixed with a bit of martyrdom and finally even an attempt to shift blame to me.[23] I concluded that while NYScholar had said all the right things during the mentorship, in reality, no behavioral changes had occurred. Since I believed further work would simply break down again when a dispute arose, the mentorship ended on March 21.
NYScholar is capable of excellent, well-researched and well-written contributions. Unfortunately xe seems to be incapable of productively handling disputes over content and xir understanding of copyright misses the big picture; in fact, many of xir blocks for disruption have been over a misunderstanding of copyright issues as they related to Wikipedia and an unwillingness to concede to consensus.Shellbabelfish06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Shell: you misinterpreted my comments at the time and have not reread them, or accepted my pointing that out. I thanked you over and over at the time. But if you don't want to mentor me any longer, that does not mean that I didn't appreciate your earlier efforts. I did not blame you and don't for anything. But I know from my own knowledge of what I wrote where and when, that you were not able to read it and were not able to take the time (at that time) to deal with all this. The fact that I have taken my time to respond to the previous person's question has nothing to do w/ Shell, other than for me to say that the ban request initiator's references to her comments taken out of context do not take account of the entire situation at the time. I am not used to this kind of treatment, as I am a highly respected academic scholar in this field (Pinter studies) and it is painful to deal with the kinds of petty issues that I have been forced to respond to in these talk pages. I'm tired, and I'm hungry, and I'd rather log out for now. I took time to respond to the earlier comment, but I don't have time or energy to read Shell's in detail now. I'll read it another time. --NYScholar (talk)06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Needless to say, I'm not surprised that, once again, NYScholar thinks that they are the only one who comprehend the situation; the rest of us simply don't have the capacity understand such things. The assertion that I was short on time or didn't properly deal with the situation is a blatant falsehood designed to cast aspersions on my comments. I was initially drawn to mentoring NYScholar because I believed the facade of poor misunderstood expert just trying to get along on Wikipedia. Six months of mentorship was enough to thoroughly destroy my illusions in that area.
As you can see from comments here and on NYScholar's talk, when the proverbial shit hits the fan, NYScholar will make noises in all directions of taking a wikibreak, no time for Wikipedia, real life is more important, no further interest in working on the subject area etc. This statement is usually accompanied by a tldr explanation of how only NYScholar really understands the situation, everyone else is mistaken or mislead etc. Despite this you'll note that NYScholar never actually stops editing Wikipedia; these tactics are only used to avoid dealing with the disputed issues and make communication difficult. If history serves, NYScholar will next stop using talk pages and repeatedly blank their talk except to say that they are not available to deal with these issues.
I apologize for my unusual candor here, but this combination of smug self-righteousness and perfidious self-pity simply turns my stomach.Shellbabelfish04:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
NYScholar's apparent attitude is common among experts, who somehow imagine that they know more about the topic than the average Wikipedia editor, or even than all other Wikipedia editors. And they might be right. Definitely, it's a problem, but Wikipedia too often resolves the problem by tossing the expert, and the accuracy and neutrality of our content suffers. We should explore intermediate options which preserve and even value the expertise, but which place the expert where experts belong: as advisors. We should value advisors who are voluminous in their advice, but we should constrain and filter that. I appreciate it when my doctor takes the time to explain in detail to me why my opinions about my condition, based on my own research, are bogus, but I fire the doctor if the doctor tries to control my decisions. It is an error to expect NYScholar to filter himself, except as to civility, but it would not be an error to set up, for him, what might be called a "supervising editor," someone with rapport with him and the patience to read his discussions, but who also has the communication skills to mediate or advise him as to how to effectively persuade the community to accept what is valuable about his contributions. Experts are often poor communicators, it's part of the problem. Others specialize in communication and are good at it. Pending the discovery of such a supervising editor, NYScholar should be restricted to avoid disruption. Perhaps one of the editors who has supported NYScholar in the past will volunteer. --Abd (talk)13:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned, that's exactly what I thought when I first saw the issue and trust me, if you'd ever like to commiserate over the tangible loss to Wikipedia when experts decide its not worth the effort, I could probably chew your ear off. The reason I took this mentorship (btw, NYScholar sought me out) has to do with my experience working with experts, translating for them with others and even helping them develop skills to edit successfully here; many a night has been spent on the phone calming someone who's irate when their knowledge is met with rudeness or incomprehensible wiki-jargon. We may not like it, but Wikipedia, as is, isn't well suited for experts.
Anyways, long story short, two editors have tried exactly what you describe with NYScholar. Please look above and see how even now, NYScholar claims that all of this occurred because I just couldn't understand. You've interacted with me in many places before Abd - do you really think the case is that I was simply unable to understand any of the issues that occurred? That final incident which caused me to release NYScholar from mentorship was one in a long string of repeated issues that all followed exactly the same pattern: NYScholar and I would discuss strategies for working on Wikipedia and handling issues; xe would agree on how to handle things right up until an actual issue occurred at which time everything would go up in flames. I will help experts learn to operate here and be at their beck and call for issues that occur - I will not be their midden boy left to clean up messes they refuse to address or even accept an ounce of responsibility for.Shellbabelfish15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed community ban of NYScholar
I may have been hasty in proposing the topic ban above, in that I did not fully research NYScholar's history here. I have since done so, and I would like to propose an indefinite community ban of NYScholar forexhausting the community's patience. NYScholar's prior block history is here, so one can see that the problem goes back at least to 2006:NYScholar(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). The following is a brief history of NYScholar's major appearances on this board and ANI since May 2007:
February 2008:Block against NYScholar overturned.User:Hesperian blocks NYScholar for 24 hours for repeatedly and disruptively archiving threads on her/his user talk page while they're still in progress.User:Sandstein unblocks without discussion, which is the proximate cause of the ANI thread. However, it turns into a general thread about NYScholar's conduct and editing habits. During that discussion, the following editors participate:
Editors supporting Hesperian's block/agreeing that NYScholar's behaviour is disruptive:User:Crotalus horridus ("I think NYScholar should stay blocked, preferably indefinitely."),User:Hesperian ("[NYScholar's talk page archive] shows reams and reams of discussion from angry, frustrated people, who want a redress that NYScholar is denying them through what amounts to a low down dirty trick. If this is not disruptive, I'll eat my hat."),User:Pairadox ("it becomes almost impossible to work collaboratively with NYScholar."),User:B ("If NYScholar is going to abuse the privilege of archiving talkpage comments, then he needs to be placed on some kind of probation in that regards."),User:Orderinchaos ("a probation of some form should be the minimum expectation here."),User:Moondyne ("NYS is possibly the most frustrating editor I've come across here."),User:Sarah ("His talk page practices are massively disruptive."),User:Will Beback ("Inappropriate material should be deleted from either but appropriate material should not be removed whether by deletion or by overly-rapid archiving. If folks can't or won't deal with other users they should find a non-collaborative project."),User:SlimVirgin ("I'm afraid I agree with Crotalus that an indefblock might have been the best thing some time ago.")
Editors supporting Sandstein's unblock/disputing that NYScholar's behaviour is disruptive:User:Jossi ("Encourage the user to followWP:DR, or, if the behavior iwarrants it, start a userWP:RFC, so that the community can give him feedback."),User:Ned Scott ("Another bad block."),User:Sandstein ("I fail to understand how someone can be blocked merely for the act of deleting or archiving content on their talk page."),User:Philippe ("But archive it "early", when we have no guidelines about how long message should stay there? I can't see that as a disruption.")
July 2008:Conflict between NYScholar and Stuthomas4.User:NYScholar brings a complaint about personal attacks byUser:Stuthomas4 to ANI, though editors examining the dispute conclude that NYScholar is the problem. As a result of the discussion, he/she is blocked until she/he finds a mentor. The following editors participated in the discussion:
Editors supporting sanctions against NYScholar/Agreeing that his/her behaviour is disruptive:User:Stuthomas4 ("I believe that there are several users that will attest to the fact that NYScholar has driven many long-time and collaborative editors from this article through brow beating and the sheer mass of the number of edits."),User:Sarah ("I just looked at that talk page and it looks like NYScholar is once again being an obstructionist and driving people away"),User:ThuranX ("In addition to being a rampant obstructionist, NYScholar deflects all discussion by invoking various rules and policies."),User:Shell Kinney ("I would also have to agree with he above assessments of your behavior; you are very combative and skilled at winning by simply wearing down anyone who disagrees with you."),User:Hesperian ("NYScholar's management of his talk page is disruptive."),User:Seicer ("judging from the overwhelming consensus against NYScholar, that criticizes the editor for gross incivility/disruption, edit warring and refusal to discuss any changes, I would support an extended block."),User:Wikidemo (" The issue isn't bad faith versus good faith. Whether sincere or not (and there's no reason to doubt the editor's sincerity) their presence on Wikipedia has been disruptive, causing lots of grief and wasted time."),User:John Carter ("Neutral administrator supports block of above editor, based on previous discussion and discussion above."),User:Aunt Entropy ("Neutral editor seconds that emotion."),User:Moondyne ("NYScholar is incapable of getting on with the rest of the community."),User:Sandstein (" NYScholar does not appear to be able to work productively in a collaborative environment. I would support any sanctions imposed by an uninvolved administrator that would remedy this issue (including an indefinite block) until NYScholar shows clearly that he understands what the problem is and will act accordingly."),User:Orderinchaos ("I'd support [a community ban]]."),User:Viriditas ("Support longer block without an agreement to engage in mandatory mentorship.")
Editors opposing sanctions against NYScholar/Disagreeing that her/his behaviour is disruptive:User:Erik ("I think that much of NYScholar's edits have been excellent, but he/she seems unable to cordially discuss challenged edits, so the focus has moved from his/her contributions to his/her conduct with other editors... I do not believe that this...warrants a call for administrative action and possible blocks."),User:Steve ("...in response to comments from NYScholar that some have interpreted as not in the best spirit of collaboration. I happen to agree with that assessment of NYScholar's attitude, but I would urge that no action is taken at this time against either editor.")
September 2008:NYScholar issues revisited. NYScholar was eventually unblocked when she/he was adopted byUser:Ecoleetage. That arrangement lasted until August 2008, when Ecoleetage released NYScholar into the wild. In light of continued problems with NYScholar's editing, several users questioned this action. After discussion, NYScholar was remanded to the mentorship ofUser:Shell Kinney. The following editors participated in that discussion:
Editors opposing NYScholar's release/agreeing that his/her editing remained problematic/supporting sanctions:User:Wikidemon ("As you can tell I've suffered some bizarre and unpleasant encounters with this editor before. As judged through the filter of reading the text he types out on the pages here his behavior is simply not normal."),User:ThuranX ("I therefore support a community ban. All other avenues of recourse having been tried, and the clear demonstration of a lack of desire to comply being evident, there's no choice left but to 'ask' NYScholar to leave this project for greener pastures."),User:Sarah ("I'm really rather astounded that anyone could look at NYScholar's posts to this page and conclude that the problem is everyone else."),User:Gnangarra ("IMHO there is reason to re-instate the block."),User:Orderinchaos ("the immediate reversion of NYScholar to his/her/its/their/NYScholar's old behavior shows that NYScholar continues to be unable to work with others"),User:Aunt Entropy ("I would ask you to do three things: quit assuming bad faith while demanding others show you good faith, quit attacking others while demanding civility from others, and quit saying you are signing off when you don't.")
Editors supporting NYScholar's release/disagreeing that her/his editing remained problematic/opposing sanctions:User:Keeper76 ("I have personally had nothing but positive experiences with NYScholar."),User:JeremyMcCracken (" These issues aren't major problems in need of administrator attention."),User:Ecoleetage ("If there is any shred of decency out there, drop this matter immediately."),User:Erik the Red 2 ("NY is a good contributor, who has done many good things for this projects.")
Anybody wondering how Shell's mentorship of NYScholar went, need only examine the above comments from both.
I initially proposed a topic ban because I believe in using the narrowest possible sanctions that will address problematic behaviour. In this case, the narrowest sanction that will accomplish that is an indefinite community ban.Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)07:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse I'm sad to say that this user doesn't appear to be a good fit for Wikipedia - even though they are trying to operate in good faith and I am absolutely convinced that their disruption does not arise from an *intent* to disrupt, more an incapacity to comprehend how their actions are viewed by others. I'm not surprised to see them here again behaving in a similar fashion to previously over yet another editing topic, and there comes a time when one has to say "the level of drama and the amount of other user's time being consumed here is hindering development of the encyclopaedia and we should do something about it".Orderinchaos11:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. In July 2008 Isaid we'd be back here again within 6 months. NYScholar was again the subject of discussion just three months later in September 2008. Since then a mentor with the patience of a Saint has declared NYS is "unable to understand or accept your responsibilities in intra-personal communications with respect to Wikipedia and that further intervention is unlikely to produce a change in the problematic behaviors."[24] I endorse that sentiment and this proposal. –Moondyne12:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. My interactions with NYScholar have led me to conclude that, although NYScholar *wants* to make content contributions to WP, his/her actions amount toWP:OWNership; and s/he eventually reverts or overwrites the contributions of all other editors on the articles on which s/he works. Furthermore, even if his/her intention is to make good faith contributions, I must conclude that his/her tactics are *not* in good faith. S/he has been editing here since 2005 and has learned how to time his/her edits, wikilawyer and game the system, especially by burying everyone else's concerns in a torrent of repetitive and argumentative talk page comments and through extraordinary persistence. I also must sadly conclude that s/he is a liability to the Wikipedia project. --Ssilvers (talk)14:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse This user has contributed to many Wikipedia article and has much to bring to the project, BUT she/he has consistently refused to work collaboratively with editors and has resorted tobludgeoning and browbeating, deliberately not answering points raised by others, accusing others of bad faith, exhibiting extremeownership of articles and generally frightening away editors, e.g. here[25] and here[26]. Sadly I feel that the only course is a community ban which may hopefully bring home the point that this is a community project and relies on co-operation, rather than confrontation. I must confess that on one occasion, under what I felt was severer provocation, I resorted to abuse and was gently reminded byShell that that was not the way and I apologised for that abuse.Jezhotwells (talk)14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse As noted above by other editors, the question is one of collaboration and capacity for working collaboratively. TheWP:OWNership point, made above, is, I fear, inescapable. (Later: Apologies: was inadvertently not logged on: correct signature:Tim riley (talk)15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
Endorse. NYScholar has repeatedly demonstrated a vast gulf between the knowledge NYScholar possesses, and any responsible means to work with anyone else to get it into an article. The obstructionism via bureaucracy continues, the gender thing may have been 'resolved', but I doubt that its' anything but teeth-gnashing behind the screen now, because I doubt that NYScholar truly understands that issue. We may lose a smart editor, but we also lose one who doesn't even try to use talk apges to compromise, learn, or discuss.ThuranX (talk)17:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse with regrets. Shell seems to believe the situation is one which will not improve, and Shell is probably more patient and generous than I am.John Carter (talk)17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. I came across the issues with NYScholar and the Pinter article some months ago, and am saddened to see that no progress has been able to be made. This is a last resort. —Hex(❝?!❞)18:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, he doesn't fit in with the Wikimedia atmosphere. I feel bad, and I have regrets doing this, but it seems like he has left us with only this choice. –blurpeace(talk)20:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse - with reservations. I asked NYScholar a pointed yes/no question above about working with editors to address the citation issues and bring them into line with Wikipedia norms. He has not yet responded, though he has made around 50 or so edits since the question was asked. I can only presume, from perusing the voluminous diffs above, that he has no intent of doing so... which is really a crystal-clear answer of its own. Looking through his talkpage history (interesting to note howoften he archives), I have to concur with Shell Kinney above; he is simply uninterested in actually discussing issues and prefers to bury people in walls of text, while pretending to 'retire' or 'bee too busy' every time the heat gets turned up too high. This is without even getting into the intense wikilawyering--on his talkpage he implies that topic bans can't be implemented here because the header of this page doesn't mention them. While I deplore the loss of yet another expert, his expertise is not the issue here; the complete lack of interest in acting in a collaborative manner is. //roux20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse - last time was last and final chance paired up with an able mentor. Sorry to say, we are at an impasse...at this point it seems there's nothing more that can be done to enable this editor to work within a collaborative and collegiate atmosphere. 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) er...that was meAuntie E (talk)14:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse with regret. I hesitated to endorse even the ban onHarold Pinter, but having read NYScholar’s comments under that proposed ban, I see that NYS *does* think (s)he owns that article. It is a shame to lose NYS’s expertise. Perhaps (somewhat as Abd proposed above) NYS could accept an advisory role, allowing others to control presentation (without filibustering). But I doubt NYS would accept such a role. Based on the reported experience of NYS’s former mentors, I am confident that another mentoring arrangement would not work. —teb728tc22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse: Someone who's been indefinitely blocked on two separate occasions should get the point by now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. I've seen him add three tags (unreferenced, unbalanced, NPOV) to the top of an article, plus a bunch of citation tags within it, simply because he didn't get his own way over something trivial, usually to do with citation style, even when he's arriving at a stable article he's never edited before. If someone complains about it on talk, he has a tendency to archive. If they unarchive, he'll post a complaint about them elsewhere. If that person is an admin, he'll complain about admin abuse, and on and on.SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of NYScholar's content contributions have been very good and are very valued, but ultimately Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if one cannot collaborate with others in a constructive manner and can't or won't find a way to get along with other contributors the community inevitably reaches the point of having to step in and make difficult decisions. In NYScholar's case we'd be losing a good content contributor, but what else can be done? I don't see any point in trying a third mentorship and it seems as we've exhausted all other options, NYScholar has exhausted the community's patience. We've spent huge amounts of time on this and the situation doesn't seem to have improved at all, despite the best and commendably patient efforts of Shell. Reading this latest dispute, I get a sense of "same story, different faces" as we're back here again with a new cast of names complaining about the exact same issues with NYScholar that numerous other editors have complained about in previous disputes. NYScholar continues to refuse to accept responsibility and continues to dismiss complaints, accusing other editors of being at fault, of holding vendettas, of being intolerant and unaccepting of experts and academics, etc and of course, NYScholar is always in the right and the other editors simply lack NYScholar's insight and understanding of issues. Unfortunately he seems unable to collaborate and get along with anyone who disagrees with him and doesn't yield to him, from disputes ranging from pure content disputes through to something of a merely personal preferential nature such as the choice of reference formating style. It is disappointing to read the discussions about the reference formating which have a sense of ego and a persistent refusal to compromise or to accept problems here lie with anyone but the "mostly amateur editors". Wikipedia isn't the right place for everyone. The fact that we continue to have theexact same problems with whole new sets of people, despite very lengthy discussions and two attempts at mentoring, leads me to believe that Wikipedia and NYScholar are simply not a good fit for each other. While I strongly agree Wikipedia could do better in working with and embracing academics, I reject NYScholar's attempt to pass his ongoing problems off as Wikipedia's inability to work with academics and frankly some of the comments he's been making on talk pages give the impression he expects Wikipedia to give him greater standing as a self-identifying academic (albeit one who refuses to prove it and as we all know, in this post-Essjay world all contributors must be judged on the merits of their edits not who or what they claim to be in real life) and resents being treated in the same way as everyone else, expert or not, whose edits are judged purely on their merits. I suspect this expectation of greater standing may actually be the basis of much of these problems and if so it is unresolvable as Wikipedia is not equipped to give self-claiming experts and academics greater standing and is built around putting everyone at the same level. I would prefer to be able to find a resolution without banning but given the extensive background and the fact that these issues have been recurring for years now just with different names on the other side, I don't see any other realistic alternatives and if past experience is any indicator, a topic/page ban would just result in the problems migrating to a new page with new people (as it did when NYScholar turned his attention fromHeath Ledger toHarold Pinter). And so it is with regret that Iendorse this community ban proposal. (apologies for the long statement.)Sarah04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse I see two choices here - one is to waste other editors just as valuable time coming here every time things get out of hand and pulling NYScholar clawing and screaming off whatever she's latched onto this time; this approach would also require editors ready to clean up after NYScholar since we see repeated issues with citations and other obscure things. The other is to stop wasting time on the notion that NYScholar's contributions are more important than everyone else's somehow and politely explaining that their particular talents, no matter how formidable, aren't suited for Wikipedia. I'd also like to note that Harold Pinter is only the most recent thing NYScholar has declared themselves an "expert" on; either we have a genius with multiple degrees and an indefinite amount of time on their hands or, as I've come to believe, we have a layperson or college student, incredibly skilled at bullshitting and manipulating others to get their way. And in case you didn't get it out of the discussion above, NYScholar has absolutely no interest in changing their behavior so long as they keep getting away with this.Shellbabelfish13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Sadly this editor doesn't seem to understand the way that Wiki works as a community and how editors support each other in making this great enterprise work.Jack1956 (talk)19:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse per failure to communicate and no improvement with mentorship. My comment about opposing sanctions, as cited by Steve Smith, was based on a single incident, and I had not been familiar with NYScholar's conduct outside of that. Since then, though, I have noticed similar incidents with the editor even before this week's AN discussion. Since the behavior has apparently not improved since, and it is critical to Wikipedia's success for constructive dialogue to take place among editors, I cannot see a place for NYScholar here. —Erik (talk •contrib)18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse per Shell Kinney. Experts are welcome, and on the rare occasions when one has difficulty adapting to the wiki setting the community should do its best to help them succeed. It appears that every reasonable effort has been made here, and substantial problems remain.Durova273 featured contributions14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Abd (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Narrower options should be tried, in particular, NYScholar should be encouraged to find a mentor who is more available and with better rapport. A closing admin here, if there is a close with a site ban, should allow NYScholar to voluntarily restrict editing to the seeking of such a mentor, with the equivalent of a ban elsewhere, and only actually block if NYScholar violates the restrictions placed by the closing admin. This would allow a door to remain open toward useful and effective contributions by NYScholar. The closing admin can always convert the ban to a block if needed. Even without a mentor, the use of self-reversion should be allowed, a topic which should be before ArbComm shortly; whether or not this would be permitted should be up to the closing admin. --Abd (talk)13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not adamantly opposed to finding more creative solutions than a ban, though I'm concerned that history shows that NYScholar is incapable of admitting fault, which I believe makes an eventual ban inevitable (though I'd welcome being proven wrong on this, obviously). But I do take issue with your suggestion that NYScholar find a mentor with a "better rapport"; if you examine the history of the relationship between Shell Kinney and NYScholar, I believe that you'll find that Shell was communicative and open minded and NYScholar was incapable of taking advice. I don't believe that there is such thing as a mentor who will succeed where Shell failed.Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)15:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you are not opposed to such, and I hope the closing admin notices this. What I see from the prior mentorships is allegedly (1) a mentor who released NYScholar from mentorship, and (2) one who did not have the time to devote; dealing with someone like NYScholar, a verbose communicator, takes particular skills, and even the skills may not be enough, there must be the time and inclination. What's needed most urgently is a neutral supervising administrator who can state specific bans as needed, and release them when not needed. It's clear to me that there is disruption around NYScholar, but a site ban is quite a blunt instrument and neglects the value of NYScholar's positive contributions. The neutral admin can then approve or change a mentor as needed, without this kind of massive discussion. NYScholar has many complaints about Wikipedia and Wikipedia process that are valid, if coming from a restricted point of view. He expresses himself in detail because he believes that when he's brief, he's misunderstood. Common problem, actually. What he doesn't understand is that when he's voluminous, people dismiss it as obsessive. He needs some clear supervision and assistance. He's a writer who needs a good editor. Good editors, actually, are hard to find; they must have the ability to develop rapport with writers, in addition to other skills. Do we have any of those around here? --Abd (talk)12:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Blurpeace (talk)18:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I personally agree with Abd, in that we can try mentoring before we jump to a community ban on editing. He has made many useful contributions to Wikipedia, and I feel that he project's interests at heart, though he has some flaws (as all humans do). This should be a drastic measure, in my humble opinion.
Question: Given that there already was a mentor--one of the best we have, in my opinion--what do you think will be different this time? We have a long, long track record of saying "this time it'll be different," and itnever is. Betacommand, Guido den Broeder, etc etc etc. The list of names we give endless second (third, fourth, seven thousandth) chances to is as long as my arm, and every single time there is no substantive change. AGF is not a suicide pact. //roux19:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Already been tried twice - once with Ecoleetage, then with Shell. It is no slight on Shell's abilities that this failed - mentorship is a two-way street.Orderinchaos19:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw the statement. I was unaware that mentoring had already been tried, and failed twice.I am still partially against banning NYScholar, due to his great contributions to Wikipedia and his obvious support of the project, so I am abstaining from supporting the ban, but I am not opposing it. –blurpeace(talk)20:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This user is completely incorrect with regards to copyright law, but a single block in nearly a year is not enough for me to enact a ban across the board. Given his history, a block (a long one? A week or so?) for disruptive editing is appropriate in this case, but not a ban.— BQZip01 —talk02:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree, but the absolutely consistent record of refusing to acknowledge any kind of fault whatsoever (seriously: the two common characteristics of the previous discussions to which I linked are i. NYScholar posts far, far more than everyone else, and ii. NYScholar does not acknowledge that his/her behaviour was in any way anything short of optimal) suggests that any kind of partial or temporary measure is likely to be ineffective. If the community wants to use a series of escalating blocks and then execute the community ban in six months or so, I'm okay with that as a secondary option, though it seems much more time consuming.Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've offered to adopt him, so we'll see how that turns out, but I'm willing to give him any/every chance to work his way out of this.— BQZip01 —talk02:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That's admirable. Unfortunately, NYScholar has had enough any/every chances for my tastes, though I recognize that others' tastes may differ. I'd suggest that you have a look atthis, though; even at this point, while allegedly seeking a mentor, NYScholar is not interested in self-reflection; he/she is interested in justifying herself/himself.Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)03:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreeing with Steve. The community has tried to avoid banning NYS, far more so than we usually do, putting up with more ongoing disruption that we generally have in the past from other users. I would not support a third go at mentorship as an alternative to community remedies unless there was some real sign of hope that things would be different this time. While NYScholar continues at pains to explain why everyone else is responsible for his inability to edit collaboratively with other users, refusing to accept any responsibility himself, as he is doing in an alarming way on Jayron's talk page, it seems highly unlikely further mentoring would be successful and would just delay the inevitable. Unless NYScholar genuinely wants to change and find a way to work collaboratively with others (as opposed to continually justifying why he's right and the amateur editors are all wrong) there's really no hope for a third go at mentoring getting a different result. Furthermore, if we go the route of more mentoring, due to the issues involved and the history, the mentor needs to be an experienced mentor (not saying BQZip01 isn't as I don't know him, but just a general comment), otherwise I fear it's just more time-wasting as we lurch towards the inevitability of community sanctions of some description.Sarah06:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed also with Steve. If previous mentorships hadn't failed, I would be more sympathetic. It should be remembered there are many, many users who interact peaceably here and contribute good content without ever needing mentorship.Orderinchaos06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Though I do not agree with NYScholar's positions, I find it an overreaction to ban him for what amounts to "disagreeing with everyone and not backing down". Close down the battles he's losing with focused remedies, and he may not have to lose the whole war.rspεεr (talk)07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Your last sentence accurately reflects my initial thought, which is why I first proposed the topic ban. The problem is that I have not found even a single area that NYScholar has extensively edited without problem, which is how I got to a community ban. As an exercise, would you mind developing a topic ban/series of topic bans that you think would do the trick?Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)08:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I had not encountered NYScholar until coming across this discussion yesterday. Given the additional background described here, I have changed my mind and Ido believe he should be banned from discussing copyright issues, as well as from archiving his talk page. But with how quickly this went from "we should ban him from one article and maybe from the topic of copyright" to "we should ban him completely", it looks more like a lynch mob than a remedy.rspεεr (talk)20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As I acknowledged above, I was premature in proposing the topic ban. I should have done the research before proposing any remedy at all, in which case I would have started with a community ban.Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Rspeer, I'd suggest that you more carefully review this case, proposal, and the long-term behaviors of NYScholar before so loudly assuming no one's tried before to fix this. Dozens of editors have spoken to her, he's been almost banned twice before, twice failed at being mentored. They continually works actively to be as intractable as possible, going so far as to immediately disregard any reply, no matter the detail or general civility, if a pronoun is used for him. NYScholar set up gender alone as an insurpassable obstacle to conversation. If anyone referred to NYScholar as a 'he', the reply would be that anyone who assumes an editor has to be male isn't worth listening to. If the editor corrected the pronouns or offered an apology, an equally dismissive 'apology not meant' or 'I never said I was a woman' response would be issued. By so doing, NYScholar would then establish that they would not have to pay attention to that editor anymore, then he'd go back to editing as she pleases. The insistence on full-proper noun only use isn't there either. If you only use proper pronouns, you're dismissed as incivil and patronizing. It became a no-win situation. Likewise, if you somehow surmount that, there would be a barrage of demands for chapter, verse, line and word for policies which would stop his edit from staying. Consensus alone was not enough. Well argued consensus was not enough. Well argued consensus which explained failures of the edit according to policy and guideline was not enough. You had to provide a word by word breakdown of his edit, in which each word of the edit was refuted explicitly by policy. And each editor who opposed him was expected to do that level of work, over and over and over. If you can't be bothered to familiarize yourself with the case, and instead say it's horrible to use that last resort so fast, that becomes insulting to those of us who speak from familiarity with the issues in this case. This is not a rush to judgment. This is a case in which every option truly has been exhausted, because all of the above are symptoms of the editor, not of his conduct with regard to one or two topics within the project. This is him/her/them/it all the time, everywhere. Please review this case and the earlier threads linked above carefully. Thank you.ThuranX (talk)18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(oppose, for dullard vote counters) - hows about limiting NYS to a set no. of posts / words per day / week? or a set no. of articles? or just to his talk page for a month? or just to any talk pages for a month? or anything not quite so ill-defined as one of these 'always confuse, condufddle and end up causing more trouble than ever they solve' 'community' bans? (I think it's always interesting to divide the no. of editors voting at a 'community ban discussion' by the first no. that jumps into your head as roughly the size of 'the community' - the answers are always telling for me! Now Sarc. is a smart chap (and devilishly good looking to boot) - so I respect the fact that further formal action is likely to be necessary here, but hopefully we can stop short of the ban stick :-)Privatemusings (talk)09:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose blocks and bans are last resorts. Rspeer words this perfectly. We should not ban editors simply because they disagree and don't let something go. Restrict him from being able to actually stop article progress when consensus is against him (no need for traditional mentor stuff, just find a formal way of doing it), sure, but banning him from all of Wikipedia is overkill. I'd rather see this go to arbcom or something, where the community can be given time to formulate something more formal than the topical mentor approaches, if he is stopping actual article progress. --Ned Scott12:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I think the topic bans are fine, but a total ban based upon polling seems like nothing more than an impassioned mob action and not a well thought out response. He's not gone through the normal dispute process, other options are available, and the mere fact that more people support a total ban than support the other two bans shows that the people voting don't seem to get that the "nuke it from orbit" plan is not the only option.DreamGuy (talk)21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Your points are well-taken. With respect toWP:DR, I did consider aWP:RFC/U (the only step in there, other than Arb Comm, that seems applicable here), but NYScholar's absolute and consistent insistence that all problems are attributable entirely to others convinced me that that would be a waste of time.Steve Smith (talk)(formerly Sarcasticidealist)21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I certainly sympathize with your position, but I think community bans are a bit dangerous in general and would like to see a bit more thought into it as far as solutions. Blocking for refusal to admit to being wrong seems more like thoughtcrime than anything else.DreamGuy (talk)21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's the obstructive behaviour (jamming the airwaves, edit warring, ownership, lack of civility or good faith) rather than whatever thoughts are at issue that led to this particular proposal.Orderinchaos04:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose In reviewing NYScholar's total record, it appears today is this editor's fourth anniversary on Wikipedia -- though it is a shame it is being observed in such a stressful manner. In reviewing thecomplete history for NYScholar, I am able to locate many positive editorial contributions and successful efforts to improve the quality of a large number of articles. Obviously, something went very wrong with the Harold Pinter article, and perhaps a temporary topic ban on that subject might make sense -- there are other articles where NYScholar's excellent research skills and indefatigable energy can be properly channeled. But a community ban seems like the equivalent of swatting a mosquito with a sledgehammer; clearly there must be a more satisfactory resolution to this matter.Pastor Theo (talk)23:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose A community ban seems a draconian measure to take while there are still many other restrictions that could be imposed instead. As for the "Ownership" issues a topic ban might be in order. For him to realize the problems of his behaviour it might be possible to impose talk-page probation for certain talk pages and it might also be possible to to prohibit him from interacting with certain other users and have a ban threat as a leverage to make sure that he gets the message. I cannot support a ban of such a valuable content editor before many other solutions have been tried.·Maunus·ƛ·12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Abstain
I wouldn't write here other than I was notified on my talkpage. I still hold that I've only had positive experiences with NYScholar. But those are aging quickly, and as I've mostly fallen to the side as far as actively "adminning", I won't support or oppose this, basically because I have no recent experience with this editor, but also because I don't care to look or have the time to look at more recent editing patterns and habits. The community will decide this, hopefully it doesn't devolve into a pitchfork and torch fest. So far, it's been a really civil way of saying "we don't want you here", if that is possible. I don't oppose, I don't endorse. An aside, I think that banning in general is an overly bureaucratic and hurtful process, and even when presented "well" and as thorough as this case has been made, it still smacks of legalism and lack of patience with someone that,in my experience, seems to want to do the right thing and simply has the problem of coming across in "personality" as like water trying to go up a duck's back. Abstain.Keeper |7601:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll confirm that my comments pasted above are correct, though I'll point out that I was looking at the issue being discussed that day, not of any previous discussions of NYScholar. I looked at the previous discussions linked above, but I can't sort through the previous disputes well enough to try to give an opinion on it.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)08:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
miss use of Refimprove?
I am not sure how to deal with an editor who is usingTemplate:Refimprove in my view overzealously. The tag was added toDunstable an article already with 28 references across all sections (quite unusual for a settlement article) byUser talk:Jenuk1985. I reviewed the page and having not found the problem(s) I removed the tag adding an edit summary as required. This resulted in a level one warning been posted for removing a tag without giving a reason etc. On asking him at his talk page if he could draw my attention to the problem he had identified, his response was unhelpful and indicated in effect he could not be bothered to clarify why he added the refimprove tag so I advised I would remove it as I could not find anything wrong. He then decided to give me a further warning. I noticed his talk page is currently filling up with other editors complaints due to his overzealous and unexplained actions on other articles. A review of the edit history on his talk page suggests he has been annoying other editors for some time. This to me appears to be a disruptive editor who is doing little to contribute to Wp and is wasting and upsetting other editors whilst misusing guidance and deployment of threats to block. I have now tidied up a couple of cn's that have been around on the page for a while and added a summary of action taken on the Talk Page What should I do not just to spot this editor hounding me with warnings but for others sake too?Tmol42 (talk)17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, If the reason for a tag is not immediately apparent it is expected to leave some note on the talk page explaining why it was left. –xenotalk18:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks likeWikipedia:Gaming the system. This is not the only example. The same editor seems to have repeatedly antagonized, bullied and threatened other editors while making changes to articles and citing one interpretaion of different policies and guidelines in an authoritative manner.FairFare (talk)20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to get too involved with this as I feel it is making a fuss out of nothing! When you are in the background cleaning everything up and using templates to alert problems, you never get any thanks, just a load of people moaning. I request that FairFare answers me one question, if you can't cite policies and guidelines, then what can you cite? A large number of editors seem to take it on themselves to unreasonably ignore guidelines (outside the remit ofWP:IAR), and the only way to drill sense into them is to cite said guidelines. As an aside, I notice Tmol42 has stooped to what is verging on a personal attack inthis edit, I don't take too kindly to being called a "sad editor". It would also be nice if said editor would refer to me as the correct gender, the name Jen kind of gives it away!Jenuk1985 | Talk23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines are all very well, but their application is no substitute forconsensus and discussion. Most guidelines are just that- guidelines, with exceptions for common sense, which invites proposals and discussion. They are not unilateral licences for "bull in a china shop"-type edits, even when cited by reference to some policy or guideline which is open to interpretation. Even more so when such edits are imposed without any discussion whatsoever as to their merits.Rodhullandemu23:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So on one hand, I'm getting it in the ear from the US Roads Wikiproject that guidelines are everything and must be adhered to at all times, yet some people aren't happy with the guidelines and would prefer it if they didn't exist. I can't win! I'm working with other wikipedians around the globe to get the encyclopaedia up to a respectable standard, well referenced, meeting the MOS as appropriate, and I get moaned at for it! I read a comment a few days ago that if you get people moaning about your reasonable edits, it should be taken as a compliment, as good work will always attract people who don't like it! I'm guessing you are here because I removed the photo gallery from an article, whereas you feel it should remain, hencethis note on my talk page? (Which wasn't really a useful message, hence the reply not being particularly useful) If you disagree with my edit, revert it and discuss it in an appropriate place, in this caseWP:IG may be a suitable venue! Sometimes people forget aboutWP:BRD. The only times I re-revert in this situation is if the guidelines are blatantly not being followed, in which case, its verging on being disruptive. I always revert/warn on removal of maintenance templates without first fixing the problem, there are people out there that don't like templates on "their" articles, we just have to fight against these ownership issues.Jenuk1985 | Talk00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This thread has angered me that there is such pettiness on WP, its nice for someone to come along and put some common sense input in :)Jenuk1985 | Talk00:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick question: Jenuk1985, have you edited under another username before and received similar reminders?User:Docu11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(Non-admin response): If it is the version under "In Progress", it looks great. Just make sure there is a time/date stamp with it. People are sticklers for those. -NeutralHomer •Talk •00:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the administrator's noticeboard isn't the appropriate venue for this (not that there necessarily is one). We don't vet signatures. --Cyde Weys00:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't really blame him for coming here for preclearance, given the fact that people who might find his signature out of bounds will commonly come here or to AN/I to complain about it.Protonk (talk)04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone with experience of copyright issues take a look atWirtland (micronation) please
I placed the copyvio tag on this page as although it does appear to be a straight copyvio the author claimed permission and so the previous speedy tag wasn't really applicable. Since this happened a couple of days ago there has been a lot of discussion about in on the talk page and I feel that I, and the other editors on the talk page, are getting out of their depth. Could someone with copyright experience have a look at the article and talk page and either resolve the issues or explain better to the author what's happening and why. Suspect this would carry more weight coming from someone experienced in these things and who knows the issues better than me. Thanks.Dpmuk (talk)10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
and removal of rollback. I would like to have my rollback back because I had it taken away for edit warring with a rowdy user, and others had reverted this user also. If you look, you will see I have apretty good track record and I beleive I should not have had my rollback taken away. By the advice of another admin, I post here to beg for my rollback back. Many users feel I have been unjustly revoken, along with threats of other users. Please regrant rollback because I was only reverting a vandal with over 200 nonsence edits.AndrewrpTally-ho!16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This wasn't vandalism. Theback and forth you fell into was a needless edit war over good faith edits and a wanton abuse of rollback. As someone else has said, you're lucky you weren't blocked too: In looking atUser:Qelknap's contrib history, I don't see "a vandal with over 200 nonsence edits." Unless I'm missing something and you can put up some diffs which show otherwise, I think you might want to brush up onWP:Vandalism andWP:3rr.Gwen Gale (talk)16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello admin--I assure you, most of the time I am not joking nor do I make "joke" edits. I haven't touched an article for a few hours. And when I did edit, it was GOOD work.75.21.114.176 (talk)17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That was just left on my talk. Also, What else was I to do, maybe some humor would lighten them up, and this template has been used beforehere. Sorry, differant user saying "beware wiki-nazis"AndrewrpTally-ho!17:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I know I should have not reverted, but when other users are warning and blocking, what are you to do. I was never warned to stop, only after the user was bloced. I feel that after some sort of punishment, I should get rollback back, along with the same punishment for the other rollbacker.AndrewrpTally-ho!17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well let me put this clearly. OnHuggle, I saw Qelknap's 200+ nonsensical edits toParliament be reverted and he/she received their first warning. They continued to edit Wikipedia in a disruptive manner and were repeatedly warned. So their "colour and number" changed progressively from 2, to 3, to 4 (yellow, to brown, to red). I was never one of the editors who reverted their original edits, nor did I warn them. When the user was finally reported, I naturally assumed that there was consensus that the edits were unconstructive and constituted vandalism. I then proceeded to revert changes they made to Wikipedia until the case was resolved atWP:AIV. Perfectly normal practice. If you want more information, feel free to browse the history pages relating to Qelknap.--Just JamesT/C17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, both of you, we can talk further about this on Andrewrp's talk page (give me a tick, maybe 10 minutes, thanks).Gwen Gale (talk)17:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Removal of rollback is not about punishment, it's about preventing future problems. I'm sure if it's believed that the problem here is unlikely to recur, regaining it won't be an issue. However I'm not sure I like : "I naturally assumed that there was consensus that the edits were unconstructive and constituted vandalism. I then proceeded to revert changes they made to Wikipedia until the case was resolved at WP:AIV. Perfectly normal practice." - of it is perfectly normal practice it shouldn't be, we don't go by mob rule and it would seem a good excuse for no one to take responsibility. Every time you make an edit/action on wikipedia you are responsible for that edit, you need to be happy that if called on later you stand by it. --82.7.40.7 (talk)19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Having looked this over and after speaking with the admin, I thought this seemed like a one-off, very unhappy but good faith slip-up and gave them back their rollback rights. However, the rights logs now show rollback was taken away from each of them for a short time and if something like this happens again it's likely rbr will be lost for a much longer time.Gwen Gale (talk)15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
First, it's proper to notify them. Second, talk page andWP:DR methods work. Third, it's clear that the issue isundue weight, not the reliability of the sources. I have to agree with that them thatthis statement doesn't look like it's worth adding. --Ricky81682 (talk)09:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone delete the page25/8. I'm making way for a move for the page25/8 (film). Since nothing else exists by this title, it's appropriate. There are no messages on the talk page, just a template. Thank You. ---Scarce||||Talk -Contrib.---00:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You An admin needs to do a history merge.25/8 was the original article, created byUser:Creamy3, in March. It was converted into a redirect, but when25/8 (film) was created, it was a direct copy/paste of the old article, with no attribution. No significant overlapping edits, so I think a history merge would be relatively easy. --Floquenbeam (talk)00:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Just trying to save you some work, Scarce. Didn't want you to waste time researching how to do a history merge yourself. Also, the plot section needs to be completely rewritten, as it is a copyright infringement of[27]; seeWP:Close paraphrasing. --Floquenbeam (talk)00:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The emergency shut down is just a cute way of accessing the block form. Can you give me an example of the wrongdoing? Also, it doesn't appear to be running. AWB bots can be stopped just by writing to their talk page. –xenotalk21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Lol, but you did ask for examples of what is going on. The bot is leaving these incorrect arrows showing for hours yet claiming to be doing so "temporarily". If the edit was completed in, say 5-10 minutes it could be lived with. But IMHO leaving diagrams with incorrect arrows for hours on end is not acceptable.Mjroots (talk)21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I left a note on the bots page pointing here... am also hoping a trainspotting admin will come along. –xenotalk21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Though, the problem seems to be that the bot creates inaccuracies for a brief period of time in order to swap some things that necessarily need to be swapped? A necessary detriment perhaps? –xenotalk21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've raised this at WP:UKRAIL. The problem is that this bot is that it is neither "necessary" nor helpful. The icons in question worked perfectly well before and this bot seems to have been agreed withminimal discussion despite its wide-ranging effects for templates.Lamberhurst (talk)21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It's ChrisDHDR, the bot's owner. I would just like to say that there is a shutdown button: at the bottom of the template on the bot's page there is "Administrators: if this bot continues causing harm after receiving a message, pleaseblock it or remove from theapproved accounts." You can also cause it to stop by writing on it's talk page which already happened 3 times yesterday. That gives three blocking options. Now about the point of this bot and what it does: when the CONT series of icons were made they were uploaded with names that didn't follow the naming conventions. In an agreementhere it was decided that they would need to be changed to follow the naming conventions like all other icons. I then asked for approvalhere and started correcting the icons. Changing "u" and "d" to "g" and "f" is easy enough but swapping "l" and "r" is a bit trickier. To do this the bot changes "l" to "CHRISBOT", now that "l" is free it changes "r" to "l", and now that "r" is free it changes "CHRISBOT" to "r". Unfortunately this requires that there is a temporary blank square or a wrong facing arrow but this only lasts the time it takes for the cache to be updated and I really don't think that it blocks the overall understanding of the template. I had started by correcting the less used icons, giving me a chance to try it out with minimal impact. However now I am doing the more used ones it is getting a greater bit of attention.
Now that I have seen all these problems I gave this bot a good think, I can propose three possible solutions:
Either I can stop it strait away and leave the icons half done
Or I can continue with the same method
Or I can do it in another way:
"u" and "d" will be changed to "g" and "f" (no problems)
the "l" and "r" swapping will use another method:
tCONTl will be uploaded to CHRISBOT. When the cache is updated,
tCONTl will be replaced by CHRISBOT.
tCONTl will be overwritten with tCONTr. When the cache is updated,
tCONTr will be replaced by tCONTl.
tCONTr will be overwritten with CHRISBOT (originally tCONTl). When the cache is updated,
CHRISBOT will be replaced by tCONTr
do the same for CONTl and CONTr
during the change {{User:Chrisbot/Work status}} will inform you of the right icon name to use (plus you can place the template at "strategic" pages:WP:RDT,WP:UKRAIL, etc)
This however is a very long process as the cache can (in my experience) take a week to update, but I think it is a better method. It would also be better since I share my computer with my family and the old method forced that everything be done in one go, making my family get annoyed at me for forcing them to have the bot slow down the computer by running in the background. This method is in short, independent stages, so not-so-annoying, and since I'll soon be going on holiday, can be paused at any moment. Thanking you for your patience,ChrisDHDR07:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As observed, this bot does not just change these things over quickly e.g. in 5 or 10 minutes, which I think was what the administrators/moderators were expecting when they approved its use, so diaggrams are wrong fOURS or DAYS, for what many see as a totally unnecessary change. Heaven help Chris when he actually changes the main icons rather than the minor, less-used ones. In my opinion it would have been better to change the icons FIRST, so that EVERYTHING was OBVIOUSLY wrong. To start changing small bits of text can only leave one puzzled as to what is going on, one undoes or changes it back, and then it's STILL going to be wrong once the change is finished. Now I've just made a new article conforming to the new conventions (Template:Ipswich to Ely RDT). It would not at all surprise me if the bot comes along and then reverses the arrows AGAIN so that they will all then be wrong. In short, this is a bad solution to a non-problem.SimonTrew (talk)10:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the problems that I caused you Simon; tho I would like to note that the cache is updated and so everything is fine now. Also now that I have a new method there will be no problems. CHRISBOT has also had its cache updated so I could start changing the tCONTl icons but I would prefer to have a go ahead first. So: can I restart Chrisbot now that there will be no problems?ChrisDHDR08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Chrisbot has vandalised my sandbox. I Specifically placed a{{nobot}} on the sandbox because I don't want bots interfering with articles and diagrams I'm working on in my sandbox. Despite this,Chrisbot edited my sandbox. This bot has already been reported here for the way it is performing. It is time it was shut down permanently as we editors can do the same job much faster and with less damage to articles.Mjroots (talk)04:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The bot has not edited since 2 July, which is before you left a complaint atUser talk:Chrisbot. If he resumes without responding to your concern, admins should consider blocking the bot. If you think the bot is totally unhelpful you could ask atWT:BRFA for the bot's approval to be withdrawn.EdJohnston (talk)05:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I left the message at Chrisbot's talk page this morning on discovering my sandbox had been vandalised. I will raise the issue where you suggest, thanks.
This still does not address the issue of why the bot is editing on pages that are tagged with{{nobot}}, the template means NO BOTS TO EDIT THIS PAGE (wikistress lvl rising).Mjroots (talk)05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That makes a complete nonsense of "nobot". There is nothing of the bots user or talk page which states that it does not comply with{{nobots}}. If I wanted bots to interfere with my sandbox I wouldn't have it tagged with the template in the first place.Mjroots (talk)08:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Strictly, this falls underWP:DR but it's an ongoing issue that doesn't fall neatly into any of the DR categories. It's possible that the matter could resolved quickly simply by an admin popping by and banging a few heads together; it's also possible that any solution will be harder than that! If, having read this, anyone can suggest a better venue then please do.
This article has become abattle-field, bogged down with different sets of opposing editors. The article's subject is a diploma issued by theInternational Baccalaureate (IB) organisation, which one set of editors apparently regard as being "bad", while in turn the other set consider it "good". "Good" and "bad" here roughly translate to "Promoting peace and opposing conservatism" and "The demon-spawn of the United Nations" ;-) Somewhere in the middle is a group who want the article to followWP:NPOV.
The issue is particularly contentious as there has been arecent court case in which one or more editors may have been involved (at least one editor suspects that they met another editor during the case). This has led to possibleWP:OUTING and a lot of distrust.
Content disputes become quickly heated, and turn into low-level edit wars, complete with accusations of vandalism.
Ideally, I'd like a non-involved admin or two (or three...!) to watchlist the article. Hell, I'll take what I'm given, and if you want to steer me towards a more appropriate venue then please do. All I want is for the pain to stop ;-)
To correct a couple of misrepresentations byTFOWR, whether editors consider the IB Diploma Programme "good" or "bad" is irrelevant. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is supposed to present facts in an encyclopaedic manner. The USC issue was resolved. The UN issue was resolved. The current dispute involves the placement of a sub-section titled Application, Authorization and Fees. I have never "met" the other editor in question in person, however this individual has stalked me all over the Internet and is using Wikipedia for their own personal war by reversing my contributions to the article in a destructive manner. Yes, there are two "camps" when it comes to IB, those who will draw blood to defend the IB programme and those of us who simply want the truth to be told.ObserverNY (talk)16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
This noninvolved admin found that reading the article's talk page gave me about the same throbbing headache as listening to small children in the back seat of the car squabbling on a long trip over trivialities.Edison (talk)16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much how I feel. Any chance you could make us walk home, or at least threaten us with no supper?! Anything to make the pain stop...! Cheers,TFOWRThis flag once was red16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Admins - To add full disclosure. I am also an editor on this site and have written on the talk page. Early today I was also seeking where an appropriate solution could be found to resolve the bickering. I sought out a neutral editor who had volunteered to help the community and posted on their page as they requested. You can read my posthere if you so wish. --Candy (talk)16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And while we are at it, I would like the administrators to take note of ObserverNY's uncivil and harassing behavior. For some reason, she (she has revealed her gender and first name) thinks I am someone she has met over the internet. She has repeatedly accused me of "stalking" her because I have reverted/changed a number of her edits in my attempts to prevent the article from becoming a platform for her self-admitted POV. She has even attempted to "out" me in an effort to stop me from editing. Let me also add that I work well with all other editors, as they can attest, and we can always reach a consensus among all of us except for ObserverNY.Tvor65 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Tvor65 (talk)18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're overstating your case, Tvor65. I also suspected that you were not a new acquaintance of ObserverNY's, and I did suggest that your challenges to her edits could be less confrontational. I agree that she is far from an exemplary editor, but she is a lot better than she was. Luke 15:7 anyone?
You maysuspect whatever you want, Ewen, but it does not make it true, does it? Nor do ObserverNY'ssuspicions give her a right to repeatedly make insinuations about me. I have edited on Wikipedia for a while before I recently registered, and I have met people like her before, so perhaps I was a little more prepared to try to stop what I knew would inevitably escalate into the current situation.Tvor65 (talk)19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You see, Tvor65, this is why ObserverNY isn't wholly to blame for the uncivility. a) I said suspecteed. Past tense. b) My point is that it wasn't just ObserverNY who thought your behaviour here on wikipedia was suspiciously familiar to that of other people elsewhere. I'm not saying her accusations were true - to claim I did is dishonest - but I am saying that her accusations are understandable.
Well, I certainly don't find her unfounded accusationsunderstandable at all - and I hope the administrators will take note. I think her behavior in general is beyond the pale, and something should be done about it. If anything, it is gettingworse, not better.Admins, please help.Tvor65 (talk)20:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
TFOWR's characterization of the climate on the page is correct. La Mome's allegations are correct. In my view, the talk guidelines have been violated, and any constructive work is aggressively blocked. Pull the car to the side and tell the kids they're stuck until they learn how to be quiet. Thanks.Truthkeeper88 (talk)02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
TFOWR wants some heads knocked together. Consider this some head knocking:
Tvor65: The situation is getting worse, not better, in part because ofyour actions. You and ObserverNY are bothSingle-purpose accounts, andyour behaviour is a fairly evident contributory factor in this. Your first edit to any article talk page wasthis, and your talk page contributions have not improved from that low standard since."Restoring the truth" as an edit summary reinserting a whole load of unsourced statements bringsWikipedia:The Truth directly to mind, and it is something that you should read. Repeatedly using edit summaries to argue about "right-wing propaganda" (example,example,example) is unacceptable, and"Sorry, I call a spade a spade" isnot a defence. Stick to summarizing edits in edit summaries, and place your arguments on talk pages.
ObserverNY: Your mis-use of edit summaries for making arguments (example) is just as bad. Make your arguments on the talk page. Wikipedia is no more foryour version of "The Truth™" than it is for Tvor65's version. You, like xem, are still failing to get what we at Wikipedia want, here. On which point:
TFOWR,Truthkeeper88,Candorwien, andEwen: Unlike ObserverNY, Tvor65, andLa mome, you are not SPAs. But you have all lost the plot. So much back and forth has gone on that you've lost sight of our core principles. Here's an example: So much back and forth has gone on over the content of theIB Diploma Programme#Certificates section that it no longer bears any relation to the cited source linked-to from the text, and is in clear need of a{{notinsource}} notice. Stick to adding content based upon what sources say. Actively hold both yourselves and all other editors to our core content policies. Requiregood sources, and require that content be supported by those sources. I can understand, from both the edit history of the article and the reams of talk page discussion, the reasonswhy you might have lost the plot. But you have, nonetheless.
As such, I issue this warning:
Tvor65 and ObserverNY, you're the main cause of the disruption here. (Although La mome is an SPA too, xyr talk page and article editing behaviour here is not in the same category as either of yours.) Any benefits that you bring in terms of content are being outweighed by the edit warring and the lengthy talk page squabblings that you have entered into. You are getting to the point where you are actively impeding the writing of the article with this. Cease edits likethis andthisright now. If you don't, then I or another administrator might well decide that Wikipedia is better off without the distraction that you both create, and revoke your editing privileges, leaving the article to be edited by the regular editors, interested in writing Wikipediaas a whole, that you've managed to cause to lose the plot here.
Thank you, Uncle G. Sorry for contributing to the reams of materials you've had to wade through. I'd just like to add that the main cause of losing the plot is considering which cited, verifiable material to include. Other issues are more black-and-white but we need to maintain good judgement to avoid giving undue weight to minority views, which leads to discussion as to what would be due weight, etc, etc. Have you any advice on steering an unbiased course through these poorly-charted waters?
And yet another thanks. I concur with your observations re: sources and will begin wading through sources to examine that the content is cited in the source. Won't fall into the mud again.Truthkeeper88 (talk)14:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Attention needed
I've been proactive here. I've dumpeda whole load of balls on the article's talk page, in the hope that this will spur people back into the constructive processes of finding, reading, evaluating, and using sources to expand and improve the article. In the process, I've found that at leastone of the people that an editor has self-identified as being is discussed at length in a few of the sources that document this subject. Whilst this is not an inherently bad thing, since that person will be able to point out the other sides to several coins with respect to the subject, there is a danger that the talkpage discussion will once again become a proxy for external debates. So additional eyes are needed to ensure that behavioural issues do not once again become a problem. And those include the behavioural issues ofother editors deriding that person, as noted above.Uncle G (talk)15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Licensing update: reminder
Hi. Yesterday an admin cleared a newly created article of copyright infringement because the source from which it was imported is licensed under GFDL. This matter was addressed with the specific admin, but I just figured it might be a good idea to remind everyone that we can no longer accept material (eta: text) that is solely licensed under GFDL. At minimum, itmust be compatible with CC-By-SA, and GFDL is not. (SeeWikimedia:Terms of Use.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious how old content that was previously imported under the auspices of GFDL now works. Is it still only GFDL compatible? How are these articles marked? –xenotalk13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It's all so complicated now. :) We received special one-time permission to transition everything on the site to CC-By-SA from GNU, so every article on Wikipedia is CC-By-SA, if it was placed in compliance with our policies--unless it was imported from a GFDL-only site (not owned by the Wikimedia Foundation) after November 2008. That permission only governed content placed prior to November 2008. If it was imported from a GFDL-only site after November 2008, it's now a copyright violation unless we can get it co-licensed.
Just for general interest, all text on Wikipedia placed before June 15 2009 can be released under CC-By-SA and GFDL (unless it's a copyvio or a quote). After June 15th, most text is co-licensed. Some text may be imported from CC-By-SA compatible sites that do not co-license, and that text needs to be clearly indicated so that reusers know it cannot be released under GFDL. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that would work with text. The Foundation's terms of use allow special handling for media files, but are very specific about reuse permissions for text. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So basically, anything you contributed before June 15 2009, you got screwed by the Foundation because they took it upon themselves to change what you originally agreed to, to something you didn't. Nice.-ALLST✰R▼echowuz here06:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No, the Foundation put it to the community. We did it. It was a multiple-project vote, running three weeks in 32 languages advertised by site notices, with 75.8% of the 17462 who responded voting for transition. Kind of surprising, given how many people use Wikipedia, that there weren't more responders, but I guess most people either don't read the ads or didn't care. Speaking of which, I find it kind of funny that 2,391 people bothered to vote "no opinion." That's more than voted "no" (1,829). (seeMeta:Licensing_update/Result if you're interested in more details. I myself think the breakdown of voter turnout by project is interesting, but I won't waste more bandwidth here. :)) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that we agreed to release under the current and any later versions of the GFDL. The most recent version of the GFDL allowed relicensing.J Milburn (talk)12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
My request is nearing 48 hours old (it's just a few hours away). A couple of other requests are waiting there to. So I'm placing this message here as the page itself suggests. Thanks!RandomStringOfCharacters (talk)06:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Coffee's administrator privileges are restored, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.
Hello. I wonder if anyone here can help me. All my edits were deleted byUser:Nmate. He replaced a citation of an academic book with a "citation needed" tag, deleted several other citations and deleted all information about the history of the official name of a town.[28] I asked him not to do that,[29] but he did it again.[30] If I understood him well, he claims that everyone using an IP range belonging to a major internet provider in Slovakia is in reality one blocked user MarkBA (He said to me: “Yes, of course your argument would be logician if you weren'tMarkBA. But i just revert you because as known asockpuppet has to be reverted. So, i may only suggest you to downloadthis game, where you can do your monkey business instead of here.”[31] To a different user with the same provider he said: “Sorry, i will be deleting your all edits from here, because: * 1, a sockpuppet has no right to edit wikipedia * 2, the 78,xxx ip range belongs to MarkBA”[32]) So, he deletes contributions of everyone using that internet provider. What is funny, I’m not actually using that provider or that IP range and he can’t know my IP anyway because he isn’t an administrator. So can he just say wrong things about other users and delete their quality contributions? What can I do? Thank you.Modrajedobra (talk)16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If Nmate wants to accuse you of being a sockpuppet, he should useWP:SPI, and it can be handled there. The two of you are engaged in an edit war atBanská Bystrica, and the two of you will use the talk page to sort out your dispute. There's nothing else we need to do here. Cheers.lifebaka++17:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
On another board, Eric McDavid's defence attorney is posting about our coverage of him (here). Some more eyes on this might be worthwhile, because ofWP:HARM. (Also cross-posted to the BLP noticeboard).—S MarshallTalk/Cont20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Chuck Marean
Resolved
–llywrch has blocked Chuck Marean indefinitely, subject to review &/or a mentor stepping forward
was ==User:Who then was a gentleman?==
User:Who then was a gentleman? left two uncivil comment on my talk page (here). It was aboutthis edit. He seems to be another trying to start an argument on my talk page. Doing so is edit waring in my opinion as well as uncivil. I am therefore requesting that he be banned. --Chuck Marean20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
While I wouldn't have characterized your POV pushing[33] as "vandalism", I don't see anything actionableagainst Who then...? here. –xenotalk20:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)superscript text added at 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The only thing actionable here is Chuck's editing. Vandalism is certainly an appropriate word for Chuck's edit there. And it's the latest in a (very, very) long line of such edits. I think some kind of parole is in order.Raul654 (talk)20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd characterise it as nonsense, certainly. It's rather blatant POV-pushing, even if it is unintentional. You need to be careful with your edits, ones likethis don't help - I'd support some sort of supervised editing?Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk)20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be a good start, but I think the problem is deeper than that. He seems to go from one article to the next making disruptive edits. His editing onTANSTAAFL is a case-in-point.Raul654 (talk)20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the fourth? Fifth? I dunno, lost count, thread about Chuck Marean in the past couple of months. I suggest mentoring if anyone is willing to come forward. If not, I suggest Chuck be asked to explain why in the community's view his ongoing edits to Current Events (and elsewhere) is problematic and why he will stop doing such things. In the absence of both of the above, I think it is time to invite him to enjoy the world beyond Wikipedia unless/until either of the above happen. → ROUX₪21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No it wasn't. Nothing about what Madoff did was good faith, as proved by a duly constituted court of law. It was part and parcel of your quixotic crusade to sanitise bad news from the Current Events portal.→ ROUX₪21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to pile on to Roux's comment - Madoff pled guilty and admitted he broke the law. Calling his actions "good faith" isn't inaccurate - it's completely, utterly divorced from reality, and anyone doing so is a vandal by any objective measure.Raul654 (talk)21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh for the love of god. He wasn't charged with going bankrupt -- he was charged with securities fraud, and pled guilty to fraud. Why? Because when you tell someone you are running a hedge fund and, instead of buying stock, you use the proceeds to pay off previous investors, you are not actually running a hedge fund -- you are running a ponzi scheme. (1) Running a ponzi scheme is illegal; (2) lying to the investors about it is also illegal. Perhaps you shouldn't be editing articles when you don't have any idea of what you are talking about? This seems to be your signature with *every* article you edit.Raul654 (talk)21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to a) login with your username, b) be slightly less rude? One would imagine that doing a) will cause b). → ROUX₪21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Which sort of means I think saying he was found guilty of investment fraud sounds biased because he may not have known his bonds needed to be secured by property or thought it was just an opinion. He didn’t go underground with the money. From what I heard on the TV months ago, he simply went bankrupt and got bad press about it. --Chuck Marean21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(reset indent) I am quite literally flabbergasted, and possibly entirely gobsmacked, that you could even pretend in good faith that the statement you just made is in any way accurate or supported by reality. → ROUX₪22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
And following on from Short Brigade's diff below ("He was selling bonds and paying them back with more bonds. There was nothing criminal about that. It may have been somewhat incompetant but it was not criminal."), you very clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. That isn't incompetence, it is thevery definition of a Ponzi scheme. Which is, by the way, criminal. Good god man. → ROUX₪22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to mentor Chuck? (I'll assume if I don't get any affirmative responses here that the answer is no)Raul654 (talk)21:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the relevant questions to this discussion are:
(1) Does Chuck do any useful editing at all?
(2A) In light of his long history and many failed attempts to "fix" his editing can Chuck be coached to improve? (2B) Is it worth the effort?
Just based on what I've seen here... let anyone mentor him if they want, but he should be blockedwhile this is going on. Then later, if the mentor wants to assert that he can edit usefully, an unblock could be discussed. I see no reason to continue exposing the project to this kind of nonsense in the meantime.Friday(talk)21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Good call. He can propose edits on his tpage, $Mentor can approve or not. When he's shown a pattern (say, a month and 100 edits?) of improvement and understanding how Wikipedia works, unblock. → ROUX₪21:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I can't believe some of those diffs!This one is almost surreal. Whether he is deliberately distorting the facts, or is somehow incapable of understanding simple declarative sentences in news reports, the result is the same. Until he can show that he is capable of editing to produce constructive results he needs to be reined in.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
My edit was not nonsense. I thought saying he was found guilty sounded biased. If it had said he was appealing that would have been better. As it was, it ignored that he had a business that went bankrupt, and his investors were simply mad and charging him with fraud. I was also pointing out that his business did not recieve a bailout, which also is not nonsense. Maybe I could have mentioned my wording of the blurb on the talk page before doing the edit, but there is no rule that says to that I know of. I think the rule is to boldly do the edit you think with improve the article. --Chuck Marean22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
How is reporting a widely-available proven fact biased? The man is a criminal. He engaged, knowingly, in a criminal enterprise. He confessed to knowingly engaging in a criminal enterprise. He was convicted of same. This has nothing to do with the investors being 'simply mad and charging him with fraud'. As for his business not receiving a bailout, bailouts were reserved forbusinesses, and notcriminal enterprises, not to put too fine a point on it, so saying that is like saying I haven't received a child tax credit because I don't have children. → ROUX₪22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I join this pile-on? There no evidence that Madoff's problems are due to bad business decisions;he engaged in criminal activity. He confessed to it. Forensic accountants have verified that he did it. A legal court has found him guilty & threw the book at him for it. I'd also like to point out that Chuck Marean has beentwice blocked for a month for disruptive behavior. Unless he can produce a verifiable expert opinion to support this bizarre thesis, I move for another ban. --llywrch (talk)22:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
My Madoff edit was reverted. I left it that way. I think calling my edit nonsense was uncivil because obviously, 150 years for going out of business seems a bid much, and my edit pointed out maybe his business or investors could receive a bailout. I did not put my edit back, you will notice. I complained about it being called nonsense.--Chuck Marean22:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It was nonsense because it had no basis in reality. He was not given 150 years for 'going out of business'. He was given 150 years for knowingly committing fraud. What part of that, precisely, is unclear? → ROUX₪22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Revising my above opinion to just block permanently now until Chuck can demonstrate he is conversant with reality as the rest of us see it. → ROUX₪22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a joke. Are you capable of providing, say, tworeliable sources that support your contentions? I know you aren't, but I'll give you a fighting chance to do so. Failing that, no, you are not operating in a way that is congruent with observed realityviz. Madoff is a criminal who committed fraudand confessed to it, not that he made a couple of oopsie business decisions.→ ROUX₪23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I readthis NY Times article on Madoff. It does sound biased, which is what I was trying to avoid here. At least the blurb onCurrent events only says "investment fraud." That is less biased than calling it a Ponzy "Scheme." What he was doing is sort of what I think Reagan thought deficit spending was, although government bonds are actually backed by coining money.--Chuck Marean23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect Chuck Marean doesn't realise that reporting on actual reality isn't a 'bias'. → ROUX₪23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I just mean I don't feel my edit should have been called nonsense or vandalism, since it was neither of those. I thought 150 years for paying old bonds with new -- something anyone might do -- was an outrage, and I was therefore trying to improve theCurrent events headline on the subject. The part that says his business did not recieve a government bailout is common knowledge, as is that he went bankrupt. I take back my request for banning you, however I seriously didn't like it when my talk page was being used for arguments and insulting me and I don't want that happening again. --Chuck Marean23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd support a block, basically for that reason, if less crudely put. Having dealt with Chuck on and off across his time here, devoting to him as much time as any editor save probably ZimZalaBim, whose patience in attempting to reconcile Chuck’s idiosyncrasies with our policies and practices is to be commended, I can say with a great deal of confidence that he acts in good faith (even re Madoff, where his edits, I trust, stem from a factual misunderstanding and a general inability to communicate clearly); I do not doubt that he intends in every edit to improve the project. Notwithstanding that, he regularly obliges other editors to devote time and energy to reverting his edits, which tend to compromise quality, and to explaining to him why his editing is disruptive, and I am at last convinced that he is constitutionally incompatible with Wikipedia. I feel a bit bad when we block an editor who means well and tries to address concerns that are raised about his/her work, but the project must be our primary concern, and it is unquestionable that the net effect on it of Chuck’s presence is negative.Joe (talk)23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you're trying to be positive, but I'm afraid I don't think your edits come across positively in the end. I agree that you should only nominate something when you at least have some extent of knowledge in it, unlike when you clogged a very difficult, news-filled daywith the discovery of the European Union.Therequiembellishere (talk)00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Had a little encounter with Chuck the other day atfinance. While I think the end result was positive (the lead became less about security markets), he seems unapologetic about his vandal edits like the one about Madoff, and banning/blocking seems like the only answer.II | (t -c)00:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You just called it a vandal edit. Words are powerful. None of my edits are vandal edits. Do you consider it OK for you to talk that way? --Chuck Marean00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Haven't looked at the various pages and edits that have been mentioned, but would suggest that the allegation that this user "clogged" anything or made an inappropriate claim about the "discovery of the EU" looks a bit unfair. He suggested a news story that was probably bound to be covered anyway (where's the crime in that?) and made a couple of POV asides on a talk page. I'm fairly sure no-one had to cover their children's eyes.--FormerIP (talk)00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
A great deal of time was spent explaining the European Union instead of covering the death of the longest-ruling non-monarch, two major art-related functions, a major LGBT event, two general elections, a referendum, the European election itself, on top of a major upcoming sports event and unfinished recent events like terrorist attacks, the wind turbine and the Irish and British local elections (along with Brown's ten cabinet resignations) were completely forgotten. It was quite disruptive.Therequiembellishere (talk)01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing this enormous waste of time in the talk page, though. More keystrokes seem to have been spent on Shanghai's gay pride event (jusifiably, perhaps), and Chuck doesn't seem to have been the biggest talker. His take on how big a story the EU elections were may have been disputable, but that is what the talk page is for. It's hard for me to see how this particular example can be seen as noteworthy disruption. --FormerIP (talk)01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Really? Have you looked atfinance and the surrounding talk pages? Of course, we could all debate the idea of reducing every article to the lowest common denominator, but the entire place would be reduced topablum, so why should we? I'll assume good faith, and conclude that the user in question is of a certain age prone to such disruption, and destined to eventually either earn attention on the merits or find someplace else to play.Steveozone (talk)05:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I've heard in the news recently that some of that age, and those around them, maintain a childlike attitude well beyond their years, at great pain to others.Steveozone (talk)07:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So I don't need to start being a grownup now that I've passed the big five-oh? Goody, cause I'm still having serious trouble dealing with my age. (And I can't say that I edit Wikipedia because of a mid-life crisis because I've been doing it far to long to make that sound plausible, even to me.) --llywrch (talk)17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, looking at some of the other edits, I agree there is an issue, and the finance edits alone merit it being brought here. But I would still say that some of the edits cited are IMO below the threshold where they can be called a major problem. ie he is maybe not as prolific as some comments above imply. --FormerIP (talk)14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the following restrictions are a good starting point for dealing with Chuck's editing:
Chuck Marean is prohibited from editing all Wikipedia articles. He may make suggestions on the talk pages. If other people find his suggestions useful, they may implement them at their prerogative; if they do not find them useful, they may ignore them at their prerogative.
Chuck Marean is prohibited from editing all current events articles (both the articles and their talk pages) and news-related Wikipedia pages (WP:ITN, the current events portal, etc including their talk pages)
Chuck Marean is prohibited from offering counterfactual suggestions. His editorial suggestions must accurately reflect the reality in which we live, and not waste the time of the people who read his suggestions.
Violation of any of the above is blockable by any admin for any period of time that admin believes is warranted. Admins enforcing these restrictions may impose further restrictions as the need arises.
Approve. Based from what I've read so far, Chuckie's actions are detrimental to the article and to Wikipedia as a whole. his remarks are just a way of trying to smart-ass his way out of accountability. --Eaglestorm (talk)04:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Aye - though I'd add that he must provide valid reliable sources for his suggestions, to save time regarding #3. → ROUX₪04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Raul, you are too kind to this person. After putting this matter to one side for a few hours then returning to this thread, I still think he ought to be indefinitely blocked, if not banned. Not only for insisting on contributing his unsupported & bizarre allegations, but for requiring so many Wikipedians to waste their time on this matter -- not only in this thread, but in the article space. Maybe his edits technically aren't vandalism, but they are nonsensical -- which fits the definition of vandalizing articles. (And as a postscript, I first learned about the E.U. back in school, about the timeTricky Dick was president. --llywrch (talk)05:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with the idea of an indef block/ban, to be honest. The problem here is that, while good faith, Chuck's edits are so useless and detached from reality that people spend a lot of time clearing up after him and then explaining in great detail what the problems are. Any solution we come up with here must be designed to correct this, and prevent people wasting their time on him when they could be doing more productive things. Having people supervising his edits does not do that. In addition, what we've basically done with the above suggestion is say that he can't edit the mainspace until his worldview lines up with reality. I can't see that happening, which begs the question - why is he here? Why do we tolerate him? He can't edit the mainspace, he can only make suggestions. His suggestions so far have been so out-of-touch and detached from the real world that nobody with the common sense of a garden gnome would touch them, so why bother? Why not just ban him outright, then we can get back to actually editing instead of supervising a user who can't contribute properly (or arguably, at all).Ironholds (talk)07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Any solution we come up with here must be designed to correct this, and prevent people wasting their time on him when they could be doing more productive things. - I agree. That's why, under the above sanctions, he must offer useful edits that don't waste peoples' time (#3). If he does not, he can be blocked for it (#4). Either he starts being useful or he is not going to be allowed to edit around here.Raul654 (talk)14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - I think a community ban is in order. As Joe noted above, I have been ade facto mentor for Chuck for the past 3+ years, following nearly every edit he has made. I noticed early on that he almost always edits in good faith, but also is almost always reverted (I'd guess that over 80% of his edits are reverted, perhaps more). Chuck has shown a history of stubbornness, which sometimes reaches the bar of POV-pushing. He also has shown a clear lack of understanding of multiple concepts, both simple and complex, which leads me to believe that his abilities might be less than average in this regard. I have gone out of my way over the years to be kind, assume good faith, and try to steer him to be productive. These efforts have largely failed, for each time Chuck finds a new topic or new part of the project to participate in, he ends up being disruptive. My frustrations have risen in recent months, and Chuck's continued non-constructive/disruptive editing was a contributing factor to my overall frustration with the project, leading to my sudden retirement only a few weeks ago. I support an indef block/ban, as I simply don't see how Chuck can be a productive participant in this project, and his continued editing has demanded constant supervision, revision, and "banging-head-against-the-wall" discussion by me and numerous other editors. This has gone on long enough. --ZimZalaBimtalk14:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - Ive seen some of his edits over the last couple of months and he adds stupid comments like the discovery of the EU and Tropical Cyclones do not exist thus i think something needs to happen to him.Jason Rees (talk)03:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - as second choice. Honestly, I figure the indef is inevitable with the restrictions, but it is giving him one chance to redeem himself. I note with some amusement that he still hasn't provided sources for Madoff. → ROUX₪03:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Chuck edits in good faith, but seems to have a simplistic view on the world sometimes. Unfortunately he ends up editing in articles and areas that he clearly knows nothing about, and refuses to take others comments seriously. His edits toElizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and onFinance alone show that he isn't conversant with the topics involved and is not willing to listen to others. Unfortunately he comes in, is bold, and reworks things considerably from what they are based on very limited, simplistic and often just plain wrong understandings.Canterbury Tailtalk13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - The sooner he's off wikipedia, the better. We don't need people like him wasting our time repairing the damage he's caused. --Eaglestorm (talk)18:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Support. Fundamentally confused, and there's not the slightest evidence that he evenwants to learn. --Calton |Talk21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, per the discussion above,I have blocked Chuck Marean indefinitely. Since I do this so infrequently, I have only blocked him -- not banned him -- & ask an Admin more experienced in this unpleasant chore to review my work, check that I have dotted my i's & crossed my t's, & finalize it with a ban notice if appropriate. If someone wants to mentor him, I'm fine with this block being reversed. However, I believe that I am acting per the wishes of the community here. --llywrch (talk)21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I declined his unblock request (made on the grounds that he didn't think the parole/etc requirements for resuming editing were appropriate). User really totally completely doesn't "get it".DMacks (talk)00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Two questions: 1) I was under the impression that declined unblock requests maynot be removed while the block is active, 2) is using his talkpage as a scratchpad for his study notes as he teaches himself about finance particularly useful? → ROUX₪01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've reblocked with talk page editing disabled and have redirected the talk page to the user page.Nakon01:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: As the Admin who originally blocked him, I think locking his talk page was going too far. Marean was editting in good faith -- the problem was that he just didn't get it, which was causing disruption not only due to his edits, but due to how people responded to them. Filling his talk page with gibberish was not disruptive in itself. We can allow him that much leeway; it might lead to less WikiDrama in the long run. --llywrch (talk)05:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Request to be unblocked
"Please unblock me. I will try to get a mentor, and I won’t again ask for a false accuser to be banned. Instead, I will try to explain to the person why I think he’s wrong." from his talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk03:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not an admin, obviously, but this is a community based ban, so...Oppose unblock. When he has proven (perhaps via email to ArbCom? In at least a month) that he actually has any understanding of why he was blocked (failure to agree with reality, generally unproductive requiring a lot of cleanup), I may reconsider my stance. → ROUX₪04:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Community based ban, and his unblock reason suggests to me that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong - hehonestly thinks that the big problem here is him asking for someone telling him off to be banned? Really? And he thinks the person is afalse accuser, i.e the accuser was bullshitting. He seems to think he was blocked for asking the "accuser" to be banned, and that he's still in the right. Conclusion: nothing has changed in his attitude or paradigm.Ironholds (talk)08:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose-I've been following the Chuck threads for several months now, and have been amazed at the patience of the community. Chucks motives seem to be the only thing that distinguishes what he does on wikipedia and what vandals and trolls do. But, the end result is still the same. And from his continued responses, I don't think he is capable of changing his editing habits. It's a shame, I'm sure he's a nice guy in person, but I don't think he is currently compatible with Wikipedia, and may not ever be.Heironymous Rowe (talk)12:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The most straightforward way I can think of to put my own take on his contribution history is that after so long, this editor seems to either have no understanding of, or no willingness to abide by,the original research policy.Gwen Gale (talk)12:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I looked through his talk page archives, and his attempts to understand finance stems from day one, and he still doesn't get it. Along with the rest of his areas of interest, it seems that Chuck just suffers from a complete lack of understanding of any of these areas, and is unable (or unwilling) to learn about them. His worldview seems to be based on some version of the Magic Kingdom, not real life. It is unfortunate as he is a good faith editor, not a vandal, but more time and effort is wasted cleaning up his edits than is good. Leads me to believe he is of more harm to the project than help.Canterbury Tailtalk14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I think deep down he means well, but for whatever reason is simply incapable of editing in a way that is consonant with objective reality. I don't think it's possible for anyone to change the very nature of their thought processes overnight (again, not doubting his intentions).Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)00:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - The unwillingess to follow consensus and to accept points of view other than his own have proven to be his undoing as a WP editor. His unblock request is no different than those who have been given many chances to reform, but as the adage goes, old habits die hard. People like Mr. Marean should stay off WP if they only do harm in spite of good faith. --Eaglestorm (talk)07:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Warning to other admins
A friend (or imposter of a friend) has recently returned. You may want to watchlistWikipedia talk:Long term abuse/MascotGuy and other related pages; he's only created two accounts so far that I could find (I blocked them both based on obvious names) but we may want to keep a heightened state of alert as he may not stop with just those blocks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
just for the record, I'm not sure the tallies mentioned by adjust in the 'closing' of this thread are right - I make it 22 - 8. I'm sure there's a venue somewhere to discuss wether or not 30 editors on this noticeboard represent a suitable / desirable process to enact a 'community ban', but it's probably not here. I don't think it's very cool.Privatemusings (talk)03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I closed the discussion at 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC). I analyzed the arguments of the both sides for about 50 minutes (12:00 UTC to 12:50 UTC). Maunus opposed the community ban proposal at 12:54 UTC. I missed his argument because by the time Maunus posted his argument, I had already my analysis. I've explained everything above.AdjustShift (talk)06:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Privatemusings, you opposed the community ban proposal, you don't want NYScholar banned; but, as an admin, I have to listen to the community. In most cases, when people participating in a ban-related discussion at AN support the community ban of an editor with solid arguments, the closing admin has no other choice but to ban the editor. I was elected by the WP community to listen to them. I can't ban someone unless the community asks me to do so. I did what the community wanted. If you don't believe that this is how community banning should be done, please go toWP:Village pump (policy), and ask the community to introduce a new policy regarding community banning. Have a nice day!AdjustShift (talk)06:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if this user is Kip the Dip, block them for trolling and move on. They are clearly the same person as the user of the same name on Uncyclopedia, and clearly created a pages over there attacking StarM, and clearly came to Wikipedia to brag about it less than two hours later, and are clearly unproductive here on Wikipedia. Block indef. I don't know if Uncyclopedia is another version of ED or not, so I don't know if they actually clean up crap like that or not (certainly seemed impossible to find a page to report it to), but atleast we can block trolls when we find them here, yes? --Floquenbeam (talk)19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Evidence it is the same person, and not some "impersonation":[34] on Uncyclopedia, where he says Wikipedia is "bullish", meaning it bullies innocent users like himself, an odd turn of phrase.[35] says the same thing on Wikipedia 4 hours later, using the same odd "bullish" phrase. --Floquenbeam (talk)20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That final warning is from 28 June. Their attack article on Uncyclopedia, and their bragging about it onUser talk:StarM, occuredafter the final warning. Unless the plan is to give them a "this time we really, really mean it super-duper final only one more chance after this" final warning? --Floquenbeam (talk)20:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
He's after me also--actually he got to me first. I deleted an article he wrote, after someone properly tagged it, and I see Star M warned him for his vandalism to my p., so that's how Star M got into it.DGG (talk)01:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, DGG. Troll, without a doublt. Whether there's enough to connect him with the account above and warrant a CU, I have no idea. DGG and I have had a mutual troll before, who it could also be. I won't block as obviously involved but suggest it should be done.He can't do too much w disparaging me, this is the only place I use this username - thanks to some previous off wiki harassment.ETA see it's not me but Wikipedia. No idea how to have such content removed. Anyone know? THanksStarM01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I blanked the page, and asked an admin to delete it:[36]. You would think they wouldn't have a big bureaucracy over there, hopefully that will be enough. --Floquenbeam (talk)02:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
On Uncyclopedia, at least, things get done the same century they're requested. Attack page deleted, troll blocked. I like that they have a block duration of "until Judgment Day", much classier than "indefinitely". --Floquenbeam (talk)02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Floque! Request someone here block the user, don't want to as I'm involved, but clearly here for no good.StarM03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
User68.56.168.185 has crossed the line when it comes to vandalism, look at his edits, 50% of them are vandalism, including one to my talk page. I think this guy needs a ban to teach him a lesson.RandomGuy666 (talk)—Precedingundated comment added02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC).
GT, I was responding to the original poster, not you. :) I agree with your block. I just wanted to make sure that RandomGuy knew it wasn't done "to teach him a lesson".hmwithτ16:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, God forbid, anyone learn anything about how to edit at Wikipedia by being blocked. Seriously, what we wantis a learning experience, or you might as well just jump to the end and block permanently.Auntie E (talk)19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Obvious block evasion is obvious, but it'll need a CU to figure out who it is, if that's even possible when tunneling through a VPN. → ROUX₪21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well they finally edited, and I checked the page log and found the other name they used earlier today that was blocked (it was the exact edit). Thus they are blocked for sock/block evasion. I only posted here initially as they had no edits to help establish who they were. Cheers,Nja24721:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Morbid Fairy
Morbid Fairy(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·logs·block log·arb·rfc·lta·SPI·cuwiki) who has also claimed to have edited asSatanoid(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·logs·block log·arb·rfc·lta·SPI·cuwiki) has made some excellent edits. However, very many of this editors edits arewp:vandalism, and are part of an ongoing 1-editor-wp:edit war accross a wide range of articles. Most problematically, the editor simply rolls back all edits to an unclear point in the past, declaring them to be vandalism, POV, and extremist. This includes much work converting naked references into Cite Webs, wikilinks, removal of duplicate periods and similar. This makes it even more difficult to recruit editors to help the edit-war-ravaged Sikh extremism/terrorism/Khalistan-conflict articles.
The editor was blocked for increasing periods as Satanoid, then blocked again as Morbid Fairy. On returning from the block as Morbid Fairy, immediatelydid this.
I fear not. This is why I have not brought this to ANI before. The editor sometimes makes useful edits. More often not. Blocked, the editor returned to edit warring immediately. Warned many times...and I see I lost the entire warning portion. Ow. Editor needs uninvolved editor feedback and/or a block. I cannot retype the lost warning list at the moment. I apologize and will add it.- sinneed (talk)23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
...and then the editor didthis and I warned himhere. Chopping others' posts out of my user talk page is just rude. I'll add the warnings from earlier later.- sinneed (talk)01:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
An an uninvolved party (and non-admin), my impression is that this looks like a case of the usual nationalist edit-warring. The only thing your diffs really make clear is that both of you misuse the word "vandalism", which does not encourage taking action here at this point.Looie496 (talk)18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That is actually great feedback. I realize I am asking for an unearned favor, but could you hit me with a diff where I called something vandalism that was not? No problem if not, of course. My understanding is that rolling back non-vandalism edits is vandalism, as I was rather kindly cautioned about it in the past.- sinneed (talk)22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
We need some help on a temporary (or permanent) organization for the Obama article probation pages. The entire probation page had been at [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]] (plus one associated archive), but was growing unduly large and confused, so I divided it into a series of subpages under [[Barack Obama/Article probation]] - one for "Logs" and one for "Requests for enforcement", each with its own associated talk page. An administrator,RHaworth(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) objects to these being subpages in article space and said they should be in talk spage then, after some discussion, moved and deleted them in a way that leaves them unlinked.
I'm not sure where we should discuss this, but I'm bringing it here for now given the use of tools and what looked like a request from an administrator that I not recreate the pages. I'm restoring enough links so that the article probation page navigation is intact... but doing no more than that. I'm not trying to edit war or force my opinion here, just making sure the article probation pages are accessible. I've asked RHaworth not to use admin tools on this until we get it sorted out.
Per the recent Arbcom decision there is supposed to be a working group to review and possibly reform article probation. That does not seem to be happening... organizing the pages properly is in part aimed at getting that started. In the long run, if the working group does materialize they can decide on a long-term organization for this. This is just a holding pattern until it gets sorted out. I appreciate any help, advice, etc. Thanks,Wikidemon (talk)20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
...after brainstorming a while on this, I think the best solution may be to move these into WP space as subpages ofWikipedia:General sanctions. I'll wait a little while to see if there are any objections but if not I'll go ahead and do that.Wikidemon (talk)21:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:RM closers should implement consensus, and leave things alone when there is none. Harej, judging from his talk page, has problems with restraining himself to that; I have discussed the merits of this case behind the link.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this a poor close; "no consensus for the move" was the only defensible conclusion. (Possible bias warning: Although I didn't participate in the move discussion, of which I was unaware, I find the evidence convincing that "Merano" is the most commonly used name in English.)Deor (talk)23:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so I'm not about to revert an admin's closure of the move discussion (nor would I do so without discussion even if Iwere an admin). I was merely offering an opinion.Deor (talk)23:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
As an administrator with two years experience, I support this result. You looked at it closely, read it twice, decided there was no clear consensus, so made your own judgement based on cold hard policy. A good move, even if it raised a few eyebrows. If, as you said, you take into account the"consistency with the naming pattern in the same region, and how we treat articles who have a language contingency that does not match up with the rest of the country", the answer is pretty clear. A touch move, but the right one, I feel.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk)00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree. As Pmanderson (with whom I rarely agree) explained in the discussion, some of the more prominent places in South Tyrol (Alto Adige) are more commonly known in English under their German names, e.g. Brixen (Bressanone) and Brenner (Brennero), while some are more commonly known in English under their Italian names, e.g. Merano (Meran) and Bolzano (Bozen). We can't base the naming of a city such as Merano on the pattern for the naming of the little villages in the same region. For insignificant entities the most commonly used mane in English is usually simply the most commonly used name locally. For cities that's not true, as this example shows. Breaking the principle that the most commonly used name in English is used seems like a very dangerous precedent to me. There are must be hundreds of places with similar problems; recently I have seen such a conflict at a formerly Greek, now Turkish, island that is generally known in English under its Greek name. If it becomes known that the principle has once been broken, and the result has been upheld, hell will break lose in most of these places.HansAdler00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I expected this discussion to be atTalk:Meran; but, since it's here, let me point out the long discussion, chiefly atTalk:Communes of the province of Bolzano-Bozen, which decided to use linguistic majoritywhen, and only when, the existing standards of most common name and official name do not apply. (Meran(o) has two official names, which is the Italian Government's way of handling the problem; we tried using both and got arguments about which came first.)SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
An administrator shouldn't make this kind of move based on a local near-consensus against a firmly established global consensus when it's predictable that it will lead to disruption in lots of similar hotspots once the nationalists there understand there is a new precedent. E.g. the Turks who want to see their island named in Wikipedia by its current official (Turkish) name Bozcaada, rather than its more common (in English) old (Greek) nameTenedos already tried to use theMumbai (vs. Bombay) argument, which is a much less clear precedent. Consensus can change, but it shouldn't change because of accidents involving the relative strengths of nationalist factions and admins who do little more than count heads before doing a controversial move.HansAdler00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I assure you I was not counting heads, but arguments. In fact, you could say I put the arguments well ahead of the heads. —harej (talk)00:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As an administrator with four years experience as a registered account, I can assure you that there is absolutely no global consensus on the translations of names and how articles should be title. From Danzig/Gdansk to Ivory Coast/Cote d'Ivoir to East Timor/Timor l'Est to Bombay/Mumbai to Meran/Merano the only consensus that we have established is that thelocal consensus is what matters in naming conventions. And you have done a fantastic job of insulting harej's decision simply because you don't like it. There are times when just because you don't agree doesn't make you right, and no amount of complaining will change it. You can't overtalk someone in a written format. You can, however, overtype. Neither are healthy.Keegan (talk)01:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Policy decisions aren't made on this noticeboard. Nothing requiring intervention, admin or otherwise. Please use an appropriate forum. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk)02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are inactive accounts preserved indefinitely in case the user wishes to return? An example,Mintguy (talk·contribs) has not edited in five years, but still retains sysop privileges. Would it not be better to suspend those privileges (as they are not being used) until such a time as they are needed again, ie if the user returns and shows an interest in editing (and administrating) again? These accounts are a target for usurpation. pablohablo.05:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It's been discussed again and again. Renaming an account, in order tousurp it byafterwards creating anew account, does not give away privileges, by the way. So usurpation is not a factor here.Uncle G (talk)05:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
We just had a problem with a long-ago admin returning who didn't seem to understand how much has changed around here. For someone given the tools in 2005, I recognize that it's vastly different. --Ricky81682 (talk)06:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I meantusurp, notusurp, and hacking was my concern. There's not much point in hacking a normal account, especially when there are admin accounts lying around unused. pablohablo.06:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Stealing account is generally done through packet sniffing, keyboard logging, or stealing browser files, all of which require an active user. An inactive account is far less likely to be hacked than an active account.Chillum06:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems relatively obvious that any admin account that has been substantially inactive for six months should have its privileges removed, with no prejudice for restoring should they return to active editing. The potential for widespread mayhem should someone get their hands on such an account (and I'm sure we can think of reams of people who would like to) is pretty severe, and we should address that. → ROUX₪06:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
What is "relatively obvious" turns out not to be once one thinks about it in greater depth. In addition to the points made here already, other factors to think about are the human ones.In practice, the hurdle for regaining administrator privileges is actually quite high, and far from "no prejudice". There's also the effect that such actions have on editor morale. But, as I said above, this has all been discussed at length already, several times. I recommend reading all of the past arguments before repeating them.
I also recommend looking at the specific case given above. Mintguy is not aninactive administrator. Xe is aretired administrator. But xe also makes a good example of how human factors raise this supposedly "no prejudice" hurdle that exists as an ideal but not in practice. ReadWikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Mintguy and then tell us that the ideal of a "no prejudice" re-granting of administrator privileges would occur in practice.Uncle G (talk)07:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it's still obvious to me, and I have thought about it at some length. One of the issues with RFA--why the bar is set so painfully high, and higher with each one--is that it is next to impossible to be desysopped. If we were to routinely desysop inactive admins, we would be one step closer into making adminship what it should be: not that big a deal, really. The Wikipedia equivalent of being the Hall Monitor at school. I would propose that the policy be worded (and applied) roughly thus:users with sysop (or higher) permissions who have been inactive for 6 months will have those permissions removed as a matter of course. They will be automatically regranted upon request to ArbCom, though will be re-removed after three months if the user remains inactive but for the request. Simple, clear, unambiguous. Gameable, maybe, but not only do I seriously doubt that anyone would game it, IAR is easily enough applied to the one or two edge cases that may result. And really, what is the practical difference between 'retired' and 'inactive? Not much as far as I can see. Indeed, 'retired' is a much more conclusive argument for removing permissions. → ROUX₪07:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd actually agree, although I'd say 8 or 9 would be safer than 6 (it is actually entirely possible to be absent for 6 months for a variety of reasons, but a longer absence would suggest genuine inactivity). I also don't think ArbCom would be necessary - you could record all admins so desysopped on a list somewhere and a bureaucrat could simply check the list when such a request arrives (to protect against fraudulent requests). An even better way would be to have a specialattribute "inactive-sysops" on the account so a bureaucrat doesn't even have to check the list. But these are all only ideas :)Orderinchaos18:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, 8 or 9, whatever. The timespan doesn't matter. The idea of crats managing it makes a lot of sense. → ROUX₪18:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"Hacking"? please define. As best I know noone has managed to gain illicit shell access to the wikimedia servers, if they could do so and then gain access to the database table of users, they could reset anyones password or change the privileges of an existing account without showing in the activity log (Steward rights would be useful). I assume you actually mean guessing passwords, in which case the age of the account or activity wouldn't be a factor. --82.7.40.7 (talk)06:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about inactive/retired admin accounts you can start a discussion at the village pump, if there is support you can create an RFC or centralized discussion. To date, the situation has been discussed many times, and there is no consensus to remove admin access from inactive/retired accounts; therefore, there is no point in appealing to the stewards or Arbcom until you have a community discussion that has a clear consensus.Thatcher13:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Compromised admin accounts have actually done very little damage for about 10 minutes in the past. When this has happened in the past it was with active accounts. There is no need to implement this solution when there is no problem yet. There is no good reason to remove the sysop bit from users simply because they are inactive. This has been discussed many times, I don't oppose further discussion but I suspect consensus has not yet changed on this matter.Chillum13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"There is no need to implement this solution when there is no problem yet." Well that's just false on its face. You can't build the levees once the floods have already started. You're arguing a reactive instead of a preventative approach. And let me tell you, that mindset has been dismissed outright in pretty much every professional field, from medicine to engineering to psychology to the Boy Scouts to, of course, computer security. --Cyde Weys18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd support temporary suspension of administrator priveleges (with no-questions-asked restoration upon return) if only to have the "number of admins" be an accurate reflection of how many admins there actually are. –xenotalk13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. I hit the point, and even contradicted it, pointing out that it is not well founded either in knowledge of human nature in general or in past experience of what has already happened, here and on other wikis. "no questions asked" is a theoretical ideal, and we've had enough past experience to know thatin practice what is envisaged by that ideal will not happen. I suggest that, for starters, you go and look at what happened on Wikinews when inactive administratorJimbo Wales asked for xyr administrator privileges back. "No questions asked" is an ideal not grounded in real world experience.Uncle G (talk)16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If the only concern is to get an accurate count of just how many active admins we have it's fairly trivial from a technical standpoint to add a count of "active" admins onSpecial:Statistics and such, or even add a checkbox or something toSpecial:Listusers that hide users that haven't made any edits (or other actions) in the last X days and such. We just have to make the suggestions and poke a dev to implement it. --Sherool(talk)16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand the viewpoint that editors such as Chillum have in this case. If there is a gaping hole in security, you fix it - it doesn't matter if the security flaw has yet to be massively exploited. Preemptive measures arekey when it comes to security. You don't wait for the worst-case scenario to happen andthen implement measures; you take steps to ensure it doesn't happen in the first place. Moreover, there is little, if any, collateral damage or negative side effects with this proposal - if the account returns, you re-implement the tools. Couldn't be simpler. Opposing it seems silly.Tan |3916:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
But this isn't a gaping hole in security. It's an almost non-existent security threat. As Chillum themself has pointed out above, inactive admin accounts are very unlikely to be hacked, and will do very little damage if they are.Algebraist16:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Algebraist. I see no gaping hole here. Has there been any gaping going on that we should be aware of? -GTBacchus(talk)18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
But it is a gaping hole. Remember that rash of compromised admin accounts editing the main page not that long ago? Granted, some safeguards were put into place, but the mostobvious safeguard, getting rid of long-inactive admin accounts, wasn't put into place. So if the other safeguards are again bypassed (which, inevitably, they will be, because Wikipedia is such a big target), we'll be screwed because we didn't implement an additional sensible safeguard. Security isn't piecemeal. --Cyde Weys18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, I don't remember that, or I probably wouldn't have asked the question I did. Now I'm curious; what did they do? Is this written about somewhere that isn't too "tl;dr"? -GTBacchus(talk)18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A few years back, someone brute-forced the passwords on a few admin accounts, blocked a few users, and deleted the main page. In response, a captcha was added to the login form after a failed login to prevent automated brute-force attacks, and every admin with a weak password was forced to change it. --Carnildo (talk)23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A weak password is a weak password, and can be hacked easily enough. So it's not an almost non-existent security threat. MediaWiki has some safeguards against attempted password guessing, but they can only ever mitigate, not entirely prevent. It is a basic security practice not to leave unnecessary holes open in your system. Can you name any set of security procedures in which it is okay to keep an account's administrative access five years after the account was last logged in? At that point, if the account does log in again, it's more likely that it's because a malicious user has assumed control than it is that the original user has returned. --Cyde Weys18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As an editor who has accounts on quite a few Foundation wikis, and who isstill the person associated with those accounts, even though some of them have not been used recently, I point out that your assumption of likelihood is just that, an assumption based upon no empirical data at all. If you want two empirical data points to start off with, I give youq:Special:Contributions/Uncle G andpt:Especial:Contribuições/Uncle G. I haven't made an edit for a couple of years, butI'm still here and they are both still my accounts. My WWW browser is logged in under those accounts right now, as a matter of fact.Uncle G (talk)16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've supported this kinda of an administrative revocation of Admin rights for a longtime, as in years. (However, the idea is curtly dismissed every time someone suggests it, for being unneeded/unwanted bureaucracy.) Admin rights are only useful if a person is an active member of Wikipedia. Further, since few Wikipedians simply let us know that they are leaving & will never return, we end up with a lot of inactive Admins. And lastly, if this is simply an administrative action -- the bit if flipped without implying that the departed user did anything wrong -- should the former Admin return, all that person needs to do is ask a Bureaucrat to regain the bit. --llywrch (talk)20:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Myself, as well. As I have said before many times (either at the VP, WT:RFA, or WT:ADMIN), this is supposed to happen to Checkusers who are inactive for over a year. If adminship is no big deal, then it should not be a big deal for the bit to be switched off if the user is clearly not using it. I don't foresee the WMF anytime soon checking password strength of admins by trying to hack into them. It's also nearly impossible to ensure (besides AGF, of course) that those users who wish to become admins (i.e. those at RFA) have strong passwords. That's my take on it.MuZemike02:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
" don't foresee the WMF anytime soon checking password strength of admins by trying to hack into them. " - really? As the above linkedsignpost article from a couple of years ago says, it's already been done "Lead developer Brion VIBBER has run a password cracker on all administrator accounts and invalidated the weak passwords of several additional admin accounts. These admins will have to reset their passwords by e-mail before logging in again." --82.7.40.7 (talk)06:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
And what has the age got to do with it. Your statement suggested they wouldn't do it, clearly they've done it in the past and I can't see any reason why you'd think that a reasonable request for this apparently very serious problem wouldn't be entertained by Brion. --155.140.133.254 (talk)12:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The important point is the "if". In practice itis not "no big deal" to regain administrator privileges. Itdoes not happen with "no questions asked". There are several cases of people applying for restoration of administrator privileges, across several wikis, that show that human nature undermines this cosy ideal in practice, and thatthe theory does not occur in practice. Arguments based on the ideal being the case are thus ill-founded.Uncle G (talk)16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I suggested we keep this in the hands of the Bureaucrats, & not decided on WP:AN or WP:AN/I. As long as the Admin departed in good standing, there shouldn't be any objections to the Admin bit being restored; it is not an opportunity for troublemakers to extract payback for being told to shape up or ship out. --llywrch (talk)23:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The longer WP keeps going, the more this problem will arise. I would start off very slowly, with people who have been totally inactive for 2 years or more How many of these are there , by the way? I certainly wouldn't make it less that a year. We want to encourage people to return, not discourage them. For example, I've seen many people return at the end of an academic year.,DGG (talk)07:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (to DGG) That makes sense. Let me see if I'm catching your drift, and suggest a way to move forward. As of tomorrow (for the sake of argument), any account with permissions beyond autoconfirmed (I include this b/c rollback is regularly removed from retired/inactive/blocked editors) will have those permissions removed. With a post on the talkpage perhaps? Should any of those editors return to editing, a post atWP:BN (for +sysop +CU +crat +OS, whatever),WP:AN (for rollback) would be enough to have the next crat who walks by re-enable the privileges (or direct a steward to do so), no questions asked. Six (for the sake of argument) months down the road, same removal for anyone inactive for 18 months. 1 year from tomorrow, anyone whose last activity was today. Thereafter just sweep the inactive list (weekly? monthly?) and remove permissions of anyone inactive for a year. The idea is somewhat gameable, but as I said above IAR can take care of edge cases (and shouldonly take care of edge cases). Perhaps we just say if someone has had to have their permissions removed forinactivity twice, they will have to go back to the usual process (RFA,WP:RFP, whatever's appropriate) to have the permissions reinstated. This should take care of the reasonable concern that an admin inactive for two years may well be out of touch with current norms and policies. How close am I batting to your thinking? Unrelated to that, Brion VIBBER should probably re-run that pw cracker for any admin or higher accounts. → ROUX₪07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: If an inactive administrator whose sysop bit was removed need only return and request that it be restored ("no questions asked"), what is to prevent someone who has compromised the account from doing the very same thing? Without the burden of proving one's identity (which I imagine would require advance participation in a verification system), I fail to see the point. —David Levy 07:52/07:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Good question. Perhaps the post to BN or wherever needs to be backed up with an email exchange viaSpecial:Emailuser/Bureaucrats? OldUser emails crats, crats email back, OldUser emails back to crats confirming (this prevents someone sending via a compromised Wikipedia account), and posts some token on the relevant page confirming they are in possession of both email and Wiki accounts. I mean.. not everybody subscribes to confirmed identity, so there's only so much that can be done. → ROUX₪07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I told you so. If one thinks about this in depth — and this whole areahas been gone over before, as I pointed out — one finds that this is not the "relatively obvious" case that it superficially appears to be.Uncle G (talk)16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For what its worth, I was given my sysop bit at beginning of 2006, left for a short break due to personal reasons and ended up returning way late, with permissions and my old clerk job soon afterward. Shortly after I returned I made a few stumbles, got accused of being poetlister, made an unpopular block, tried to solve a multi-year intractable dispute by myself, had a few calls for my head and bit on a platter, and other drama. I've also done things bit wise that received no attention whatsoever. It has, I believe on the whole, turned out not to be a Big Deal, and I get into trouble within the same range as other admins. I personally think everyone should just chill about the inactive administrator thing. Administrators will make mistakes, "returning" admins will make more mistakes for a short time, and then either evolve, or find themselves quickly marginalized. Most returnees however, admin or otherwise, will simply quit. Desysop temporarily, or don't, it only fulfills a need for tidiness, it makes no substantial difference.--Tznkai (talk)01:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
How aboutall inactive users for x amount of time gets indef blocked until requested in a "no question asked manner"? If the promoters think that re-sysoping would be easy then unblocking would surely be a piece of cake. If the account is hacked then they can't use it anyways. That way and admins don't get the special Big Deal treatment and we get around that security problem thingy. However, I personally prefer Tznkai's "everyone should just chill about the inactive administrator thing".--Lenticel(talk)01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
an idea of some genius
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Agreed. My first thought was "WP:BOLLOCKS". Surely this is humour? I would've thought Privatemusings has been around for long enough to know the difference between an FA writer and an admin. The idea of letting people like Giano enforce the civility and no personal attacks policy, for example, is absolutely anathema.Ironholds (talk)05:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
to be honest, the idea of letting people who write posts like that enforce 'civility' is a bit of an anathema too, no? (are you an admin? I'm not sure!)Privatemusings (talk)06:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's see... RFA sometimes doesn't work because it lets in some admins who are unqualified or do a bad job. So instead, lets let EVERYBODY in. That's a reasonable solution </sarcasm> --Jayron32.talk.contribs05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Everyone? There's only like ten or fifteen people who have writtenten featured articles. I am pretty sure most of them are already administrators, in any case. —harej (talk) (cool!)06:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hah hah, Chamal :D. Juliancolton, there are 62 users with 10 featured articles, and 38 of them are already sysops, for the exact figures :PSpitfireTally-ho!06:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Support minus the 10 FA requirement. Too many editors already. And per Peter Damian. And per the tools are "no big deal" and "just a few extra buttons". And per Wikipedia's egalitarian roots. I'm not sure whether anonymous editors should be granted admin status though, but maybe. And to really even things out, I think current admins should have the status revoked, while it's given to everyone else. Fair is fair. Will this apply to Bureaucrat status also? Perhaps a lottery system?ChildofMidnight (talk)06:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
heh... I see what you did there, CoM! - if roux is 'good god'ing then I'm pretty sure I'm on a good track....;-) - More seriously, I think the community process of awarding articles 'featured' status is pretty rigourous (although not without big huge flaws on occasion) and I think this would go some way to achieving a much-recently-discussed 'check and balance' on admin culture which would significantly benefit the project.Privatemusings (talk)06:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No, if I'm 'good god'ing then you are on unequivocally thewrong track, same as the woefully misguidedattempt at censorship you tried both here and at Commons a few months ago. → ROUX₪06:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
PM, is this a serious proposal? I'm not that familiar with the FA process, but the GA process seems no less flawed than RfA. And I frequently see FA status used as a cudgel to fight further improvement and changes. "It's already an FA!!!"
Why is the RfA process broken exactly? I assume that's the assumption this is based on. A need for an alternative for those who can't get the tools the old fashioned way? It seems to me to work fairly well actually. I think the process for removing admins is far less smooth. How about any editor with 10 FAs gets to remove one admin. Now we're onto something!!!ChildofMidnight (talk)06:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
and shell access when you get to 20! ......or mebbe just admin at 10? You see in various chats around the place, it seems to me a fairly common theme that RfA is in some way broken - some people seem to think it gets a bit political, some people feel that it's a bit skewed to certain sections of the community, and some people just think it's completely rubbish. It's actually part of the wiki way, in my view, to be flexible, and open to new ideas, and to try new things to see if they breathe a bit more life / vitality / positivity into a community, and I think it's entirely appropriate to say to someone who's contributed 10 featured articles 'you know, if you'd like some more buttons, they are available to you, and if you want to help in this way, we'd really appreciate that'.Privatemusings (talk)06:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
you're quite correct, spitfire, that (at least part of) this idea is predicated on the thought that for some, an RfA process might not seem attractive or work out for the best - if you'd like to chat further about why I believe this is indeed so, swing by my talk page anytime :-)Privatemusings (talk)07:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I would befascinated to know under exactly what circumstances giving anyone who has written ten FAs +sysop rights is 'for the best', when the point of adminiship is that one has the trust of the community. Please also explain how the FA systemwon't be gamed for this. → ROUX₪07:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Except that as I pointed out at the proposed policy page, RFA is required per Mike Godwin due to the userright ViewDeleted bundled with the +sysop flag. So this will never happen. That is quite leaving aside what you have thus far ignored: article building and adminship are non-overlapping skill sets (though some people have both), it would guarantee adminship for someone with possibly the longest block log on this site, we already have enough people complaining about 'bad admins' and you wish to guarantee that people who have not necessarily shown any knowledge of policy outside of article writing be given +sysop flags... I could go on, but it's late. I suggest that this thread be closed and the proposed policy marked historical (if not deleted), as per the WMF's legal counselit cannot happen, period. You can take it up with him. → ROUX₪ 07:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) After(edit conflict): discussions on RFA belong atWT:RFA. → ROUX₪07:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
silly roux! I have it on good authority that the 'featured article' process is indeed run by the community, and further, a bloke down the village pump told me that Mike thinks this is quite a good idea, and not at all problematic - you can take that up with him if you'd like ;-)Privatemusings (talk)07:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)although you're right, folk interested in commenting should head over to the policy proposal talk page
all I'm really suggesting is that you don't tie your colours to the 'this would absolutely be outlawed by the foundation' mast just yet... I don't think it's a flier..Privatemusings (talk)07:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)and doesn't proof deny good faith? - don't let your head explode adhering to every policy you perceive!
You're claiming that the legal counsel of the WMF has explicitly changed a statement he made approximately eight months ago (if memory serves; it was referenced during one of the perennial 'we should debundle more userrights' discussions). I would like to see where he has done so and what his reasoning is. Please provide a diff. → ROUX₪07:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Who are the writers of 10 FAs that aren't admins? Are there other editors who do great article contributing that we should be considering for adminship? We could try straight nomming them...ChildofMidnight (talk)07:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. So the next logical question is whether Privatemusings thinks these editors should receive automatic adminship? And I see Sceptre is 3 away...ChildofMidnight (talk)07:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
well duh! I thinkeveryone who has contributed 10 featured articles (and actually, I'm prepared to chat about that bar - I could be persuaded of the merits of 5, to be honest) should be able to have sysop tools granted on request :-)Privatemusings (talk)07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, nom Malleus and Giano and let's see what happens. As a side note, I notice thatuser:Davemeistermoab is having a tough time at RfA over article contribution issues despite 4 FAs (rigorous debate over whether the objections have merit on his RfA's talk page).ChildofMidnight (talk)07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the answer to 'see what happens' would be 'shitstorm of epic proportions.' And that particular RFA, CoM, is yet another excellent argument against what Privatemusings is proposing. I have yet to see a reasonable argument in favour. → ROUX₪07:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This idea is utterly ridiculous. The FAC process is a way of rigorously checking anarticle, not auser. Since we're not giving the article +sysop, the idea that adminship should be based on number of successful FAC nominations is absurd. Claims that RfA is brokenturn up all the time, and the same thing happens. We disagree over whether it is or isn't, and those who agree that it is can't decide what to do about it.Ironholds (talk)07:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged the proposal as rejected, removing the{{proposed}} template, given the pretty much unanimous opposition above. Hopefully this will reduce the number of words wasted on this absurd proposal into the future.Daniel (talk)07:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ban the use of "Troll"/"Trolling" when describing editors/edits?
I've noticed a couple of threads recently where admins have used "troll" or "trolling" as a descriptor when interacting with editors and on both occasions all it's served to do is exacerbate the situation, infuriate the editors referred to in this way and obscure the real problems. It's probably time to enjoin the use of these descriptions in edit summaries and messages. There are plenty of other ways to neutrally describe the edit/action that don't engender the same visceral emotional reaction - it's no hardship to say "Revert edit - please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make aWP:POINT" instead of "Revert trolling by troll editor".Exxolon (talk)01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Do we have to "ban" where we could educate instead? I think it's a lot better (and more difficult) to develop a culture where social norms lead us to ways of resolving disputes that stay away from personal territory. Banning words is such a gross thing to do... I just think of word taboos that actively kill people in the world today...No, I'm not suggesting that banning the T-word will lead to someone's death. Goodness. -GTBacchus(talk)01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a wet blanket. I definitely agree that if the "T-word" vanished from our vocabulary today, then tomorrow would be better. I'm just cynical about rule-based solutions. -GTBacchus(talk)02:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
There are cases where it is a good term to describe someone who "posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion" as stated in the articleTroll (Internet). This is like seeking to ban the word "vandal." If the shoe fits, wear it. Why should we be forced into length circumlocutions?Edison (talk)03:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Because saying it, in practice, generates more heat than light. If you want to spend your time on Wikipedia arguing over whether the shoe fits, then by all means apply unprovable labels. If you'd rather write an encyclopedia, then help us end disruption the quick, clean, quiet way.
The test is empirical, and applying the label "troll" has failed that test. Note that Istrongly oppose the banning of any word. I support people wising up to not using certain words where they simply will nothelp. -GTBacchus(talk)03:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should be careful to make a distinction between "troll" and "trolling." Without commenting on the merits of the former, I interpret "trolling" to mean "trying to get a rise out of someone" not "acting like a troll," indeed, the idea being that when I trollUser:Foo, I want to turnhim into a troll, by making him angry, not that I myself am a troll. I'm not sure I see a problem with that usage, but I'm open-minded on it.IronDuke03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I would definitely oppose any sort of political correctness mindset that disallows us to describe trolling by the word "trolling". As with vandalism, it is an accusation that should not be targetted against most longtime good-faith editors without good reason, though. Call vandals vandals, call trolls trolls, but be sparing in the use of these words when there is a way toWP:AGF instead.Kusma (talk)03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
And who is advocating that? Does the thread here (after the first post) talk about disallowing something, or rather about being smart instead of stupid? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, and I'm not sure why somebody would object to that. -GTBacchus(talk)06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a particularly aggressive version of missing the point. Can you indicate one instance, anywhere in history, where calling someone a "troll" is helpful in any way? Or otherwise, are you advocating something that you admit isnever helpful? What is your point here? -GTBacchus(talk)06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia Reference Desk, trolls often post argumentative questions which disparage some nation, religious group, or race, or ethnicity, or generally seek to get angry responses. If they are identified as a troll, it is likely that they will not get the satisfaction they seek because others will not respond further.Edison (talk)18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
We could call the quacking bird on the water a pickle as well, I would rather call it a duck.Chillum03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What are we supposed to learn from this aggressive missing of the point? Is it that calling someone a "troll" has ever been helpful? If so, then why not simply provide links to that situation? -GTBacchus(talk)06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
As an occasional user of the word I would be sorry to see it banned, but mainly I'd like to point out that as I understand it, the derivation of the word refers not to monsters who live under bridges but to the verb as used in fishing -- "trolling" as in dragging a lure through the water in hopes of getting a bite from an unwary fish.Looie496 (talk)18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Trolling describes an action. We already rely too heavily on WP:CAPITALIZED SHORTHAND. There is no need to use a policy (POINT) to describe an action where a more commonly understood definitionalready exists. Besides, point doesn't strictly describe trolling--haranguing folks on a talk page isn't actually disrupting the encyclopedia, as any first yearwikilwayer will tell you.Protonk (talk)19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "trolling" describes an action. Is it a good idea (in the sense of real-world benefit) to use that word to describe actions here? -GTBacchus(talk)20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is. It is also foolish to search for some on-wiki phrase as a substitute. Note thattroll the verb andtroll the noun are two different things. One can make the argument that we shouldn't call vandals vandals and trolls trolls--it's relatively compelling. But that is not the focus here (apparently). The focus seems to be on applying AGF to mean that a very high bar exists in declaring something to be trolling. I don't think that is necessary, nor do I think this whole discussion is very fruitful. People trolling pages should get shown the door, assuming that we can determine their intention. Admins and editors should behave like civil adults when doing so, but we don't need line after line of proscription against enforcing community norms.Protonk (talk)01:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly not talking about finding substitute words for anything. That sounds really dumb. I'm not focusing on AGF either. Maybe someone else is, but I don't think AGF has anything to do with this at all. Finally, what you say is "of course" helpful, a lot of editors are saying isempirically unhelpful, and they've got evidence. So, I'd say to you:[citation needed]. What we're talking about is whatactually defuses situations the fastest, and the bar is set at providing examples.
I oppose any kind of "proscription", so I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to that. I'm in favor of enforcing norms in the most intelligent and effective way. The evidence I've seen is that this means avoiding the label "troll" or "trolling". I'm open to seeing evidence to the contrary. -GTBacchus(talk)01:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
We wouldn't, and we won't. We're not going to ban any words. The real conversation is about whether there's ever a good reason (in the sense of real-world benefit) to describe someone's participation here as "trolling"? -GTBacchus(talk)20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Troll is usually an uncivil term. Looie496 is partially correct, but the word has both meanings; the verb is as Looie describes, from fishing usage, the noun is clearly uncivil, and it's remarkable to see the noun form defended above. (It would be "troller" if it were derived from the verb.) (Long-time internet discussion usage played on both meanings.) Even as a verb, it incorporates an assumption of bad faith, mindreading; I've known for a fact that, sometimes, the assumption wasn't warranted, the goal of an edit wasn't disruption or apoint violation, the goal was improvement of the project, mistaken or otherwise. Blocking someone for "trolling" or "disruption" or even "POV-pushing," without specific examples of violations is convenient, and occasionally warranted, perhaps, for an overworked administrator. But it would be better to allow unblocking any block that isn't accompanied by evidence, after a reasonable attempt to contact the blocking admin. Too often, it's an excuse for an administrator displaying a dislike of the editor or the editor's work.
It's not necessary to ban the word, what's necessary is to enforceWP:CIVIL. Starting with administrators! Warnings first. --Abd (talk)19:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "warnings first" or even "enforcement" are good ways to think about civility, but you're right that it's about using civility to improve situations, and not about "banning" anything. -GTBacchus(talk)20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't use the word myself (my experience is that if someone is truly trolling, they enjoy the attention they get from being called a troll, and if they aren't trolling they are quite rightly insulted). However, as a practical matter, banning the use of a word just won't work. If someone uses the word inappropriately, talk to them in a polite, friendly manner and explain the issue. Unfortunately, too many times the editors who try to enforce civility are less-than-civil in the process and no real progresss gets made.--Fabrictramp |talk to me20:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is going to "ban" any word. That would never fly in this community. Your last sentence I agree with 100%. -GTBacchus(talk)21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should ban anyone calling anyone else a 'little shit' - I don't think you'll find much support, GT, for your position that this is somehow 'ok', perhaps we could work on a poll to see if your position is in tune with the community - maybe on the question 'is it ok for editors to go around calling each other little shits?'. I'm afraid if you can't agree that the answer is 'no', hence should be banned, then clearly you'll be acting firmly against the long established principles of this project.Privatemusings (talk)21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)or maybe not...? - who loves ya, baby!
Huh. So you're saying that... if I don't want to "ban" a word or phrase... then I think it's appropriate to use it? That's a strange deduction, if you're not joking. You mention, "[my] position that this is somehow 'ok'." I hold no such position. I think "banning" things is stupid.
Your statement "if you can't agree that the answer is 'no', hence should be banned," seems to imply that anything that we shouldn't say, we should ban. That seems very unhealthy to me. I don't think there's ever an appropriate instance for calling someone a "little shit". I don't think the phrase should be "banned". There's no contradiction there. -GTBacchus(talk)21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
maybe 'block' is a better word? - and maybe we should have anextended discussion about it (well, we change exchange posts, but I can't promise to read or understand yours I'm afraid). Do you think we should change policy to make calling people a 'little shit' a non-blockable offense?Privatemusings (talk)22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah... different uses of the word "ban". There's talk of "banning" a word, whereas you're talking about blocking (or banning) an account. Strange to confuse the two.
You and I also seem to take different views of policy. You seem to think it's something we can change by adjusting what it says on various webpages. Policy is this: "Use civility to resolve disputes." Nothing anybody writes down will change that.
Ongoing disruption is always a cause for blocking, not because someone "committed" a "blockable" "offense", but in the interest of preventing continuing disruption.
Anything that is disruptive and ongoing may be stopped via blocks. There's nothing particularly subtle about this. We're not lawyers, and we're not here to talk about laws. We're here to build an encyclopedia. -GTBacchus(talk)22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
but you're getting dangerously close to suggesting that someone shouldn't be blocked for calling someone a 'little shit' once, when upset. This cannot be! The fundamental principles and traditions of wikipedia surely dictate something like a three hour block for such nasty behaviour - after all, who is looking out for the victim here?Privatemusings (talk)23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)stretching a bit now..... stay on target... stay on target.....
You may stop trying to claim that I'm saying something about a topic you know damned well I'm not even addressing. Just be ingenuous, brave and honest, and tell us what you're really saying. Let's do it the adult way.
heh... none - I apologise if my rather clumsy satire / sarcasm has put your back up and obfuscated what I really think is a rather serious point - that it's really silly to talk about banning words, or trying to make silly rules about who's allowed to say what to whom. I felt your shoulders were broad enough to take a bit of silliness - but the disruptive effect of someone not listening, and perhaps even willfully misunderstanding (true I guess in my case, perhaps in others?) is real... and it's a bad thing.... there's some ridiculous winds blowing around the wiki and I think there's cause for concern...Privatemusings (talk)23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No worries... I think that you and I are probably on the same page that this talk of "rules" is silly, and distracting from the project. There's been an unpleasant episode, in which both JW and Bish have behaved in ways... that are worse that what we've indef blocked some people for, and yet on the order of behavior that we tolerate, coddle and enable on a daily basis. It just depends who's at the receiving end. In this case, both participants were very well-known and well-liked, at least in certain circles. Even so, this too will pass.
The larger issues, I think we're working on. Have you been over toWikipedia:Civility/Poll yet?
Regarding my shoulders... I've been on the receiving end of some pretty toxic incivility already once today, and I'm not in a very holiday humour. Perhaps I should go offline. -GTBacchus(talk)23:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocks without personal labels?
I thinklittle shit is rather alike totroll ortrolling. If something's blockable, there are other, policy-linked ways of putting it. Please don't call other editorstrolls orlittle shits, please don't say they'retrolling, it never helps, as we've seen time and again.Gwen Gale (talk)22:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
So... you're saying that's the topic of this thread, or that's what you'd rather talk about than the topic of this thread? -GTBacchus(talk)23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Censorship? Really? What. The. Fuck? Come off it. This is plain and simple censorship. If admins are banned from using 'troll' and 'trolling' to epxlain behaviors, and instead must enumerate in longer verbosity the same ideas individually for each offender, they just won't waste their wiki-time dealing with those problems. And once the admins can't do it, the editors won't be allowed to either, enforcing a culture of thought-policing. Once irresponsible, idiotic, touchy-feely censorship starts, it doesn't stop till someone's segregated entirely from the community. What a collosal failure of an idea. Totally stupid, and practically a Poltical-Correctness Trolling post in its' own right.ThuranX (talk)00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, have you noticed that, since the first post, no one in this thread has supported banning any words? No one. We've all come out against it, so don't worry. Nobody's banning any words. Meanwhile, let's all continue to do our best to use civility to resolve disputes. -GTBacchus(talk)01:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I see my attempt at humor fell flat. Anyway I have sympathy for the position of avoiding words like "troll" or "trolling" because it does tend to irritate people. In that vein we also should not use terms like vandal(ism) or sockpuppet(ry). Labels aren't necessary, a concept that wasput more poetically by one of my favorite musicians.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was a nasty mood earlier for reasons unrelated to this thread. I'm sorry for letting that splash on you. -GTBacchus(talk)01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
A person who engages in the practice of intentionally seeking a negative reaction. Anyone who has been around here for for a while should know what a troll is.Chillum14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
When I use it, I use it to describe anyone, admins included, that post things just to get a reaction, be it on a user's talk page or AN/I discussion thread.. doesn't matter where. Provoking and baiting = trolling.-ALLST✰R▼echowuz here03:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
How can you tell when the poster's intent is to get a reaction? Do you think that false positives are possible? -GTBacchus(talk)04:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't find that to be the case. I see a lot of people accused of "trolling" who obviously weren't. For example: The OP of this thread. If it's so obvious, why are so many mistakes made? Are you so lucky that you've never been accused to trolling when you weren't? -GTBacchus(talk)15:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, this thread in itself hints at the reason whytrolling isn't in the drop-down menu of the block dialog and why there's notroll template/tag (that I'm aware of).Gwen Gale (talk)12:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not worth the false negatives. Sure, if you call an actual troll (by their own admission) a troll, they'll just goLULZ! But when you refer to a genuine individual (and I believe most of the people on Wikipedia are genuine contributors, regardless of their behavior), you are going to make a bitter enemy. Then you get the yelling. Then the Arbitration Committee tells the perceived troll that they're banned from Wikipedia because they had a reaction to what they considered to be an intended insult. Who's the troll now? It's really not worth it. I want every last Wikipedian to be as chill as me, and to start, we got to stop these words that are easily construed as insults. —harej (talk)01:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I wasn't expecting to stir up such a debate. I thought was a relative no brainer - "don't use these terms, they can't help and just aggravate the situation." - Of all the responses the only one I have an issue with is ThuranX's who suggested I could be trolling for my original suggestion - not very assuming of good faith. I don't expect everyone (or even anyone) to agree with what I suggest or write but when I do make policy suggestions I think they will improve things round here - I'm not trying to deliberately cause drama or anything.Exxolon (talk)13:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I have never really been happy with the term"edit", to be honest. I know that content can be editedin, but the usual consideration of the term is the removing of text - whereas contribution is a lovely long word and is easily understood to mean the addition of material - and can give a rather negative light upon encyclopedia builders (unless, of course, those participants whose major contributions - as it were - is to remove superfluous content from articles and other Wikiplaces). Plus, why content "writing" when it almost certain that it is being typed on a keyboard - would "work pianist" be acceptable?LessHeard vanU (talk)19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Jumping in a little late, not reading the TL;DR discussion above I'm sorry, but this proposal is a bit silly. Some people on Wikipedia really are trolls, and there's nothing wrong with calling them that. Likewise, some people on Wikipedia are vandals and some people on Wikipedia are spammers, and there's nothing wrong with calling them that either. Terms like this should, of course, not be misused, but sometimes they are. There's no way we can regulate it. Sure, it's rude to call a good-faith editor a troll, just as it's rude to call them a vandal; we don't need rules saying that, we are grown-ups.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think, Rjang, that there is something wrong with calling a troll a troll, empirically. There are two main problems. The first is that, once you make an accusation regarding another editors motives, you've departed from the firm ground of claims about edits, and moved your position to the shaky footing of unprovable claims about what someone else intends. Not only does this weaken your position, but it also shifts the discussion further from article content, which is the wrong direction to be moving. The second is the certainty of accidental false positives. These are bad.
If someone is trolling, they're also doing something else wrong, or if you refrain from feeding them, they eventually will.That is how you nail them. Wait for them to do something everyone can see is a problem without having to look into their soul.
That said, perhaps I should clarify that I oppose the "banning" of any particular word or phrase. That's just not how it's done. -GTBacchus(talk)15:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sry, but "Troll" desribes a behaviour, not a motive! Trolls spam the work of others with always the same compaints or rant, and they don't engage in serious discussions. What they re thinking when they annoy others isn't important.Gray62 (talk)10:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find that, the way a lot of people around here use the word "troll" anyway, it does indicate a motive, and not just a behavior. Annoying questions that are sincere are looked on differently than annoying questions designed to annoy. This is why people are always saying things like, "I tried AGF as long as I could, but now I have to conclude that you're trolling." If it weren't about motives, then that statement would make no sense. -GTBacchus(talk)12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't find that. I am not a mindreader. And you shouldn't try to make conclusions about other people's thought processes, either. If an editor call someone else a troll, and has the evidence proving such behavour, ok, lets talk about consequences for the troll. If the accuser was jst namecalling, without anything behind that, call him to order. But a general verbot of the word is simply ridiculous. Let's not start beating around the bush when we talk about someone who regularly disturbs the editors with the same kind of rants or obejctions every single time. That's a troll, and we shouldn't be forced to call him any dfferently, like a , say, serial violator of Wiki policies. That would be ridiculous!Gray62 (talk)17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not making conclusions that go beyond what people tell me explicitly about their thought processes. People tell me that so-and-so is a troll, and they back that up by telling me what so-and-so's motives are, or how they've determined that so-and-so "isn't really here to help". Those are claims about motives, quite clearly and explicitly.
I'm alsovery strongly against forbidding anything, so talking to me about a "general verbot" is fairly off-topic. I think banning words is the height of stupidity, as I've a dozen times in this thread alone.
I block accounts regularly, and I've never had theneed to call anyone a troll. I want my blocks to be for very clear, easy-to-establish reasons. In my experience blocks that purport to be for "trolling" don't stick. In my experience, bringing up the question of whether someone might be trolling escalates conflict, and drags the conversation further from the task at hand.
If someone repeatedly disrupts Wikipedia, then I don't call them anything but "blocked". That's because I don't want to spend my time on Earth defending my application of some label against the questions that inevitably follow its use. If not wanting to waste our time with pointless conversations is "beating around the bush", then I guess I'll keep beating around the bush.
I hold my position forpurely pragmatic reasons, I'm not saying we should take pity on the poor dears, and Iam proposing that we stop the institutional feeding of trolls. Show me one instance where calling someone a "troll", or calling their edits "trolling" led to a situation improving. If it doesn't improve situations, then there's little excuse for doing it, because itdoes create static and heat. -GTBacchus(talk)18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As another jumping in a little late, may I point to my preference for using the word "troublemaker"? I feel it is a far more neutral term than "troll", but arguably more accurate: the point is that someone is causing trouble, not whether she/he is posting enflammatory comments with the intent of provoking a response -- that is, trolling. Any discussion about the person causing a problem is not distracted by this hot-button word. --llywrch (talk)23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! And since this is a quite well defined behaviour, the proper usageof that word in cases where there's evidence of such a behaviour should be no problem. And it's not those who expose trolls who are a problem, it's the trolls themselves!Gray62 (talk)17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You're the only one talking about trauma to anyone's psyche. I sure don't care about it. They'll be fine. What we're actually talking about, are strategies for resolving disputes with a minimum generation of heat and static. Do you find name-calling to be empirically more effective than diplomacy? Tell us about it. -GTBacchus(talk)16:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think he was being sarcastic, GT. 'Sides, if someone is causing trouble, hurting that person's widdle feelings is the last thing I'm going to worry about. --llywrch (talk)05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
In particular, I think he was painting those who oppose these labels on grounds of professionalism and pragmatism to be bleeding heart hand-wringers. I think that's an unfair and inaccurate characterization, because I don't know anyone who thinks that way. This isn't about feelings for anybody here - it's about whatworks. -GTBacchus(talk)14:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Terms like "troll" and "troublemaker" are essentially violations of the AGF principal, in that they presuppose that we know the motives of the one so labeled. I've often seen that term used as an insult directed towards a poster by someone who simply doesn't like the poster. Part of the trouble is that "trolling" is kind of hard to define. "Vandalism" is easier to define, although it gets used as an insulting term also. However, when an admin says "F.U." to an editor they're not happy with, and it's allowed to stand, then "troll" seems like pretty tame stuff by comparison. If we're going to have a civility policy but only enforce it "when we feel like it", it ain't much of a policy, and it undermines wikipedia's already-meager integrity.Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots18:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, but the fact that there is a "policy" to be debated is itself intriguing. As I grew up, my mother frequently, in frustration, noted that everything I need to know I learned inkindergarten. She was citingAll_I_Really_Need_to_Know_I_Learned_in_Kindergarten, but of course, I had not adopted that as policy, and eschewed it as a "guideline" for far too long. The simple rule for this is to explain how the behavior is inappropriate, and not to cop out or eschew responsibility by giving a label (which is subjective and potentially inaccurate) to the behavior or behaving party. Of course, one should never call anyone a "poopy-head," tell them to go play in the "poopy place" or "eat poop" or anything similar. C'mon, folks--my own kid, now an adult, grew up to laugh with me at how immature this place can be. I'd claim that I would bite my tongue before I note that there is no greater memorial to my mother's than ANI, but then again, she taught me not to do that sort of thing.Steveozone (talk)00:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Bugs, my point of calling someone a "troublemaker" is that Ihave lost all possibility for AGF with that person, just as if I called her/him a "vandal". If an editor is problematic, then they might be rescued from getting blocked -- or banned -- with a little help. But a troublemaker is someone who isnot here to contribute, just to stir up trouble. (And if labelling someone accurately as a "troublemaker" or a "vandal" violatesWP:NPA, Lord help us all!) --llywrch (talk)05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the claim is being made that it violates NPA, just that it's not very helpful. If you've stopped assuming good faith, what's the benefit of making a declaration to that effect? -GTBacchus(talk)14:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
To 3RR or not to 3RR?
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is frustrating to see a 3RR violation turned breezily aside ([38]) on the basis that "[s]ince the reverting has stopped, I see no reason to block anyone," when thereason the reverting stopped was that I didn't want to break 3RR and the other editor had no reason to continue reverting since my good-faith effort gave him the last word. And it adds insult to injury to be told that my own conduct in not violating 3RR is just as bad as the other user's conduct in violating 3RR.
Forgive me for being blunt: does does Wikipedia take 3RR seriously or what? So much for "[t]he aim of 3RR is to draw a line where edit warring via reverts is clearly beyond a reasonable level and actionwill be taken" (emphasis added). Indeed, the teaching ofUser:Rjanag's decision appears to be that not only will "exceptions to the rule will [not] be construed narrowly," we learn that new exceptions will be invented on the fly (3RR will not be enforced if it would prevent the violating editor "from participating in the discussion").
I made an effort to stick within the rules, and should not have been warned; the other user broke 3RR (five reverts in 24 hours) and should have been blocked appropriately. I would appreciate it if an admin would take a second look at the report andUser:Rjanag's resolution.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring is edit warring, whether you break 3RR or not. I stand by my decision. If you haven't noticed, there is already a discussion at the talk page about removing the objectionable content; I have not "endorsed" it by not blocking the editor. In fact, I have already weighed in about what I think should and should not appear in the article. That, rather than reverting, is the way to go about discussions like this—if you want something added or removed, the correct way to do so is not to get an upper hand by reverting until your opponent either gives up or passes 3RR before you, but to have a real discussion. I'm sorry that your enemy didn't get blocked like you wanted, but we're here for building an encyclopedia, not for getting revenge.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, "turned breezily aside" is not a very polite way to caricature my response to your 3RR report. Look at the length and thought of my response as compared to most of the template responses there, and you will see that you already got far more consideration and attention than most cases do.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know blocks are not to be used punitively but preventively - that is to prevent further revertwarring. I believe that if an editor has breached 3RR but is not currently editwarring the correct thing would be to give him a warning that if he editwars again he will be blocked.
Definitely looks like an admin dropped the ball here. 5 in 24 hours and the other editor stops, reports the issue, and gets blown off? Proof that those following policy are weaker than those who do not, and those who do not can get favored treatment by some admins.ThuranX (talk)18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
He didn't get blown off; I commended him for stopping (perhaps you should have read my AN3 response more closely). But he still had been reverting before. Like I said, edit warring is still edit warring, whether you revert 4 times or 3. Sure, one editor was willing to stop and the other wasn't, but they still edit warred; if blocks are punitive like you seem to think they are, I see no reason to block one and not the other, given that they were both warring. If blocks are preventative, I see no reason to block because there is no longer anything to prevent, things are being discussed at the talk page. If someone starts reverting againafter this warning and the talkpage discussion, then there will be a reason to block; if the reverting is over, who cares?
As for repeated accusations that I let an editor get away with "gaming the system"...what would you call Simon Dodds' editing? He reverted three times, too, and stopped just soon enough that he could report the other editor and claim that he himself hadn't done anything wrong. That looks like gaming the system, too. Neither of these editors should be rewarded, and neither has.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Garcia deliberately broke the rules. I didn't. That isthe critical difference, and although you seem to recognize it, you seem desperate to avoid its implications. I attempted to improve the article within the rules; he tried to worsen the article and broke the rules in doing so. No matter how much of a smokescreen you try to blow around the issue, no matter how you try to spin it ("but user one was reverting too!"), that simple fact impeaches your decision.user:ThuranX anduser:Loosmark have hit the nail on the head far more concisely than I did. I asked above whether "Wikipedia take[s] 3RR seriously or what?" You anduser:Jayron32 have made amply clear that the answer is no.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, your characterization of thestatus quo post bellum demonstrates the deck-stacking that I mentioned above. You say that "[i]f someone starts reverting againafter this warning and the talkpage discussion, then there will be a reason to block...." But the person who violated 3RR has no incentive to start reverting again! Because I refused to get into a protracted and 3RR-violating edit war, he had the last word; the passage as it currently exists in the article is as he wanted it. So why in the world would he revert it as things stand?! And as things are likely toremain standing, for that matter: you've made clear that if I put the quote back in, you'll block me ("[i]f someone starts reverting againafter this warning and the talkpage discussion, then there will be a reason to block"). What you've done is pat me on the head and say "you did the right thing, now here's your punishment, and by the way the guy who broke the rules wins."- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
He gets "the last word" for a day or so while we discuss things at the talk page, as should have been done to begin with, and settle on what to put. His "last word" about the porn thing has already been removed (with more consensus than before) and now we're working on addressing the Goldstein quote. You are free to put the quote back in if that is what the consensus becomes; if you couldn't tell from the talkpage already, I have already said I'm in favor of restoring at least a mention of it. I just want it done right, through discussion, not through edit warring.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about the "porn" issue, although I realize that the point that we're dealing with reverts of more than one user's edits seems lost on you (your claim that I "stopped just soon enough that he could report the other editor and claim that he himself hadn't done anything wrong" is incoherent without the erroneous assumption that this was a bilateral edit war between myself and Garcia). I have no dog in that fight. As to the Goldstein quote: if I am "free to put the quote back in if that is what the consensus becomes," am I free to do so now, since only Garcia continues to oppose its inclusion? If not, define "consensus." Can Garcia thwart the existence of consensus by continuedstonewalling of its inclusion? If you would allow that, your claim about this being a transitional period that will be resolved by discussion is revealed as a potemkin village of an argument, and if you would not, then I don't see how you can oppose my putting it back in right now, since we have as much consensus as will ever develop.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not really the place to deal with the article content issues; that discussion can remain at the article talk page. This is only the place to decide whether I f'ed up the AN3 report (and as far as I'm concerned, the answer to that question is 'no', judging by the responses from two long-time editors whom I respect; if you want to keep arguing that I'm wrong, you're welcome to, but I don't really have anything more to say here).rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is, without any serious question, the place to answer the question I posed, and mislabelling it as a content dispute does not get you off the hook. You defended your actions by saying that I am "free to put the quote back in if that is what the consensus becomes" while reserving the right to block me again if I put the quote back inwithout consensus. Thus, my question about what constitutes consensus is directly relevant, and you owe me an answer. You can either provide that here, or I'll raise it as an independent question at the edit warring noticeboard.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It cannot be expected that Rjanag answer that question for you, no. You as an editor is expected to be able to recognize when there is or isn't a consensus. And if you can't then there is a pageWP:Consensus that will help explain it to you. Rajanag is doing the correct thing when he refuses to let his personal feelings in the content dispute determine his course of administrative action - consensus decides the content. If you had consensus on your side then there should have been other editors ready to enforce the consensus version so that you wouldn't have to reach three reversals.·Maunus·ƛ·21:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
In the circumstnaces, it absolutely can be expected that s/he answer that question. See the new subsection below.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }21:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As to whether you "f'ed up the AN3 report," the only thing that the responses of other editors here demonstates is that the answer is not clearly yesor no. I maintain, however, that the answer is yes, otherwise I wouldn't have raised the issue, and your insistence on the correctness of your previous analysis is to be expected (how could you defend the integrity of future snap judgments if you concede the day after making one that it was erroneous?).- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(out) Well, the same thing happened to me last week. I reverted three times, he 4. When I took it to ANI we both got a blockwarning and I was chastised for feeding the troll. I guess it is standard practice. And I do agree that the better editors should take the moral high ground, which is what I will strive to do in the future. But yes I think probably we should be moving away from the idea of a 3RR to a policy of avoiding reverting anything but vandalism.·Maunus·ƛ·18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag i'm not sure i follow your logic. The way i understand the rules is that 3RR is the border line, in the other words before breaking the 3RR rule an admin can decide whether or not to block for edit warring according to the circumstances but after passing that limit the block is "automatic". If admins have the option to block those who still didn't reach the 3RR or not to block those who passed the limit then what for does the 3RR limit exist anyway?Loosmark (talk)19:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocks are not punishment, even for violating 3RR. If the admin who reviews the case has no reason to believe the edit war will continue, he should not issue blocks merely because someone in the past has crossed a technical threshhold. If the user in question starts the edit war again, they can always be blocked. But as long as they are not edit warring currently, and as long as they do not indicate they will continue to edit war, then why block them, except to punish them for past transgressions. Say it with me now everyone,blocks are not punishment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
None of the respective policiesWP:3RR orWP:Blocking policy allow forex post facto blocks. An example is "cool down" blocks that are explicitly encouraged. Thus a user having passed the 3RR rule cannot be blocked unless the admin predicts that he will resort to further editwarring or disruptive behaviour if he is not blocked.·Maunus·ƛ·19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you mean "discouraged". Cool-down blocks are generally not a good idea, because they don't actually cool anyone down. Blocks to intended to stop ongoing and continuing disruption are good, blocks to change someone's emotional state are not... --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
@Loosmark: Pretty much echoing Jayron here, but yes, I only block when there's a reason. If there's no reason, no block—regardless of what you might interpret 3RR as saying. I would block someone for 3RR if they are continuing to edit war—the clearest example of this is when there's one user adding/removing something, and multiple users telling him not to and reverting him. When it's a matter of just two users, I don't really care if one hit 4 and one only hit 3; it takes two to tango. If I were going to hand out blocks as a punishment, I would have blocked both users. The fact that Simon Dodds stopped short of 3RR doesn't mean he wasn't edit warring; it means he thinks he knows where to stop to avoid getting a block. Anyway, the fact of the matter is no one is damaging the encyclopedia right now so no one needs to be blocked; if you check out the article and the talk page, you will see that the issues are slowly getting solvedwithout blocks andwithout, believe it or not, the use of admin tools. I'll leave you with some Thomas Jefferson: "the less we use our power, the greater it will be."rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Because admins can hide the exercise of whatuser:Rjanag seemingly admits is unfettered administrative discretion behind it when convenient, I suppose. Depending on which side of the dispute the admin favors, they can enforce 3rr to the letter or ignore it entirely.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
@Loosmark: "Why do we have the 3RR policy" is a good question. It's frequently abused or gamed, almost universally misunderstood (fortunately most experienced editors understand it well, but most people on this site are not experienced editors), and doesn't fill any hole thatWP:Edit warring can't. It's a handy heuristic, nothing more, and should not be considered the be-all and end-all of WP policy. Like I said above, I chose to respond to the report in the way most beneficial to the encyclopedia, not in the way that happens to fit someone's loose interpretation of what 3RR means.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
@Simon Dodd: What makes you think I chose not to block Garcia because I "favor" him? Have you even looked at the article talk page? I have already voiced my opinion againstboth of his changes, and already undone one of them. Just because I chose not to block him doesn't mean I'm his buddy. As far as content is concerned, I disagree with him; but AN3 is not about the content, it's about whether a block is necessary. I disagree with Garcia's arguments on the content side of things, but judged that no block was necessary.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Because the alternative is to think that you don't understand 3RR.user:Loosmark has it exactly correct.WP:3RR is pellucidly clear: It "is a bright line rule" that automatically classifies "a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any material) on any one page within a 24 hour period" as having been edit warring, in order "to draw a line where edit warring via reverts is clearly beyond a reasonable level and actionwill be taken if it has not already been." (Emphasis added.) Although you are correct that admins have discretion to make a finding of edit warring even without a formal 3RR violation, a violation of 3RRmandates administrator intervention. You have discretion to block me for so-called edit warring (or just for being aWP:DICK, although that will naturally be appealed if you choose to exercise the prerogative, and I seriously doubt another admin would uphold such a block), but onceuser:Ferrylodge and I made a showing thatuser:RafaelRGarcia had violated 3RR, an appropriate block should have followed as a matter of course.
You accuseme ofWP:GAME, but so far as I can see, while that policy andWP:WL make the purpose of a policy paramount over its wording, you're ignoringboth the wordingand the purpose of 3RR, and while you've repeatedly claimed it's for the good of the encyclopæligdia, the trouble withWP:AIR arguments is that what is good for the encyclopæligdia often depends on one's point of view. I dispute that your actions have been to the good of the encyclopæligdia - indeed, by devaluing 3RR and making it clear that the rules will be enforced vel non depending on the whim of an admin rather than evenhandedly according to neutral, general principles, you are, in my view, making it worse. Users, in order to shape their conduct, must be able to rely on adminstrators to enforce the rules even-handedly, fairly, andconsistently.
Lastly, I dealt with your diaphanous argument about the likelihood of Garcia reverting again twice above (17:12, 4 July 2009 ("thereason the reverting stopped was that I didn't want to break 3RR and the other editor had no reason to continue reverting since my good-faith effort gave him the last word") and 20:11, 4 July 2009 ("the person who violated 3RR has no incentive to start reverting again! Because I refused to get into a protracted and 3RR-violating edit war, he had the last word; the passage as it currently exists in the article is as he wanted it. So why in the world would he revert it as things stand?")).- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag I understand your reasoning and i think it is both logic and correct. The problem is that most admins interpret the rules differently than you do (at least that it is my experience so far on wikipedia, maybe i just encountered trigger-happy admins) and it can give the editors the impression that the rules aren't applied the same way for everybody. I think the 3RR rule should be either applied to the letter or scrapped altogether.Loosmark (talk)20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Well, unfortunately, the rules will never be applied the same way for everybody as long as we allow our admin positions to be filled by humans :). I think what's important is that every admin responds to their reports based on what they believe will benefit the article in question and the encyclopedia in general. Some admins may be more likely to think a block will do that, and others maybe not; what matters is that admins only do something when they've thought about how it will help the encyclopedia, rather than just out of blind devotion to a guideline.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If there were a shred of truth in that, we would have replaced judges with computers. Centuries of anglo-american legal history make clear that it is perfectly possible for rules to be applied evenhandedly and consistently, with minor deviations at the fringe, by humans. If Wikipedia is unwilling or individual admins are unable to do so, those are problems the community ought to address expeditiously.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no letter saying that anyone reverting 4 times must be blocked. The policy simply doesn't say so. It says that they "may" be blocked. But it does explicitly say that you can not block someone as a punishment for something that you have no reason to expect they will do again. How ever I do agree that the 3RR should be scrapped because all it does is to create the false impression that reverting less than four times is alright. There is simply no need for it - a general policy saying that editors should not repeatedly revert eachothers edits would be sufficient imo.·Maunus·ƛ·20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thereis text "saying that anyone reverting 4 times must be blocked." 3RR says that it "draw[s] a line where edit warring via reverts is clearly beyond a reasonable level and actionwill be taken if it has not already been." (Emphasis added.) As to scrapping 3RR, I disagree. I think this situation demonstrates precisely why it ought to be enforced the way it presents itself as being enforcable: strictly. That is the only way to advoid the kind of thumb-on-the-scales admin behavior we see here, where the policy is enforced or not depending on which side the admin wishes to punish. That the admin here has some bizarre inclination towards finding everyone at fault to avoid finding anyone at fault does not hide the raw exercise of administrator discretion that is at issue. 3RR was violated; it is a categorical policy; it should have been enforced, as it usually is (and has been against me in the past). If admins wish to strike out on the choppy waters of unconstrained "edit war" bans, to "even things up" or what have you, then that is up to them, although the upshot will be a lot more contests of admin actions.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere does it say that a blocking is the only possible action - and as it has been established it in fact mentions explicitly that blocking can ONLY occur if the admin predicts that further disruption will ensue if he does not block on or both users.·Maunus·ƛ·21:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(out) I think it's getting to be about time to move on. What exactly is the problem here that needs to be resolved?—I see none. If I had blocked a user wrongly, or left a user unblocked and they were going about tearing up the encyclopedia right now, then we would have a problem in need of action. As of now, all we have is a user upset that I didn't block the person who was disagreeing with him...and the only two other admins to comment here have made it clear that they will not block the user, so this thread is obviously not going to result in getting the user blocked, so what's the point? All that's left to discuss is whether I'm right or wrong (or whether I'm undermining the very core of Wikipedia), but to be honest I'm not very important. No matter what else is said here, nothing is going to come of this thread, it's just going to be a lot of finger-pointing. You guys are free to keep at it, but don't expect me to be showing my face in this thread again; there's not really anything left to discussrʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[user:Rjanag took the issue about what counts as consensus to talk page. I think that was utterly inappropriate, and that this is an issue that ought to be hashed out with community involvement. Since talk pages are not even colorably a private forum, there is no issue of inappropriate disclosure, and I am therefore reproducing both his comment and my reply below.]
Regardingthis question: my understanding of the talk page now is that there is consensus for including the information, but not necessarily for how it should be included (full quote, or brief mention along the lines of "Goldstein said he likes Thomas' style", or what), so it's best to refrain from re-adding it until it's been decided how best to include it.WP:3O would be one good way to get further suggestions.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC) (Originally posted at[39])
If there is consensus to include something, but not consensus on how it ought to be included, thereisn't consensus on its inclusion. Let me put the question in more functional terms: in what circumstances, or after what period of time, will I not incur a 3RR or "edit warring" block for reinserting the quote?
Just saying "when there's consensus" isn't an answer. Without some quantification of what constitutes sufficient consensus, your claim that I am "free to put the quote back in if that is what the consensus becomes" starts to look like the Obama rhetorical strategy of saying you're for doing X in principle, but then setting up so many caveats and obstacles to doing X that doing X is, in practical terms, impossible. You suggest getting additional opinions, but (mindfull ofWP:CANVAS) I have used the 3d opinion process several times before, and it is a crapshoot whether one gets from it little input or no input at all. Weeks can go by before we get additional input.
And even if/when additional input that supports inclusion is forthcoming, you still leave me in an untenable situation. What is the threshold is for having achieved "consensus"? Without knowing where the line is, no matter how many more users endorse my position, I still can't risk putting the material back, lest you block me, citing your decision about Garcia's 3RR violation. The practical upshot is not that "[h]e gets 'the last word' for a day or so while we discuss things at the talk page," but rather, that "[h]e gets 'the last word'" for the indefinite future, unless someone else, by sheer chance or by my (inappropriate) request, inserts the same quote.
It doesn't stop there, either. It isn't clear how broadly your warning sweeps: am I on notice for any reverts (or anything that can be so characterized) atClarence Thomas, or just for the sections at issue in yesterday's controversy? By imposing this amorphous standard that maximizes your discretion, you have effectively issued me a topic ban onClarence Thomas for having the temerity to report someone for breaking the rules and lacking the courtesy to violate them myself.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }21:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC) (originally posted at[40])
No one is topic banned. But if it will make you feel better, I can leave a statement here agreeing not to use my tools at all in any issues involving theClarence Thomas article. Good luck, though, finding anyone else willing to put up with your crap.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
For 2 or 3 days. The good editor follows the rules, files anWP:RFC orWP:3O, establishes consensus on the talk page from uninvolved editors, then gets their version back. We have procedures for a reason. --Jayron32.talk.contribs04:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
How disgraceful. The edit warrior/POV pusher/t-word (we are no longer allowed to call the poor dears trolls, as that my damage their delicate psyches) gets to see their edit enshrined in Google links in the interim. They don't get blocked, but the person trying to preserve the good name of the encyclopedia gets warned and threatened.Who then was a gentleman? (talk)04:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You really should have read the [numerous] discussions about this before jumping in. The "edit warrior" (if you can call him that...but really all the editors on the article have been warring) didn't get to "keep his edits"; all of them have been removed by now, this time through consensus and proper procedures rather than reverting. Sure, I could have blocked him and then restored Simon's edits, but then I would have just created another bitter indef-banned user determined to be a thorn in our side for years...fun, huh?
As for "threatening" the user...all the users in this dispute were warned in the way that is normal to warn people in an edit war. "Threat" is inflammatory language and this whole dispute has already been dropped by all the parties involved (see both my talk page and Simon Dodds' talk page), as well as archived here, so I don't see why you're trying to dig it back up. Is it just a slow night?rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The continued lunacy of some people at this page is getting on my nerves. Here I resolved an AN3 post and content dispute with no blocks and no protection, just good ol' discussion, and got the article improved in the process...and what do I get for it? A full day's worth of crap from people who either didn't read the discussion or don't understand the blocking policy. People really need to be keeping in mindwhy they are blocking and how it will help or harm the issue at hand... blocks are not special moves orlimit breaks that you keep in your pocket for a few rounds and blast out as soon as your 3RR gauge fills up.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
None of the editors are 'in the right' here IMO. Both have resorted to edit warring without any real attempt at discussion to resolve the dispute. Only difference is one has stepped over that 3rr line while the other has carefully avoided it. However, 3RR is only there to stop edit wars going to extreme levels, and does not give editors permission to edit war with 3 reverts each day. It doesn't say anywhere that you can edit war with 3 reverts and then take the course of discussion before you break 3RR. I think Rjanag has taken the right step here.Chamaltalk05:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Re the only difference being that "one has stepped over that 3rr line while the other has carefully avoided it," I would have thought that Wikipedia would encourage people to carefully avoid breaking the rules. Not breaking the rules is generally considered a positive thing, as is slamming on the breaks before going over the edge of breaking the rules. Nor is it true that I made no effort to resolve the dispute in discussion. From the outset of the dispute, I explained my edits on the talk page. Those explanations weren't seriously contested, some pettifogging by the user who did break the rules notwithstanding.- Simon Dodd{U·T·C·WP:LAW }19:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I support that view. One user carefully obeyed the rules, the other went one step too far. Imho most admins would almost automatically apply a one day ban on the offender, to cool down, and that'S it. contrary to what Rjanag is saying, almost everybody agrees that banning, even for as shorttime, feels like punishment to the average editor. But there has to be a way to enforce the rules, or else chaos will rule. And if faced with the choice of disenfranchising the good editor, who works within Wikis system, or the offender, who exploits and disregards it, a good admin should always side with the good folks. As we see here, there is no middle ground. And admins already have a lot of leeway when it comes to enforcement, but some rules, like 3RR, shouldn't be allowed to be used arbitrarily. If you don't want to ban, declare a topic ban for three days or something. But letting the offender go scott free, even profiting form his action (in the short run) is something you certainlky won't find consensus for, among normal users here!Gray62 (talk)17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you don't appear to know the difference between a "block" and a "ban" makes me not very interested in your comment, but sure, I'll bite. Throughout this discussion there has been a foolish and erroneous belief that "one editor broke the rules and one editor didn't". This is terribly inaccurate. Both editors broke rules. 3RR isa rule, it is notthe rule; 3RR is only a small part of theedit warring rules. Maybe one editor broke 3RR and one didn't, butboth editors broke the rules on edit warring. Wikipedia seems to be full of robots who only know how to count reverts and can't think for themselves.
The fact of the matter is that both Simon and I have put this whole thing behind us and no one involved in the actual dispute cares anymore. I find it silly that for the past couple days clueless editors have felt compelled to come in and try to get in on drama that's already over. The edit warring has ended, consensus has been reached at the article, everyone has moved on—why can't you?rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
Not done. —Edokter •Talk •21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved
