Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive381

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Adult-child sex article lives at User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Adult-child sex 2 Please locate and block 3 Using Wikipedia as an IM service 4 Opinions requested at WP:AN/B 5 Amaechi Okoli 6 User:Ceauntay and socks using userspace and user talk space as hosting service 7 Neve Gordon 8 Why was this page unprotected? 9 User talk:J Milburn 10 Legal threat from 68.236.154.131 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) 11 Ownership and accusations of wikistalking 12 User:Cult free world -- persistent personal attacks despite 5 warnings 13 Possible source of conflict/drama/ZOMG in re: User:Jimbo Wales 14 G. Edward Griffin 15 Betacommand rollback 16 Bots that sound official 17 User:Miamiboyzinhere block extended to indefinite 18 User:KarmasBlackSwan: sockpuppet of banned user User:Karmaisking 19 Bot 20 User:Enter Movie is a sockpuppet of User:Cigammagicwizard 21 Anti-Islam 22 Requesting permanent block on User talk:99.145.15.46 23 Tanzanian hip hop and African hip hop 24 User:Ukrained ... again 25 IPs from 59.92.x.x and others 26 Sockpuppet of indefblocked user Rastishka (talk · contribs) 27 Shared user account: Non-Free Content Compliance Bot 27.1 Review of Bot approval process (User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot) 27.2 ST47's comments 27.3 Comments by Carcharoth 27.4 Comments by Philippe 27.5 Comments by Someone Completely Uninvolved (but Perversely Amused) 28 User:WebHamster 29 User talk:147.4.160.116 30 Image of Obama's house, redux 31 Active revert war - Ward Churchill 32 Odd editing at Samantha Power 33 Whats going on here? 34 Blatant sock of TenOfSpades (talk · contribs) 35 User:Zenasprime Pointily placing speedy tags 36 Darko Trifunović followup 37 User:VivianDarkbloom 38 WQA regarding Ronz promoted per WP:HAR 38.1 The problem here is, for those of us who don't follow WQA 38.2 Subsection: the earlier RfC regarding Ronz

[edit] Adult-child sex article lives at User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Adult-child sex

Since the CSD tag I posted will probably be turned down, I'm posting about this here to get additional eyeballs. I don't have all the links in my brain at the moment, but this article was:

• Deleted in an AfD [1]
• Endorsed at DRV [2]
• Deleted in userspace
• Overturned at DRV
• Deleted in userspace, again, via MfD [3]
• Endorsed at DRV [4]

And, I'm sure I'm missing a few. The userspace MfD can be found here and the current version of the article can be found here. As you can see, only one edit has been made since this page was created. There are boxes at the top of the page saying it is an "article in progress" and exempt from CSD because it is userfied content. Well, it isn't in progress at all, and I don't see how userfication gets content out of deletion when it was last deleted while in userspace. There has been amply demonstrated consensus that the community does not desire to have this article anywhere on Wikipedia - and the fact that it is being recreated yet again should be regarded as disruptive. Avruch ^T 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that there should be some sort of community sanction for re-creating this in userspace after so many XfDs and DRVs. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bye bye. Viridae^Talk 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

would it be acceptable to keep the material in user space under a different title? I am somewhat disappointed in the DRV being closed after less than the full period. I do not think it impossible to construct an acceptable article out of this material. I suggest that especially in the most contentious XfDs and DRs, there is good reason to allow to allow full time for discussion.DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since we already cover the subject in several articles. The original DRV closer advised editors to work on the existing articles rather than this highly contentious fork, and that is what they should do. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess what's back? seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (all) for notifying me of this ANI, as is (used to be) customary.

The page is significantly different from those shown above. Also left out was the original AfD that resulted in a keep.

The page is userfied in accordance with policy. I have made no attempt to hide its presence (in fact it is listed in the header template for every userspace page I have).

The page had most of the work done offline so that it would not be a "substantially identical" page. Care was taken to follow WikiPolicies in this matter so as to not be disruptive.

The goal is to take this term which has been used by the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, and The Washington Post and create a truly neutral article.

I think that among all thus far, DGG has shown the most good faith in this and I agree with him that it is not impossible to construct an acceptable article out of this material. That's the entire purpose of this and the core of Wikipedia.

I am not being disruptive. If anything, the harassment that I and (to a far greater extent) others have endured because we seek to better Wikipedia through the use of sourced information is disruptive. That I have had to post about this and re-defend it over and over has been disruptive. That I am doing so civilly and in good faith is not disruptive.

Bottom line is that this is a potentially encyclopedic topic and the page is not substantially identical to a deleted page.

• VigilancePrime • • • 05:04 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

Related XfD links for reference:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (Oct. '07)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) (Jan. '08)
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Adult-child_sex (Jan. '08)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/ACS (Jan. '08)
• User:VigilancePrime/Sandbox#ACS_00 (speedy deleted)
• User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 28 #User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (closed)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (Feb. '08)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 9#User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (closed) (Feb. '08)

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks, Jack! That gives reference to the original keep AfD as well as the closed-by-WP:IAR MfD. Anyway, as has been stated, the article in question (which can no longer be seen but by admins) was not "substantially identical" to the deleted pages. It contained much of the others, but also have a great deal (about half the "current page") new/never-deleted material. • VigilancePrime • • • 05:53 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

So, you missed all of the many suggestions made during those many, many discussions that you take the material off-Wiki and work on it there, rather than trying to do multiple end runs around consensus? Let me make it once again: Take it off Wiki and work on it there. Then bring it back for discussion and see if consensus that the topic is encyclopedic, acceptable and not a fork as so many people have said about it. Problem solved! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1. It was off-Wiki. Now it is back on, very much improved.
2. The POV-fork allegation was summarily discounted over and over. It is and was nothing more than an irrational emotive argument, as demonstrated by the many references in the now-deleted text. The so-called consensus never existed, either.
3. You say to bring it back to Wiki... but I did and you haven't seen it because it was inappropriately speedied. I can't bring it back because it's been locked. The suggestions and the actions are diametrically opposed.

The constant references to non-existent "consensus" or the inaccurate portrayal of "POV fork" are nothing more than emotionally-charged pseudo-arguments. The recommendations were to take it off-Wiki (which is not what policy states) and then bring it back when it has been bettered. That has happened. Problem solved! • VigilancePrime • • • 06:35 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I have been asked to comment here, so I'll throw my 2 cents in--my own thoughts about the topic notwithstanding, we all have to abide by policy and guideline. I think that if the article is substantially different and has been worked on outside of wiki, than the new version may be placed in user space, temporarily, for final markup and editing work before it is brought back to article space. Once in article space, it should not be speedily deleted as a G10 until an admin can verify whether or not it is significantly different than the deleted version, Lastly, if it checks out that way, the article should be allowed to go through a normal AfD, with the twin caveats that on the one hand wikipedia is not censored, but on the other, not every incident or situation is ipso facto notable. Should the article be deleted under this last AfD, then the topic should be salted for a significant amount of time (six months to a year) unless consensus can be shown to have changed. -- Avi (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist is needed?--Hu12 (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We can already salt deleted pages on wiki by protecting the title, if that is what you mean. -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Title Blacklist extension allows the block or creation, movement and upload of pages which title matches one or more Regular expressions, Its broader protection than salting a static deleted page.--Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all I am asking here. Let the page be worked on. It is significantly different from the formerly deleted versions. It's one of many articles I have on the worklist, but the only one that is being thrown around. (Incidentally, the title is already protected, for undisclosed reasons, but that's a bridge to cross when there's an actual encyclopedic article with which to place.) I don't think I'm asking for too much here... just a little WikiPolicy and a little lattitude so that neutrality and the verifiability may be properly served. Thank you. • VigilancePrime • • • 06:56 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

The page was salted (by another admin) following the DRV close by Mackensen who wrote in concluding the rationale paragraph after noting consensus found the article to be a POV fork (emphasis in original): "... deletion endorsed, editors remanded to the existing articles on the subject." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. No amount of rewriting is goign to get around the fundamental problem that this is a POV-fork of existing articles whose major problem, in the eyes of the advocates of the fork, appears to be that they follow the dominant mainstream view that adults having sex with children is abusive. Sorry, we can't fix that, and WP:NPOV rather indicates that we shouldn't even try. Sure, pro-paedophile activists don't like the term paedophilia, don't like the term child sexual abuse, and don't like the fact that close to 100% of reliable sources agree that adults having sex with children is a Bad Thing. Wikipedia is not the place to fix that. Has consensus changed in the last month to allow recreation of this fork? Not likely. Should Wikipedia allow people an indefinite number of kicks at the can? No, thanks all the same. Just as with other serially-recreated content on subjects which repeatedly fail to achieve consensus for inclusion, the best solution if advocates really want an article is to go away for a good long time. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think anyone is arguing that adults having sex with young children is a bad thing. Has it happened in the past? Yes. Is a young adult having sex with an old child a bad thing? On that there is debate. But you seem to be intent on labeling any attempt to discuss this as pro-pedophile activism and barely stop short of name-calling anyone who would seek to work on something like this. You sound as though you are just full of bile toward anyone who would not blindly agree with you. From what I've seen and read, you are just as much a POV-pusher as those you attack. • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

• • Endorse deletion of this POV fork yet again; I'd recommend a block for a user who recreates it again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG and Morven are spot on. VP is being disruptive and needs to heed the consensus of the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This is just going too far. VP's being trolling for this article for weeks. Will ^(talk) 11:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling for weeks? Care to explain what you mean by that, cause I have no idea what I've been doing regarding this article "for weeks". And personal attacks? Were I to accuse you of trolling (such as with that comment), I'd be blocked for sure. Are you blocked for the personal attacks? Of course not. Why is that? • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I endorse the deletion as well and recommend that any recreation should garner some form of disciplinary/preventative action. I am against the contention, though, that bringing up the subject or "not letting it go" necessarily constitutes a disruption. To prevent a disruption one need only ignore it. Don't answer the would-be disruptor, and chances are, you'll have taken away his power to disrupt. Of course, if he starts multiple discussions in multiple places continually, that could then be cause for action, but that hasn't really happened yet. So here's my solution: VP, the answer/consensus appears to be a resounding "No". You can reply again but you've already been given the answer, so there's really no need, and hopefully, no one will bother to answer you again. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:47, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)

enough, I've followed (but not commented on) this matter over a period of time. VP knows the community position on this, continued defiance of the community and those bits of wikilawyering we are seeing here should result in swift removal of material and progressive longer blocks. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's already an article on Child sexual abuse, which one would think would cover this subject sufficiently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing Viridae's and John Reaves' deletion as well as John's deletion summary and the subsequent page salting. My views on this topic's cotninued recreation are well enough known. MBisanz ^talk 13:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"editors remanded to the existing articles on the subject" - there is no existing article as it was deleted. Guy and Jack are always going to side with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT group, and I agree with Eq that it's not the page that is disruptive but some of you all's single-minded determination to delete anything even resembling the well-sourced content. This is a great example of WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V all being met and yet, we force deletion and harass the editors for reasons of WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you look at the other pages I have userfied, can you tell me what the difference is between this one and those? They all need work or are unencyclopedic or have other articlespace problems. In point of fact, this one that is so hated because people make incorrect assumptions about it is the most article-worthy, the best sourced, and the most likely to become, one day, a good article. What is it about the other userfieds that is any different that singles ACS out as forbidden thought?

Lastly, if everyone agrees that the CSA article "would cover this subject sufficiently", as Bugs has stated (is that what everyone agrees to?), then it should be safe to assume that the vast maority of this content can be placed into that article (obviously the sourced material, which is almost every word), eh?

I'm all up for a legitimate compromising solution, but would prefer one backed up by policy and precedent. • VigilancePrime • • • 15:37 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

well head over to the CSA page and make your suggestions about what should be incorporated from the RS's that you have - that requires no administrator input or action. Isn't that the simple solution? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I could do that. Or I could just add content where it is relevant. Oh, then there's the whole Drive off anyone we hate from this article hrough personal attacks, harassment, and threats from a limited number of "established" editors to that article. Having been through that already once (and of course some admins fully support and even participate in this sort of behaviours), I'm not exactly highly motivated to contribute. • VigilancePrime • • • 15:45 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

Oh-by-the-way, the article where all the information was has been forcibly removed, destroying all that research and information... can someone undelete it for me so I can extract the information (gradually) into the CSA and other relevant articles? • VigilancePrime • • • 15:47 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

Hang on a minute, what you appear to be saying here is that you went to the articles on child sexual abuse and/or pederasty and/or pedophilia, attempted to insert content that fitted your POV, failed to achieve consensus, and so you created a new article to better reflect your POV. Is that what happened? It would certainly explain why so many otherwise uninvolved parties identified it as a POV-fork, because that is pretty much the canonical definition of one. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

what is it you want from this conversation? nobody is going to give license to create your POV folk - that conversation is done (and yes we know you don't consider it a POV folk), so you can either move past that or well you can just move on past wikipedia. I don't see what more needs to said. The "issue" here has been dealt with - I suggest this is marked as resolved (because the central issue has been resolved - it's deleted, it's staying deleted) and VP gets on with editing and we all see where that goes. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the alleged "this article is covered in" argument in invalid as they clearly are not the same topic. And ANY changes to those articles that are not in line with the SPOV grouping is immediately reverted and the contributor harassed until they leave. No, I have not gone to those articles with this content because it is beyond their scope. The above has instructed to add this content to expand, significantly, their scope. Nice attempt at an argument, Fredrick, but the problem is that you have your conclusion that you want and then go about finding a way to "prove" it. Try it the other way around sometime... • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I don't know, maybe something based in logic. But that not possible, I'd be thrilled to see someone that says, "Personal attacks for editing neutrally? THat shouldn't happen! Look, don't edit in fear... if someone is personally attacking you or name caling and the like, let me know and I'll take care of that." You know, equality on Wikipedia? I know it's a long-shot hope. You see, there's this rock and hard place. Rock: No ACS article. Hard Place: Harassment for editing an article someone else owns. All I seek is someone to reassure me that, since "we" don't allow one article, that the legitimate content really can be added elsewhere. You've all said as much, but nobody has promised it. The natural outcome right now is the end of the ACS page (I accept that) and then a sweeping under the rug of any negative actions that happen as a result of following the instructions in this discussion.

And a policy-based reason would be neat, but I'm not holding my breath. WP:IAR seems to be sufficient. Long as we all admit that, okay. • VigilancePrime • • • 15:56 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I would like to ask for an XML export of the deleted article (all versions, generated from this url) or a list of contributors from the history page (cut and paste), for GFDL reasons for use of this content off-wiki. -- Ned Scott 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whay would that be? Interested in adding a list of contributors to another hate site such as Wikisposure? Just curious why you're interested in the contributors (rather than the actual content). • VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

He already explained. In accordance with the GFDL, a list of contributers must be included with any reproduction of the article.

And for the record, I strongly support the eventual recreation of Adult-child sex on Wikipedia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but he said the article or a list of contributors of contributors. What would one be able to do with a list of contributors without the article itself? Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but if so that's based on experience, both direct and vicarious. • VigilancePrime • • • 21:15 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

To assume: perhaps he already has the article and only needs the contributors' list? --SSBohio 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have a copy of the article, but not of the history page or any past versions. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Please excuse the somewhat paranoid pessimism... having been a victim of a hate site once already, I'm on-guard for possible repeat instances. As for the revision history of the userfied version, it only had me and the Speedy deleters. The original article was in Wikispace and had man, many editors. That was deleted LONG ago. Check the above links from Jack-A-Roe for that page's original location and thus history placement. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:05 (UTC) 6 Mar '08

No problem, and I can relate to the concern. Since you are the main author of the newer and better version then I have no need for the history of the old one. I figured it might have been possible to help you (or anyone else who wanted to work on the content) to be able to satisfy the GFDL without more DRV commotion. I was unaware that you had restarted from scratch. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 01:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought that this matter was closed hours ago. I have no desire to fight the good fight or truth and neutrality on this issue. I was hoping for some sort of rational, policy-based explanation, reasoning, or comparison, but to find none. I accept that.

If anyone is in need of a dead horse to beat, though, there's more room in this thread...

• VigilancePrime • • • 20:48 (UTC) 5 Mar '08

I've asked this question before, but I've never had an understandable explanation: How is the article a POV fork? If it's been explained previously, just point me to the diff. I've seen plenty of people say it's a POV fork, but what I see is a value-neutral etic approach to a topic that's as old as humanity itself. Even if the title is POV, the content can be used in other articles, so why delete it? --SSBohio 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Adult-child sex" is a euphemism (for child sexual abuse), and any article titled "Adult-child sex" is prima facie assumed to be apologistic for child sexual abuse. Exactly as if someone took an article "Nazi genocide" and retitled (or made a fork) entitled "Nazi demographic adjustments". We understand that you don't agree with this but if you still don't understand it then you had better look to yourself. Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as Hero said. As a contemporary example, Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide. One is just a fancy name for the other. • VigilancePrime • • • 03:41 (UTC) 6 Mar '08

I don't see the logic of that. Adult-child sex (the term) goes no further than plain description. I can see where some editors were trying to insert POV material about child sexual abuse into the article, but I don't see how it logically follows that the term itself becomes a euphemism for child sexual abuse. The term itself can advance no agenda. It is materially different from the genocide = demographic adjustments example, which may invoke Godwin's law. As for VP's example, ethnic cleansing means something different from (but related to) genocide, just as adult-child sex does with child sexual abuse. The repeated assertion has been made that the term itself is POV. Where is the POV in it? Since this seems not to be much of an AN/I question anymore, I invite replies at my talk page. --SSBohio 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please locate and block

Unknown User:134.88.190.217 vandalized my userpage. How do we go about locating the computer and blocking this address if it is a private computer? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

whois says the IP originates from the Physics Department at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The IP only has 2 edits, but I'd say that last one was fairly disturbing. It might be enough to go with a school block. --Onorem♠Dil 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 1 year. I've allowed account creation, but I don't believe we need the individual who posted that to be able to hide behind an ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tis a shame that was on your user page for 4 hours, DRosenbach. That aggregiousness should have been caught sooner and dealt with by someone other than you. I've watchlisted your userpage, FWIW, in case he/she returns. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that comment should be reported to the university, its disgusting, and since a school block isn't going to affect whoever they are too badly, let Massachusetts Uni discipline them--Jac16888 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This sort of vandalism is absolutely horrifying and is one of the few cases where a report to authorities (school authorities) can actually exact and effect punishment. Such a report should proceed without delay. BTW, I worked in University IT (doing lots and lots of networking and sysadmin) for several years and I can attest that whois records are often incorrect. Internal records are likely to be much more correct. A quick host on the IP resolves it as h018f86e4681.res.umassd.edu, which seems to imply residential. There is a *lot* of IP squatting happening in universities. As such, I don't completely think it came from the physics dept. FYI:

   Administrative Contact: 
   Joyce Rosinha 
   System Access & Security Manager 
   University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 
   Computing & Information Technology Services 
   285 Old Westport Road 
   North Dartmouth  MA 02747-2300 
   UNITED STATES 
   (508) 999-8528 
   abuse@umassd.edu

Bstone (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI, I decided to ignore protection policy and protect the userpage and usertalk page for a month. See the talkpage for context. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent use of IAR. Bstone (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped the abuse department a line. John Reaves 06:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...I'm impressed. I thank everyone for their contribution to the resolution of this situation. As an aside, I didn't even notice it. It way my parents who like to check out my additions to Wikipedia (especially my dental photos) and they noticed it and called. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using Wikipedia as an IM service

A thread on this cropped up a while back - I don't know if anyone recalls the spate of star-crossed lovers using Wikipedia as a method of communication? Well, guess what...two of them are back, at User talk:MCD26 and User talk:Shp26 (despite, and I quote, the best attempts of the "Wiki overlords" to stop them). The thing is, however, that User:MCD26 was indefinitely blocked on 25th February, yet appears to be happily editing away...on their user talk page, of course...without even noticing. I have protected the page accordingly, and have blocked User:Shp26 and protected her talk page. Just thought I'd let you know. _GB^T/C 07:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, the original ANI thread is here. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose lovers using wikipedia to correspond is far better than them using it for messy break-ups ;) --Doc^g 10:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked users can edit their talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious. What's wrong with people using their User Page to chat? I thought the user pages were allowed to be used for whatever We felt like using them for. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, we already deleted some pages that were exclusively used by friends or lovers. Every page in Wikipedia should be aimed at working towards our main goal (to be a free encyclopedia), including user and talk pages. Using a talk page just to chat between stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia will not help us become a free encyclopedia. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's lots of stuff you can do on your user page that'll get you blocked, so while you have some latitude you can't use them for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs) 11:39, 6 March 2008

"Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site". On the other hand, a certain amount of chatting about unrelated matters between people who are also contributing to the encyclopedia helps promote positive working relationships among those people. See SOW/REAP. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that there are many better alternatives to carrying on conversations other than WP talk pages, most of which don't piss away our server load and bandwidth. My guess is that sites & tools like IM/Myspace/Facebook/etc... are blocked by school network admins, but Wikipedia is accessible -- as it should be -- for research projects. So kids use WP to chat and pass the time at school under the guise of using WP for projects. Caknuck (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At least they have not figured out the ways to use Wikipedia as an IM service that are really really hard to stop. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Caknuck - that's true to an extent, and some of the activity I've seen has clearly been bored schoolkids, but a fair bit of it is where one party is travelling, and the other isn't. We've got the star-crossed lovers that started this thread, I've seen a mother and daughter where one's on a boat cruising around the coast of Africa, and any number of others. The thing that surprises me is not just that they choose Wikipedia when there are so many sites out there they could use instead, which wouldn't be blocked to non-school users - I mean, what do they do - sit hitting refresh all the time? When Skype is free? Why? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

why don't they just email each other like we used to do bitd

I remember these two. I created a second post about them. Requested a check to see if there were sleepers. Anyways, these two will never learn. We suggested to them and even told them to use email, blogs and even their Wiki. At this point I think blocking and then protecting the talkpage should be automatic. By the way the answer is that they find it easier. Rgoodermote  21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions requested at WP:AN/B

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Block of BetacommandBot reinstated. Opinion seems divided at the moment. More opinion would be nice, though please don't all pile in and overwhelm the discussion. Also, I think separate incidents like this should be noted here for the record. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WjBscribe really did not need to wheel-war for BC, when all BC needed to do was promise to undo the damage. Inexplicable, as always. El_C 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose I'll be seeing lots of image-related queries now, as seems to be the case whenever I criticize an action by BC et al. El_C 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• As someone who has participated at that discussion, I was frankly very surprised that WjB unblocked with no consensus, and no actual unblock request, nor any on-wiki promises to remedy the behavior that led to the block of the bot. Bellwether ^B_C 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amaechi Okoli

I'd like for someone to look into Amaechi Okoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've long suspected this to be a single purpose user, who often vandalises when logged in by creating redudant redirects (see cute rabbit and Neoster) and recreating links that have been previously deleted (see The greatest quest of all). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ceauntay and socks using userspace and user talk space as hosting service

- I think. Most pages (except those with ban notices) deleted and user blocked. - Philippe | Talk 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A user, or set of users, are using a broad array of user pages and talk pages as some sort of a hosting service for a fictional universe. It's possible this is some sort of class project, but I doubt it. The fictional universe is based around "Jane Hoop Elementary" which is a real school in Cincinnati [5]. However, the only mention I can really find of "Ceauntay" via google refers to a 14 year old boy from that community youtube channel for this person. Thus, I think it's one person.

Here's a list of user and user talk pages being used by this person for this fictional universe:

• User:Ceauntay
• User:Ceauntay1
• User:Ceauntay2
• User:Ceauntay3
• User:Ceauntay4
• User:Ceauntay5
• User:Ceauntay6 - This one was wiped by User:Kevinalewis with "this is not meant for workspace"
• User:Ceauntay7
• User:Ceauntay8
• User:Ceauntay10 - Just says "see User talk:Ceauntay16."
• User:Ceauntay13 notes the user is banned indefinitely.
• User:Ceauntay14 notes the user is banned indefinitely.
• User:Ceauntay15 notes the user is banned indefinitely.
• User:Ceauntay17
• User:Ceauntay18
• User:Ceauntay19
• User:Ceauntay20
• User:Ceauntay21
• User:Ceauntay22
• User:Ceauntay23
• User:Ceauntay24
• User:Ceauntayc noted the user is banned indefinitely as a sock of Ceauntay13
• User talk:Ceauntay
• User_talk:Ceauntay1
• User talk:Ceauntay2
• User talk:Ceauntay3
• User talk:Ceauntay4
• User talk:Ceauntay5 - This one was wiped by User:Kevinalewis with "this is not meant for workspace"
• User talk:Ceauntay6
• User talk:Ceauntay7 - This one was put up for MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ceauntay7)
• User talk:Ceauntay8
• User_talk:Ceauntay10 - was moved by User:Ceauntay16 from User_talk:Ceauntay16 to User_talk:Ceauntay10 and then back again, where it appears to be used as a regular talk page.
• User talk:Ceauntay13 - was being used similarly, but is now a redirect to User:Ceauntay13 which notes the user has been blocked indefinitely as of 1 October 2007. [6]
• User talk:Ceauntay14 - is being used as a regular talk page now, but was used to host something [7]. This user was banned 18 February 2008 [8] and the talk page notes this.
• User talk:Ceauntay15 - similar to 14 [9] and also blocked 18 February 2008 [10]
• User talk:Ceauntay16 - see talk 10
• User talk:Ceauntay17 - not used for hosting, but the only editor of the page (Ceauntay) and his IP) appear confused.
• User talk:Ceauntay18
• User talk:Ceauntay19
• User talk:Ceauntay20
• User talk:Ceauntay21
• User talk:Ceauntay22
• User talk:Ceauntay23
• User talk:Ceauntay24
• User talk:Ceauntayc - used as a talk page.

Actual accounts and status:

• Ceauntay - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay1 - created 24 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay2 - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay3 - created 23 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay4 - created 23 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay5 - created 23 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay6 - unknown creation (does exist), not blocked.
• Ceauntay7 - created 25 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay8 - created 25 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay13 - created 28 September 2007, blocked 1 October 2007
• Ceauntay14 - created 17 February 2008, blocked 18 February 2008
• Ceauntay15 - created 17 February 2008, blocked 18 February 2008
• Ceauntay16 - created 18 February 2008, , not blocked.
• Ceauntay17 - created 20 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay18 - created 20 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay19 - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay20 - created 22 February 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay21 - created 2 March 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay22 - created 5 March 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay23 - created 5 March 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntay24 - created 5 March 2008, not blocked.
• Ceauntayc - created 13 October 2007, blocked 13 October 2007

Also note that User:71.72.229.143, User:72.49.190.124 and User:208.102.100.209 all appear to be one and the same person. And, the following redirects to userspace created by this user need to be deleted:

• Jane Hoop Elementary (film series)
• Sonic X and the Curse of Raven Radix
• Sonic X (film)

I think all the user pages should be deleted, and all talk pages not actually being used as talk pages need to be deleted. Also, the unblocked socks all need to be blocked indefinitely. Perhaps the IPs as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you warned him on his talk page just an hour ago. But he should have realised from the blocks on the other accounts. DGG (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The warning's moot, as you note. That's why I came here after realizing how deep it went. He's been blocked multiple times before for doing what he's doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there is an archived AN thread about this subject as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• That thread vaguely concluded that this was the efforts of a group of students. It isn't. It's the effort of one kid named Ceauntay. I located a diff where he self identified himself, but I won't reveal it here due to him being a minor. This kid is now evading 4 indefinite blocks. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

blimey - the quickest way to delete with this is for an admin to go in and delete all of the content - hopefully that will make think it's too much effort to recreate. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's equally troubling that over the last week he's thrice created redirects in article space to his userspace pages via page moves. He's still, in effect, creating hoax articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and block every single one of the accounts - that is a real walled garden - the removal of that material will also save a lot of effort for the rest of us having to go through and remove article cats on a separate basis. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I upgrade my "blimey" to "oh my fucking god!" he has created those articles by cutting and pasting massive accounts from existing articles (from the look of it, harry potter articles) there could be all sorts of GFDL (and BLP issues if he ascribes comments to individuals that don't exist) can I just say we need a nuke strike and we need it now, leave nothing alive. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting some of these pages! Bearian (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a lot of them, and it looks like JzG's got the blocking mostly done. - Philippe | Talk 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Go Cabal! :o) Guy (Help!) 20:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Someone might want to block User:71.72.229.143 as well, as the latest IP used by this kid. With account creation blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing that. How do you know? Guy (Help!) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it. (Guy, glance at the deleted contribs). - Philippe | Talk 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

D'oh. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but will point out that I deleted a bunch of these things, created by an IP in article talk space on November 22 last year - there may be more out there, and I would be on the lookout for more talk space crap. Acroterion _(talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked - per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceauntay - Alison ^❤ 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neve Gordon

I'm not sure if action needs to be taken, but it appears there is a user with sockpuppets creating BLP problems on Neve Gordon, while also making personal attacks. An admin may want to take a look. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The style, content and MO of these editors is strongly reminiscent of Zuminous's sockpuppets and suspected sockpuppets, of Truthprofessor and of Runtshit. Can anything be done to finally block this serial libellous vandal? RolandR (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user about WP:BLP - if it continues the user may be reported to WP:AIV. WP:POINT, WP:SOAP and violations of WP:BLP are subject to blocking/sanctions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparent from my suggestion, I would definitely like to see an administrator check into this a little deeper and take the requisite action. Unfortunately, without opening a WP:SSP case, WP:RFCU, or unless the user violates WP:3RR, the user really can't be blocked unless the disruption continues unabated after repeated warnings/violations. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this page unprotected?

The vandals were at it again. Let's leave it for a while, please? Corvus cornix_talk 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected for 12 hours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And probably best to leave it protected for the full 12 hours, it seems like the vandalism just will not stop. Tiptoety ^talk 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this protection. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed back to infinite; once the semi expires, so does the move protection. We just need to check manually every so often. — Edokter • Talk • 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:J Milburn

It looks like someone posted on an external web site (per an anonymous tipster [11]) asking for J Milburns talk page to be vandalized with a rather rude message. The vandalism has been un-relentless for the last couple of hours forcing me to protect the page for an hour. Once the protection was up, they where right back at it. Should I protect it again seeing as it is a talk page and all. Tiptoety ^talk 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the vandalism is coming from multiple IP addresses, semi-protection for a day or two is probably the way to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it appears to have been re-protected by User:Acalamari for a little while. Should solve the problem. Tiptoety ^talk 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I know who was attacking User:Gavin.collins and User:Jack Merridew during the Grawp case. I can say from experience that any and all admins should watchlist the page and block any IPs there on sight for such a blatant attempt at intimidation/harassment. These guys are complete nightmares to deal with. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 05:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see that.... Tiptoety ^talk 05:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat from 68.236.154.131 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)

Would someone--who hasn't already pissed off this editor at 68.236.154.131 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)--check out the IP's contributions and advise (and/or block) the user appropriately if this edit can and should be treated as a legal threat? I've got to sign off... Thanks, — Scientizzle 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the above, his subsequent edit is even more clear. Block away. R. Baley (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user on WP:AIV, but it was declined because there has been no recent vandalism from that account. I even mentioned the legal threat, but to no avail... --clpo13_(talk) 03:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would block, but the user has not edited sense the warning was given to him about legal threats. I think I am going to assume good faith here, maybe he has learned his lesson? Tiptoety ^talk 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems like there was a span of roughly two and a half hours between the IP's last edit and my talk page warning regarding legal threats. They probably got bored after attacking Scientizzle. Hopefully they won't be back. --clpo13_(talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership and accusations of wikistalking

I've been dealing with a user, Rotational (talk · contribs) for some time now on his style preferences for the articles he creates. In the style dispute over WP:HEAD and {{botanist}} usage, I asked for a WP:3O (here) but got a rather weak reply that offered wise advice on compromise, but didn't really address any of the substance of the dispute. I know ANI can't resolve content disputes, but it has become a bit more than that now. This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style. diff, diff, diff, etc. This display of ownership also appeared in his other sockpuppets (see case) when asked to alter style or consider changes. Since it's become an ownership issue and because this editor has accused me of wikistalking (previous diffs), I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this. What to do when one is accused of wikistalking? Is this a clear case of ownership? I've since cooled it as I don't want to continue edit warring and was hoping the TO would be helpful. Appreciate any advice. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the MOS. He needs to follow it; if he wants another style, he should argue for it and see if he can get consensus. Otherwise, I'll personally mercilessly edit the article to follow it. If not, someone else will. I've informed him of the discussion as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style I don't think that editing to conform to one's preferences shows ownership - that would make us all guilty - but Rkitko seems to forget that every edit of mine is countered by a revert on his part. He, of course, feels that his interpretation of the MoS is the only correct one, which puts him slightly below Jimbo Wales and God. Fact is that he does stalk the articles I work on and I resent being targeted by him, especially since I don't dog his footsteps making a nuisance of myself. I don't vandalise articles and I try to make useful contributions, which is sometimes difficult in the face of a vendetta. I've since cooled it is typical of Rkitko's doublespeak, since he immediately trots off and turns his dissatisfaction into an Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. His grievances go back to his accusations of sockpuppetry and his attempts to have me permanently blocked. When that failed, he made a special mission of watching my every move. It would be nice if he could get off my back. Rotational (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the argument. Rotational, you are putting article with headings at level 5, and have been told about WP:HEAD. I understand the content you provide, but you have to know the formatting by now. Unless you read "primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on" from WP:HEAD completely different than me, it's fairly clear. If you don't want to format articles, just put a {{cleanup}} notice and let somebody who's into that sort of thing take care of it. I've cleaned up some of your articles (and I'll just say that List of florilegia and botanical codices was a ton of useless work because you don't follow any of the structure here), and you should follow the style. It just makes more work for others. I don't understand the desire to put articles in your personal preference, as it will be edited out anyways. Also, Rotational, please provide diffs of reverts from him. The last 10 or so articles you have in your contributions have no edits from him, so he isn't reverting every edit of yours. He pointed to diffs, and it was clear what was going on. It's only fair to ask you to do the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll note that this is first edit from Rkitko to this noticeboard since September. It looks to me like he asked you to not do that, he went to 3O, he got a 3O response, he came here, specifically about the stalking allegation, it seems. I really don't see him following your around, Rotational. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do admit to going through his contributions every once in a while, but that alone is not stalking. Rotational's articles sometimes show up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult page, which leads me to see if any of his other contributions need a clean up. But there is no intent to harass. In posting this here I was seeking advice on how to work with a user that was involved in an edit war with me but refused to discuss the issue with me. Thanks for responding to my request for advice, Ricky. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you "couldn't care less about the argument". The background and history of the affair is interesting, because it shows up both Rkitko's stalking and his hypocrisy. I agree with jossi that it is "amusing". This whole matter is a storm in a teacup, but it's a storm which Rkitko insists on blowing up. He's determined to have his way and not interested in reaching any compromise "I admit I'm a bit stubborn on this point, but there is no other acceptable position than to follow the MOS and to use the botanist template." and rejects the 3O advice of jossi. Rotational (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that the Manual of Style exists for a reason, Rotational. If your edits aren't conforming to it, they're likely to be changed. As the Wikipedia edit page says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." --clpo13_(talk) 06:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Clpo13. It is the Manual of Style, though, and not the Manual Of Rules Never To Be Broken If You Value Your Life. It is a collection of guidelines, hints, rules, procedures, suggestions and advice, covering the entire spectrum. If there were no problems with its interpretation, then any forum for discussion, such as this one, would become superfluous. Thank heaven Wikipedia still leaves some things to human judgement! Rotational (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I doubt anyone wants to hear this, and it will certainly be ignored by many editors who insist on strictly following the MoS without question, but Rotational's layout looks better than the standard layout. This is because in a stub article or near-stub article without sections in the body of the article, the sections at the bottom ("source", "notes", "references", "external links" and so on) look very big and therefore out of place. For that reason, the smaller headings used by Rotational are a better, more visually balanced choice.

Of course, I've been known to champion non-standard layouts for other, similar reasons of visual impact, balance and ease of use, which I reckon will now be brought up to devalue my comment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking specifically at List of florilegia and botanical codices which Rotational has rotated back to his style at the momemt, I have to agree that in this specific article his style is visually much more appealing, or I should say much less distracting. The header underlines count for nothing, and the resulting large amounts of whitespace simply don't help. That said, I have often cleaned up article headings that had been inserted at the wrong level, since in general they look bad.

Unless ALL of Rotational's articles are lists of plants with images down the right side I can see no reason for always violoating WP:MOS. It exists for a reason, and I can understand an editor happening by and zapping thigns to match. But visual and textual flow is as important as factual accuracy (since poor flow can harm comprehension), and they both trump blind adherance to a set of formatting rules. On the numerous other points brought up above in the original discussion I make no comment.Loren.wilton (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But visual and textual flow is as important as factual accuracy (since poor flow can harm comprehension), and they both trump blind adherance to a set of formatting rules. Thank you, I couldn't have said it better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a single editor's view of what makes for better visual and textual flow shouldn't overrule a style guide put together by many collaborating editors. In certain cases the Manual of Style is fit to be ignored. It says so itself. However, that usually requires a good reason. In the case of the articles in question, I can understand a different style. But as Loren.wilton said, that doesn't condone ignoring it all the time just because one's opinion of what constitutes proper style happens to differ from what the manual says. --clpo13_(talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the MoS is in most instances a valuable guide, and that it creates the framework for a unified look for Wikipedia, which is a valuable thing, but there's a tendency amoung many editors to consider it Holy Writ, and to expect that merely citing the MoS is sufficient to counter anyone who's actually taken the time to consider issues of visual impact and balance, ease of use, reader functionality, textual flow and so on. Dogmatic adherence to what is repeatedly stated is a set of guidelines and not absolutely rules is taken as a substitute for discussion of the merits of the specific instance, and that's a shame. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Even so, a guideline should not be ignored solely on the basis that it is a guideline. I can't speak for others, but I follow the MoS because I don't find anything wrong with it, not because it's there. --clpo13_(talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely that ignoring the MoS just for the sake of ignoring it is wrong. Someone who uses non-standard formatting should be able, and willing, to justify their actions in discussion. Unfortunately, a lot of editors -- thankfully not all -- consider waving the MoS to be the end of the matter and are unwilling to engage in conversation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset) And Rotational continues, diff and in one of his new articles, diff. I agree with the users above on opportunities to ignore the MoS, but Rotational has not presented any sufficient reason to not use the headings beyond his dislike for them. Could an uninvolved admin evaluate this for ownership issues and take appropriate action (whatever you deem that to be)? --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no ownership issues here except in the fevered minds of those who want to hang a simple stylistic matter on a peg labelled "GROSS VIOLATION" of MoS. Rkitko has often objected to my rendition of an author abbreviation on the grounds that it did not automatically add the botanist's name to the List of botanists with author abbreviations. When I took care of that objection by manually adding the name to the category, it was promptly reverted. I maintain that if the information content of two styles is the same, then Wikipedia should be flexible enough to countenance both. I like my version more, because it doesn't surround itself with an unjustifiable box and stand out from the rest of the text like a sore thumb. As for the heading issues, I have never understood the alarm and hysteria at trying to avoid meaningless lines cutting across the article and making it appear like a schoolboy's first essay. If one could separate the headings from the lines I would embrace the headings, sobbing with gratitude. To summarise - surely it should be possible for a FEW reasonable versions of style to peacefully co-exist. That way WP would be more like an evolving organism investing in speciation, instead of placing all bets on one potential dinosaur. Rotational (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotational, other editors and I have told you that there are places to discuss changes to the MoS or to the botanist template. Take your issues with those features there and try to gain consensus instead of making potentially WP:POINTY reverts. Many might agree with you, but we won't know that until you start the discussion there. My objection to your version of the author abbr. statement is that it doesn't utilize the botanist template. For the sake of future maintenance, like possibly changing the design of the template, it is wise to be consistent on each page. A while ago there was a deletion discussion regarding Cat:Botanists with author abbreviations, in which people were considering using the template to alter how the category would be used (or not used). It would have been a surprise to them when they altered the template but still had plenty of articles in that category! Regardless, this is not the place to dispute content issues. I believe with the evidence I've shown that you revert to your preferred style and that so far you've been unwilling to discuss this at WT:MOS or Template talk:Botanist, instead continuing to revert to your style to make your point that you dislike what the MoS calls for. And so it continues today: diff. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cult free world -- persistent personal attacks despite 5 warnings

Cult free world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a user who makes "harmonious editing difficult or impossible" and demonstrates "a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia." As proof, he repeatedly attacks anyone who has expertise or an interest in eastern spiritual traditions as being members of cults and labels even simple meditation groups cults, in order to promote his very strong "CultFreeWorld" POV (consistent with his username).

He has been warned multiple times, yet still continues to escalate his attacks and lies, most recently accusing me of being "paid" by a "cult" to work on Wiki when I'm not even a member of this group. Here are his warnings:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195631919&oldid=195624393
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195647299&oldid=195644852
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195786209&oldid=195783290
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaj_Marg_India&diff=195835390&oldid=195834925
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACult_free_world&diff=195648124&oldid=195646785

Here are some examples of personal attacks and offensive labeling of groups.

1. Here he calls an admin with expertise in eastern spiritual traditions a "cult-promoter" and intentionally mis-states facts and tells lies in order to mislead other editors (i.e., asserting that people want to hide information, saying that admin Jossi deleted the original article when can't sleep clowns will get me did, etc.)
2. Here he adds anti-cult blogs, promoting his POV and in violation with WP:RS and WP:V.
3. Here he labels a meditation group a cult; this is on par with going onto an Islam page and calling all muslims terrorists.
4. Here he adds an anti-cult blog source to a legitimate article; again, in violation of WP:RS and WP:V.
5. Here he attacks the administrator again, calling him a cult member and making false accusations.
6. Here others note his tendency to troll and call names.
7. Here he calls me a "cult-promoter" and makes false accusations, when I've never even interacted with him before (unless, of course, he is a sock of previous editors involved in edit wars on the deleted pages, which I strongly suspect; please see User:Rushmi and User:Shashwat_pandey).
8. Here he bolds "cult member" after being warned three times for WP:NPA, showing his intention to continue to attack.
9. Here he gives a blanket statement calling all people who disagree with him "cult members."
10. Here he moves a heading in an attempt to subvert the process and further promote his views on cults. (I had created a header for sources where an admin had stated the guidelines for what would be good sources, and CultFree assumed poor faith and moved it as a further show of disruptive editing.)
11. Here he starts lying outright, accusing me of being a member of "this cult" (which I am not) and expanding his untrue accusations, saying I am a "paid" to edit this page.
12. Here he attacks me as being mentally disturbed.

These diffs show a clear and persistent pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks in line with his username, in order to promote his POV.

I have tried following procedures regarding his username, which others have found offensive too (e.g., see this), and again he fails to make any meaningful attempt for discussion, see this. When I attempt to work on the article he is creating, he says, stop and wait (see this), then he recruited someone to help him write the article consistent with his POV (see this). There is not attempt at civility or cooperation in developing articles.

I request CultFreeWorld be banned from editing articles of an eastern spiritual nature, given his stated purpose and pattern of posts that promote a strong negative POV toward these groups. Wiki is not the place for agendas (and certainly not in their usernames!) and those who derogatorily label whole groups or classes of people do not belong here. He has demonstrated an unwillingness to cease engaging in personal attacks (and even escalated his attacks in the face of warnings by making false statements). In addition, he has now recruited a person to write a POV article while not allowing opposing viewpoints voice. None of this belongs on Wiki. Renee (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else has warned them, and the two of you seem to be battering each other a bit. That said, I agree that they're over the line, and left a level 3 NPA warning on their talk page.

It would be best if you disengage from discussions with them except in article talk space, to avoid aggrivating the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The personal attacks to me were concerning enough to merit a one week block. If anyone has issues with this, feel free to undo it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will remain civil and on content. Regarding Georgewilliamherbert's statement above,here is one other admin warning him too and here and here the same user has to remove persistent trolling. Renee (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did this even merit a discussion. User's name implies an SPA. User makes personal attacks in support of his POV. User has few to no constructive edits otherwise. A week seems too short to me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

True dat. Definitely a reasonable block. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we issue a indef until his username is changed? personally I feel that pushing propaganda can be considered either disruptive or promotional, both of wich are listed in WP:IU. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block for this username as the user seems to promote prejudice against a particular group (Asians) and edits are consistently biased. When requested to change username here the user ignored the request. - mayawi 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)~

• sigh* Yeah, he came on Brahma Kumaris when he first started but negotiations there got a little edgy with him there. I don't think he's prejudiced against any particular group, I think he just has particular world views which preclude working easily with those opposite (or even those on the same side, for that matter). That being said, on reviewing the situation, a few of the others complaining here about agendas have some of their own, so it's probably best that these things be neutrally reviewed. I don't support the block as that has not yet taken place, but at the same time I have no mind to undo it. Orderinchaos 09:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible source of conflict/drama/ZOMG in re: User:Jimbo Wales

While I am uncertain as to the veracity or accuracy of the article in question, the San Francisco Chronicle has published an article discussing possible allegations of abuse of power on the part of Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). The article was linked from Slashdot as well, meaning that we may see some vandalism as a result of the article's high exposure. Good times, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

*Moan*. (just read the article) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my reaction as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You should check out the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Good times all round! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

*double moan*. Even worse. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Jimbo was a bit slow with his expenses? That'll bring the Government down, no question. What a shame there's nothing important going on in the world. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

People should be aware that this story (and variations) is being picked up by the Associated Press and other highly reputable newswires and media sources. Vassyana (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Still gets a big "so what" from me. We've had massively worse problems with expenses than that at work, and Brad's been interviewed and said Jimbo was all square with the Foundation financially. Silly gossip. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Everything's fine, nothing to see here. Drink your Kool-Aid." Jtrainor (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope that was some good steak. --Pixelface (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would love to learn what the policy or guideline is whereby an editor can discount a story published worldwide by major newspapers because in his view it is is "silly gossip." Edison (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Or the policy that says AN/I is for discussing said silly gossip or the policy that tells people to give their opinions on said silly gossip even though no one gives a flying fuck what they think. John Reaves 16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to be The Opinion Police. Anyone is welcome to hold an opinion on said issue. But considerations such as reliable sourcing and NPOV should guide decisions on article content rather opinions such as "big so what" or "silly gossip." And for the good of the Wikipedia project, there should not be the appearance of whitewashing or coverup. The "We've had worse expense account issues at work" argument runs counter to the fact that major newspapers have viewed it as worth talking about. At my company, people got fired for padding expense accounts with things far less extreme than $1300 steak dinners for four or $300 bottles of wine. And my company was not constantly asking for contributions. Edison (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G. Edward Griffin

Fresh after having their article nuked at an AFD and upheld at DRV -- what, two weeks ago? -- the supporters of self-published crank author G. Edward Griffin are taking another run at getting their man into Wikipedia. The latest batch of argumentative SPAs and usual suspects may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (3rd nomination). --Calton | Talk 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - if it was deleted and the that was upheld at DRV? why is there an article to go to AFD? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete it under {{Db-g4}} and salt it. — Κaiba 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's asserted that it's not the same article, and that the issues have been addressed, so it looks like this wouldn't be an appropriate use of CSD G4. —Random832 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it's not the same article, and, even though I made the last nomination, there seems to be enough sources added that show he's a notable self-published crank author. The best we can do is to ensure that the fact that he is a crank appears properly in the article, and, for that, we need sources. I'm sure the truth is out there.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand rollback

I've removed Betacommands rollback, specifically for this edit. Now I'm no fan of MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and his recent editing of WP:AN/B, but Betacommand has blatantly gone through his contributions and clicked rollback to antagonise him - he came from nowhere and had no reason to revert him. I would appreciate a review of this actions. I'll happily reinstate it in a few days if I have assurances from Betacommand that this won't happen again. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the blanking of a section that multiple other users agreed shouldnt be removed. so why am I getting punished? if your going to treat me that way MickMacNee should be serving at least a week block for edit warring, and disruption. β^_command 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You showed up from nowhere and used rollback in a content dispute. You were clearly in a dispute with him in an unrelated forum and decided to pop up and roll him back. Don't worry, I've already expressed my serious concerns about Micks unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

if you look at my contribs I pop up a lot and edit random pages. β^_command 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And you can still do that with ordinary editing. Rollback is no big deal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the situation between the two editors, and that this was clearly a content dispute, I support the decision. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that rollback is no big deal and you can basically perform the same tasks with twinkle or what ever suits you fancy. I have to agree with Ryan here, you engaged in a clear content dispute (in which you could have been blocked) using a tool that as given to you based on trust, you have now broken that trust and had the tool removed. I think that the way you are handling it above shows the reason why it was removed. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BC was warned to stop making pointy disruptions less than a month ago ([12]). If I'd spotted this before Ryan, I probably would have blocked him for 24 hours, especially as BC is calling for a block of MickMackNee when both are as bad as each other. As it is, perhaps bear the above in mind if Betacommand continues to make pointy disruption. I certainly wouldn't give him the rollback tool back. Neıl ☎ 12:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bots that sound official

Would people here be able to have a quick look at User:MBisanz/Botlist and say whether they think some bot names can be misleading if they seem official when they are not? I am, in case people aren't aware of this, thinking of User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot (I recently proposed a rename of that bot). The name for that bot was taken from my (still mostly unwritten) proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance, but it has since become apparent that that bot is not intended to be anything other than a clone of BetacommandBot. I am concerned though that some bots that have descriptive names referring to policies or areas in Wikipedia, can end up sounding more official than they are. Some are dedicated-task bots, such as User:RefDeskBot, User:ArbComBot, etc. My question is whether this sort of descriptive "role naming" of bot accounts should be encouraged, and specifically whether User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot should have the air of being "official" that such a name confers? And should this be considered for bots in general? Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Still more than happy to discuss the matter with you. SQL^{Query me!} 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Replied over there. The idea of keeping the name is growing on me, but I do hope that code written to enforce the other part of the NFCC can be used (subject to BAG approval) on that account. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure I see a problem with the examples given, as long as the bot is only performing the suggested action and has been properly approved. krimpet✽ 03:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a bot will not be perfect. It will probably sometimes do things even when it's inappropriate to do so, in situations where a human would notice that it's inappropriate (or even in situations where a human might not notice either). The name implies that it's enforcing policy and might give people the idea that the action was appropriate and that that's what the policy is, even in cases where it is not. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be enforcing policy, even if not perfectly. I'm not sure I see what your point is. — Coren ^(talk) 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated it for approved and trial bots without flags as well as indicating if a bot is inactive. MBisanz ^talk 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Krimpet. Sure. The problem with a name such as User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is that there are several ways to enforce NFCC with the aid of a bot. BetacommandBot does it one particular way by looking for the article name on the image page. Other bots could check for other things (eg. image size, namespace, copyright tag, and so forth). Some of this is already done by other bots, I think. Such bots would be/are also doing NFCC compliance work, so the title of the original bot would be misleading, and that is why I am proposing a name change or that all such NFCC bot-enforcement functions (existing now and in the future) are gathered together under one bot and one account. Carcharoth (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that ArbComBot's last edit was on 26 July 2007. Is it redundant now? Orderinchaos 09:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Miamiboyzinhere block extended to indefinite

I have extended the block of Miamiboyzinhere (talk · contribs) from a prior 2-week block to indefinite. He continues to edit under various IP addresses and sock puppets. His most recent sock, Finefox771 (talk · contribs) spent most of his edits blindly undoing the work of Vegaswikian, an admin who has been involved in cleaning up after Miamiboyzinhere. Given the refusal of this user to abide by the block, and given the decent from edit-warring (the original block reason) to outright harassment of another editor, and also given the prior support for a community ban (earlier at ANI... lost the thread), I thought it prudent to do this. I am posting this decision here in the interest of full disclosure. Let me know what you all think. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Full evidence of sockpuppetry can be found here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miamiboyzinhere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. He was getting annoying. Will ^(talk) 09:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The archived discussions from WP:ANI are here:

• Rangeblock needed. User 74.225.XXX.XXX edits tendetiously and using multiple IPs to get around blocks
• 74.225.169.82
• Proposed community ban of User:Miamiboyzinhere

—Whoville (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:KarmasBlackSwan: sockpuppet of banned user User:Karmaisking

Returns to more soapboxing: see [13]. Clear by references this is the same user.--Gregalton (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seems fairly obvious. I tagged the user's talk page as a suspected sockpuppet to alert other users. I'll allow an administrator to take it from here though. Keep monitoring the activity. Could always open a sock case - but this might be quicker. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/KarmasBlackSwan, filed earlier today - Alison ^❤ 08:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Are all bots not supposed to have 'bot' at the end of their name? Should this be "computerbot"? Brusegadi (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, most bots include the term "bot" in their name. I've always thought it wasn't a hard and fast rule that they must, but you made me go look at Wikipedia:Bot policy which clearly says:

The account's name should both identify the operator, and make the nature of the account clear by incorporating the word "bot".

This should go to WT:BRFA or WP:BON for specialized discussion. MBisanz ^talk 08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's evident it's a bot - "computer", after all... 09:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)

Looking through this list and this there are a number of bots currently operating without "bot" in the name: User:AZPR, User:Babylon5, User:CanisRufus, User:Comics-awb, User:D6, User:Thadius856AWB and User:VixDaemon, along with about a dozen or so others that I didn't list because they are inactive or discontinued. User:Brother Abbott is a borderline case, since it has "bot" in it, but it's not at all clear that it's a bot account. User:RoboMaxCyberSem has the opposite problem, its seems to clearly announce it's a bot account, but does so without having "bot" in the name. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A better list of flagged bots is [this one] MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. From that list I can add User:BoxCrawler, User:Chem-awb, User:Kurando-san, User:NekoDaemon, User:Pearle, User:Pending deletion script, User:PoccilScript, User:Portal namespace initialisation script, User:PsychAWB, User:R. Hillgentleman, User:Thadius856AWB, User:Tuonela and User:Wikipedia Signpost, with User:Botx being perhaps a problematic case. (BTW, I'm surprised that no one's used "Cambot" - not enough MST3K fans?). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but User:Pending deletion script and User:Portal namespace initialisation script are classed as Dev Bots and therefore exempted from the Bot Policy. MBisanz ^talk 15:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that, although I suspected from the names that they were distinct in some way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Enter Movie is a sockpuppet of User:Cigammagicwizard

Edits the other users page in a manner to suggest they have changed user names without going through normal channels (Quentin X (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Well no name changes took place. But it does look like a case of sockpuppetry or they are good friends.Rgoodermote  16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Islam

I would like to inform that following article has an image which has depiction of Muhammad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone

Image is as following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

I can remove the image but I would like admins to take notice of it. There was/is already some controversies due to Muhammad's cartoons. I would request to please refrain from disrespecting religions and earning bans by Islamic countries (as recent incident of YouTube.com). People in US and Europe have many liberties and don't suffer from such bans. But people in not so lucky area, like in South-East Asia, will suffer a lot if government put any ban on Wikipedia due to some cartoon issue.

Thank you for taking some moments to think on this issue. I am looking forward to take some action and prevent cartoon/depiction of Muhammad to prevent blackout of Wikipedia by governments.

Thanks, Ketchup Wampyr (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. Community consensus is to allow these images, as not doing so would cause POV issues and a possible slippery slope. Will ^(talk) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there is a version of that image (Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg) where Muhammad's face is blanked out. But as Will said, Wikipedia isn't censored. The image should stay as is. --clpo13_(talk) 09:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting permanent block on User talk:99.145.15.46

This user first vandalized my talk-page six times then after an admin. semi-protected my talk-page for 24 hours he/she moved onto my user-page. I warned him/her several times but it didn't seem to help. Here are the edits I am refering to starting with the most recent one: 1.[14] 2.[15] 3.[16] 4.[17] 5.[18] 6.[19] 7.[20] 8.[21]--Harout72 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a single IP address, but a shifting one, and the range is too big to try a rangeblock. I have therefore semiprotected your talk page as well for 48 hours. Please bring the issue back here if they don't get bored of their silliness. Black Kite 11:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tanzanian hip hop and African hip hop

Can someone else take a look at these two pages please, something very odd is going on, in just two days Tanzanian hip hop has gone from a redirect to being 30,000 bytes long, much of which appears a bit over-promotional and spammish to say the least, and is mostly sourced to "Lemelle, Sidney J. “‘Ni wapi Tunakwenda’: Hip Hop Culture and the Children of Arusha", and these changes have been done by 24 seperate semi-new users(most are more than a month old, but have fewer than 20 edits), each making 1 or 2 large additions. Something about this doesn't seem right to me, perhaps i'm just being paranoid though. What are other peoples opinions? Sock farm? Class project? massive co-incidence?--Jac16888 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot. The African hip hop article is experiencing a similar, but much reduced, series of edits, all to the tanzanian section, where content from the tanzanian article was originally merged to--Jac16888 (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I Think you are being paranoid. The new Tanzanian article, while far from perfect, looks pretty good. Don't we encourage this kind of growth of articles? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

perhaps i am being paranoid. It just seems a bit odd, another new editor pops up every hour or so, adds a large paragraph, often referencing that sidney lemelle, then vanishes, to be replaced by another--Jac16888 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tanzanian article looks decent. Perhaps there are meatpuppets? No big deal. This is a classic cases of WP:IAR. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ukrained ... again

Almost a year ago, I reported Ukrained (talk · contribs) for making offensive personal attacks in my direction, for which he was blocked. Today I get this message on my talk page WP:HARASSing me with threats and bans, and using the same offensive slurs that I requested he does not. --Kuban Cossack 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The nerve! The user, who has a habit of using epithets: "like a woman on the peak of her period" in reference to other editors is actually offended that somebody called his name in diminutive. I think if anything should be done about Ukrained's message, which is rather innocent, an action should be taken to warn User:Kuban kazak not to use offensive language himself and finally pay attention to WP:NPA in relation to his own actions too. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did make that comment, and wrt User:Bandurists behaivour it was fully accurate in discribing the situation of what seemed like a civil and good contributor all of a sudden degrading into an edit-warrior who does not even wish to discuss the edit in question. I am sorry, only such external infeluences such as the one I suggested could account for such unpredictable and clearly incorrect behaivour. WRT to Hillocks PA claim, can I just state, that on a regular basis this user sees a Personal Attack in just about any comment, such paranoia is also unhelpful to wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I admit to a little potential bias here as I have a decent relationship with Kuban and have never interacted with Ukrained directly [though I have full awareness of his habits], but I must say nevertheless that using Requests for Arbitration and RfComments to threaten a relatively mild editor like Kuban filled me with a little disgust. The diff offered had no problems either. I'm not sure what motivated User:Ukrained to post such a comment, but it was nasty and as far as I can see unprovoked. I hope User:Ukrained can be persuaded not to do such things in future, and not to harass Kuban or any other user with whom he has a history of disagreement. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the party above has done exactly that. Last year we had a fully stable WP:DR process going that discussed the suitability of having Russian language at Podilsko-Voskresenska Line (check its talk page and archives) out of no serious violation on my behalf I was rewarded with an RfC where the above users instead of actually pointing to real violations (which they could not find!) used it as a rant to express their previous defeats and blocks in fair article challenges. Naturally I refused to participate in that clown show. After which they even attempted to make a Request of Arbcom, but withdrew the request before having to face the shame of arbitrators turning them down. And they accuse me of having the nerve to report on WP:AN/I... --Kuban Cossack 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ukrained was correct in warning you. Statements in the subject line like "Not that it ever will" are in violation of WP:CIVIL. --Greggerr (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In warming me? WP:CIVIL does not say anything about stating that tomorrow the world will not explode or any other radical change that has a small chance of happening. The fact that that we are no closer to consensus then we were five years ago (where the earliest archives date to) gives me full right to suspect that it will never arrive. I believe it will never arrive, and there is not a damn thing one can do about it, except accepting it and moving on, which all but a small array of users have done already. --Kuban Cossack 18:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPs from 59.92.x.x and others

Temp blocks already applied to User:59.92.195.76‎, User:59.92.156.252‎. User:59.92.195.139‎ is circling the drain and User:209.66.221.18 has just joined in. Vandalism on Talk:Mahendra Singh Dhoni after the main article was semi-protected earlier; since on reverting users' userpages. (My own, User:Ossmann, User:EJF & User:Fusionmix.) Threats of more vandalism amidst some personal attacks made on various pages. [22] [23] [24] Anything that can be done? Or just keep an eye out? Cheers, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet of indefblocked user Rastishka (talk · contribs)

I originally filed an RFCU, but the original accounts are too stale to check against [25], so going to report here instead.

I strongly suspect John celona (talk · contribs) is a sock of a proven puppetmaster Rastishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Both accounts have a history of pointlessly (and disruptively) adding people's Jewish background to biographical articles when it is irrelevant to the article. For example:
Rastishka - [26], [27]
John celona - [28]

They also have a history of falsely accusing others of stalking:
Rastishka (see edit summary) - [29]
John celona - [30]

And finally, referring to other edits as "Communist propaganda/apologists"
Rastishka - [31]
John celona - [32]

They've also both made claims amounting to Holocaust Denial. This really looks to me like a case of WP:DUCK -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be elementary to determine that I have continually posted with the same IP since I signed up and that my geographic area is not the same as this Rastishka. Furthermore, if someone would look at the accusations user Nobody of Consequence makes instead of taking them at face value they will be seen as patently false. Nowhere does this Rastishka post anything that can be suggested as "holocaust denial", I did not "gratiously add people's Jewish background" to articles. I am half-Jewish. ANOTHER USER added the David Cicilline article to the Jewish-American categories. A third user deleted that category, claiming no sources. Since I have been to Cicilline's Temple I know very well he is Jewish. I restored that category and ADDED 3 verifiable sources to the article. I have not "falsely accused others of stalking". I have truthfully accused users David in Dc and Jpk212 of stalking as part of their jihad of censoring the well-sourced fact that one hit wonder pop musician Peter Yarrow was jailed on a child molestation conviction. They have stalked posts I have made from the day I joined Wikipedia, even though they are totally irrelevant to the Yarrow dispute.

User Nobody of Consequence should be blocked for his blatantly false and misleadin attempts to villify me as a sockpuppet. John celona (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The writing styles look too different to me for them to be the same user. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reason to block someone, celona. JuJube (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the other suspected/confirmed socks of Rastiska, you will see numerous times that he says the "holocaust is a hoax" in various forms, using the word "hoax" repeatedly. User John Celona had used much the same verbage on his own talk page in an attack on another user. In looking at many of the edits, I believe the writing/edits are VERY similar. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I deny the charge of jihad.
• "Since I have been to Cicilline's Temple I know very well he is Jewish. I restored that category and ADDED 3 verifiable sources to the article." Why? How is it notable? Relevant? Other than to the agenda of somone obsessively counting Jews, I mean.
• "one hit wonder pop musician" Ok, now we've hit lala land. How do you argue with self-parody?
• Finally, I think the "the final solution is a hoax" language in the two users' history is telling. David in DC (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments like this [33] are CLASSIC Rastishka. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's so great and fair of you to NOT include the complete comment [[34]] which clearly shows my parents and grandparents personal experience in occupied Paris as Jews who were not bothered by Vichy or the Nazi occupiers. Sorry if that doesn't reinforce any mythology you may have been taught. They were in no position to have knowledge of the massacres which occured in the east, Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc. As far as "counting Jews" somebody else listed him in that category, not me. Wikipedia has an agenda for counting Jews, as they have a category for it. Your hero Peter Yarrow is in that category and I sure wasn't the one who put him there. If you want to delete the whole category, go ahead. I will vote with you.John celona (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He DID include your complete comment. You are posting another comment. What he didn't include is that you had created an new section titled "Final Solution Fraud". Perhaps you can explain that one away? Or this edit, :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Final_Solution&diff=prev&oldid=139417599:

where you call the final solution a "hoax", like you later did on your talk page, and where you say that it "wasn't much of a solution." Perhaps you can explain that one? There are exactly the same types of edits that Rastishka made, repeatedly calling the holocaust a "hoax". --Jkp212 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there were half a million french Jews before the Nazi occupation and half a million after, including dozens of my family members. Look it up in any encyclopedias. Not exactly what I would call an extermination campaign. a few hundred Communist terrorists of Jewish descent were executed. Since you have called my family's experience in occupied Paris false you, Jkp212, have engaged in holocaust denial and will be branded henceforth as such. John celona (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)/

Here you go again, Celona: "Not exactly what I would call an extermination campaign." What about the 76000 that were deported from france and killed?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/world/europe/4200543.stm

On your talk page you write that the final solution is a hoax, and then you claim you were being "sardonic". However, you (and your other identities) have used that word repeatedly when describing the final solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Final_Solution&diff=prev&oldid=139417599:

Ah - I won't waste my time defending the person who wrote that, or even asking for additional evidence. Someone else can deal with it. Avruch ^T 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a spot-on Rastishka Holocaust Denial, but it's along the same lines (I'm at work and don't have time to dig through the comments of his various sockpuppets). [35]. Here he equates Holocaust statistics to the Loch Ness Monster. More later if I can find them. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet of Ratishka or not, John celona's contributions are needlessly provocative and liable to cause grave offence and disruption. We can do without it, John, so please stop using loaded words like "fraud" to describe the final solution, something which is extensively documented by entirely reliable historians. Wikipedia's tolerance of holocaust denial activism is strictly limited, so you're best off avoiding any appearance of same. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if Celona would stop re-adding his trollish edits to my talk page after I've deleted them. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shared user account: Non-Free Content Compliance Bot

As a way of avoiding some of the problems related to User:BetacommandBot (see ANI/Betacommand) a new bot has been created to run with the same code: Non-Free Content Compliance Bot (talk · contribs)

The general principle of the separating the writing of the code from the operation of the bot seems to me to be a good idea, and to have been generally welcomed in the discusion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, although many of the details have been queried.

I don't want to drag all the discussion into ANI, but there are two issues which I want to raise here:

Shared account

Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is to be operated by three users, which seems to me to be a clear breach of Wikipedia:User account policy#Sharing_accounts, which says "User accounts must only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked."'

The two replies ([36] and [37]) appear to me to confirm that this is indeed a role account.

It seems to me that either this account should be blocked as a breach of Wikipedia:User account policy#Sharing_accounts, or the policy should be amended to permit role accounts for bot use.

Discussion curtailed

This bot was approved only two minutes after the discussion opened[38] and the discussion was closed almost only 13 minutes later[39].

The discussion was subsequently re-opened, but archived again less than 24 hours after it opened[40].

A further comment was added below the archived text[41], which was promptly reverted[42] and the discussion then closed again[43], with the comment "Closed discussion, users who are adding comments have nothing constructive to add".

I accept that BAG currently has authority to authorise bots, but the repeated closure of this page deprives other editors of the opportunity to discuss the authorisation of this bot, and to express concerns which should at least be considered by BAG. May I ask some uninvolved admin to re-open the discusion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• As the user who added the comment below the archival (in accordance with the instructions of the archive box), I must say that I've rarely been treated worse than I have been by the BAG members in this instance. I tried to bring up BC's antagonistic "all or none" language regarding his proposal (which included derogatory and inflammatory language about those who have questioned him in the past). This new section was removed as "trolling." ST47 then issued a veiled block threat when I questioned his misuse of the tools in page protecting a page he was deeply involved in, simply to stifle discussion. Something has to give here, in my opinion. Bellwether ^B_C 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting case. What exactly is a computer program account? I think this is only a account to register the program's changed to our pages. For example, AWB is program run on thousands of accounts. But it would be run on one account, it would still represent a program. So would there be any difference if the three operators ran the bot on separate accounts. IMO, the only difference would be that there would be more confusion with three different accounts registering the edits of the same program. Maxim_(talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As you say, AWB is one program, but it is run on thousands of difft accounts, so the precedent of one program->many accounts is already well-established. In practical terms, having NFCCbot1, NFCCbot2 and NFCCbot3 doesn't seem to me to cause any confusion: it would restores the normal situation that there is a single user responsible for each bot, who is responsible for the bot's actions. If this three user-bot runs amok, which of the three users is responsible?

Also, we don't know how the bot's code is structured, but it seems probable that there is some degree of user control over it beyond an on/off switch. Knowing which user is behind it may be relevant if there are problems with the bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

there are only two controls the operator has, on/off and what file groups the bot will work on. (its two numbers between 1-59) each number represents 5,000 images. so 1-10 is the first 50,000 images in alphabetical order. thats about the extent of operator control. β^_command 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then how will the poor n00b know who to ask about the problems? If Operator 1 tagged their image, they go see Operator 2 by mistakes. Operator 2 becomes as confused the poor n00b and there are even more problems than we have now. Maxim_(talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would hope they would all uniformly implement the myriad of suggestions already forthcoming regarding bot integration with better and wider NFCC enforcement project communication suggested repeatedly recently, the kind of cooperation you don't get barnstars for I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They should probably just operate it on separate accounts. Since it is different people using the bot at different times, those contribs should be separate for history purposes. As far as the stifled discussion goes - I guess the purpose of the page is for BAG to approve or not approve bots. Anything other than discussion leading to those results is probably considered unnecessary, but perhaps a discussion should be had on WT:BAG about an outside discussion period concurrently with and after a formal BAG process. Avruch ^T 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the shared user account. However, I had opposed that bot as my questions on how it was implementing the different phases and if it would be NoBots compliant weren't answered. If it is not NoBots compliant, I must question why a BAGer closed against the community consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Community_proposal. MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the community consensus element is the judgment of BAG, which exists to provide a level of technical expertise and bot experience not found in the general community. Sort of like a 'crat intermediary in RfX, except only crats get to vote. Avruch ^T 23:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, I follow that the BAg interprets community consensus and what not, but at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Community_proposal the consensus had trended 8/0 that BC's bots should be NoBots compliant to some degree. To say that BAG can go against such a firm consensus in light of its technical expertise and bot experience not found in the general community is something I'd disagree with. MBisanz ^talk 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the discussion was not just closed, but the page protected. ST47 reverted and then immediately protected. Is this normal procedure at WP:BAG? Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And he was one of the Bot Ops seeking approval for that bot to boot. Sorta like protecting your own AfD nom. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• It seemed like a pretty obvious misuse of tools to me, but when I approached him on his page, he issued a veiled block threat, and that was that, I guess. Bellwether ^B_C 23:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes [44]...that's over the top. We need much better communication skills as BAG conducts it's business. RxS (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. I consider what he did a gross misuse of tools, and a misuse of power in his veiled threat of a block. However, I've rarely seen much happen to admins who behave in such ways, so I didn't bother to bring it here until now. Bellwether ^B_C 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the BAG folks could have just ignored everyone and the page, once it was closed, but both steps (protecting and/or ignoring) would be seen as rude. The point is that the BRfA is a specialized process to achieve a specific outcome, when it did, and the reaction of the BAGers was against non-BAGers trying to bring other Betacommand related issues into a process not designed to deal with them. Bring your issues here, to RfC, or to WP:AN/B where they belong. Avruch ^T 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review of Bot approval process (User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot)

I'm concerned with what has taken place at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. There appear to be legitimate concerns there (over the bot's name, the bot's role, the bot's function, and how it would be operated), yet the discussion was shut down, the bot speedy approved (for the second time), and the page protected to prevent any further edits to the page. Is this acceptable? Does the bot approval group have the authority to do this if there is not yet agreement on how this new kind of bot (possibly a role account) should operate?

A bit of background and a brief timeline:

• Over the past days and weeks there has been ongoing discussion about User:BetacommandBot and its functions and operations. One of the issues identified (and which had been known for some time) was that the multi-task nature of BetacommandBot complicated discussions and block/unblock decisions. For example, discussions about one task would often get sidetracked as people arrived and started talking about how the bot and its operator performed at other tasks. One of the tasks that generated the most discussion was the NFCC#10c non-free image tagging of older images (which, for the record, is mostly finished now). Still, there is an ongoing need for this to be done for new image uploads, and it had been suggested that this function be split off to a separate account. Betacommand was, I believe, in the process of doing this even before the latest round of discussions in the past few weeks, but it seems that this either hastened the process or Betacommand is now ready to do this (he has, legitimate in my opinion, concerns about restricting access to the code to those he trusts to not give it away to anyone).
• During all this, I had created the proposal Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance, in an attempt to plan things better for future use of bots to help ensure Wikipedia's images (and sounds and videos and texts) are compliant with the non-free content policy. It has been confirmed that this inspired the name of the bot that was created to take over the non-free content work of BetacommandBot, namely User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot.
• This bot account was submitted for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. The bot was speedily approved two minutes after the page was created. I queried this as it didn't seem like enough time for discussion to take place. The request was re-opened and discussion continued over the wording of the request and the details of what would happen and how this would work. The details can be seen on the page, but concerns (as I said above), include the appearance that this is a role account, that the bot name implies that it is enforcing the NFCC (per my proposal), when in fact it is only enforcing a small area of NFCC (I would like to see a whole range of bots developed for various NFCC purposes, and having one named this way is misleading).

My questions are:

• (1) Is it possible to object to the approval of this bot, and if so where? If WP:BAG refuse to review any appeal, what then?
• (2) Is it possible to object to the name used, and if so where? I would propose renaming it to User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot (10c), or User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot (Betacommand), or allowing other NFCC-compliance enforcing bot codes to be run under this account (that would be a genuine role account).

At the moment, it seems that a bot has been created and speedily approved with an official-sounding name that implies that this is the bot that is intended to carry out (where possible) bot-enforcement of WP:NFCC. But with one slight problem. Betacommand insists (and WP:BAG seem to agree with him) that he is the only one to be allowed to write code to run on that account. This also raises the wider question of whether it is acceptable to have bots with "official" policy names. eg. User:BLP Bot, User:NPOV Bot, and so on. My concern is that the name implies "official approval" at the policy level, and I would like to see this discussed before the bot account makes any edits. I've just found out that an incident report has already been filed about this, so I'll stop here and save this, but the urgent thing is this: please can things be put on hold with regard to that bot until more discussion has taken place? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As this is obviously a disputed/contested Bot approval and the Bot flag was based on the original 2 minute debate, I'd urge a crat to review the situation at the approval page to see if this Bot actually has the consensus and approvals in order to keep this flag while this is being discussed. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I commented on my talkpage, I simply do not think a bureaucrat has the authority to do that. The community has entrusted the approval of bots to the Bot Approval Group not to bureaucrats, who only have the technical ability to flag bots. In the same way that controversial AfD or FAR discussions cannot be reviewed by bureaucrats, I do not believe Bot approvals can be. If the community wants bureaucrats to play a supervisory role in the approval of bots, that is going to require changes to policy and process. WjBscribe 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I disagree. 'Crats are here as a safety valve, if not, every BAGger would probably be able to flag bots. Maxim_(talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BAG predates the technical ability of crats to flag Bots. We have never been given the role of a "safety valve" - we simply took over the role that stewards used to play in the approval process. WjBscribe 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the sole barrier to operation for a bot is the approval of a single BAG member in a BRfA. If that is indeed the standard, and it was achieved, then the process appears to have proceeded as it was designed. Whether there should be a time period for discussion or other mechanism for input from the non-BAG community is a separate question, something I would support. But BAG serves a purpose that has generally been pretty uncontroversial - that of a technical check of a bots function and code (in the case of an open code or a new botop, I think?). If BAG is also supposed to determine community support for a bot function, then its membership needs to be drastically revised. Anyway, I'm not sure where the 'crats come in on this conversation except as admins and members of the community. Avruch ^T 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, crats receive notification of the bot approval and flick the switch to give the bot the flag. So they do play a special role in being a technical gatekeeper of sorts. MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As MBisanz says, it has never been the bureaucrat role to determine whether or not a consensus exists for a bot to run, that is also within BAG's remit. If the community feels that BAG is acting improperly in approving bots that would be a fairly serious manner, requiring a reconsideration of how Bot approval on the English Wikipedia works... WjBscribe 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I support putting this bot on hold until the issues are sorted out. It's a great pity that BAG appears to have been so keen to close off community input on this bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Concur. BAG-ers need to understand that even they are accountable to the community. Bellwether ^B_C 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• BAG approves the technical aspects of a bot and bot task. They don't interpret community support (although, in this case, there seems to have been overwhelming community support for the idea that others be given responsibility for operating this particular bot). If there is to be a discussion about the nature of the accounts and the name of the bot (which is what seems to be the primary issue here, other than some folks feeling spurned for being shut out of the BRfA process) then it should take place separately - that is, outside the context of reviewing a BAG action which I don't think is the function of AN/I. Avruch ^T 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Avruch, please read Wikipedia:Bot policy: "The decision to approve a request should take into account the requirements below, relevant policies and guidelines, and discussion of the request." - that clearly didn't happen here - there was little discussion of the request, and what there was was shut down and stifled. Furthermore, the requirements are that the operator show that the bot "adheres to relevant policies and guidelines". There are concerns that the name of the bot (using a policy name), and the mode of operation (three users) is outside of normal policy. More discussion is needed and the bot flag should be removed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've read it - the approval requirement is the assent of a single BAG member, and input from non-BAG members is not solicited or required for approval nor does it appear necessary that it be taken into account. The place for discussing issues not specifically related to the approval of a bot's code or task is here, not BRfA. Avruch ^T 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • So there is no way to appeal the approval of a bot? That's just silly. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in this case, who would you appeal it to? BAG? It has BAG approval, which is unlikely to change based on the non-intersection of their perception of the BAG role and your concerns about the bot. WjB has expressed above that he does not feel he has the authority to revoke the flag, which in any case would only slow the bot down and not stop it. Avruch ^T 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also, from WP:BRFA: "an approvals group member will approve or reject the bot approval request after a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input" - what was reasonable here? As for the role of ANI, see the bot policy, which says "If you have noticed a problem with a bot, or have a complaint or suggestion to make, you should contact the bot operator. If the bot is causing a significant problem, and you feel that more urgent discussion is necessary, you may also wish to leave a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, indicating where you have notified the bot operator." I'm not entirely clear who the bot operator is here, but I will notify the four people involved. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thats what I said - non-BRfA related discussion (which includes discussion after BAG approval) belongs here, as it is not part of the BRfA process. Avruch ^T 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• discussion here was moot. it is a clone of already an existing bot. β^_command 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are issues with the name of the new bot and how it operates. Where should those be addressed? Wikipedia:Changing username? Wikipedia:Role account? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • the name is moot. it does part of the NFC enforcement. the name reflects that. as for how it operates what grounds do you have? none. β^_command 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • • Is the bot NoBots compliant? MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a big difference in name between "BetacommandBot" and "Non-free Content Compliance Bot". The former is obviously a bot run by Betacommand. The latter has the look and feel of an "official" role account - it is debatable whether any account names (bots or users) should use policy names (I will start a new section on that). It is also misleading because BetacommandBot only enforces a part of NFCC#10c non-compliance. If another bot started up and was enforcing NFCC#3a or NFCC#3b, why should your bot get to to be called by the name it has instead of the other bot? They are both helping to enforce NFCC, but different parts of it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ST47's comments

This is a clone of an existing bot. The only reason people even care about it is because BetacommandBot is the cool thing to pick on and block nowadays. Which is pretty stupid. And is also pretty much the cause of this bot request. People complain about it being a role account. Here's the solution: As I've stated before, we plan on putting a log in the bot's userspace stating who is running it, and what they're doing with it. Also: The bot has a user talk page, you know. You don't NEED to go to the operator. You can leave a message on the bot's talk page, and we will receive it.

People say they want to object to the approval of the bot. These are the same people who are carrying out the witchhunt to block betacommandbot every chance they get. I'm willing to debate any point regarding the implementation of this bot. I am not willing to debate the wording of the request. I am not willing to debate the basis of the request. These are petty complaints. These were the only complaints raised - or at least the main ones - on the BRFA. I believe someone even brought up Betacommand's behavior. I'm not here to debate that, I'm not here to argue over policy. I'm here to enforce policy and the foundation resolution. If there is a problem with the way that the bot handles this, I'd love to hear it. If you disagree with the wording, or don't like it because Betacommand wrote it, and Betacommand is the devil's spawn, then I'd love to not hear from you. Actually, not hearing from you would probably improve the chances of the real issues being resolved.

So, what are the real problems? It's a role account. I will be the main operator of this bot. We'll be using a log to record who does what. I think I'll eventually try to post my plans ahead of time, once I get a feel for the bot. Let's ignore policy for just a moment. Are there any other concerns with this bot having more than one operator than need to be addressed? Are there any other concerns that need to be addressed? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

One comment about the approval. BAG does not want the bot request pages clobbered up by the sort of complaints that were issued there. I do not want to be clobbered by them here. As I said above, I will respond to any questions regarding this bot. If this section is swamped by immaterial complaints, I will choose not to wade through it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:BAG really want community input or not? It says at the top of WP:BRFA that "Please remember that all editors are encouraged to participate in the requests listed below. Just chip in - your comments are appreciated more than you may think!" So what is the point in that when a request is posted, approved and removed, all in the space of two minutes? Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy approvals happen. Maybe not always at the right time. However I really get irritated when I have to wade through kilobytes worth of irrelevant content on a BRFA. As I stated above, I'm interested in hearing real issues with these bots. I'm not interested in reading an anti-betacommand flamefest, or incessant argument over petty things such as the wording of the request. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me a moment to extract some real questions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, can you diverge it into three accounts instead of one? Since the code doesn't reside inside the account, and its handy to separate who is doing what, I think that is a low-cost approach to solving the technical violation of the role account policy. Avruch ^T 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to go through unnecessary steps for "technical" policy violations. That's what IAR is for. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)An even lower cost approach would be to ignore the role account policy. Is there a reason, other than the technical, that we can't do that? I am concerned about splintering the bot's user and talk pages - and contribs - the easier it is for people to keep track of it, the better. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While you are at it, could you please rename the account altogether? I was initially pleased that it had taken the name of my proposal, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance (this was confirmed by MZMcBride), but if this is just to be a BetacommandBot NFCC#10c clone, rather than the overarching, multi-task NFCC bot that I thought it would be, then please use a different name. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as such a big deal. Do you have another suggestion that would satisfy you? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you stonewalling me? It is not clear whether any accounts should have "policies" in their names. Is that clear enough for you? Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just haven't thought of a better name... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot2? Or User:ST47Bot2, or whatever. The point is that the bot, if it is just a shared clone of BetacommandBot, shouldn't have the official-sounding "Non-free content compliance" as its name, as that is highly misleading. That makes it sound like the one-and-only role account specifically designed to enforce official policy, when in fact it is just one of many potential bots that could help deal with NFCC stuff. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this bot NoBots compliant? MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to gather more information on that before forming my opinion. I am aware of the concerns of the community, and Beta has stated that if a user has a valid reason, he can manually opt them out. Users active in image work, for example, can be opted out because they do not want to be spammed for every image they resize. However we want to allow as good a chance as possible that the tag will be noticed and fixed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Would an alternative be a third NoImageBots tag. That would basically require a user to admit they never want to know about image tags. I just don't like the idea of BC (or any user) approving another user's request not to be notified. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. Really, so long as it's clear, that the images are your responsibility, even if you actively choose not to be informed of potentially serious problems with them, I'd have absolutely no problem with it, that I can think of right this second. SQL^{Query me!} 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's so goddamn easy to run the non-free tagging code on a different account than "BetacommandBot", then why was Betacommand dragging his feet on splitting that function from the other tasks that run on that account? —Random832 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it would be running on a different machine. All of my code uses the same login. having the code switch between accounts depending on which script is running is very difficult. if its on a separate machine the code will only be working with a single username and not multiple which is the problem that I am trying to fix. β^_command 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, the alternative is the nuclear one which would sort out all our problems; ban fair-use on enwiki. Other wikis seem to cope perfectly well, and it would have numerous other bonuses which per NPA I won't go into now. Black Kite 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not in the slightest helpful. But probably the only resolution to the problem that exists, frankly. Black Kite 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I was not referring to your proposal, but to this line of discussion. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ST47, you say that you are "here to enforce policy". So please can you enforce Wikipedia:User_account_policy#Sharing_accounts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressed above. Your complaints there are based on a technical point where there is no reason other than policy to complain. WP:IAR. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the purposes of the bot policy and others (like repairing bot created damage, spamming talkpages (!) etc.) can we consider you to be the bot operator 100% of the time regardless of who is actually using it? Avruch ^T 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A valid point. I would hope that I can trust martin and sql to not abuse the use of the account. Of course, checkuser can be used to determine the source of any wrongdoing, if necessary as a last resort. If there is a problem with one of the users, edits can be reverted and passwords can be changed. Until someone proves that I cannot trust them, I'd rather have the convenience. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Wikipedia:User account policy#Sharing accounts says "Exceptions to this rule are limited to accounts that directly represent the Wikimedia Foundation or internal Wikipedia committees, though none are currently active, and bot accounts that are maintained by more than one contributor, provided the existence of such an arrangement is made clear and has consensus." So where's the problem? --Conti|✉ 00:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"...has consensus." Avruch ^T 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there should be consensus for every bot, of course. But you cannot say "This bot should not be run because it's used by multiple people". There's no problem with that, as long as there's consensus for the bot in general. --Conti|✉ 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats not my reading of what you quoted above. Its the multi-user arrangement that requires consensus. The bot itself requires BAG approval, unrelated to consensus. Avruch ^T 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for now I only heard that this isn't allowed by our policy, not that we need consensus for that. So, does anyone actually disagree with this bot being run by multiple people? If so, why? "It's not allowed per policy" is not a valid reason. --Conti|✉ 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I still object to the name of the bot (though User:MBisanz/Botlist (thanks MBisanz!) shows that many bots have "official-sounding" names). I think the bot should be renamed to be more accurate. If I had known that this was going to happen, I would have created the account myself to prevent people copying the name of my proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. I may still create the following: User:NFCC Bot (3a), User:NFCC Bot (3b), User:NFCC Bot (7), User:NFCC Bot (9), User:NFCC Bot (10b), User:NFCC Bot (10c). Do you understand now how the creation of this bot and Betacommand saying that only he will be allowed to supply the code to run it, is effectively him saying that he is the only person who should be allowed to program bots to enforce WP:NFCC. If he doesn't think that, then he won't object to a rename. Do you object to a rename in light of what I've said? Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this comment is directed at, but I don't have any objection to renaming the bot at all. I don't think its terribly necessary, but I don't object to it. Avruch ^T 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether the question was directed at me or not: I don't see any reason not to rename the bot, either. Have the creators of the bot commented on this (If so, I can't find the comment(s) right now)? And while we're at it: Do you object to let multiple people operate this bot? :-) --Conti|✉ 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a rename to User:NFCC Bot (10c), as that is a more accurate name. Who would have to agree to this and where would the rename be requested? And no, I don't object to this being run as a shared bot account. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot operator (account holder) and the request goes to a bureaucrat, either directly or on the rename page. Avruch ^T 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask all three and Betacommand as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Were you ignoring all rules when you page protected a page to simply prevent a couple of non-admins who were trying to ask a few questions about the bot approval process? What about when you issued a veiled threat to block, and accused me of disruption? As to the bot itself, will you be open to having talented coders contribute improvements to the code? Is there any possibility that the bot could be designed in such a way as to actually help the user understand what was needed, and perhaps add the name of the article (the most usual "violation" found by BCBot)? Bellwether ^B_C 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions about modifying the code or allowing access to it for other users still need to be directed to Betacommand. Avruch ^T 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• So, the answer is no. BC has a long history of secrecy and unwillingness to allow his code to be improved upon, tweaked, or whatever. Bellwether ^B_C 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I object to the unnecessary use of a shared account here, mostly because it is unnecessary. It's important for us to be able to quickly identify exactly who is responsible for a given edit. The use of a shared account here puts up an unneeded hurdle here. There is no reason that each clone operator cannot use an account directly associated with them. Secondly, given the circumstances I don't trust that Betacommand will not be given the password to this account. If this bot dumps a bunch of null edits to the mainpage, I want to know who to blame. ➪HiDrNick! 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • you want to know what will make every edit? its the exact same thing, a computer program. β^_command 15:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not helpful, Betacommand. There's always a human telling a bot what to do. Anyways, quoting User:ST47 above: "We'll be using a log to record who does what". If the bot will do something inappropriately, it therefore should be easy to find out who operated tbe bot at that time. --Conti|✉ 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • how is that not helpful? the operator has very little control. the bot is controlled by its programming. that doesnt change if someone else presses the start button. β^_command 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, yes, but User:HiDrNick specifically mentions the bot possibly doing something it's not supposed to do (like doing a few thousands of null edits). If the bot has multiple operators, you wouldn't know who to blame for these inappropriate edits, unless there is some kind of log which says who operated the bot at that time. But as it has been noted above that there will be such a log, I don't see a problem with this. --Conti|✉ 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia already keeps a log of each user's contributions at Special:Contributions. There is no need to obfusicate this infomation by making a seperate "operator log". Each account needs to be accountable to a particluar editor. There is no technical reason for it not to be. ➪HiDrNick! 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say this information would be obfuscated by having a different log. It would make the information slightly harder to find, but it should still be quite easy in general to see who operates the bot while it is active (At least I hope so!). My guess is that it would simply be more trouble than it's worth to split the bot. To me, this is a very minor disadvantage, assuming the page of the bot clearly states who is operating it at any time. --Conti|✉ 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Carcharoth

ST47 asked for some clear queries, so I've posted this in a new section. All quotes from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot.

• I supported the proposal initially - "For the record, though I thoroughly support this proposal, I was taken aback by the rather biased wording used above ("Anti-fair-use people would be shielded from attacks" - this should not preclude criticism, and criticism should not be confused with attacks). Also, the terse "as long as the users in question follow my directions" should be modified to indicate that Betacommand is part of a collaborative editing project where he has to work with other people. Also, "People will find it much harder to demonize or blame if there's a trusted group of BAG people versus a single individual" should be removed or rewritten. Finally, "Betacommand and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images." should be rewritten as "Betacommand feels that he and his bot are vilified for the work they do tagging images.". I note that this page was created and then approved two minutes later. That is insufficient time for the community to participate in discussion of the wording used here. Please could WP:BAG re-open the request so that the more extreme wording can be toned down?"
• Wording of the request - "Now this request has been reopened, is it acceptable to change the wording of the request, or not? My proposed changes are above. Anti-fair-use people do not have a special status on this project, and do not need shielding from anything except the normally unacceptable stuff. Furthermore, fair use is needed for a free encyclopedia, and making references to "anti-fair-use people" is divisive. Anyway, it should all say "non-free-use" rather than "fair-use", and the bot name in the proposal doesn't match the name of the actual bot, unless someone has created User:FairUseBot."
• Is it a role account or a shared account? "The point is that people can then submit their own code, as an improvement, and request that it be run instead or in parallel. That was impossible with BetacommandBot, but might be possible here. A bot with multiple operators and programmers might seem like a nightmare, but BetacommandBot already has multiple tasks, so it is not as silly as it sounds. As long as the operators make clear which code is running at what time (as any organised bot operator should always do), then it will be fine."
• The misleading nature of the bot's name "Then would you mind changing the name of the bot to include your name? At the moment, the name makes it sound like a general purpose NFCC-compliance bot. There are other people who can write bots to deal with NFCC-compliance stuff, and it would be nice if a stable of NFCC-compliance bots was built up, with this one (the obvious name) being the group-operated one."

I hope this makes my concerns clear. ST47, would you be able to respond to any of these points? Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ST47, but I'm not sure I understand what effect the wording of the request has. Can you explain? Avruch ^T 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's incivil, which is an issue I tried to raise, but was continually reverted by a BAG member (ST47), who quickly page protected it to prevent any further discussion from non-admins. Bellwether ^B_C 00:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• As Bellwether says, it was incivil language. Need I remind you that a page got MfD'd recently as an "attack page" merely because someone got upset about the wording used. How is this page, which uses words like "demonize" and "vilified" any different? Bur really, that was the least important of the concerns I raised, Avruch. Would you like to comment on the other ones? Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• On a related issue, Carch, Maxim has now blocked Mick for a week for daring to suggest that an RfC on BC be started up. He tried to ban him for 6 hours (for some odd reason) from the ANI/B page, and then levied a week long block. One of the more egregious misuses of tools I've seen for awhile. Bellwether ^B_C 00:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't actually what happened. Read the rest of AN/B and Mick's talkpage. Avruch ^T 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• • It looked to me like the first two paragraphs (more than half your comments) were about the wording of the request. I guess there is a place for a request for a civility refactor, although I wouldn't say it requires the revocation of the bot flag/halt of the bot. As far as the others, I figured the questions were directed at ST47. Avruch ^T 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And I see that ST47 hasn't responded yet. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put together a list of bot names that sound official to me at User:MBisanz/Botlist. Feel free to use it if it helps in some way. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that Conversion script and Pending deletion script actually are official, and neither is active. —Random832 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Philippe

Well, here we go again. Here's the situation as I see it: BAG felt like it was appropriate to speedily approve a non-controversial bot. OK by me. Thing is, it wasn't non-controversial, clearly, which means the premise isn't solid. Since it's clearly controversial, what harm is done by taking a moment to breathe and work these issues out without everyone getting so worked up, huh? The way this is headed, I can only see one possible outcome and it's the one that - frankly - none of us want: I think this is going to end up at with BAG at MFD again, and I don't think THAT will be a fun conversation. - Philippe | Talk 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• You are correct, though I would suggest that particular outcome appears to be exactly what certain people in this thread actually want. Black Kite 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your point may be accurate, but I certainly hope not. - Philippe | Talk 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:BAG reform, not deletion. WP:BAG are good at approving non-controversial bots, or finding technical problems, but as soon as anything more complex comes up, or there is a hint of community consensus not being there after all (and WP:BAG don't check this, like they should), then it is incredibly difficult to get things undone. The usual line is "only needs one member to approve", or "we only check technical stuff", or "ask the bot operator about the problems". And the bureaucrats defer to WP:BAG. The real problem is that there is no clear way to flag up problems with a bot that operates within policy, but that the community at large wants to be operated in a different way. WP:BAG should make much clearer that bot operators need to work constructively with others and that if they don't, the bot flag may be withdrawn even if the bot is operating within policy and on-task. ie. Collaborative editing and working with other people, not the "my way or the highway" approach seen here sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the principle of WP:BAG reform, not deletion. A narrow technical focus on the operation of bots is clearly insufficient, and there needs to be some mechanism whereby community input can be considered on whether a technically-correct bot complies with other policies and guidelines, and in how its modus operandi interacts with the rest of wikipedia. Something has gone very badly awry when all such input is simply rejected by protecting the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • BAG must consider the consensus of the community. I'd like to think they do, although it is suggested they haven't. See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Computer (05), this discussion for my opinions on how community consensus should be considered by BAG. Daniel (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm wondering if a process RFC on the Bots Approvals process wouldn't be more constructive than an MfD. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Avruch and others are wrong to say that BAG is merely a technical approval. BAG is good at identifying corner cases, but WP:BOT also requires that any task have consensus and be in accord with policy. BAG doesn't disapprove spelling bots simply on the technical problems, but because of policy and consensus reasons. I've been commenting on bot approvals for ages without being in BAG. Gimmetrow 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) A point that has to be considered, is how community input is supposed to work. For the most part, the community as a group is largely unconcerned about bots, and even trying to raise an issue on WP:VP rarely brings in more than a comment or two. Insisting that community consensus be determined for the function of a bot is good in principle, but the community has to want to be involved.

As it now stands, the only non-BAG to comment on requests for approvals tend to come from the creator, the group who requested that the bot exist in the first place, and the very rare person to stumbles on the discussion. So, of course, the discussions center on the technical aspects which the community did entrust to the BAG. — Coren ^(talk) 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere around here is an essay title something like "Silence is consensus". My suggestion would be that if there is no community input, that should be taken as the community "approves". But if there is dissent or opposition to a non-technical feature, there should be some way to handle it. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

At this stage, I would encourage anyone who missed it to re-read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group, which was drawn to my attention last night. It makes very interesting reading, but there repeated and heartfelt assurances there from BAG members along of the primacy of community involvement in BAG: "BAG does seek community consensus in all of its action"[45]. and "In fact, the BAG lives off community consensus, and will only approve a bot on the basis of such consensus"[46] . The latter comments was from Martinp23 (talk · contribs), a current member of the BAG, yet yesterday's Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot was closed and protected while several people still wanted to discuss matters further. (Martinp23 is also one of the 3 named users of the new bot).

I am trying to assume good faith, but it would be very helpful to have an explanation from Martin and others of what changed between the MfD last April and yesterday's ruthless rejection of community input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Having reviewed that MfD, there's few options left to allow for the assumption of good faith. I've been trying to reconcile the two (MfD vs. Yesterday), and I just can not. Bellwether ^B_C 15:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's mostly different people for a start. --kingboyk (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed with the speedy approval of the bot and have commented to that end elsewhere already. I commented on the BRFA as soon as I was told it was up. MfD is a stupid idea. As is reform to be totally honest. It just need to be impressed upon BAG members that community input is of paramount importance. I've said it dozens of times now on WT:BAG, and as a result of this will produce a short message reminding BAG members exactly what the standards are and what I for one expect us to do. Seriously - I go on and on about how community input is the most important thing. As kingboyk notes, there are hardly any active BAG members serving currently who were active at the time of the MfD. It's likely that the messages of the MfD just need to be drilled home again, and I'm happy to take that role on and ensure a message is sent. Thanks, Martinp23 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And let me just say again. MfD nonsense is just seeking drama. Procedure in the past has been that we don't MfD groups or organisations and instead go for proper discussion. To that end an MfD would be likely to be closed early. Martinp23 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said to WJBscribe about his comment, your comment is one of the more useful ones in this thread. I hope you can talk some sense into some people. I agree that an MfD would not be productive. Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone feels that their concerns have not been dealt with thus far, the operators are all available on IRC and I for one am willing to help as far as I can via my talk page or (preferably) email. I'd also invite centralised discussion on WT:BRFA if there as a strong consensus, with good (and concise!) reasons for the request to be reopened. Thanks, Martinp23 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Someone Completely Uninvolved (but Perversely Amused)

(Note: I'm not an administrator. If only admin comments are appropriate here, skip to the next section heading!)

Reading through this whole discussion I see a very few substantative comments:

1. Someone doesn't like the name chosen for the bot and would like it changed
2. Someone has objected to a role account as non-traditional, even though there is an essentially unused policy permitting it in this specific case
3. Someone else objects to splitting the operation into three accounts since it would separate the results of runing the bot into three places
4. Someone yet else mentions that having three places makes it easier to figure out who the operator was at the time of some supposed malfunction

I'm going to make a few simple suggestions that I think will work, and that I fully expect to be roundly ignored, because everyone has mixed their concrete and are standing in it and aren't going to move before it sets.

1. Rename the damn bot. How the heck hard can it be to add 5 letters to the end of its name? The name has already been changed once. I'm a programmer, to me that proves that it is physically possible to change the name and still have it work. Or if it won't work with the name changed, Betacommand knows what to fix to make it work with a different name. Just add the (10c) or whatever section number of the policy to the end of the bot's name and be done with it. Sheesh.
2. Make three accounts for the three operators. Just plain old standard bot accounts that link back to the relevent operators. This way the bot can be run by all three people at any time including simultaneously, and anyone can still track any specific change back to who was running it at the time. (Why who was running it matters is unclear to me. Someone thinks it matters, so lets do it. It ain't that hard.)
3. If you want a single page with all contributions, how about making a single page someplace with an arbitrary name and then putting {{Special_Pages:MyBot1:Contributions}} (or whatever the correct name format is) links on it to make a combined page of all three contribution pages? Personally I'd make a simple redirect page or the like.

Would doing that solve all of the substantative objections? I know it doesn't cover process issues. Deliberately. Loren.wilton (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:WebHamster

[edit] User talk:147.4.160.116

Please take a look at User talk:147.4.160.116 and the history of that page. Thanks. --House of Scandal (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page for 24 hours Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Obama's house, redux

192.17.236.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is adding an inappropriate image of Obama, Rezko and Obama's residence. There are a number of issues which are:

1. The image publishes personal data (i.e. an image of Obama's house) for which no citation to a secondary reliable source has been provided, a clear violation of WP:BLP.
2. The image is non-neutral, inappropriately conflating images of Obama and Rezko where no such actual photo is available.
3. The image uses copy-righted images of Obama and Rezko, a violation of WP's image policy.

I've already filed an IfD and I'd appreciate a speedy on it if appropriate. Ronnotel (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone already deleted it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Active revert war - Ward Churchill

Check out just today's edits at Ward Churchill. One POV editor, one lone editor trying to defend article. Admin help needed David in DC (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any attempts at communication. John Reaves 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. But a warning to the fellow who keeps "jazzing" up the copy might come in handy from a nuetral admin. Check out this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ward_Churchill&diff=next&oldid=196233038 and 4 subsequent reverts. David in DC (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just left a note on his talk page. We'll see where he goes from here. ♠PMC♠ 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. David in DC (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd editing at Samantha Power

Samantha Power, whose subject resigned today from assisting the Obama campaign, has been the target of some slightly strange (mostly constructive) IP edits from two different universities (Smith College and the University of Oregon), both users (by using the undo feature and fixing malformed refs) clearly experienced. A third IP editor also seems to be editing from a campus. Like I said, the edits appear constructive (except some on the talkpage which were definitely NOT, and I'm keeping an eye on it), but may be coordinated. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: And, I don't know what to do, or if anything needs to be done, but I thought it should be made known. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

whats wrong with constructive editing? if tehy are disrupting the talk page, they should be discplined there for that reather than for their constructive edits here???Smith Jones (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to WP:AGF, and the edits are all constructive, then it's most likely dynamic IPs updating info untendentiously. As stated, unless there is some disruption, there is no problem. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whats going on here?

Koujiatwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Quack-Wabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
207.216.210.150 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
207.216.94.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

• User:Koujiatwolf/SNTM1
• User:Koujiatwolf/SNTM2
• User:Koujiatwolf/SNTM3
• User:Koujiatwolf/SNTM4
• User:Koujiatwolf/SNTM5
• User:Koujiatwolf/SNTM6

Whats going on here.. a game? Neither accounts do anything outside their userspace.--Hu12 (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like some sort of record-keeping for an off-wiki activity. I think they need to be gently reminded about WP:UP. howcheng {chat} 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Beyong strange. Made up. Did a quick google search for the "creator" of the show. Says it all. This is all made up and not appropriate use of userspace as it seems to be unrelated to building an encyclopedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

the sub page mentions a "Simerica's Next Top Model".. google comes up with 21 hits of strange --Hu12 (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh God. It's someone doing a mashup of America's Next Top Model and The Sims, both of which I detest... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the youtube video, I fell off my chair..LOL. --Hu12 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people have far too much time on their hands. (Mind you, we're hardly in a position to take the high ground there...) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant sock of TenOfSpades (talk · contribs)

ElevenOfHearts (talk · contribs) is a blatant sock of indefinitely blocked user TenOfSpades (talk · contribs). The name alone gives it away but so does his equivalent trolling [53] Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. MastCell ^Talk 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zenasprime Pointily placing speedy tags

User:Zenasprime Is pointily placing loads of speedy tags: [54] and says in his edit summaries to protest; "CSD A7 needs to go so please protest this use of CSDA7, also see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, CSD A7 being abused by administrators to delete content that they subjectively determined" Blast Ulna (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darko Trifunović followup

Following up on the discussion earlier this week at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive380#Edit warring and BLP issues on Darko Trifunović, I've intervened to do a complete rewrite to resolve some major BLP problems (see [55] for the pre-rewrite version). I would be grateful if uninvolved editors could review it and provide any feedback about the new version. I'm hopeful that this will resolve the conflicts that have required several admins to intervene in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah ive already started to work on it. that place wa a real cesspool back in the day; hopefully the serbian and bosnian fanaitcs will have gone and more moderate, reaosnable voices will prevailed. Smith Jones (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:VivianDarkbloom

VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I recently censured this editor for violation of WP:NPA per two recent edits which accused two established editors of sockpuppetry and WP:COI violations. However this account, ironically, turns out to be a 2nd account itself (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophelia Benson and this conversation). Using an alternate account is not reason for sanction in itself, but an examination of the user's editing history reveals many more abuses of NPA (the last sentence of this, from yesterday is revealing; typical others include [56] [57] and a quick scan of the Talkpage history shows the relentless incivility with which the editor responds to others). This is not to mention an editing history which involves a WP:POINT spree of tagging porn biographies for speedy deletion and a 48-hour block for harrassment. The whole history of this account is poor enough for a single account, but is completely in violation of the good hand bad hand rules. Thoughts? Black Kite 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Block the user until we're given a suitable explanation. We did the same to Eyrian. Will ^(talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with this user in the past as well, and it seems she dropped off the map shortly after her 3RR block in January and only resurfaced today. As far as the alternate account goes, is there any evidence that it's in violation of WP:GHBH? I don't believe Vivian has publicized the name of the original account (although it's possible that she notified Arbcom per WP:SOCK#Alternative account notification), but--putting aside the fact that this particular assumption of good faith results in a head-splitting paradox--isn't it just as likely that the behavior on the original account is no better than the behavior on this one? --jonny-mt 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much for head-splitting paradoxes. Just as an intellectual exercise, how would your treatment of VivianDarkbloom differ between the case of her alternate account being a second bad hand vs. being a good hand?Kww (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I am actually assuming good faith by assuming this is the bad-hand account of a good one. It is of course equally likely that the other account is just as tendentious. Black Kite 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound like I was suggesting that you're not--I just wanted to mention that in the absence of evidence one way or the other, the two possibilities are equally likely.

With regards to Kww's question, the answer is that two tendentious accounts would mean that we have an honest issue with the user's approach to editing, and so the standard dispute resolution process (probably WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U) is probably the best place to turn for a solution. A good hand/bad hand set up would mean that the user is cynically trying to game the system and disrupt the encyclopedia, which means that blocks and bans should be considered to prevent further disruption. BUT...all of this is hypothetical at this point :) --jonny-mt 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued - and I would - that a second account being used so tendentiously is not sanctioned at all by the legitimate uses defined in WP:SOCK, though. Black Kite 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think WP:SOCK gives anyone license to use a second account in such a disruptive manner. I'd block the account indefinitely, with the autoblock disabled, and ask this editor to restrict themselves to their primary account. Either their primary account is better behaved (in which case it's a good hand-bad hand scenario), or the primary account is just as bad (in which case they're running multiple disruptive accounts). Either way, I'd start by blocking the VivianDarkbloom account and restricting them to whatever other Nabokovian account name they might be using. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I will let this discussion run for a while longer before taking any action. Black Kite 20:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  Ah... I reviewed the matter, concluded that it was appropriate and enacted the indef block. I commented at User talk:VivianDarkbloom#Indefinite block for abuse of alternate account, linking back here for the rationale. Since the block is enacted I think you should proceed from here. I shall take no further part other than to accept responsibility for making the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. To be honest, I don't think this is a particularly controversial block. Black Kite 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had a number of encounters with this user; all unpleasant. I've just been reading this all over and from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophelia Benson went to Ophelia Benson where is says Ophelia wrote under the name 'Kassandra' — which is really odd as many of my encounters with Vivian have been over City of Bones (Cassandra Clare novel) by Cassandra Clare which was created by User:Cassieclare oldid. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, in that diff you supplied, VivianDarkbloom actually did not accuse an editor of sockpuppetry, but you have however. What's the reason for an indefinite block? You assume this is the "bad hand account" of a good one so where's your evidence? A civility warning may be appropriate (along with a warning to several other editors in that arbitration case), but an indefinite block is going overboard. --Pixelface (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So this is a sock block when we don't even know what the other account is, or if it's even being used? If you want to block this user for civility that would be one thing, but this sockpuppet block is a wee bit absurd. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this block myself. Being rid of Vivian doesn't bother me a bit, and I was the one to point out to Black Kite that she was reputed to be a sockpuppet. Problem is that "reputed" is as far as the evidence I could scrape up goes. It's far from conclusive. Blocking her to flush out the master is one thing, but she denies being a sock. That would normally result in an unblock, but, unfortunately, her denial was so loaded with vitriol and personal attacks that the denial was nearly worthy of a block. So, I'm in the position of seeing an editor I would like blocked blocked, but the reason given is weak enough that I would normally be fighting for its removal.

Just to compound the angst, her current politely phrased request for unblock doesn't seem to be her creation. From the edit histories, it seems that Ned Scott created it out of sympathy for her position. So, it seems that she has learned nothing at all.Kww (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Vivian is unusually nasty and vicious, albeit articulate, with editors she disagrees with and a block for chronic incivility would in my view be justified. I actually agree with her crusade against minor porncruft, although not her methods, but as an uncivil sockpuppet, it is hard to see why this should not be blocked. Props to Ned, though. Everyone deserves a defender! Eusebeus (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• If this is about civility then it needs to be made clear, and probably shouldn't be as severe as an indef block at this point. However, there is no evidence of sockpuppetry. This all started because of a comment Vivian made where she noted that this isn't her first account. No where did she indicate that she was still using the other account. In one of her unblock requests she states that she doesn't wish to tell other people what the other account was because of harassment that she and her children received. I find this assumption that she's still using the account very unlikely, and to be a very premature conclusion. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why has this user not been unblocked yet? -- Ned Scott 04:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked by Jayron32Kww (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WQA regarding Ronz promoted per WP:HAR

Regarding this wikiquette alert and Cheeser1's conclusion, I'm promoting to this AN/I (rather reluctantly). I want to make plain that what I perceive as an identifiable syndrome of inconspicuous sophistry, with an aggregate uncivil effect, is more important to me than whatever may be considered noisome in Ronz's behaviour to me personally.

The last part of the WQA (with Cheeser1's summary followed by my belated response) may serve as summary for this AN/I, followed by links (the particular feud has a long and verbose history). Pete St.John (talk)

From the conclusion of the WQA:

...

Pete, it doesn't matter - the point is that unless it constitutes harassment, he's allowed to post on your talk page. You have every right to ignore him, delete his messages, tell him to stop posting there, whatever, but "he posts on my talkpage frequently, and I don't want him to do so at all" is not incivility. Please review WP:HAR and let us know if he's crossing these lines, but if he isn't, I suggest you simply move on, take the high ground, get back to positive editing, and ignore anything unconstructive messages that he might post. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, three things: I advocate that in particular, posting unwelcome to a user page should be considered uncivil. I advocate the programmatic solution of allowing users to block specified other users from their own space, by analogy with locking rooms in MOO. That advocacy I'll take elsewhere.

Second, I believe there is a serious syndrome (maybe call it, Don't be a submarine) where any individual bit of rhetoric falls within the threshold of civility, but the aggregate effect does not; making it difficult for oversight by neutral parties. That syndrome should be identified and addressed, but I'll take that elsewhere also.

Finally, OK. From the WP:HAR link:

• Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment. [emphasis mine]

So prima facie it would seem that WP:HAR applies, but presumably is a matter of degree. Personally, I can live with (insert pejorative here) annoying me, it's the syndromes that concern me. Ronz has a "legal" (that is, viewed as unactionable) way to harass people, which he exploits to the detriment of constructive editting (but which presumably he means to the detriment of disagreeable editting). I just don't want such people to believe that their ends justifies their means; but they do believe that.

...

Background items:

1. The last WQA Result: not WQA, if anything WP:HAR
2. This diff regarding the first WQA (only comment: too complex, move to RfC; see RfC below)
3. The RFC relocated to my user space here (result: no comments)
4. early sample of arguement at my talk
5. The shortest explanation of why I don't respond to Ronz at my Talk.
6. Where I was perfunctorily blocked by admin Connolley on account of rude language directed to Ronz.

I'll certainly be happy to answer any questions, dig up any specific diff, elaborate yet more spam :-( if anyone would be kind and patient enough to address this issue. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I'm jumping into the middle of a conversation here. I, and probably a lot of other people, completely ignore WP:WQA. So, can you start from the beginning and succinctly explain what the problem is (without acronymitis)? Below is a spot. Avruch ^T 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I attempted a single paragraph in the indicated spot below. The basic important point about this whole mess is just what you've fingered: ithe behaviour is not DIFF-able, it's diffuse, the accumulated effect of little things; and that's how it evades oversight. Pete St.John (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The problem here is, for those of us who don't follow WQA

?????Am I missing something? Why is this header here when there's nothing below it? Corvus cornix_talk 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In the comment at the end of the preceeding section, is the explanation that this blank section is for me to explain the issue succinctly, for the sake of those who don't follow WQA. I have to think about this. Pete St.John (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• My answer. Ronz uses diffuse, inconspicuous bits of bad rhetoric (fallacies, insinuations, refusals to answer questions or to be specific...) on user talk pages (characteristically) which in individual isolation are not actionably over the WP:CIVIL threshold, but which cumulatively are like Chinese water torture. I made a Wikiquette alert item (called "too complex" for WQA), then an RfC (completely ignored), got blocked perfunctorily by an admin who appears to merely responded to Ronz's call of uncivil language (I had indeed lost my temper), then this last WQA (construed as outside the bounds of WQA but possibly covered by WP:HAR) and now finally this AN/I. I don't so much care about the (faceless) individual as the pattern of abuse and its immunity to oversight. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved third party who stepped in during the WQA complaint, I'll try to give a short explanation. This is basically part of an ongoing bad relationship between two editors (there is, after all, no WP:YOUHAVETOBEFRIENDS). So Ronz posts messages and other things on Pete's talk page, and Pete doesn't want him to. I haven't seen anything posted there that was uncivil, but Pete is concerned that cumulatively it might constitute harassment. I don't really want to investigate it to the extent it would take to decide whether it was harassment, and if it were, it's really better for an administrator (better, more than one administrator) to come to that conclusion. I advised Pete to just remove messages he doesn't want to be there (per WP:BLANKING), and that if he honestly thinks this is harassment, to report it as such. Please note that Pete's RfC was not ignored - he didn't file it properly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NB, after the RfC was re-filed correctly, it was ignored; as I answered below, I'm just trying to keep the logic linear to avoid superficial judgements. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I was reading through the first few requests from Ronz to refactor incivility and thinking that the civility complaints against you (Pete) might not have much weight. I read a little further, and discovered that indeed they do. So, I'd have to say that I endorse the block against you as a first point. Not that you weren't provoked, or that your insults weren't unusually erudite (mostly) but still - insults, incivility, etc. after warnings gets a block. Let me read on, and I'll see about the rest. Avruch ^T 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NB, block perfunctory, I concede incivility, see below. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• On the RfC, certification means that a user conduct RfC requires at least two people (the filer and additional) to certify the basis for a dispute - that is, the dispute has to involve 3 people. Other options prior to that are WP:3O, maybe MedCab. Although it looks like this is at least tangentially related to Quackwatch, and I even see ScienceApologist involved here a bit, and that is a whole other bag of dangerously venomous worms. (Not SA or Quackwatch, just the situation in general).

I introduced the RfC with a description of involved parties I had contacted and reference to specifically the requirement for certification. I got no response at all; not even that the conditions for certification were unsatisfactory. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Last point, Cheeser1 is right. If you don't want specific comments on your talkpage, and they aren't clearly in violation of some policy, then you can feel free to remove them. You could ask someone (politely) that they not post there - the talkpage isn't a forum for general discussion, its a page specifically for communicating with you. If someone repeatedly and without good reason refuses to honor your request, that might be cause for asking an admin to issue a "ban."

WP:HAR mentions (quoted in the above section) merely unwelcome posts to user pages. Yes, repeatedly and without good reason. (not that sometimes he doesn't have good reason, e.g. policy required notifications, I don't complain about that. I'm willing to debate him, just not on my talk, where I believe he is evading oversight to exploit that Chinese water torture effect of accumulating bad logic. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'd suggest is that you avoid future communication with Ronz, as you two clearly don't get along. You might find other pages to edit, or avoid responding directly to his actions/comments when there are others with your view that might do so. If it develops into a larger problem, more options will be available to you - but in order to use them successfully, you must have kept your cool and avoided future blocks. Not sure if my advice helps at all, perhaps others will chime in on this thread if there is some disagreement or more diffs provided as evidence of bad acts. Avruch ^T 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Avruch: My complaint regarding the block is that it was perfunctory, not that I was not uncivil. The admin, apparently responding to Ronz (not to the actual talk page where the incivility occurred), blocked me without any investigation of the context or (for that matter) a warning or a question.

Cheeser1: Regarding the ignored RfC, I answered that elsewhere in this mess, but indeed, it was ignored; yes I had originally filed it incorrectly, but then I corrected it, and then it stood in the right place for the full duration of the allowed time. Without any response. The RfC enjoyed the full time allowed for responses, after it had been misplaced, and then correctted. Pete St.John (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaking the circumstances, uncertified RfCs typically don't get much if any attention. Only an uncertified RfC has a time limit, so I'm guessing that yours was removed after it waited for 48 hours or so without being certified. This isn't the same necessarily as ignored - the RfC filer usually needs to find at least one other person to certify the RfC and generally endorse the summary. Avruch ^T 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, I had attempted to address certifiability in the RfC itself. I made a mistake creating it, got it moved to the right place later, and then it expired. Nobody had addressed the certification; my understand is that if there is no response after some time, it's nuked. There was no response. I claim it was certifiable and it presented it's evidence for certification. Since I did everything I could do, I consider it to have been ignored. Pete St.John (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• (narrowly missed EC with the above, catching up to Avruch) Regarding "last point" specifically: "If someone repeatedly and without good reason refuses to honor your request" holds, exactly. Cheeser1's view (if I'm paraphrasing him correctly) is that posting on my talk page is not actionable in these conditions. Ronz posts repeatedly and unnecessarily on my Talk; I believe that the main reason is to evade oversight, but it's unmannerly IMO. Pete St.John (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you notified Ronz of this thread? (That is standard for AN/I reports). I'd ask him to respond to the issue that he is posting on your talkpage despite your requests to the contrary. I should note that, in general, if what he is posting is mainly warnings/requests regarding posts of yours that he thinks are uncivil it might be a weak basis for requesting an actual ban from your talkpage. Avruch ^T 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've notified Ronz (obviously), Connolley (the admin who blocked me on Ronz's behalf), Seicer (who commented "too complex" on the first WQA), Cheeser1 (who responded to the last WQA), Hans Adler (who responded when I complained about the perfunctory nature of the block), ScienceApologist (ally of Ronz, with whom I have less bad relations), Levine2112 and Anthon01 (who have similar experiences with Ronz; again, what's important to me is the behaviour, not so much defending myself from it, particularly. It's disruptive). I think I've been reasonable in light of CANVASS (restricting myself to concerned parties) but whatever my faults may be, I mean to be open. Pete St.John (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subsection: the earlier RfC regarding Ronz

There seems to be confusion about the difference between an RfC being certified, flagged as certified, and qualifying for certification. We're all volunteers, there is no reason for anybody to respond to any particular RfC in any way, but in the RfC I explained why I thought it was certifiable; the following is from the RfC (where it got saved at my space after it was deleted:

• Regarding the requirement "At least two editors..."; ScienceApologist and Anthon01 have posted to my Talk regarding the matter, although neither is an outsider (Anthon01 shared my complaint with a similar study in a subsection of my Wikiquette item which he created, here). An outside editor Krator addressed the brief edit war over notification of the wikiquette at the discussion page for Quackwatch (the main source of these hostilities and apparently a recurring source of much contention) by endorsing my notification (although Avb later replaced it, which can give the impression that there was something objectionable in the wording I had used). So there is evidence for outside editor involvement, but I'm not sure we meet the specific criteria described by that section of the RfC/User policy at RfC-users. However, I think we stubstantially fulfill the spirit of the requirement and again, I defer to Seicer.

When I say the RfC was ignored, I mean I got no responses; none of "fails to qualify for certification because..." nor anything else. All I'm trying to convey is that I made an ernest effort to seek recourse by open and wiki-politic means. All it's gotten me is blocked. Pete St.John (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)