Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:35, 7 May 2008 editEquazcion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,926 editsm →Community-imposed revert limitation?← Previous edit Revision as of 13:42, 7 May 2008 edit undoRaymond arritt (talk | contribs)13,222 edits →User:Iantresman: point of informationNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1,170: Line 1,170:
****I am all for giving users a chance. ] (]) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC) ****I am all for giving users a chance. ] (]) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
*Iantresman is a rather good example of a ], who has long history of tendentious editing on ] and related or similar articles (], ] etc). Some of his project-space contributions also suggests he views policy discussions as an extension of his promotion of pseudoscientific topics. I fail to see any how he as an editor or Misplaced Pages as a whole would benefit from the proposed mentorship. Neither would a topic ban on science and scientists be a workable solution, as he has shown no interest in editing articles outside the domains of ] and ]. Therefore, while he no longer can be considered banned, he should remain indefinitively blocked. – ] ] 06:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC) *Iantresman is a rather good example of a ], who has long history of tendentious editing on ] and related or similar articles (], ] etc). Some of his project-space contributions also suggests he views policy discussions as an extension of his promotion of pseudoscientific topics. I fail to see any how he as an editor or Misplaced Pages as a whole would benefit from the proposed mentorship. Neither would a topic ban on science and scientists be a workable solution, as he has shown no interest in editing articles outside the domains of ] and ]. Therefore, while he no longer can be considered banned, he should remain indefinitively blocked. – ] ] 06:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
**If we are going to take that approach, we need to ban ''everyone'', and work out a way to only let back in the people where "Misplaced Pages as a whole would benefit" if they were editing. That would not just include POV pushers, but also those who over-zealously guard particular areas and fail to work with other editors while doing this, with predictable consequences. Good luck with that. ] (]) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
*The CSN discussion is archived at ]. Remember that the community killed off CSN because it was frequently used by teams of partisan editors as a votes for banning exercise, often without waiting for uninvolved participants to comment. That discussion was flawed from the outset; we've since learned that the multiple editors the opening statement described him as disputing with were all sock-puppets of the same user. When we eliminate the opinions by the rational skepticism meatpuppet team, all of whom are involved editors, not uninvolved; we realize that there never was a consensus of uninvolved editors in the first place. I said in the more recent ArbComm case that they should accept the case because they could impose topic based restrictions more readily than the community could. However, I think Stifle's proposed 1RR restriction is good enough, and thus I support the unblocking on those conditions. ] 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
**Could you name the specific editors in the "rational skepticism meatpuppet team" so the rest of us could take this information into account when reviewing the evidence? Thanks. ] (]) 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


== AIV == == AIV ==

Revision as of 13:42, 7 May 2008

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    *If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

    Not quite vandalism, but...

    Special:Contributions/Eremia is the third generation of a user that appears to be on a one person mission to redefine all games as sports. Previous incarnations Special:Contributions/Nastasija_Marachkovskaja and Special:Contributions/Dakota_Blue_Richards. The user is making bizarre categories like "table sports", adding redundant categories to articles, and has previously changed the word "game" to "game/sport" all over the place. The user should be blocked and reverted before too much damage is done, ans speedy deltes done on the categories created. 2005 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    And now that I look, one of the previous incarnations made its own categories like Category:Mind sports, under which it is now making a whole new heirarchy of everything-is-a-sport. 2005 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Jack Merridew

    Jack was blocked a couple of months back now as a self admitted sock of Moby Dick. Once he admitted it, there was only one course of action and that was an indef block. I've been in contact with him by email, and he's very interested in entering into a program of mentorship with me and would like to be unblocked. I did a lot of research into him when I blocked him, and although there were problems with previous accounts of his, the latest Jack Merridew account was actually fairly constructive and was certainly a a net positive for the project. I think with this account, he'd learnt from previous mistakes and although the socking was bad, it does give evidence that he is somewhat reformed. I'd therefore like to unban him and put him on a strict editing restriction as follows;

    "Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under a community editing restriction. He is required to use only one account and remain civil in all discussions. He must also refrain from interacting with White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in any discussion on the project. Any uninvolved administrator may block him for an appropriate length of time should he break any of his restrictions. Further more, he must enter into a mentorship program with Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)."

    I'd appreciate thoughts on this, I honestly believe Jack still has a lot to give. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Support unblock - I think the JM account is proof itself that Davenbelle has reformed. Hell, Jack's positive contributions to me suggest he doesn't even need a mentorship. Sceptre 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support. I will be glad to give him another chance and possibly add another productive editor to the project. Best of luck Ryan, Malinaccier (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe that unblocking/banning him with the above restrictions is the correct course of action, for the reasons stated above. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I had positive observations of the Jack Merridew account, and was surprised when he got blocked. I support an unblock, and if Ryan is going to mentor him, that'll be excellent, as I have full confidence in Ryan's judgment. If Moreschi wants to co-mentor, that's a big bonus here. Acalamari 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support under the restrictions stated above (and as if you haven't got enough mentors, I'd be happy to help too). Black Kite 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support so long as he abides by the restrictions above. I've been in constant private contact with him via email. -Jéské 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support. My gut instinct here is that he's highly likely to be a good editor now, and we should extend him good faith and another chance. Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Practical Question: "Interacting" is pretty vague. If White Cat begins, say, reverting Jack's edits, is Jack allowed to speak up for them? Or is he required to shout "Run Away!" and let it go?Kww (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Obviously, I would expect due respect from White Cat. If he goes around interacting with Jack, I would view that as seriously as Jack interacting with White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not so optimistic as you all, and I feel I have considerable experience with Davenbelle. I was an arbitrator on his "Moby Dick" arbitration case, have dealt with several subsequent CheckUser investigations, and was the one to ban him, a year ago today. I don't think he has or will change, and I think part of the problem here is that this troll is so persistent he has outlived most of our institutional memory. To remind you, Davenbelle was involved in an arbitration case in 2005 in which it was found that he had stalked White Cat, and warned to stop.

      What happened? He didn't, and was blocked for harassment of White Cat less than a month later. He was, by the way, engaged in a second arbitration case at the same time as this one, and that one saw him banned from all politics articles, for protracted warring. After his first block, he "left," but almost immediately returned with the sockpuppet Moby Dick, and immediately evaded the arbitration findings by returning to stalking Megaman and White Cat. Of course, a few months later, now in June 2006, we had another arbitration case, "Moby Dick" was found to be Davenbelle, and given a parole to keep him from harassment of White Cat or Megaman. The result? Blocked for a week not long after for harassment. Then? He created an account on Commons, where White Cat is an admin, and soon got himself blocked for another week for harassment. Undeterred, he created another identity, Diyarbakir, to evade the arbitration ruling and harass White Cat again. That account was soon blocked, and as a result, we finally banned Davenbelle. This is when he created "Jack Merridew," and immediately began editing popular fiction articles just when that controversy, involving White Cat, was beginning. And that's not really a surprise: White Cat has two main editing interests—Turkish/Kurdish issues, and TV shows, especially Starfleet. Davenbelle, "Moby Dick," and "Diyarbakir" all mostly edited Turkish/Kurdish articles and stalked White Cat there, but even then, edits like to one of White Cat's Starfleet articles were part of the stalking. Jack Merridew happened to be intensely interested in White Cat's other area of editing, and spent his entire time warring against White Cat's position, and we are to believe this was constructive editing on his part? Now, five arbitrations (that I know about), four identities (that we know about), and three years later, after all that time of concerted and bad-faith stalking, sockpuppeting, and evasion of restrictions across multiple wikis, when he gets caught, not by accident but because he was engaging in the same stalking of the same editor yet again, we are optimistic that he will reform This Time? I think the best thing we could do would be to try to do whatever we can through blocks to break his psychological addition to Misplaced Pages and conflict, not encourage him back. Dmcdevit·t 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Strongly oppose Per Dmcdevit's amazingly accurate argument. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe this is WP:BEANS but "Obviously, I would expect due respect from White Cat." leaves an obvious way for JM to stalk without stalking. He just needs to get ahead of White Cat and do things that will annoy him. The different opinions (I don't know if JM really feels the way he seems to or it's just part of his stalking act) the two editors have on fiction give JM the perfect opportunity. All he has to do is engage in some TTN style activity (like he's done before) and it's guarenteed to annoy White Cat. White Cat will show up afterwords and apparently RP will enforce a restraining order against White Cat. If you're going to unblock, JM needs to be banned from editing anything that's remotely related to Kurds or fiction. I have a feeling he won't feel like editing if he can't work in those two areas, but who knows. Remember that JM has shown the abiltiy to confine himself to subjects not related to White Cat's interests for weeks or months just to avoid looking like a stalker when he starts doing what he really wants. I wouldn't be surprised if he went through a one year fiction/Kurd ban just to then go after Whte Cat. He's already spent three years on this, what's one more. If a one year ban doesn't force him to create another sock puppet, then maybe he's reformed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd agree only to a conditional fiction ban; he's been very helpful on Dungeons & Dragons articles, which he continued to edit until he was blocked. Given as I have never seen White Cat on articles related to D&D and more on articles related to anime and such, I'd support a topic ban on anime, but not a blanket ban on all fictional-subject articles. -Jéské 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support unblocking with the extension of good faith. The latest account and edits appear to be wholly constructive and beneifical, and I am hoping that the unblocking would further lead to a continuation of that. seicer | talk | contribs 03:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblocking, what DMCDevit said as well as Peregrine Fisher's comment that was meant the other way, "He's already spent three years on this, what's one more." Everyone promises to be good once they are caught (oh, and they are all innocent too) and have punishment put upon them. Upon release, old habits die hard. I don't care for the unblock at all. He doesn't need the Jack Merridew account unblocked when if he truly wanted to edit and build the project, he could just start fresh and let bygones be bygones. But this brings up bygones, so I think we're being trolled. Keegan 03:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • He can't start fresh, Keegan; that's the problem. His original account is banned and he has a few socks (JM being his most recent and best-behaved), and in all cases White Cat has homed in on him (see this diff). I have to agree with the supporters above when they say he's been a net positive to the project as JM, ban notwithstanding. -Jéské 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong, Jéské, I understand the letter of the law of the banning policy. No contributions of any kind, revert on site, unwelcome. Now in the spirit of the law, if a user truly just wants to edit and move on, we would never know if they were previously banned unless their old patterns of behavior show up. I hope that clarifies my point there. Keegan 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem with that, I think, is that JM has certain very obvious spheres of interest where he contributes constructively (for instance, Dungeons and Dragons articles). A new editor turning up out of the blue, obviously knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages and editing those articles might as well be waving a big flag saying "I am Jack Merridew", checkusers and blocks will be requested by certain editors, and we'll have another big drama and time-sink that we didn't need to have. Black Kite 10:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No. As has been noted above, this has been going on for years and has included many accounts. Some constructive editing does not grant a free pass for serial harrassment, and I don't see anything that would suggest he has reformed -- he was just less obvious this time. I also agree with Peregrine Fisher, that the proposed restrictions would be too easy to game. – Sadalmelik (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support unblock Jack/David handled himself very well with this recent account. I'll admit, I was a bit pissed off that he had lied to us, especially when some of us came to his defense about the sock accusations, but he could have kept the lie going, but instead he chose to come clean. I know the frustration David has experienced, and while I don't think he made the right choices, it does put those choices into a certain context for me. And yeah, a few years makes a huge difference, and giving someone another chance at this point is more than reasonable. He's being open and honest with us, and is willing to work with us. This is what we want to encourage. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We're also going to be watching him like a freakin' hawk, so it's not like he'll be able to get away with anything regarding harassment/stalking of White Cat. There is little to no risk in this unblock. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Another idea popped into my head: if need-be we can also give specific topical bans, if that would put White Cat or other opposers at ease. Such as specific shows, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support unblock No-one but White Cat (who in hindsight was obviously right with his/her accusations against JM) saw a ban-worthy problem in JM. Sockpuppeting is very bad, harrassing other editors is bad, but if JM abides by these unblocking terms as his last chance, which I am sure he will, I just see his net positive increasing. The unblocking terms can also be strengthened if someone thinks they are to lax. – sgeureka 05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would be willing to support a Conditional Unblock if that were the consensus, but only with a 12 month topic ban on AfD participation and any popular culture which he is known not to like. Though not as disruptive as TTN, I feel further participation in this area would quickly lead to more conflict. However, I do feel he can contribute constructively to areas on Indonesia and he is excellent at formatting and wikifying. otherwise I'd have to oppose. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    PS: I will add myself to the mentorship queue as well as we were getting some productive stuff happening before all this happened. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there any kind of precedent for a multi-year stalker who has reformed their behaviour? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This is an opportunity to create one. Support unblock, no doubt he will be watched to ensure his behaviour has matured. If we are requiring Jack not to interact with White Cat, however, then we must also require the reverse from White Cate (otherwise there's the possibility of baiting etc). Neıl ☎ 10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support unblock with Ryan's proposed restrictions. I've had contact with Jack and I really get the sense that he wants to be here for the project. But considering the history, this should be a last chance. Seraphim♥ 10:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support an unblock in the spirit of AGF. I would prefer if the user was monitored quite closely for a period deemed appropriate though, just in the interests of being sure of Merridew's true intent. -- Anonymous Dissident 10:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Naturally, I'm assuming that such "monitoring" (perhaps that was the wrong word, I didn't mean to sound patronising, I kind of just meant "keep an eye on") will be "conducted" by Ryan, as mentor? -- Anonymous Dissident 10:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Tentative support. Concerned per Dmcdevit—willing to AGF, but any interaction (AT ALL) with White Cat, and he's gone, IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose per Dmcdevit. Almost everyone can reform. But all Moby Dick's activity on Misplaced Pages for the last 3 years demostrate that he's unable to reform. Giving him another chance would be a waste of everybody's time, and this waste is taking place here already. MaxSem 11:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose He's already wasted enough good-will, we don't need to suffer any more of the WP:POINT-y disruption Merridew specialised in. Catchpole (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support unblock in that blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive, contingent on some probationary conditions (such as avoiding White Cat and perhaps certain areas, at least for some length of time,) and that any further disruptive behavior will lead to a one-way trip out the door. Seraphimblade 11:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support unblock. I believe this is at heart a constructive contributor. The exaggerated attention to WhiteCat he has shown has at least as much to do with real problematic behaviour on WhiteCat's side as with any intention of stalking on Merridew's side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Unblocked as there clearly is no longer a consensus for the original block. I'll put him under the mentorship of me and Moreschi and place him under the editing restrictions I originally quoted. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      Thank you, Ryan. And thank you, too, to the other folks above. I certainly accept the terms of this and will do my best to not disappoint folks. I would like Jéské Couriano to be formally considered to be one of my mentors as we've already discussed it in some detail. To those who've expressed reservations, I would like to offer further assurances that I will not squander this opportunity. I am well aware that I'll be monitored. I do not mind. I'll offer links to my past contributions on my user page when I rework it next. To anyone interested, there's an accounting of my accounts here. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Only acceptable if he avoids AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Outraged Oppose So it's done, but that's I feel a definate need to comment. I won't go through the whole list, but the idea that Jack has been described as a positive in his last sock disgusts me. How much abuse was heaped on Pixel. How many called Pixel a paranoid delusional for the audacity of correctly identifying a sock of a banned user while Jack just sat back laughing and lying. And this process, begining while most of the US was asleep and ending before we wake up. People do in darkness what they fear to do in the light. Pardon me while I let my disgust for this process settle.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Considering that I was prepared to unblock hi regardless of this thread, an unbanning was always going to happen, so it doesn't really matter when it was started. There's also a very clear consensus anyway to unblock, even though it hasn't been open too long. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    And that's disgusts me. Having a popular opinion outweighs abuseu on users and abuse of community standards.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    To be blunt, the only thing that matters here is whether admins were ready to unblock him and there was plenty because they are able to see the bigger picture in this instance. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes in the end that's all that matters. That those with the power decided that abusive sockpupetry and ban evasion only deserves a 1 month block. And in the end the it disgusts me doesn't matter. I've said all I can without violating WP:NPA but today's a black day for WP and many of you and it's a day I won't soon forget.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    So the message is sock-puppetting and arbitration sanctions don't matter as long as you keep up with your social networking. Catchpole (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Nothing like that at all. I actually originally blocked him, but I've spent a long time looking over his contributions on all accounts and believe he has improved a lot since the days when he got sanctioned. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: Just so it's clear what we're discussing. At least ALL of the following were confirmed to be Jack's accounts:
    Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Cube lurker, I think you might have me confused with White Cat. In this request for arbitration by White Cat in mid-March Ned Scott did call White Cat paranoid, but as far as I know nobody called me a paranoid delusional. In that thread I did suggest Jack was a sock based on Dmcdevit's checkuser findings and Jack's editing pattern (this was before Jack later admitted to being a sock, which led to him being banned). I just wanted to clear that up. --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Neutral - I have some reservations, due in part to the issues with WhiteCat (will they really end this time?) and due to some other civility issues we experienced with him on the D&D Wikiproject. I take the concerns raised by Dmcdevit very seriously. I also have to agree with Casliber's assertion that he avoid participation in pop culture articles and AFDs related to pop culture articles, and that I'd like to see him make more positive contributions to things that interest him such as Senang Hati Foundation - now that would really make him a worthwhile contributor this time around. I would oppose this unblock, but I'd really like to WP:AGF here that a tiger can change his stripes. BOZ (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    And? He lives in Bali, and he obviously likes Bali a lot. I don't know what his connection is to the foundation, if any, and unless he's making money from it I really don't care. To be honest, the thing I like best on Misplaced Pages is to see people who write quality articles and/or improve existing ones on subjects they know and like. If Jack wants to work on articles on his favorite subjects as his main activity on Misplaced Pages, avoids WhiteCat like the plague (and vice versa), avoids articles about subjects he doesn't like or doesn't care about, and is civil in interactions with other users, then hell - he might just become one of my favorite Wikipedians in time. If not - then, well to be honest he was helping to make Misplaced Pages a pretty unpleasant place for me to be at one point, and he could pretty easily go back to that if he really wants to. Obviously, I'm hoping for the former, as a lot of others are I'm sure. I have seen some good things out of Jack before, and I'd like to see his more positive aspects encouraged. I know it's been a very short time, but he's been pretty positive so far, and I for one would like to see that continue if he is willing to take his latest second chance as seriously as he says he is. BOZ (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The unblocked was performed rather prematurely, only 10 hours after this thread had been started. User had been blocked for a few months, why the hurry today? I also do not see such strong consensus in favor of unblocking here as to warrant so quick an action. In any case, as the block is now ended, the onus in on the mentors to ensure that user Jack Merridew will behave properly from now on. While we give a second chance for this editor to redeem himself, he should be fully aware that any further disruption will immediately lead to a reblock. As one of those who are rather unimpressed by his previous actions, I echo Casliber's words above and recommend more explicit restrictions concerning this user's participation is deleion debates. This I understand, however, is up to the mentors to decide. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There wasn't much else to discuss once me and a few other admins said they were willing to unblock - the original block no longer had consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • You needed a consensus to unblock, not a no-consensus to uphold the original block. If any block can be reversed just because a few admins want to unblock, Misplaced Pages will undoubtedly be in chaos. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Ryan made the original block so, no, he technically doesn't need consensus. Per WP:BLOCK an admin who wishes to unblock should discuss it with the blocking admin. If the blocking admin agrees to an unblock, it can be undone. Given he was the blocking admin, he has the right to perform the unblock. -- Kesh (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
            • That might hold true for general unblocks, not for controversial ones (for example, those that which receive significant opposition at admin noticeboard). If what you said were correct, then the practice would be: just try to become the first to block someone controversial if you intend to unlock them later, since things will be relatively easier then. I'm not talking about this situation, just merely pointing out what's wrong generally with your argument. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It should be noted, that the some of remedies in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek do not refer to a finite period of time, and are therefore still in effect (or am I missing something here?). These include a topic ban on Turkey and Kurdish issues, prohibition from harassing Cat and enforcement by blocks. – Sadalmelik (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      Quite true. This has been discussed with the AC and with the mentors. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose: I gave this thought over the night, and asked myself the important question: "Would I even consider unblocking Jack Merridew if I didn't dislike White Cat so intensely?" The answer is no. I agree that Jack has generally been a positive influence, but there are violations so severe that banning is the only appropriate punishment. He has been deceitful, evaded bans and blocks, and has apparently been a positive contributor primarily through a negative effect: since undoing all of White Cat's work has a generally positive effect on the project, Jack's work has been positive. However, if White Cat had been contributing positively, that very same effect would have turned Jack into a negative contributor. That's not the kind of editor we need.Kww (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      This has never been personal. In your hypothetical scenario, I would not have been undoing good edits. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Principle Oppose Previously neutral, with some degree of alarm that a non participating editor that has one 15 minute ban to their name is being commented as perhaps being required to self topic and revert ban themselves to allow a (from review of this thread only) sockmeister to return from a indef block. However, to have already unblocked this account on the staggeringly original concept that since a number of admins were willing to give this editor a chance to edit again that there is no consensus for the block is astonishing. Excuse me? While this indef block is now longer a ban, there being at least one admin who would be prepared to unblock, there still needs to be a consensus to lift the tariff - and I do not see it yet. I am unsettled that a proposed mentor and initiator of this discussion (who I have always held in the highest regard) would take such an individual interpretation of policy in regard to an blocked editor with whom they have an obvious interest. I trust that my misgivings are unfounded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (So, it is fine if I go off and unblock User:Poetlister - there now being no consensus for the ban, which I have misgivings over? Yeah, thought so...)
    • Note that Poetlister has taken the time to "sit out the ban" and has been working productively on Wikiquote and Wikisource, where she is respectively a 'crat and almost-sysop. She has not merely passed a little time and made a few non-controversial edits; she has immersed herself into these communities and made very valuable contributions to these projects. While her enWP unblock may come as a surprise to some here, it is precisely this type of reformation that we idealistically hope for when we say that bans/blocks are preventative. It shows that despite the funny business that occurred on enWP, her underlying motivations align closely with the Wikimedia community. John Vandenberg 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - This user has been participating at Commons, with an approach of coming clean and admitting the previous socks. The contributions that are on target for the mission of Commons have been, in my view, generally acceptable, although there has been a fair bit of the contributions that are focused on metaissues like renames, appeals, and the like. So this is a user that does consume some admin resource, that's for sure. Another factor is that there has been a move vandal that has plagued this user by taking names and causing some trouble by impersonation, on many different wikis. (this vandal also impersonates a lot of other users as well to be troublesome... generally available SUL and global blocking are going to go a long way to help fight this kind of behaviour) I take no position on the block itself (which in any case was already lifted I guess) but did want to offer some of this information. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose; this user was a aggressive and uncivil edit warrior and sockpuppeteer. The only instance where I can see unblocking as reasonable would be if he strictly avoids all edit warring, aggressive redirecting of articles, and obeys the civility policy, with the penalty of a long-term block if he violates those conditions. Everyking (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Neutral/Weak Endorse - I'm with DHMO on this one. Rudget (Help?) 13:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I am fine with the unblock, but not really okay with the method in which it was carried out. In this case, it seems fine to give the user another chance, especially under the close eye of those who have promised to monitor him. At the same time, I do not feel as though there was clear consensus to unblock the user when Ryan did so, or even if such is clear now. It still seems like somewhat of a "developing" consensus to me. SorryGuy  Talk  20:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I should also note that I made the original block, and no longer felt comfortable with it, hence another major reason why I unblocked. I certainly wouldn't have unblocked so quickly if another admin had replaced the original block. That said, there clearly isn't a consensus for the original block now. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Is there a single person that really believes this whole thing resolved the dispute between me and Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Jack Merridew? Because if it has, this will be a new kind of WP:DR. I want to call it the "One-Sided Dispute Resolution". -- Cat 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose If he wishes to have yet another chance, he can do it on another project like Wikiquote or Wikisource, where there is less opportunity for disputes. Only after he demonstrates a long term commitment to working peacefully and productively on another WMF project, then he can appeal with evidence that he will return to enWP as a productive user. John Vandenberg 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose While eventually the socking was admitted, it was not before everyone else had already come to the same conclusion, and White Cat was hammered for suggesting it at certain points. The latest incarnation I often agreed with, although their behaviour at times was unacceptable - I second comments by Dmcdevit and John Vandenberg on the rest. Orderinchaos 01:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose Jack's shown he clearly has no respect for our policies. This isn't Misplaced Pages: 64 Strikes, Here, Have Another Swing. Jtrainor (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:White Cat's response

    Question Is the community aware of the following?
    Davenbelle had been given many second chances. let me list:
    1. Davenbelle was given a second chance after the first arbcom case. He was told to "let others monitor coolcat" (see the case I am tired of linking). He failed to disengage after the arbcom case and continued stalking for a while. After wasting months of community time he chose to disappear after being cornered.
    2. He gave himself another second chance by picking a new account, User:Moby Dick. He created the account User:Note to Cool Cat soon after. He continued to stalk me with this account for a while.
    3. He was given yet another chance by arbcom with the second RfAr. He used this to continue stalking me. After being cornered yet again he chose to disappear. He reappeared and stalked me on commons before disappearing again.
    4. He then gave himself another second chance with the account User:Diyarbakir. He used this to continue stalking me. Checkuser exposed/verified/confirmed the Diyarbakir-Moby Dick connection and he was banned indefinitely blocked and banned by arbitrator (User:Dmcdevit) at the time not only for stalking but also for abusive use of sockpuppetry.
    5. He gave himself another second chance with his new account User:Senang Hati which he gotten it renamed to User:Jack Merridew. He slowly returned to his stalking habit ultimately leading to his latest block.
    6. He was given a second chance by non en.wiki communities in the sense that he wasn't blocked on non en.wikipedia wikis. Since his indefinite block on en.wikipedia user has not stopped following me completely. If you look at his commons and meta contributions you will see at least three instances of failing to disengage:
    Who else was given this many second chances? What good would yet another one do?
    -- Cat 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Unblocking this user may be an overruling of arbcom . Arbcom supposed to be the final word. -- Cat 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Is there a specific ArbCom finding you can link to? At the moment it appears that an unblock has been enacted and any summary reblocking would violate WP:Wheel war - however, this already out of process unblock may need reverting if ArbCom had indicated that they need to approve it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    See User:White Cat/RFAR/graph for links to multiple past discussions and as well as . -- Cat 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Absolutely nothing from ArbCom. I made the original block here and I've undone that original block. If there's conserns with this, please take it to ArbCom because this guy shouldn't be reblocked given the comments here so far. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Links I linked are mirages? -- Cat 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    There doesn't seem to be any indication that ArbCom determined that they need to approve an unblock. The links indicate that just over a month ago the ArbCom were not inclined to vary any finding, but that does not disallow an admin inviting review of a ban. I am seriously concerned how a stance that "at least one admin is prepared (my italics) to consider unblock" in determining if a block is not a de facto ban was rapidly translated into "no consensus for block" - especially now that it appears that the ArbCom were not so minded - and acted upon, but I cannot find any reason why the unblock can now be overturned (WP:IAR is not appropriate for matters such as block) at present. It seems that you are presented with a fait accompli. My advice would be to monitor the situation - and try not to interact with Jack Merridew as far as is possible without corroding your ability to participate in editing the encyclopedia - and quickly report any instance which you consider stalking or otherwise in violation of the terms by which the editor was unblocked. I suggest that you bring any evidence regarding such an allegation to ANI, although I will review the matter if you wish (depending on the time of day and our respective availabilities). LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Also the said restrictions had been enacted since users first account. Nothing changed in the past three years aside from the fact that Davenbelle has gotten more adapt in gaming the system. -- Cat 23:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    When I look at the above list some of the usernames that endorse unblock happens to be among the anti-E&C article group. I find it to be very intriguing to say the least. -- Cat 23:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    There are a few, agreed. But now subtract those on the other side of E&C from the Oppose !votes and .... ? Black Kite 23:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Generally off-wiki votestacking comes to mind. -- Cat 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    That's a very serious accusation and I would like to see you evidence for that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    White Cat, all I can say is that no one approached me in an effort to make me vote one way or the other (and you will note that while I wasn't flattering to you, I opposed the unblock). I think I would be on the list of people to contact if vote-stacking were to be attempted.Kww (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I certainly think comments such as this, this, and this clearly indicate that there was off-Wiki canvassing by the blockee for an unblock, and I note they were posted fairly promptly in response to your original post. I also, since I believe I detect hostility in your requesting White Cat for evidence of his accusation, would point out that several editors - in their comments above (1 2) - clearly believe that White Cat is part of the problem, despite having an almost spotless block record, as opposed an editor who has abused WP:SOCK in attempting to evade blocks levied for various policy violations. I am unsurprised at White Cats suspicions, given the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    White Cat does not have an "almost spotless block record". Try looking at the block logs of Cool Cat and Coolcat. 86.175.64.244 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Right, I was stupid enough to revert war against Davenbelle (aka Jack Merridew). If I am guilty as charged, what does that make him? The block logs you linked is also linked on my userpage, so please do not feel as if you are exposing me. I have nothing to hide, yet I don't think same can be said about this IP above. -- Cat 20:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, based on the evidence, this duck smells like a duck. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    If you want to see what Jack sent me, or what I said to him, let me know and I will forward you all of the e-mails. I've got nothing to hide. Last I had heard from him was that he was e-mailing arbcom, and I assumed it was their call. No one, not even Jack, told me about this thread here on AN, or that the decision would be up to the community. I can't speak for other users, but I was not canvassed.
    Jack made all of us who stood up for him (when he was first accused of being a sock puppet) look bad. We looked like fools, and we were lied to. So don't think that it was just some willy-nilly decision to support him here again. I came to the decision to trust him again on my own. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry. I have trouble believing that you will present uneditted evidence of your communications with this user. You have stated on record that you would be willing to assist this user and TTN to evade their bans and sanctions in the past. I cannot trust someone who is willing to take such actions and, imho, boasts of such things. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have never stated that I would assist TTN or Jack with actions that got them sanctioned (actually, I don't recall making any offer for Jack). I voluntarily made myself a party to the last arbcom case to emphasize that I wanted to see the way things were being handled improved, so I take offense to the idea that I would continue the disputed actions. It was not TTN's conclusions (some, not all) that were necessarily disruptive, but it was the way they were handled. Why else would I do something like revert a recent mass redirect? -- Ned Scott 07:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    And that lack of good faith response, White Cat, is exactly why you are not regarded particularly highly in some quarters on Misplaced Pages. (Not to mention that you dodged the question, too - given your concerns, one could equally suggest that there had been off-wiki collaboration from the "other" side of the E&C camp to oppose the unblock). Black Kite 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I am not sure what your question is... You will not get a "good faith response" (or any response to be more spesific) so long as you insist on insulting me - aside from this one that is. -- Cat 20:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    The contact I have had with Jack amounts to an apology from Jack, and emails regarding work he has been doing at other projects. I did not receive any prompting from Jack to show up here. Sceptre left me a neutral note informing me of this thread but I had already seen it and decided not to comment on it until I had thought about it in more depth (just check my editing for that day). Seraphim♥ 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Obviously off-wiki votestacking cannot be proven - which is the very reason why it is off-wiki: to avoid detection. I explicitly avoided naming spesific people. No one needs to feel remotely defensive, no "spesific" person is accused here. I merely stated my suspicion. It was not even an accusation, that was a bad assumption on Ryan's part.
    To clarify: I suspect that off-site votestacking either had happened, may happen or is already happening - in no way do I have proof of this. This merely was to put emphasis why this thread should not be treated like a vote. Any other meaning was not intended.
    -- Cat 12:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    My comment was in response to LessHeard vanU's comment, which mentioned my post in conjunction with the comment: "clearly indicate that there was off-Wiki canvassing by the blockee for an unblock".Seraphim♥ 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    AFAIK, both me and SW received the same amount of contact from Jack. None of the emails I received were clamouring for a block, it was pretty much an apology and stating he intended to appeal the ban. Sceptre 12:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    For the sake of transparency, he does seem to have sent a whole series of such messages. I got one too, a couple of days ago. It was a very short, neutral notification, stating not more and not less than that he was about to launch an appeal to Arbcom. No request for any action on his behalf or in his favour (and no follow-up contact between us afterwards). He may well have chosen people he thought might by sympathetic to his appeal, but that's nothing I can blame him for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Who would you blame for his conduct then? I do want to thank you for you honesty in pointing out that you had an e-mail contact with the user. -- Cat 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I got one too. It was just an FYI email stating that (to paraphrase) he had contacted ArbCom with a view to having his sanctions reduced. That was it, just a single sentence stating that. No canvassing, nothing about an attempt to be unblocked, nothing else. No doubt there will be some here who won't believe that, but that's their problem. Black Kite 16:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I received one as well. However, I was under the impression that the appeal was going through ArbCom, and had no knowledge of this thread until it popped up on my watchlist. I still stand by the reasons for unblocking, and my views were not influenced by e-mail in any way. seresin ( ¡? ) 17:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    I, for one, think this was extremely poorly handled. We have an editor with a long history of harassing another editor and abusive sockpuppetry being unblocked less than a day after a discussion begins to unban him, without even waiting for the opinion of the editor being harassed. Yes, I realize that a user is not community banned if any admin is willing to unblock, but there's no urgency to unblock while we discuss the details. I'm a little amazed, too, at how quick we are to overlook this editor's transgressions. If Davenbelle/Jack were an editor advancing national causes, I think it's fair to say this unblock would never even have been considered.

    Since we've decided that he gets to come back, we need to be clear on one thing: White Cat should not have to budge an inch for him. White Cat is not on his umpteenth chance. Jack is. Jack's ban also needs to be immediately restored if he harasses White Cat in any way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with Heimstern that this was handled extremely poorly - unblocking a persistant wikistalker without even waiting to hear from the victim? That's absurd! I can see no reason why Davenbelle should have been unblocked (and I say that as someone who ran numerous checkusers at WhiteCat's request to find his many sockpuppets). This unblocking should be reconsidered post-haste. Raul654 (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed with the above - we should have, as a community, a zero-tolerance attitude to persistent harassment. Orderinchaos 01:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • re-block, a month's time off for (my recollection here, sorry no diffs) multiple accounts, stalking and being the focus of more than one Arbcom? It doesn't seem too long ago that editors were saying White Cat was being paranoid. Being given the nth chance at this point and time is not right. R. Baley (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    BTW, here's a better link to the last case rejected by arbcom which was only because having a case over a banned user was considered overkill (rejected 0-5 in April 2008. To quote jpgordon, "Decline, solely because we're not enabled to practice corporal or capital punishment."). The next edit was to remove the case from the page. This editor should not be unblocked. R. Baley (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Really incredibly poor judgment from Ryan Postlethwaite to unblock so soon. It appears that many of the users supporting the unblock has been approached off wiki, and they were partisans in the dispute to begin with, highly likely to support the unblock. This is in fact canvassing to approach only users you suspect to be sympathetic to your cause. I strongly encourage Ryan Postlethwaite to consider whether or not his use of admin tools has been appropriate. --JayHenry (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The use of my admin tools was completely appropriate. I no longer stand by my original block that I made, therefore I undid it. If someone wants to reinstate the block then that's fine, I don't want my name associated with a block that I don't believe in. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, as people aren't happy with the unblock, I've reblocked for the time being. It's unfortunate, but ArbCom might have to decide the best course of action as I'm still in a position where I'm prepared to unblock him, as other admins are as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Discussion on terms of possible unblocking of Jack Merridew

    As I said right at the beginning, I was neutral on the matter. Since getting involved, learning of the circumstances of the original(ish) block and following a pleasant message to my talkpage from Jack Merridew I remain neutral. I believe that concerns that White Cat and others may have should be noted, if not addressed totally, yet also believe that Ryan Postlethwaite and others are sincere in their position that Jack Merridew could return to contribute usefully. What we now require is a manner by which both parties are mostly satisfied, i.e. a decision on whether topic bans and/or civility paroles are needed, and who is going to mentor and review the situation.

    If we can provide a basis on which Vintagekits is being considered to return to editing then allowing Jack Merridew to do the same should be explored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Has to be done under the auspices of arbcom, as has started thisaway-->, and consider this thread closed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't. The Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority; we need to just ignore it. This is a decision for the community, not for a bunch of handpicked puppets of one man who's not all that special. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that this should go to the arbcom since the indefinite ban is one that they imposed. We should not be allowing this user back without having them review his terms. Further, if we do allow him back, we should ban him completely from fiction and pop culture related subjects along with the other terms as deemed by the arbcom (ie, kurdish related subjects). He seemed to be working primarily on Southeast Asia related topics and seemed to enjoy building those articles prior to returning to the dangerous lands where White Cat lives.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    From what I understand, the indef blocking of David (regardless of account) itself was not an arbcom action. The arbcom sanctions on David are still in effect, which can result in blocks, but I don't believe indefinitely blocking was ever mentioned. So, no, we don't require Arbcom's approval.
    Jack's actions regarding fiction and pop culture articles are completely unrelated to this discussion, and demands to ban him simply because you disagree with him on those topics, even when he has not been disruptive in them, will be ignored. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    This isn't about me. Jack went out of his way to find fictional topics to wage his war with White Cat on. He'll do so again. Keep him off en.wikipedia, we don't need his disruption here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Jack didn't go out of his way at all. The OMG articles were in poor shape, and anyone doing fictional cleanup would have to deal with them eventually. And incase you didn't notice, we said the terms of his unblocking would be that he wouldn't be allowed to cross paths with White Cat. I even suggested making specific show-topic bans, to help put White Cat at ease, even if White Cat hasn't edited articles related to those shows in months. As "Jack", we did not see the disruption we saw in the past. Aside from the sockpuppet relation, nothing Jack did was JM was worthy of a block. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    So Jack just randomly wandered into a number of articles, started a war with someone he's under arbcom sanction to avoid and he gets off scott free? Never mind the whole "you block sockpuppets of indef blocked users on sight" clause. And my name is Droltac Eht Aayk. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Do you want me to list how many times I've unintentionally come across articles that White Cat has edited on? And not just a little bit of editing, but significant contributions. David does not get a free pass here, not at all, but we do not use blocks to punish editors. As I said before, I'm more than willing to support restrictions on David for specific shows/topics/etc. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get a good editor back on the wiki. He's had some problems in the past, and I want to help him so that he doesn't make those same bad judgement calls again. -- Ned Scott 08:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    But we've really gotten off topic here. The main point still stands, arbcom review is not required in this situation. -- Ned Scott 08:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Considering the three years of drama, it needs a firm decision by an impartial committee, and most of those who have commented thus far haven't been. Also, some spur-of-the-moment decision on AN is insufficient to sanction this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Moby Dick/Diyarbakir was indef blocked and banned by then arbitrator Dmcdevit on May 2007 who was also among the people hearing /Moby Dick case. But no, arbcom has not voted to ban/block this person, nor did any arbitrator raised objections to the ban/block to date. Then arbcom was recently consulted, words of abitrators there are pretty conclusive to me but some people aren't satisfied (per this thread). I guess people want arbcom to spell out a ruling. -- Cat 09:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Dmcdevit was not an arbitrator at the time he made the blocks, neither did they have anything to do with ArbCom. There was no case to ban him, neither was the block reason "per arbcom". In fact, there hasn't been one discussion I don't think about banning this user, although maybe I'm wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Solely a technicality, the reason there was no case was because he was already indef blocked as noted in Arbcoms case rejection.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I see. Dmcdevit resigned from arbcom on February 2007 and made the block on May 2007. I apologize for my mistake. Never the less the community
    All above is rather conclusive. The unblock overruled that decision.
    -- Cat 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Alright, since ArbCom is being consulted - and they will likely decide whether they are the correct venue/authority - then this thread is no longer valid. If the ArbCom decide to throw it back to the community then we can pick up this discussion at this point. Should this discussion be marked as resolved? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Resoled in a sense that it is delegated to arbcom (at least for now) it should also be marked as archived so no one comments on. -- Cat 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Possible new sockfarm in the process of being created

    Resolved – Grawp... all blocked.

    --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    Unresolved – looks like more sockpuppets were created which have not been blocked, not sure if checkuser is needed.

    --Snigbrook 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Someone is going through and creating new accounts using single random nonstandard unicode characters such as these few: and . If you go thru the user creation log, there a dozens of these created in the last hour or so. Just something to keep an eye on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    I'm thinking him; some of his socks have had unusual Unicode in their names. Keep note of all the names created; if one of them shows symptoms of Potteritis, see Thatcher immediately for an IP check. -Jéské 04:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    He's definately active RIGHT NOW. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger&action=edit&redlink=1. Anyhoo, in good faith, I greeted them all with a friendly "please change your username". Thus, I can keep an eye on them. As usual, Grawp is a quick block if he starts getting outta hand. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    That username was flagged and blocked instantly. -Jéské 04:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed. I was just saying that it shows he is active right this second. Is there enough for a checkuser yet on these new unicode names? BTW, there have been 5-6 more since we've been chatting here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Possibly, if you point out our mistaken phone-caller and all the accounts were made in the same time period, then point out his checkuser case, where a lot of unusual-Unicode-containing usernames were fluched out.-Jéské 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    By the by, East718 has called in the Devastators. -Jéské 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    So far, they're all on TOR, and they're all Grawp. east.718 at 04:45, May 2, 2008
    I had a feeling they were Grawps based on the Unicode. -Jéské 04:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    And they've all been blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
     Confirmed - User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger (talk · contribs) - plus three other accounts. IP blocked as TOR. There are quite a few accounts being created per IP and if someone could collate the "found" ones somewhere, I'll check them for socks & block the TOR nodes - Alison 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    is the full list AFAIK... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    Don't forget User:ℋ for Hermy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oh yeah. Funny since, _I_ blocked that one... hmf... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    Two more (neither blocked right now):

    --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

     Done - all the above checked. Blocked a bunch of TOR nodes as well as some more accounts - Alison 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    New batch that showed up shortly after we blocked all of the above. Some of these may or may not be related:

    The second sockfarm is all Greek myth characters(Atlas, Chronos, Cyclops), rendered in the original greek (except the last one, which is transliterated to Latin characters, but still the greek name). All created in a very short period of time. These may be need to be checked out as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    for would-be vandals who like BEANS, I can say that the above name, குறோணி (talk · contribs) works fine with checkuser for me :), so  Confirmed again. Also, the other accounts under there were already blocked by Thatcher - Alison 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    Given the circumstances, I would suggest that if any more pop up, lock down their talk pages immediately. Blueboy96 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    More usernames from Greek mythology have been created:

    then some Celtic mythology names:

    more Greek names:

    All these were created yesterday between 20:40 and 23:20; most are names of giants. --Snigbrook 12:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Another: Cottu (talk · contribs), an alternative name of Cottus the Striker / Cottus the Furious and registered around the same time. --Snigbrook 13:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Ok, there were 5 other sock accounts under there. The IP is an open proxy and has now been blocked. There are too many socks to detail here, so I'm going to checkuser and block them myself here. Anyone who's interested can see them in my block logs ... - Alison 03:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    All right, I think we're done. Checkusered / blocked / TOR'd. My block button has melted :p - Alison 04:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Hello folks I strongly believe User:குறோணி is Malaylam text. Malaylam and Mediawiki do not work well together. This is in bugzilla. -- Cat 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Maybe so, but I can still run it thru checkuser with no problems at all :) - Alison 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Which makes you more talented than mediawiki. -- Cat 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Community ban discussion

    Currently a community ban is de facto created, any time a user is indef-blocked, and no admin is prepared to unblock them.

    Two problems:

    1. Most community bans are in practice consensus driven anyway,
    2. With 2000over 1500 admins there is always an admin who will unblock even a block most others agree with. Our consensus model clashes heavily with an "any admin acting unilaterally" model here. It can cause problems, since most other decisions, wide consensus trumps most things.

    Question - is it time we moved to a consensus-based view of a community ban?

    The proposal would be:

    • A community ban arises where there is a consensus that a user should be banned from the wiki. A ban may either be created by discussion and consensus, or by an initial indef-block that a consensus then agrees should be considered a ban. Once created, a community ban may be removed by consensus, or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. The consensus in each case is of uninvolved admins.

    Thoughts? FT2  23:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    Agree with point 1, but is there any evidence of point 2 being an issue? I haven't seen it, and of the 1537 admins, I doubt more than a third are currently active. --Rodhullandemu 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    The consensus model is seen as important. Also, actual cases probably do exist where an argument has broken out whether sole admin X can unban someone whom a consensus favors keeping blocked (placing consensus vs. unilateral models at loggerheads), or some such. Just seems that this would be a nice way to handle it that effectively codifies how we do it nowadays, where actual community bans mostly are consensus backed. FT2  00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Todays midnight unblock of Jack Merridew supports point 2.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Forgive me if I missed that; I've, er, been writing an article, bizarrely enough.--Rodhullandemu 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, it does not support point 2. The editor who unblocked was the one who blocked him in the first place. Very different situation from what you're stating. -- Kesh (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Agree, it would certainly seem inappropriate for community consensus to be overturned by a single admin, and in that sense, it does seem that the current system lacks logic. --Rodhullandemu 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I dont agree with the assesment that any indef block is a defacto ban... Remember the differences: accounts are blocked, persons are banned. Many, if not most, indef blocks are a result of an account being used to vandalize or cause any other type of disruption, after which the person can re-register and start over productively. You're not proposing we need to get consensus first for these blocks, I hope? — Edokter • Talk • 00:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I was the user who wrote WP:INDEF so yes, I do remember it :-) More seriously, you might have split the sentence when it wasn't intended you should. Note the wording after the comma, "and no admin is prepared to unblock them". Or else you're discussing clean starts, which are a bit different. We surely don't expect anyone indef-blocked to be able to just start a new account and carry on unchanged. FT2  00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    FT2, that sounds like a reasonable concept. Here is a pair of options for implementing it:
    1. Require 2 admins to unblock a community-banned user; they must commit to keeping tabs on the user until the community comes to a consensus that this is no longer necessary (or X months, whichever comes first).
    2. Any user subject to community ban who is unblocked will automatically be reblocked after X edits. At that time, a different admin must review the user's edits and decide to finally unblock. Both admins will thereafter be charged with keeping tabs on the community-banned user until there is community consensus otherwise (or X months pass, whichever comes first).
    FT2's vision is cleaner than either of these mechanisms for implementing it, but what I'm trying to do here is offer concrete suggestions that would at least make the community ban more difficult to overturn than it is now. Antelan 00:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Specifics of X admins may not be needed. Good consensus is more to the point (see FCYTravis' point below). An addition that "banned users are usually parolled back into the community" will suffice. FT2  00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yep, I like this approach. If it fails, we can consider other options (such as the X admins watching for X months approach that I've suggested here). I, for one, hope it doesn't come to that. Antelan 00:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    This needs to be studied very closely to avoid becoming "Votes for Banning." FCYTravis (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yes. Same applies to any consensus discussion though. CSN was merged back into ANI exactly to ensure many more eyeballs to prevent that. Yes it's important, but the issue here is more "in principle". FT2  00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I support this. A consensus-based approach makes it much more likely that people are going to seriously review these matters in substantial numbers, reducing the probability of inappropriate bans. Furthermore, individual admins should not have veto power; we need to encourage more collaborative decision-making among admins. Everyking (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have reservations in supporting this, though I am not closed to the concept -- indeed, it is to a certain extent current practice. Votes for banning must absolutely be avoided, and the barrier must be pretty high. The aim of the debate should be "are there any reasonable objections to putting this ban into place?" rather than "does anyone oppose this ban?". This is, of course, difficult to achieve. It might require a decision that whoever says "Support ban ~~~~" has such a comment removed from the discussion. I have great scepticism about Antelan's ideas in particular -- that kind of concrete system is incredibly arbitrary and inflexible -- two principles that must be as far as possible from any consideration of banning. In response to Everyking, admins should not have veto power, but a well-reasoned objection should. Sam Korn 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    With your permission, if this went ahead, I'd put the "aim of the debate" point as a footnote to the final version, if folks agree. Good call. FT2  00:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have advocated something like this proposal for a long time. We need to reduce drama. If 80% of admins want to ban somebody, they should be banned. Jehochman 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that rather depends what the other 20% think. If they, in general, think "I don't think they need to be banned yet, but it's well on the road", then I think a ban would be reasonable. If they in general think "No, absolutely not, this user has done nothing warranting banning and here's why ...", I think a ban is misplaced. If consensus banning is to be introduced, it has to be real consensus, not an arbitrarily defined figure. Sam Korn 00:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • But then Admins are supposed to be able to assess consensus on AfDs, and Bureaucrats on RfAs. Since this would be an Admin-input process, would Bureaucrats therefore be the best to assess consensus, or should it be left to Admins? --Rodhullandemu 01:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support in principle, with an important caveat: people who are partisans to a particular conflict should be expected to recuse themselves from the actual consensus and/or disclose their history of involvement. It wouldn't be right for a team of people to gang together and force the outcome of something as important as a ban. Durova 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Absolutely agreed regarding disclosure of involvement. Once concern, though, is that this phrasing makes it sound like this is going to be a vote. Certainly involved admins shouldn't participate in an administrative way in these matters, but involved parties should be welcome to give their input, so long as they disclose their involvement. Antelan 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The amended version looks great - a long overdue update. Thank you very much, FT2, for proposing this. Should reduce the occurrence of periodic drama-fests. Durova 00:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support, in principle - but I would like it made clear that the later lack of consensus for a ban resulting from an indef block which was originally supported is not consensus to unblock. The erosion of consensus in banning an editor still means that the block is in place, but that an admin is prepared to argue for the lifting of the block; there is still the need to establish consensus that the block can be lifted. This comment comes directly from the actions performed regarding Jack Merridew a few sections above (at the time of writing). LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    No consensus to escalate an indef block is not the same as consensus to remove it. I think that's your point. If so, concur. FT2  00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, but also consensus to de-escalating a ban does not mean there is consensus to unblock, only that there is the potential to unblock (first we agree we can discuss unblocking a banned editor, and only then do we talk about lifting the block.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    This discussion assumes that community bans are normally enforced by a block that can be undone by the action of a single admin. In many cases community bans are topic bans and are, therefore, not enforced by a block but by reverting the edits of the banned user. Any policy revision should keep this in mind.
    That being said, I agree with the concept that one admin should not be able to overrule consensus by undoing a community ban. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support in the hope that a previously supported block will henceforth not be reversed due to an agreement among a few individuals (like it was yesterday) --PeaceNT (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I must oppose this. Banning is a very serious issue, and to be quite frank, the Misplaced Pages community acts like a mob sometimes. The current rules for a community ban, which allow that if any admin is willing to unblock, the user is not banned, are needed as a safeguard. This is simply holding bans to an extremely high standard of consensus. Already, we see editors being AFD'd from time to time by those who treat community bans as votes for banning. This change will simply empower that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Another question: How are we to judge when consensus is reached? We have constant difficulties with this at RFA, and yet we're trying to implement a system like that here? This is a bad idea, especially with an issue so serious as banning. I take extreme issue with Jehochman's statement that if 80% of admins think a user should be banned, they should banned. This is the definition of votes for banning, and is something we should be running from, not moving toward. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    This is based on a misconception, in my opinion. If someone is indefinitely blocked, and an admin unblocks, then there arises the possibility that the admin will re-block, possibly/hopefully following discussion. If then the unblocking admin leaves the block then it's a ban, since they have reached the conclusion that their action has no support. If it continues to be lifted by that admin or others, then there is no ban for now — if a lone warrior persists in the face of vast opposition, then they will be stopped eventually by ordinary means, perhaps including an emergency arbitration. In the end, perhaps that collection of unblocking admins will as a whole come to the ban view, and leave it in place, in which case it's a ban by consensus. If they do not, then it cannot be viewed as tenable that the individual is likely to remain blocked, and thus no ban can possibly be in place.

    None of these facts change if you happen to legislate some other "consensus" model, as is being mooted here – it matters not if there is a so-called consensus of a handful of passing admins to ban since if someone feels strongly enough that the person should be unblocked they will still do so. You cannot possibly stop unblocks by attempting to legislate in this way; a nice demonstration of why policy is descriptive and not legislative. This new piece of legislation tries to stop something that simply cannot be stopped while any admin retains technical abilities to unblock since feelings will eventually run high just as they do now. Finally, I dispute FT2's #2 as demonstrably untrue in the numerously many cases where indefinite blocks have stuck in the past. If we accept FT2's #2, however, then the proposal is doomed to failure as a matter of definition for the reasons I have just described. Also, of course, this will in practise function identically to the disastrous Community Sanction Noticeboard, and it is hopeless to suppose otherwise. Splash - tk 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    • I oppose this proposal per Heimstern Laufer, but I also find Sam Korn's argument persuasive. I don't think every admin should have veto power, but I also don't think that a simple majority is sufficient to convict a user to spending the rest of their life on activities more worthwhile than Misplaced Pages. :) What the numbers game fails to consider is that a single user who wishes to unblock a user who most of the community wishes to ban will have a good reason, and in some cases will have a strong conviction that the ban is just wrong. I think this sort of reasoning also explains why RFA requires a supermajority: people who oppose RFAs almost universally feel more strongly about the issue than supporters. So if one admin wants to unblock and nobody agrees with him, maybe that admin is just loony. If two or three or four other admins agree with him, even against a large majority, my instinct is to let the admins who wish to unban take responsibility for the situation.
    • I'm also concerned about any process that ends with an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. ArbCom is overworked and doesn't need to be consulted every time an indef-blocked user wishes to receive a second chance. I don't think a majority is needed to overturn a ban: a significant minority is enough for me. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Call it WP:CREEP if you want, but we need some sort of guideline or process for this. A significant minority or even a majority can't be the deciding factor as shown by what happened recently (non canvassing emails?). I can see WP:ILIKETHEM and WP:OTHERBANNEDUSERsEXIST type of essays helping in some sort of discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Disagree with the unban/unblock rule. There needs to be parity in blocking and keeping blocked, in banning and keeping banned. But this proposal turns that parity upside down. If it requires a community consensus to ban someone, then it continues to require a community consensus to keep that editor banned. An unban discussion reaching no consnesus is proof that there is no longer consensus to ban that person, and thus they are not community banned by consensus. Any other rule will result in votes for banning again. GRBerry 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: I think the #Jack Merridew thread on this page demonstrates the potential of a serious problem. I also want to point out why the community sanction board was abolished. This initiative should avoid such pitfalls. -- Cat 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Something to remember

    We get caught up in our discussion of the way in which Misplaced Pages operates that sometimes we forget that it operates at all. We are consumer driven, millions more readers than the thousands of editors (hell, I'm not even an "editor" as much as I am a reader). I've been reading Ed Fitzgerald's userpage, which got me thinking about this thread.

    The point is that we should all remember that Community Bans don't happen that often in the grand scheme of having the office open 24/7/366this year for business. At best a dozen a year.

    These sort of community ban reviews are even more rare. I can only think of a couple times this has happened in recent years.

    Sometimes smoke is caused by char and ashes. There is not always fire.

    I'm just sayin. Keegan 04:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Permanent move protection for articles on countries

    Some of you might have noticed this persistent vandal who's been moving articles on countries to "HAGGER" every single day. Since articles on countries are unlikely to be reasonably moved to a new location (and definitely not without a proper listing at WP:RM, lengthy discussion and adequate closure of the move proposal by an admin), perhaps they should be granted permanent move protection. That way we would avert any move disruption including this HAGGER pest. Please provide feedback. Húsönd 11:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Count me in. Both Irpen and I mentioned the general idea in the thread above (see Grawp). - Regards, Ev (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, good idea. We ought to move-protect high visibility articles (which have no reason to be moved). Hut 8.5 14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Really bad idea. Block the abuser (s). Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Let's not go down the slippery slope of prophylactic implementation of page and move protection because they 'might' be vandalized by lots of people. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Move protection doesn't prevent anyone from editing, but it does stop high-profile articles from vandalism from an extraordinarily prolific vandal. There is no reason to move country articles without discussion on the talk page. In the odd chance of a page move being decided through consensus (see Burma), an admin can make the move. Horologium (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    The protection policy states that pages can be move protected under three circumstances: "Pages subject to persistent page-move vandalism; Pages subject to a page name dispute; and Visible pages which have no reason to be moved, such as the Administrators' noticeboard." Articles on internationally recognized countries meet two of the three criteria, the first (thanks to a certain persistent vandal) and third (because they're all vital articles). In the unlikely event one of these articles does need to be renamed, an admin can take care of it at WP:RM. This seems quite logical and shouldn't be harmful in the least. Hersfold 22:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    There's no point. S/he will just move to some other set of articles. States, cities, actor bios, etc. It's just moving the problem from one place to another. It's not practical and it's not helpful. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I support permanent move protection for countries. This is not anticipating a possible future problem, it's responding to an actual problem. Blocking the type of vandals who are listed in Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse is an endless task, and may never be finished. By comparison, move protection is easy. Leave things movable where the likelihood of a good-faith move being needed is higher. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's pointless, for the same reasons I do not allow semi-protection on my talk page - he'll just move elsewhere. It's an endless shell-game when protection is involved; the only pages that deserve a move-prot are articles he particularly favors and userpages he hits. -Jéské 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, he'll move elsewhere. But since he seems to be sticking to country articles for the moment, I think that it will be an effective solution at least for those articles, which are by the way among the most viewed on Misplaced Pages. Articles on countries shouldn't be moving anywhere without lengthy discussions so why having them with the move tool enabled for all? It's a blatant invitation to vandals. Furthermore, move protection is certainly better than leaving everything just as it is (not unless some of you would find any joy in reverting Hagger's moves every day). Húsönd 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    (outdent) No point, per Wassupwestcoast and Wknight94. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    I would like the HAGGAR/Grawp bullshit to stop as well. However, as already noted by many, arbitrarily protecting one class of articles will only cause him to bounce to other articles, not stop him, and only restrict legitimate edits to those protected articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Preventing articles like Australia from being moved doesn't "restrict legitimate edits", because there is no way a unilateral move of that article can possibly be legitimate. So we prevent move-vandalism with no downside. I support this, so long as we don't move-protect any country articles with disputed names e.g. East Timor/Timor Leste. Hesperian 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I move-protected a number of country pages that were vandalmoved before seeing this discussion. The main objection to this seems to be that he will move on to other articles. Ys, obviously, but he is clearly going for high visibility pages, where his vandalism has the most impact. If we can drive him to less visible pages, it may become less fun (best case scenario), and not so many readers will see his vandalism before it gets reverted. I don't see the downside to this move-protection (obviously not edit-protection), but people are free to undo it of course. Fram (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The HAGGER/Grawp nonsense hasn't been just countries, so protecting the country pages will only move the vandal(s) to other pages.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Support move protection. As noted earlier, this does not restrict editing of the articles, nor does it adversely restrict editors as the pages should not be moved without extensive discussion. Like it or not, we have to accept that certain high-profile articles require extra protection to avoid disruption. --Ckatzspy 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits

    Why does this list exist? I though it was quality over quantity, but this list seems to be comparing users by the quantity of their edits. iMatthew 2008 11:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Harmless data, in my view. I don't think the list is there to provide useless comparisons, but a simple display of users' productivity. Húsönd 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's just a list, and can provide insightful help for those looking for help immediately. Rudget (Help?) 12:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    It may display the breadth of a users productivity, but like all statistics... It gives no recognition, for example, of an entire evenings input on one or two articles, with very few "saved" against preview edits, whereas as some gadfly who gives a lot of opinions on admin noticeboards, does a bit of AIV work, and a little wikification of a few articles, gets quite a few "ticks on the scoresheet". I like to think that both types of contribution are helpful, and such a list is far too simplistic to provide a proper evaluation of "worth". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    So the list is to notify a reader of active editors? Because I believe plans are being made for this list to go into mainspace soon. iMatthew 2008 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think the list has any actual purpose. It's just trivia: Useless, but interesting. --Conti|✉ 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's interesting, but it takes up a lot of the database doesn't is? iMatthew 2008 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think that's anything that we need to bother about. This data already exists, I can't imagine compiling it like that takes any more space than another long page- absolutely minimal. The list is used, and a lot of people have an interest in/make use of metadata. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    In any case, deleting it won't remove it from the database. A short edit war on George W. Bush would probably take up as much disk space. Sam Korn 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    The entire editing history of that page is using less database space than a single day's vandalism to George W. Bush. --Carnildo (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's a distracting waste of time, so in that sense it is harmful -- these people should be contributing to the encyclopedia rather than coming up with useless lists. Plus, it distorts incentives to encourage people to make more useless edits, which actually clutter up page histories and distract from meaningful content contribution. If we want to track activity, we should do it by the number of kilboytes added and taken away -- summing those up, ideally. I don't see why this is difficult. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    there are many different ways to be useful here, and its reasonable to have multiple ways of tracking activity. This is one of them. Theree are many ways of using this data in studies of Misplaced Pages, and in less formal ways also. DGG (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Why is this brought up to this noticeboard? I think it is a bit misplaced. -- Cat 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Sheesh. The purpose of this page is to offer a bit of harmless positive feedback to contributors. A nod towards community-building, if you will. No one will seriously argue that this is the best way to judge the contributions of editors, but to do so would require complex number-crunching & a dedicated server to do it on, so lists like this will have to do. Oh, & the amount of effort maintaining this page is only a fraction consumed by real time sinks like IRC. (I'm stopping here because every sentence I add after this ends up becoming a vicious rant over how Misplaced Pages culture has changed that would likely get me banned.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    I'll be willing to bet more of the database has been taken up by talking about the list than the list itself. --Kbdank71 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Notice: ArbCom granting Sam Korn checkuser and oversight rights

    Given that the Arbitration Committee has promised to inform the community when they intend to grant people checkuser and/or oversight rights, this is notice that there is currently a discussion ongoing to grant User:Sam Korn checkuser and oversight rights on the English Misplaced Pages.

    He previously served as an Arbitrator, and was a checkuser and oversighter. However, when the identity confirmation system was implimented, he did not confirm his identity and voluntarily requested that his rights be removed. As such, they were not removed controversially. He has recently asked that we grant him his rights again, as soon as we recieve confirmation of his identity. At present, it seems the Committee will be granting him checkuser/oversight rights, since his rights were not removed controversially and he now wishes to have them back.

    Any comments regarding this discussion may be sent posted here, or mailed to the Arbitration Committee private mailing list if privacy is preferred. Contact details for the Committee mailing list are here. Please set the subject of your e-mail to "Comments on granting rights to Sam Korn", to let us easier sort the comments together. Although the Committee will take any and all comments into consideration, please note that the final decision resides with us.

    For the Arbitration Committee,

    Deskana (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    As long as he did not abuse or misuse it, this decision is fine with me. Welcome back. <spam>For future reference you may like to post on Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard for general notices like this</spam> Majorly (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Except that it's a redlink. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board was probably what he meant. It is transcluded at Misplaced Pages:Community Portal. Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard was (briefly) the name for what became Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard (it got moved there). It then got turned from a redirect into a noticeboard by User:Al tally, but then got deleted after a brief amount of discussion. The deletion was probably an over-reaction, as the discussion hadn't really finish. The discussion should probably continue elsewhere. Also, there are now a lot of redlinks for Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard, most of which should probably point at WP:CSN. Accordingly, I'm recreating it as a redirect to fix those redlinks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I restored the history, as the reason given for deletion wasn't really a reason. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Right. I requested it to be deleted. Maybe I should use a new sig for my new identity? Al Tally a.k.a. Majorly 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    He's a good admin, and frequents #wikipedia-en-unblock on IRC a lot. He seems trustworthy, and the fact that he gave up the tools voluntarily says a fair bit in his favor. No argument here. Hersfold 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sam Korn is one of the few individuals that I can recall having a disagreement over interpretation of some policy - although I don't recall which one it was, since it was some time ago... This likely means that they are eminently suitable for CU and Oversight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I would definitely trust this user if he were to reacquire the tools. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Since he has had them before, and had the rights removed in an uncontroversial manner, I don't see any reasons why not. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I would as well. For the record, I have an outstanding request for Oversight with ArbCom that I made some time ago. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    No objections, I don't see any reason to believe that he will misuse the privileges. Seraphimblade 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    No objections. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    No objections, and taking note of Lar's comment I think it is logical that checkusers who are admins on enwiki should have oversight as well. Looking at the list of checkusers, out of about 30 enwiki checkusers there are only four who don't have oversight. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Wow! Well, I certainly trust you - you've an excellent reputation. Welcome :) - Alison 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Works for me. MBisanz 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I approve. User:Zscout370 08:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I trust him. <spam> Incidcentally, I would not mind the community also granting checkuser rights (in a manner agreed upon between the local wiki and the Foundation)</spam> NonvocalScream (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    This is a travesty. The Arbitrary Committee has no legitimate authority granting any sort of access of this type. This is properly the purview of the community at large. I urge everyone to do everything in their power to keep his use of these tools from having any practical effect. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    What the hell are you on about? Al Tally (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Kurt is having issues with reality (again). Raul654 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have no opinion in the matter, but there are people that feel that ArbCom doesn't have any legitimate authority. It's not limited to Kurt, here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I can sympathize with Kurt on this, but I am not at all certain why he is rolling Sam Korn into a policy problem. I would suggest, at least as informally as this thread indicates, that the community has no objection to Sam having these rights. Resolute 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Given that there have been no objections from anyone in the community, nor any objections from any Arbitrators, Sam Korn has been granted CheckUser and Oversight rights. For the Arbitration Committee, Deskana (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I think you meant "no objections except from Kurt" :) ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Rogue admin bot

    See User talk:Misza13#User:The way, the truth, and the light. I was falsely blocked by this bot last night and remained blocked for an hour. I did not make 3 moves, either, it was 2, the second of which was a revert of the first.

    Why do we need bots blocking users anyway? What is a 'bad move' and how quickly do I have to make them to get blocked? Why can't this bot stop Grawp if it detects rapid page moves? Why aren't admin bots required to run on a separate account, so that at least it would be clear that the actions are being done by a bot?

    I feel insulted by this. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Well, you moved the talk pages, so it was four moves, just so you know. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    It should only count as 2, for obvious reasons. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Who said it was a bot? The nearest blocks before and after your own from Misza13 were five hours from yours. I think Misza13 was speaking figuratively when he said the block was "triggered." Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    He openly admitted that it was a bot here. --Chetblong (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    (e/c) Oh well. No bot can be perfect, and this one does a good task with an astronomically low error rate. I believe this is only the second time in two years that Misza13's bot has flown off the rails, which is certainly better than the success rate of mine. :) east.718 at 01:32, May 4, 2008
    Surely you don't still run that bot? That right there shows what can go wrong while using such things. IMHO sysops are given their tools to use them themselves, not to create a script and have the script do the work for them. We were given our tools because the community trusted us with them, and I believe that this is betraying the trust that the community has in us. We do not have the right to create our own administrators, if we want to introduce such a policy then that is fine, but until one is accepted among the community, I think that all adminbots should be shut down. --Chetblong (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Just so we're all on the same level; . dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    In case anyone else is confused. Yes, Misza uses bots for various fully automated deletion and blocking tasks and has done so for a long time. Nor is he alone in doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see any problem here- one screw-up once in a while is perfectly fine, and as long as Misza stays open about it being a bot, and is willing to accept responsibility for it, I have no issues with him running it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    (Dragons flight) - Just because he isn't the only one doesn't make it anymore acceptable. --Chetblong (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Right. I don't know why this is such a big issue, or why people think "it can make mistakes" is that bad. People make mistakes too, unless we turn into some sort of dualistic infallible ghosts :P Aaron Schulz 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think the problem of it making mistakes is the issue. It's that they are unapproved. If the admins think they will be widely accepted why don't they create a separate bot account and put it through RFA? It has been done before, see here. --Chetblong (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Any human who made this mistake would have his judgement seriously questioned. And if this automated blocking is a good thing, what necessary blocks has it done? As I said, why can't it stop Grawp and similar real vandals? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    In the last five weeks, Misza stopped the following page move vandals: Knorkington's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Trulyelsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Bald Guy from Lost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could it be more effective? Probably. Is it uneffective? No. Dragons flight (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Are adminbots allowed according to policy? No. --Chetblong (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Do we ignore policy when it helps the project? Yes. Mr.Z-man 06:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just because you are an admin doesn't allow you to ignore policy anymore than any other editor here. And how is having an adminbot that blocks helping the project any? It is wrong for admins to think that they are any higher than regular editors editing this encyclopedia, in fact if anyone is supposed to uphold policy it is Administrators. --Chetblong (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Since blocking a new editor has a fair chance to drive that editor off WP, it shouldn't be done lightly. Automated tasks which block really should be reviewed by the community so multiple eyes can see if there will be any problems. If this was really triggered by only moving two pages (and talk pages), I'm surprised this hasn't happened before. Gimmetrow 03:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    I strongly suspect it was the presence of multiple moves to titles using the word "faggot" that triggered it. In this case, we are talking about faggot (word), but nearly always moving a page to a new title involving curse words is a sign of vandalism. Dragons flight (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    But the criteria could be more precise to avoid false positives. Perhaps moves where the curse word is both in the original and the target should be excluded. Gimmetrow 05:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    That seems like a good idea - Misza, add this in please :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    And I'm fairly certain the user who this bot is targeted at is reading this section and now adjusting his methods to evade it. MBisanz 06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    (MBisanz) Are you suggesting the editor was doing something wrong? If you believe that please say so explicitly and provide evidence or arguments. Otherwise, please refrain from pithy, insinuating comments, as they are not constructive to resolving the issue at hand. --Lemmey talk 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see anything that the user who got blocked did wrong when they moved those pages, it was the unapproved bot that blocked him incorrectly. What "methods" did this person use that they should need to "adjust" them to "evade" being blocked again? --Chetblong (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    (Lemmey) I think the above comment wasn't directed at any established editors. My guess would be that it was targeted to someone who likes to move pages in manner that rhymes with WAGGER. Best, --Bfigura 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The bot blocked a non-vandal editor, and the editor complained. A bad edit can be reverted, but an editor quitting due to a bad block may not be reversible. Gimmetrow 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    The page in question

    In case anyone doesn't know yet, the moves for which I was blocked are here: . I moved faggot (slang) to faggot (word) and then back, after I though better of it. Faggot (word) doesn't seem like the right title because an article so titled should discuss all meanings of the word, while faggot (slang) didn't seem right either - that title seems to suggest that it's somehow less legitimate than other uses of the word, whereas in America at least that's virtually the only meaning, as with gay which we don't call gay (slang (the latter is a redirect).

    So perhaps a neutral title would be faggot (homosexual)? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    The algorithm

    You can figure it from the source code anyway so what the hell, no serious beans here...

    A "bad move" is one that matches a regex on the move destination (in this case "faggot") - and only the destination or else Grawp could always hit pages that contain profanities in titles with impunity. The threshold is set to 3 with the following rationale:

    1. Let's assume good faith on the first move.
    2. Let's also allow the second one as it's probably a talk page move related to the main move (they are technically separate moves, with two separate entries on both RecentChanges and Log).
    3. On the third move, block - things are fishy now, so better to shoot and make a mistake than feel sorry (if it's Grawp, he's such a rapid mover that every tenth on second counts, really - and we've already let him do two moves).

    Finally, the time threshold is 5 minutes. I could probably lower that to 1 (can a human revert his own move faster than that under normal conditions? The way, the truth, and the light needed 2 minutes) but still, if Grawp were to go slower than that, he wouldn't achieve much (unless all admins overdosed sleeping pills). But still, I'm slightly hesitant. Thoughts? Миша13 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Does the algorithm take into account self-reverts? I would have the threshold at 5 moves (including talk page moves ) or 3 moves (if you let talk pages and pages count as one move). As not all pages have talk pages, I would suggest you find a way to let a page and talk page count as "one move" for the purposes of your algorithm (the fact that you seemingly didn't do this in the first place shows that you are not infallible when it comes to writing bots and should have discussed your algorithm with more people, like you are doing now, but that is an argument for another day). It should also be able to detect self-reverts - if someone moves a page with a title that matches the regex, and then reverts themselves straightaway, will they get blocked? Finally, does your algorithm distinguish between different users? If a sequence of different users move the same page multiple times, what will happen? Also, can your bot distinguish between a page move vandal and (say) a page-move revert war? Finally, could you set up a whitelist of encyclopedia articles that legitimately have the regex words in them? And then (somehow) work out slightly less stringent criteria involving those pages, as moves involving renaming the pages will still have the regex word in the title. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't mind discussing tweaking the code, but I'd tend to err on the side of caution (faster blocks). I've seen instances where even with the bot blocking, grawp will still get dozens or more moves between when the bot is tripped and the seconds it takes to send the block token in. And given that grawp is reading this and adjusting his moves to maximize damage, I'm not sure setting up exceptions will help things as he'll just focus on those exceptions. MBisanz 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    It would be sensible to have the general behaviour that will trigger the blocking bot explained, so that users who do legitimate page moves can avoid getting blocked. Would having a whitelist of users help? Would that have excluded the user who got blocked in this case? Ultimately, this might need something more basic: adjusting the technical side of things so that page moves can only be done at a rate of (say) one a minute. Are there cases where anyone, bot or user, needs to carry out page moves at a rate faster than this? Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    In the past we discussed the idea of requiring a certain number of edits for auto-confirm status, as his previous attacks had been from accounts that had 0 edits. The very night of that discussion, before we could even decide if it was a good idea, the first hit was from an account with 100 edits dating back 9 months. He had prepared an account 9 months in advance, knowing we'd eventually start thinking of that option. So I suspect things like a page-move throttle have already been thought of, and ways to evade them prepared. Some users did indicate they move more than 1 page per minute when doing a large series of naming realignments. Given that grawp uses dozens of name variations, it would be hard to white-list a certain style of name. And well, the editor mistakenly blocked is a regular account, not a rollbacker flag or bot, so short of creating a "This user is not grawp" flag, I don't know how a white list would protect people like "The way, the truth, and the light" from accidentally being hit. MBisanz 11:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    How do you evade a page move throttle? (No, I don't really want to know the answer if there is one). Just seriously, has anyone thought of way to do this? If grawp has found a way, let's find out. Might as well employ him as a "test the code to desttruction" tester. He is free as well. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, using different accounts is one answer. But a throttle on moving a page that has just been moved would help (with admins being able to over-ride it to revert a move). That would restrict grawp to using different accounts to move different pages. Any way to restrict moving pages to the same destination too fast? The different accounts thing is a problem, mainly because the characteristics of genuine accounts vary so widely (regular users can be inactive for long periods after creation, and long-term users can go inactive for long periods as well), so it is easy for grawp (and others) to assume the sam characteristics. Maybe the answer is a combination of both. If lots of accounts that have long periods of inactivity (ie. sleeper accounts) engage in a sequence of page moves fitting the regex at around the same time, then block. As long as we can get grawp to do useful edits to create accounts for this sort of page moving, then the trade-off might be worthwhile. Ultimately, though, deny recognition is important. The more people are seen to be worrying about this, the more he will do it. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for the e-mail, Mbisanz. I think that a page move throttle applied both to accounts and to pages will help. First: Set things so that the same page can't be moved more than once a minute (or even higher) unless reverting a move. Second: Set things so that users can't do more than one page move (of any page) a minute, unless they have a certain level of user rights. Third: monitor page move activity and if lots of page moves start happening in a short period of time (how many normal page moves are done every second?) examine the characteristics of the accounts doing page moves - if they fit the profile of a sleeper account, block them. I think the bottleneck is examining the profile of the sleeper accounts - how long would it take to profile the suspected sleeper accounts doing the moving? The basic problem is a high rate of page moving. If the background rate of page moving is very high anyway, it is difficult to detect excessive page moving. So, does anyone know the normal rate of page moving? Special:Logs helps. See Move log. Anyone able to get a figure for the normal background rate there? Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, and switch off the throttles when grawp gets bored and they give up and go away. Carcharoth (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    He's been at it for over 9 months now, I don't think he's getting tired. Short of range-blocking entire states, I don't see good options here. MBisanz 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Even if a page-move throttle wouldn't completely solve the Grawp problem, it seems like it couldn't hurt. No more than 2 moves (counting a page and its talk page as one) in 1 minute seems right; it would include the threshold that this bot is supposed to stop and wouldn't result in anyone getting blocked. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    That would be a site configuration issue. BugZilla is that way... Titoxd 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Wait, what? A bot is blocking people? That is just wrong an far to many levels. Corvus cornixtalk 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    This "wrong on far too many levels" bot has been successfully operating for the last 1.5 years and has since blocked hundreds of WoW-, Oompapa- and Grawp-socks as well as regular non-notable vandals. I hope realizing this fact doesn't cause a permanent trauma on your psyche. Epic sorry for the sarcasm but it's getting funnier with each new soul that "discovers" it. :] Cheers, Миша13 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Apparently because Misza is an admin, no one can question his running a bot with admin right that's never been approved and may well contain other holes. Compare the thread below (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Catch 22) about the problems a user is having with testing a completely uncontroversial bot. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    You seem to be ignoring the fact that it is not accepted by policy or should I say the community, and neither are any of the other adminbots like east718's, Maxim's, yours (etc). Why do you continue to run this bot when it hasn't been approved by the community at this point? --Chetblong (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Adminbots exist and although they are often kept relatively quiet, they have been discussed many times over the years. In my opinion the community is accepting of this status quo for well behaved adminbots even though it violates WP:BOT. If you really think otherwise, perhaps you could consider opening an WP:RFC on the issue and see whether the community really does want Misza to stop. Dragons flight (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Running a script like that isn't actually prohibited anywhere, is it? Look at it this way: if an action is performed by an account, the ramifications of that action are the account owner's responsbility. Bearing this in mind, whether or not a script was used for the edit is immaterial when it comes to assigning blame when a mistake is made. I've probably made more incorrect blocks than this script has, so whinging about it while I've still go sysop powahs is silly. Martinp23 10:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Blocking people without individual consideration by the blocking administrator is contrary to the letter and spirit of blocking policy,no matter how convenient it is. Its defended as having blocked a few hundred socks over 18 months. That's about one a day, and it is reasonable to expect an admin to be able to check that much manually once the bot has identified them. WP policies apply to admins as well as everyone else. The bot should be blocked immediately. As this has apparently been tolerated in the past, it's not reasonable to consider de-admin, but I think it should be made clear that performing unattended admin operations with an unauthorized bot will be cause for it in the future. DGG (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    If Misza is willing to take responsibility to the actions his account makes, then it is fine with me. The mistake rate is much lesser than many humans I know. I don't see a consensus for any action to be taken to prevent this, blocking or desysoping. (1 == 2) 19:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's not fine with me. If this were only semi-automated, so that Misza had to actually look over every block before it happened, fine. But even one false positive is unacceptable. Yes, it's work for us admins to undo page move vandalism, and it's very annoying to say the least. However, the damage done by allowing these sockpuppets to do a little bit more vandalism (IE, have the bot make an automatic WP:AIV report instead, or alert Misza to have him make a manual block) is minimal and easily repaired, whereas good faith users can take being carelessly blocked very badly. Our contributors are important and they deserve the respect that comes by having every block specifically approved by a human being. Mangojuice 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    An AIV report is not fast enough to deal with this type of vandalism. I don't have a problem with adminbots per se, but I think they should be out in the open. If the community agrees that accounts which match some defined characteristics can be blocked mechanically, fine. I'm sure there are other autoblocking adminbots in operation. It may be easier to ask for forgiveness than seek permission, but I would still prefer adminbots seek permission. The problem is, how? One adminbot passed RfA but that still doesn't seem like the right forum for the community to approve adminbots. Gimmetrow 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I wish to ask a sort of a rhetorical question. A page on Misplaced Pages says you ain't allowed adminbots. Why is that not enforced? They become de-facto allowed, per lack of enforcement, and per the fact some users choose not listen to these so-called rules, and back up decisions through logic and not policy. Maxim(talk) 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well, policy is supposed to be a written form of existing practices and procedures. So... perhaps the policy is what needs fixing. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    The problem is that people can't enforce the bot policy without blocking an adminstrator, and that always creates massive drama. By running these bots on your personal admin accounts, you're effectively raising the stakes to the point where most people are too scared to enforce policy. Hesperian 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    An AIV report is not fast enough to deal with this type of vandalism. How fast can AIV be relied on to respond? Within three hours? One hour? Maybe automatic blocks could be restricted to that time with AIV used to make them indef. That has the advantage that bad blocks will automatically be reviewed and possibly truncated. Some reasonable level of throttling on moves would not hurt most users. Would it be unreasonable for dormant accounts to become unconfirmed again after some period (e.g. six months)? Bovlb (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Statuses granted automatically (ie Auto-confirm) cannot be removed from the system. MBisanz 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Catch 22

    Resolved – Bot approved for a trial run and unblocked.

    User:LemmeyBOT a bot operated by User:Lemmey for the purpose of restoring named references whose content is lost. The bot is currently undergoing a BAG approval process to gain approval for use of the bot in automatic mode. However the bot is currently operated in semi-automatic or confirmation mode. This usage requires no approval from the BAG as specifficly stated by the BAG in questions listed here and here, bottom of the page I specifically asked this question several months ago.

    Certain admins seem intent on trapping this tool in a perpetual Catch-22 claiming first WP:USERNAME and then that it is not an approved bot, despite being shown the discussions above. These blocks started before the tool even made a single edit. The discussion can be seen User_talk:Jmlk17#Bot_Policy here and here Now the admins are claiming that the account does not meet some kind of flag. This mentioned flag is not listed in the qutoed policy WP:USERNAME and the Accounts infobox specifically states and always has stated that it has no flag.

    With 24 fixes of articles with mis-aligned references this bot has clearly demonstrated that it is non-malicious. It has made corrections to articles with multiple lost references and long edit histories . Its edit history demonstrates it is operating at such a low edit rate that it is not a factor on Misplaced Pages Resources. Furthermore it is doing a rather tedious neglected by most editors. A missing reference is a determent to article quality.

    While these admins have their hearts in the right place they are creating a Catch 22 situation by applying wikipedia policies incorrectly and enforcing guidelines for guidelines sake with no emphasis paid to individual editor intent. --Lemmey talk 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Wait until its trialed to show its non-malicious. Then it can be removed to ensure that and given final approval. There is no deadline to finishing WP, therefore there is no need to run a tedious process on an account with a BOT-like name until it is approve by BAG. MBisanz 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    As I've tried to explain elsewhere, WP:USERNAME says Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", "developer" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts.. This is not an account with bot permissions. Same as we would treat LemmeyADMIN. You were unblocked, in lieu of a bot trial, or passing a BRFA (and, you chose to violate those terms, I should add). When one of those conditions is met, we can unblock the account. Not doing so could create the confusion that you are running a vetted, approved bot, which you are not. SQL 07:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    There is no argument over ADMIN accounts or time limits here, so I'm failing to see what that has to do with this. Clearly this is a BOT account that does not require approval for the mode it is operating in, its mode does not require approval and there is no violation, as I have discussed this with the Bot Approval Group you keep mentioning. As it is operating in semi-automatic mode the onus is on the blocking admin to show that it is malicious, not on the user to defend itself from preemptive blocks. --Lemmey talk 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well, we've each made our cases. I eagerly await an uninvolved party's opinion. SQL 08:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I should note, there was an oldid diff given to disucussion on my talkpage, which has seen further discussion, it's presently here, and, will be moved to my talkpage archives, should it receive no further comment in 24 hours. SQL 08:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Which policy determines bot permissions? Antelan 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    WP:BOTS and the WP:BAG --Lemmey talk 08:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Permissions pretty clearly means the permissions assigned to flagged bots by MediaWiki to me. SQL 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    As per Misplaced Pages:BOTS#The_.27bot.27_flag mediawiki only involves technical permissions, not an editors right to use a bot --Lemmey talk 08:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Which, refers back to being approved as a bot, which, that account is not, either. SQL 08:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    With regards to the name, I don't see any part of policy that explicitly deals with this situation. On the one hand, Lemmey is operating a bot, approval of which he presumably thinks will be forthcoming. On the other hand, he doesn't yet have approval. I can see where there is disagreement, but again, I don't see the solution for this precise situation spelled out in the policy. Regarding the usage of the bot, the policy states, "Bots must be approved before they may operate.", but then immediately goes on to state, "Contributors may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox." So operating this bot should be noncontroversial provided that the edits are infrequent, and are to test pages. Antelan 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Which is why I asked the BAG in the question linked in the first paragraph. --Lemmey talk 08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    "Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Misplaced Pages edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work." If it's not a bot, then it shouldn't have bot in the name. If it is a bot, then BRFA is where you should go. You said:
    This bot is Currently Operating in Manual Confirmation Mode and as such does not require a BOT approval.
    So you basically said it wasn't a bot, therefore calling it FooBOT would be the username violation. Q 08:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    No I said it was a bot that didn't require approval as I was told by the BAG. --Lemmey talk 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    (undent) If it's really an issue, couldn't you just run the bot under a different name until it gets approval, then move the script to the preferred bot name at that time? Antelan 08:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    And then be blocked for "running an unapproved bot on a non bot account". Oh no I'm not going down that road. --Lemmey talk 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Then, ask for (which you did) trial approval (used to figure out the bot), and, wait for trial approval (which you did not). Heck, had it stayed in userspace, I doubt anyone would have cared. SQL 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The request as stated above is inteded so the bot can run in automatic mode. --Lemmey talk 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    From WP:BOTS: "Contributors may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox. Such test edits may be made from any user account.". Antelan 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    and that includes the LemmeyBOT account. --Lemmey talk 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    (ec)Yes. But the LemmyBOT account is not allowed, because only bot-accounts may contain the string BOT, and LemmyBOT doesn't meet the definition of a bot-account, at least not on Misplaced Pages. The Misplaced Pages definition is "an account with a bot flag or an account being used in line with a BAG trial process", and your account isn't. So it's against the username policy, it's so simple! —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    As per WP:BOTS the flag is not fundamentally linked to the BOT account. and as per my conversations with the BAG approval is not needed. It is a BOT is requires a BOT account, but it does not require approval. --Lemmey talk 09:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Wrong. If the consensus here is that only flagged bots are bots, then that's the decision. Please read through the page I linked carefully. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Unless you intended to link something to the work 'here' you have not shown consensus. I don't appreciate the panderizing as I have shown two separate discussions with BAG officals over the fact that there can be BOTs that do not require approval (and therefore don't get flags) --Lemmey talk 09:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    You had the bot edit the mainspace prior to getting approval on the bot account. these edits were not in a sandbox of any sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    And I'm not disputing that, Ryulong. I'm following the advice of the BAG as you will read in the top of the section. --Lemmey talk 09:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    The way that I read the policy, this bot-to-be should be (1) editing only non-mainspace pages, and (2) named a non-BOT name until it is approved. At that time, grab it a BOT-name and turn it onto the mainspace. Am I missing something obvious here? Antelan 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    I will then be blocked for "running an unapproved bot on a non bot account". --Lemmey talk 09:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    If you do these tests outside of the article space then there is no problem with that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    These are not tests, they are corrections of complex errors in the references of articles. --Lemmey talk 09:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Make a page in your user subspace with these very errors, and then use your bot code to fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    And what would be the point of all that? The BOT searchs through the history of the article inorder to fix its references. I couldn't fix a page that started with errors. --Lemmey talk 09:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    (dedent) Statements from the BAG (since nobody reads the links)

    :The things you described don't need bot approval as long as you keep your editing rate low and are authorizing each edit individually. If you want to edit in a sustained way (e.g. 6 edits/min average for twenty minutes or more), then you should consider getting a bot flag. Someone will probably let you know if your editing rate makes you look too botlike. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Any script which is either 1) used to edit "fast", or 2) used to do "a lot" of edits in total, or 3) does not involve a Yes/No for each individual edit, should in my opinion be reviewed for technical and policy compliance. Exactly what "fast" and "a lot" might mean is unclear, but I think if you're planning to use a script to modify 10000 articles, you ought to have consensus and not use a buggy script. Gimmetrow 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    My guideline is "Anything which decides on the edits to make itself" needs bot approval. That is, a mass-deletion script that takes a list of pages as input does not, but a bot which decides which pages to delete does. — Werdna talk 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, but this is completely ridiculous.
    • Of course it's OK to use a script or bot to propose edits which are manually checked and submitted.
    • No, no-one needs any approval for this, and running in a non-bot-flagged account is entirely appropriate.
    • The user name issue is a silly over-reading of badly-drafted policy.
    In short, I see nothing wrong with Lemmey's use of a semi-automated script to make helpful suggestions to himself, as long as it's human-checked and not done at too high a speed as to be potentially disruptive (though a less tart turn of phrase might help ;-)). People, please AGF and remember IAR and common sense. :-)
    James F. (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, exactly. What we have here is essentially a manual trial of a proposed bot, something which is entirely sensible. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • where is my trout and cluestick? Lemmey is mainly correct here, he should have waited for an approved trail, but a few test edits are also OK, those BAG and admins who say otherwise need hit with cluestick. where has common sense gone to nowadays? β 13:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It doesn't look like this bot highlighted its limited test role in its edit summaries. Perhaps all admins are suspicious of rogue unverifiable bots. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What in the world? When the bot was blocked it had made only 4 edits. It clearly wasn't a vandalbot. Personally, I think a good-faith bot account doing something useful (and not something routinely denied bot accounts) should pretty much automatically get a 10 or 20 edit allowance for testing. That way, when they come to BRFA, there is something for BAG to look at. Gimmetrow 19:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Why was this bot blocked a second time? Per this it should be unblocked. Since the blocking admin apparently has no objection, I intend to unblock unless someone else complains fairly soon. Gimmetrow 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Might I suggest that people follow the spirit, not the letter of the laws? The spirit of the law here is that usernames should not contain 'bot' when they're not bots. The letter of the law is that usernames should not contain bot if it's not approved to run as a bot. The user here is a bot. Therefore, there's no problem with having 'bot' in the username. — Werdna talk 07:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I concur. Making it clear that you're developing a bot is an act of pretty obvious good faith, and caused no harm. We should never punish people for that, and I see no reason to make the guy jump through extra hoops just to comply with a stretched reading of a username rule intended to increase clarity. William Pietri (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thirded. The bot owner seems to have been operating in as close to fully open good faith mode as one can. Something we need to encourage and support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Sceptre and User:Undead warrior abusing rollback and Twinkle

    Encyc... Dram...
    initiated on DR (May 3)
    Added by JV 01:41, May 5 (UTC)

    Yesterday I got into an incident with Sceptre in which I proposed a recreation of Encyclopedia Dramatica on Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review and he unilaterally closed my review as "disruptive" despite not being an administrator. Though this is off topic, I am aware that I am going to immediately attract attention for having admitted to be in favor of the article's recreation so I will explain my rationale. Please ignore the center paragraph if you are only interested in hearing about the incident.

    First off, I believe that the site is notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes) gets 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches presumably due to its offensive content. Second, I believe that the site is covered by reliable sources. Third, I believe that much of the controversy that centers around the proposal of recreating the article comes from editors who dislike the site because of the personal attacks it has made (I have had my photo uploaded to the site and placed in an article without my consent myself), but I believe that Misplaced Pages is not censored and that ED should not be excluded from the encyclopedia because it offends people. Also, it's worth noting that I find it strange that many editors do not want the article in Misplaced Pages presumably because it offends them (until recently, the reason given for the "protected against recreation" status of the page "Encyclopedia Dramatica" read "Encyclopedia Dramatica will never be recreaded. Ever." If something offended me I would want it exposed in broad daylight for what it is to as many people as possible. But this is irrelevant and I'm not here to argue about whether the site should be recreated or not. I'll save that for deletion review. I am posting it here to satisfy curiosity as to why I would want to see the site's article recreated. I will also mention that I have written a revised version of User:Shii's draft.

    As I was saying, I created a new deletion review for Encyclopedia Dramatica and Sceptre immediately closed it as "disruption . Ironically, he was the one being disruptive by closing a nom despite not being an admin and without giving a clear reason. "Disruptive request" is not a clear reason. I reverted this, and Sceptre proceeded to use rollback and eventually Twinkle to continue to revert my edits to the page, marking them as "vandalism" with Twinkle . He also reverted two comments I placed on his talk page asking him to stop and even a report I placed on WP:AN of our dispute., My final revert of his edit was reverted by User:Undead warrior using rollback , another non-admin who had no business closing a legitimate deletion review. As result of the incident, I was blocked for disruption, while Sceptre and Undead warrior were not, and I will point out that I was never given a clear reason for being blocked, and as a result I have permanent record of having been blocked for "disruptive editing" in my block log. The only violation of policy I believe I could have been possibly held responsible for is breaking the 3RR, though this was never cited as a reason for my block, and in the context I do not believe I was violating the 3RR, as Sceptre's edits were clearly ones he had no business making. I have emailed both users informing them of what they did and that I would file a request to have their rollback and Twinkle privileges suspended if they continued such behavior in the future, and have received two responses from Undead warrior (I will forward these emails to a user upon request) which basically claimed that my edits were "vandalism" and cited WP:SNOW (which isn't policy) as his reason for unilaterally closing the nom despite not being an administrator. I will leave notices on both their talk pages of this thread. I don't recommend a block for either one of them, as that would be punitive, but I do believe they should both be given a stern warning by someone other than myself.--Urban Rose 11:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    On the face of it, Sceptre does seem to have been grossly abusing Twinkle/rollback, mis-labelling vandalism and removing a thread from ANI - very naughty. Your request didn't seem disruptive to me. But let's hear what he has to say. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The disruption was in the numerous requests you were making, despite being told that this wasn't going to happen. I have seen you on another site taking your above argument (in itself pretty vacuous) to the extreme of "if an article offends people, Misplaced Pages should doubly have it". Now, you were not blocked for 3RR -- I don't know where that idea came from. You were blocked for clear disruption when it should not have been hard to work out what was reasonable behaviour. To call Sceptre's actions "abuse" is a major exaggeration of reality, though perhaps his actions could have benefited from further reflection. Sam Korn 11:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The reason the article was created multiple times is because the first time the closing admin requested a draft. I returned with a draft and created a second review so it may have looked like it had gone through a legitimate review and that I was reposting it out of frustration, but I wasn't. There is no policy that says that an article cannot be proposed for recreation on the grounds that it offends people. And why I mention the 3RR is that that is the only violation of policy which I technically violated. You cite me as having been disruptive yet fail to make clear any specific violation of policy on my part. And no, I don't believe that calling Sceptre's behavior anything less than abuse is merited. Reverting well intended edits as vandalism, acting as an admin when he isn't and removing notices of our dispute from WP:AN is clearly abuse.--Urban Rose 11:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I also advised you against redoing it as it had already been rejected before. You seem determined to force the point on ED and this is undoubtedly disruptive. Look, you don't even seem to understand reliable sourcing - offering youtube as a reliable source for recreation of this article is never going to wash. I also advised you to read the last DRV understand why it failed and not bother unless you could address all the issues. You clearly didn't do this so let me be blunt. If you carry this on any more you will get blocked again because no-one wants to play. I'm not calling you a troll but your actions are undoubtedly trollish. Please stop before it escalates. Spartaz 12:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Um, being disruptive is itself against policy... Sam Korn 12:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    DRV has been clear on this topic: a new draft must be written first. The article will not be undeleted or unsalted before that happens. Creating a second DRV right after the first was closed does seem rather disruptive, especially when you made a virtually identical argument. Scepter's reversions were not abusive. If you really want an ED article, write a new draft in your userspace before continuing. -- Kesh (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have a revised draft. And in my second review, I listed a link to the draft. And also, Korn, you say that "being disruptive" is a violation of policy in itself. Define "being disruptive". That can mean basically anything you want it to. If you can name a specific policy I violated, I will accept it, but just saying that someone is "being disruptive" is not giving a straight answer.--Urban Rose 12:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    That's hardly a draft. It's a collection of links. As for behavior, check out WP:DISRUPT. -- Kesh (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Still not policy.--Urban Rose 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please call me "Sam", if you will.
    Of course being disruptive is in and of itself against policy. It can be seen by anyone with a hint of common sense. It is not defined for precisely this reason -- that users who are being disruptive can be prevented from skirting round the edge of the rules and avoiding sanction. Sam Korn 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Use common sense isn't policy. Basically what you're saying then is that a user can justly be blocked for any action which an admin dislikes for any reason even if it is not a violation of policy on the grounds that it is "disruptive". And basically what you're saying is that the real reason I was blocked is for proposing the recreation of an article that some users find offensive. Blocks should only be handed out for clear, specific violations of policy, not for vague reasons such as "not using common since" or "disruption" in which no specific violation of policy is cited.--Urban Rose 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    "Use common sense" is just about the most important policy we have, even if Misplaced Pages:Use common sense doesn't have precisely the right tag at the top. No, you were blocked for the disruptive manner in which you advocated the recreation of that article. Blocks should be handed out with caution and only for good reason. This one was for very good reason, regardless of the behaviour of others or the absence of a description of your precise behaviour hidden in some obscure "policy page". Sam Korn 13:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Then explain what about the manner in which I advocated the recreation of the article was disruptive. That I had already posted one and was posting it again? I've already told you, the reason I posted it a second time was because the first time I posted it, the closing admin requested a draft. I created a draft and posted it again, providing a link to the draft. If it had gone through a legitimate deletion review once and I was posting it again immediately after, that could have been disruptive, but the only reason it was closed the first time was because I didn't have a draft and I came back with one. So once again, no legitimate reason has been given for calling my behavior "disruptive" or saying that I didn't "use common sense".--Urban Rose 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    No one's behaviour looks great in that edit history. If Urban Rose had an issue with a non-admin close of the DRV, she should have asked an admin to review it. Edit warring over the close was disruptive and I think a block was valid. That said, Sceptre was not justified in using rollback - Urban Rose was not vandalising the page. I agree that in this case, the rollback tool was used inappropriately. WjBscribe 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Urban Rose is being clearly disruptive and is borderline Wikistalking me (see her WR posts as 'Pussy Galore'). Why are we even having this conversation? Sceptre 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    You revert my post on WP:AN and then wonder why were having this conversation? The posts I made to the deletion review could have been justly reverted as disruptive, but your reverting my posts on Misplaced Pages:AN was blatantly disruptive. And what ever I said about you on Misplaced Pages Review isn't stalking, how ever rude it may have been. And no, Sceptre, having tried to get the article Encyclopedia Dramatica recreated (something which I'll probably never do again) is not stalking either.--Urban Rose 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm in general agreement with WJBscribe here. I get the general feeling that these two users have had bad relations both on and off-wiki and now that has resulted in the two enduring a strained relation over the course of this DRV event. Some diffs that may be helpful are , etc. Saying that, Urban Rose seems to have reflected and repented on her actions here.Rudget (Help?) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Resolved: Users have both been warned That's nice and all, but how many times do we have to warn Sceptre to stop abusing rollback before it's taken away? I warned him twice in February, as did Sam Korn,, and Stifle warned him again in April.. Now, we've added Twinkle abuse to the mix, and we give another warning? - auburnpilot talk 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm with AuburnPilot on this. Even if UrbanRose was being disruptive, there is no way Sceptre should have deleted the W:AN report which concerned his own actions. No excuse. JodyB talk 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    AP, stop being so restrictive over rollback. If this was an admin who did the rollback, people would say "never mind". Besides, rollback was justified in all three cases (it's allowed on BLPs, and it's standard response on Doctor Who episode lists - ask Edokter). As UR pointed out on several occasions, I did get 11,000 edits in March, 5000 of which are rollbacks. That's a good enough reason for me keeping rollback. Rollback is, and I quote someone on IRC, "undo on speed". Sceptre 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sceptre, you're not an admin. If you'd like to demonstrate admin-type authority, then please submit an RfA. Barring that, please ask for admin assistance when you need it. AuburnPilot is right. Kelly 18:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Adminship is a technical switch, not a position of authority. Sceptre 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    You are flat out wrong, Sceptre. There is no exemption for use on BLP issues or a " Doctor Who episode clause". It is blatantly unacceptable for you to use it on edits that are anything other than vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    There is nothing that says rollback must not be used to get rid of anything but vandalism. It can be used for reverting any unconstructive edit. Sceptre 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    {ec)That's precisely the thing I would expect a de-sysopped admin who wants the tools back to say. I still believe AuburnPilot is right. Kelly 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Voluntarily, mind. Ask your namesake. Sceptre 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sure, the deadminship request was voluntary, but how did the requests for readminship go? Kelly 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that ArbCom had pretty much concluded that there is no encyclopedic value in having an article on ED, and that links to the site were not permitted under WP:EL (I think that was part of the BADSITES arbitration). Recreation of this particular article subject at any time is a pretty POINTy exercise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I just woke up, but I'll put in my two cents. I did not abuse rollback. I saw a large deal reverted earlier, and I reverted it back. I honestly thought that Sceptre was an admin, so I reverted the text back to his version. After I did that, I recieved a harrassing email, and now there is a thread about me that basically pokes fun at my ways, name, and methods. I don't know why this even became a problem. Undeath (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Situation normal. Some people are absolutely intent on having an article on ED, and regard any resistance as inherently abusive, which was actually the problem in the first place since it was the work of admins removing an article with zero reliable sources that started them down the path of putting up attack pages. As far as I'm concerned this one can stay gone until Jimbo himself re-creates it. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And some people are absolutely intent that there never be an article on ED, and regard any resistance as inherently abusive. There's irrationality on both sides; you don't really help things by looking only at one side. In the words of the great Lisa Simpson on tonight's Simpsons episode, "There's drama and inspiration everywhere I look!" *Dan T.* (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have to admit that as I was reading this thread, I was getting more and more horrified, the more I read. I have no opinion either way on the re-creation of the Dramatica article, but Sceptre reverting another editor and accusing them of vandalism? Multiple times? Then when that editor complains at AN, Sceptre deletes their message? Sorry, I think Sceptre does a lot of other great things on Misplaced Pages, but he is way out of line on this one. Just a couple days ago I was looking into another Sceptre-related incident on ANI, where one of Sceptre's enemies, Pixelface, was blocked. My uninvolved view was that the block was inappropriate, because both Sceptre and the other editor were at fault, especially as Sceptre was going to Pixelface's talkpage while Pixelface was blocked, and telling him to "shut up". Don't get me wrong, I think that Sceptre is usually a fine editor and a great writer, but evidently when he gets angry, he thinks he has the right to "silence" people he disagrees with. This is compounded by him accusing them of "vandalism" or "trolling". But the final straw for me is that Sceptre felt that he could do this at AN as well, and delete someone's complaint about him. That's far past what's allowable. At a very minimum, Sceptre's rollback privileges should be removed. And if others felt that Sceptre should be blocked to stop this disruption, I would not oppose. Sceptre, read WP:VANDAL. You must stop referring to good faith edits as vandalism. Even when they're disruptive, they're still not vandalism. You have to learn the difference. --Elonka 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Given the above, Sceptre's access to rollback should probably be removed until he demonstrates better judgment regarding its use. Kelly 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have growing concerns about Sceptre's behavior in general. He seems to revel in kicking his enemies when they are down and is constantly condescending and hostile to anyone who has a different opinion about almost anything. He has a habit of going out of his way to escalate disputes. His inappropriate use of rollback is really just the beginning of my concerns. I regretfully believe that the rollback privilege should be removed as this user shows no indication of learning from past mistakes. I would urge Sceptre to consider more carefully his behavior in general and his approach toward other Wikipedians. --JayHenry (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      To be clear, I don't support the recreation of ED, but it doesn't mean that I therefore support any tactic of anyone opposed to an ED article, and my concerns are in no way limited to this situation. --JayHenry (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I've always found Sceptre to be perfectly decent. Has anyone tried talking to him? There's no doubt that Urban Rose has stepped well over the line with her attacks on Undead at Misplaced Pages Review. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Guy, while I'm deeply appreciative of so much of the work that you do, I'm afraid that we have intractably different understandings of the word "decent" when it comes to Misplaced Pages conduct. I'd actually be really happy to have a polite dialog about that, but my previous observations suggest that this is a fairly unlikely scenario. At any rate, Auburnpilot did provide diffs of Sceptre being approached about this in the past, and his non-receptiveness to past approach is what's gotten us here today. I don't read Misplaced Pages Review, and so I'm unfamiliar with the particular events you're alluding to. My concern with Sceptre is hardly limited to this particular incident, so please do not read my comment as some sort of endorsement of attacks. I will reiterate that I don't support the recreation of ED, but it doesn't mean that I therefore support any tactic of anyone opposed to an ED article. --JayHenry (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG2. When it comes to comes to judging user conduct, something is fundamentally broken with JzG's judgment. Kelly 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    I think ED's treatment of Sceptre should give him a LARGE dose of leeway where recreation of the ED article is concerned. Corvus cornixtalk 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Agreed. I'm surprised people are "horrified" when Sceptre made a valid rollback, and then when the editor in question continued to attempt insertion of DRVs and AN complaints to push for an ED article, Sceptre stopped what was clearly disruptive behavior. People seem to be looking for… well, drama. -- Kesh (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, but please tell me where the hell the "valid" rollback was, because I don't see it. You never, ever use rollback on anything except obvious, simple vandalism. You provide a reason, and Sceptre provided no reason other than to tag Rose's edits as "vandalism" or treat them as rollback. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Might be a "ripened sock" of User:!!. Should be blocked immediately. </sarc> Kelly 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Only for obvious vandalism? yeah. I've seen non-admin rollback used for anything from vandalism to simple editing disputes all the time. There's zero control over rollback, and I don't see this as any more abusive than what goes on every day. -- Kesh (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well, in the case of admins, we really can't do anything about that. The ArbCam issued a warning to not use it for other purposes other than vandalism. For mere rollbackers, however, we can revoke their tools. But it isn't cool to use it in that way. It isn't a "valid" use. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The minimum step to take with respect to Sceptre is for rollback to be removed. With respect to his attempted disruption of AN, I'm at a loss as to appropriate action--this goes to the core of the WP process. DGG (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    ←I think this conversation has centered a bit too much around use of rollback. Edits like this are simply unacceptable, no matter which editing function was used to perform them. I don't know about recreation of the article, and the reason stated by Urban Rose at AN may or may not have been valid. It really doesn't matter. You don't remove someone's complaint about yourself at AN, ever. It doesn't matter which tool was used, but if removing rollback from Sceptre's account is the best way to convey the message that what he did was wrong, then that's reason enough to do it. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Per Sceptre's abuse of the rollback function, and the concerns noted above, I have revoked his access. - auburnpilot talk 00:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    RickK would've loved you. Sceptre 00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sceptre, I have a great deal of respect for you and your dedication to the project but I do think, like Equazcion, that reverting someone's comment about you at AN may have went a bit too far. I think maybe in future, given how you've been abused by the fine folk at ED, it might be a good thing to recuse yourself from matters involving ED or articles about it... there are plenty of uninvolved editors that can do what needs doing. You may want to, in general, consider slowing down and asking for advice if there is any doubt at all in your mind that something might be misconstrued, no matter how certain you are that you are right. For the record, for now, I think you might want to avoid use of rollback and Twinkle and other high speed mechanisms, even if rollback is restored to you at some point. I hope that advice is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    (after ec)Can't say I'm at all surprised by this thread as I've had concerns about Sceptre's behaviour for a while now. I understand his attitude regarding ED and can cut him some slack for being snarky with that particular issue but it doesn't give him freerange to be abusive and snarky in general. Perhaps Sceptre should consider his personal feelings for ED a reason for staying out of ED issues and leaving it for others to deal with. However, using rollback to revert a users complaint about himself to AN is totally out there and abusive. I appreciate Sceptre's contribution to the project but I endorse removal of his rollback for now since it's clear that warnings from multiple admins have been ignored for months now. Sarah 01:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Okay, so maybe it was a mistake to revert UR's post, but, seriously, anyone who is giving her clemency in this situation needs to get a sanity check - given her contributions to my talk page and the two ED DRVs in six hours (and her contributions to WR), I saw it as pure trolling. Even though today is the respective bank holiday, there's no reason to dance around the maypole and allow her to continue trolling. And AP seriously exaggerated the claims of abuse - in all the cases that have been brought up here, they were used to get rid of clear policy violations when warnings had not been heeded. Sceptre 13:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Sceptre, if it makes you feel better to claim that I misrepresented the warnings that were given to you, or your clear abuse of rollback, then do what you wish. But I'm not the only admin who believes your rollback access needed to be removed, I'm not the only editor who has noticed your abuse, and I'm not the only one who has warned you. Simply read the posts above, from numerous people who stated they independently have had concerns regarding your behavior, prior to seeing this post. Again, do what makes you feel better, but don't drag me down with you. - auburnpilot talk 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    And I explained them perfectly well. Sceptre 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    ← If anyone wanted to close this discussion as archived I wouldn't object. The issue has been dealt with, Sceptre admits that he shouldn't have removed UR's post, and he knows where to go when he's ready to request rollback again. There's nothing more to discuss. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Nod. For the record I offered to restore Sceptre's rollback rights if he agrees to confine use of it to reversion of clear vandalism. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I would go along with that, if he would also put into his own words a definition of "clear vandalism" which matched with WP:VANDAL. Because currently Sceptre's definition of vandalism, seems to differ sharply from policy. --Elonka 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Today is May 4

    And May the Fourth be with you... Guy (Help!) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Don't start, Guy. I'm already pissed off at BBC Three using that to promote Family Guy. Sceptre 18:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hilarious --Lemmey talk 18:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    You forgot the links "And May the Forth be with you..." An old Scottish greeting. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    May (Pokémon)? -- Cat 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Urban Rose verbally attacking me

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved

    I have a large complaint against User:Urban Rose. He/she has verbally attacked/humiliated me at this website. I take great offense to being called a "Seventh grade admin wannabe." The user even posted my REAL NAME on the thread to begin with until it was later removed. That, I take, to be a direct attack against me. I want something done. Undeath (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    • A personal attack against a Wikipedian on Misplaced Pages Review? Whatever next. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's the strange fact that the user is using a site to cause defamation against me. "I dunno, he just seems like the sort of kid you don't want your own kids in the same school with, if you know what I'm sayin'." → is even from the site from another user. I don't think that the user should be able to get away with this. Misplaced Pages review, whatever it is, should not be excluded. The user used Misplaced Pages to obtain my email, which gave him/her my name, which he/she used to post evil things against me. Undeath (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think there's a single person here who hasn't been attacked on WR (although I do have the dubious honour of being called "one of the good guys" by them once). If you can think of a solution to them, we'd love to hear it... — iridescent 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Undeath, join the club.  :) Seriously though, with sites like that, my recommendation is to ignore them. The more attention that is paid to a hate site, the more it encourages them, and the more traffic they draw. And to actually have one of their victims openly complaining? That's like an instant guarantee of 10 times more traffic. Take it from me, the best way to kill these sites, is with apathy. If nobody cares about them, and nobody reacts to whatever they say, they'll eventually get bored and move on. --Elonka 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think any of the sociopaths there have ever even mentioned me. Even when quoting me, they forget to cite their sources. I'm shocked and appalled. Or possibly completely indifferent. Either way works. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I read the Review occasionally, and am always disappointed I'm not mentioned. They did speculate that I'm a sock of Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs) once, but it didn't gain traction. The best thing you can do, Undead warrior, is to ignore it. - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I would normally ignore it, but they used my real life name. User:Urban Rose obtained that via wikipedia. I think, that since the problem originated here, that the user who started it all should have some type of consequence. Undeath (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    <-We don't punish here, and if you made your RL identity public via Misplaced Pages or email, then there's nothing we can do about that either. If the person mentions it here on Misplaced Pages, then we can. But not until. We have no jurisdiction over other sites. You've already got the name removed on WR; if you are still unhappy, you'll have to take it up with the sociopaths there. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    Undeath- calling it "defamation"- is that a legal threat to the person saying it? How is it "defamation" for them merely to voice their opinion? And are you sure it's urban rose- if it's on another site we cannot even verify it's her, the person could just be impersonating her.Merkin's mum 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Don't re-format my words. I called it defamation because that's what it is. I'm not saying that I'm talking about legal action. Defamation is just a word that fit my predicament. It's opinion for a while, but when my real name is associated with my wikipedia account + I am called things like "Seventh grade admin wannabe" etc... that is defamation. Undeath (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry this has happened to you but seriously, you're crazy doing this. If I were you, I would quickly archive this thread because you're just drawing attention to it and quoting their comments above is just crazy. Now thousands of people who never even look at Misplaced Pages Review know all this information about you, is that really what you want? We don't do punitive blocks here so none of us are going to block this person because you gave them your name freely and they then went to Misplaced Pages Review to complain about you, so I can't see anything coming out of this thread which would satisfy you. I can only suggest you archive this thread and move on and in future don't reveal your name to people you don't know if you're worried about such things, even if that means registering a new email address specifically for Misplaced Pages. It's an important lesson for all editors on Misplaced Pages. Sarah 01:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Amen. There's a reason the emails you get from admins come from Hotmail accounts... If you give your personal details to anyone on teh interwebs - even here - you only have yourself to blame, unfortunately. — iridescent 01:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    As Guy would say, sometimes you call a spade a spade (for that matter, you should check out some of Guy's comments). You shouldn't be reverting deletion reviews and calling them vandalism. That puts you in the wannabe admin category. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 00:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I reverted it because there was a blocked user who had undid a revision which was made by a user who I thought was an admin. It looked like vandalism/block evading to me. Oh well, someone archive this. Undeath (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just for the record, I did make a snide comment about this user on Misplaced Pages review, and did originally give out his real name (though I've since removed it), but my comment was far from "defamatory" and I didn't send him any "harrasing" emails. I will forward a copy of the two emails I send him as well as two very immature emails that I received from this user to any admin upon request. The second of the two emails I sent him I also posted on the Misplaced Pages review thread (titled "Undead warrior") that he is describing.--Urban Rose 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    DOI bot blocked for policy reconsideration

    I have blocked DOI bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours, and intend to propose a permanent ban pending a full policy discussion. The first problem is that it appears to be broken, resulting in edits like this, which broke the reference and left a mess, but more importantly because it is implementing a major policy change in the way Misplaced Pages makes web references, without large-scale community consensus and buy-in. (I'm aware that the bot received approval, but I don't believe that its full impact was understood.) That is not something a bot should be doing. Basically, the bot appears to be editing URLs in citation templates and replacing them with a DOI scheme that relies on an external private organization (doi.org). In some cases the URL is left alone, but a DOI is added, and what is rendered in the article is a DOI that if clicked on, will take the user to the link indirectly via the doi.org site.

    This raises all sort of issues, and , among other things, violates WP:EL because it promotes an external organization (doi.org), and drives huge amounts of traffic to that site, by Wikpedia readers who think they are going to a particular cited source, and then are taken to doi.org. Regardless of the noble aims or promises of the organization, that is completely inappropriate. In addition, routing the traffic through a private site allows that site to collect the IP addresses and search terms of all the traffic, a very serious privacy and data collection issue. Furthermore, it is a single point of failure for potentially every online cited source in Misplaced Pages. If doi.org goes away in the future (lack of funding, lack of interest, squabbles, who knows what), Misplaced Pages would suffer immeasurable harm. If doi.org is taken over by a faction with different aims and values, Misplaced Pages would suffer immeasurable harm.

    This is a very, very, very bad idea. --MCB (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not sure the WP:EL guideline applies here; it explicitly does not apply to inline citations (section 1, point 4, as of this writing). ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I strongly oppose a permanent ban that prevents manual execution of the bot. DOIs are a useful tool that permanently identifies journal articles; they are now essentially universally used in the academic publishing industry. DOIs are much less likely than URLs to rot in time. To the extent that the bot adds DOIs to existing citations, it's a very useful tool for aiding in a process that I often do manually and that improves the permanence of references to academic sources.
    I also like the behavior of removing the url parameter when (and only when) it is identical to the URL that the doi resolves to, although I can see the arguments against that action. It is something I do manually when I notice it. Removing non-identical URLs is certainly not a good idea and is not something the bot is designed to do, although it has bugs that sometimes do remove non-identical URLs.
    However, the automatic, unsupervised running of this particular bot has had a number of troublesome bugs that may or may not be resolvable; I won't make a strong statement either way about (dis)allowing that. ASHill (talk | contribs) 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    This bot has been nothing but positive when it's come across my watchlist. DOI has very wide acceptance in online publishing. Removing these very useful links with the concern that it promotes an external organization seems akin to me of deleting CC images because they promote the Creative Commons. In other words, it's a widely accepted standard and we're basically just following best practice in using it. Thus I'd also be opposed to banning this bot, but agree that it's preferable to leave the previous url when adding a doi, and other improvements should of course be considered on a case-by-case basis. --JayHenry (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I left a note about this discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Discussion about DOI bot. It's certainly possible I'm totally wrong about the merits of DOI and, if so, these people will be able to set me straight. --JayHenry (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I too am very happy with the changes I've seen DOI bot make, and oppose permanently blocking it. The short explanation for DOIs is that (with rare exception) they are permanent links to the official repository of an academic paper, while URLs often point to copyvio sites and, even when they point to the publisher's official site, are often invalidated when the publisher changes their addressing scheme. I find DOIs very useful as a way to reliably access papers referenced here. Also note that some respected non-commercial academic societies such as the Association for Computing Machinery and the American Mathematical Society have extensive bibliographic databases in which DOIs are used for all external links to copies of papers; not only do they provide an example that I think we should follow, but the fact that they use them makes it easier to also use DOIs here when using those databases to research article content. I very strongly object to any suggestion that DOIs should be seen as violating WP:EL. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    (ec) Most of the complaints I've seen with regard to this bot seem to involve the removal of URLs, something that doesn't seem to have been directly addressed in the original bot approval discussion. I think it might be a good idea to just disable that feature: the only disadvantage to doing so is that we'd sometimes end up with two links to the same page in one reference, while the advantages would include both the reduced likelihood of bot bugs as well as the retention of alternate resource identifiers in the unlikely event that the doi.org resolver service ever breaks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    • It needs to be manual or more subtle or modified . DOIs are indeed the accepted academic standard, and not using them would be like not using ISBNs or OCLC. I would certainly support an automated bot adding them. However, since the doi goes to the publisher's usually subscription version, and there is often additionally a link to an acceptable convenience version that, pace David E, is generally not copyvio, but a author's version in a legitimate repository, etc., the link should not necessarily be removed. The only links that should be replaced by the doi are those going themselves to the publishers version. Otherwise, the doi should be added as an additional field. We need the doi as the reference standard to the official electronic version just as we have references to the printed version when available. But we do & should always give links to a legitimate free version in addition if we can find one. DGG (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    I think some of the discussion above misunderstands some of my concern. To take some of the points individually:

    1. I'm not sure what is meant by "manual execution of the bot". Bots are bots, and manual edits are manual edits. We don't consider Twinkle or AWB to be bots; they are software assists for manual edits that an individual editor is accountable for. I have no objection to people using a tool to add DOI or other information to citations, but those edits should be reported as by the individual editor; these are shown as edits by DOI bot, which implies it is running in an autonomous fashion.
    2. There is no comparison with Creative Commons or GFDL or anything like that. Misplaced Pages does not rely on Creative Commons or its organization, it merely adopts its suggested language for a particular set of copyright licenses. If CC disappeared tomorrow, Misplaced Pages would be unaffected; the licenses would still be in force, and could continue to be used: there's no dependency on the organizaton or its web site. With DOI bot replacing URLs, however, if doi.org disappeared, there would be immediate, significant harm to Misplaced Pages. It makes us dependent not merely on the DOI scheme itself, but on the operation and maintenance of the DOI.org web site. Even if it has a short outage, all the munged URLs will be dead until it comes back up. Not a good policy.
    3. Simply because an organization is nonprofit, or its aims are laudable, or it is well-respected or well liked, does not mean that its URL and web site should be added to thousands of Misplaced Pages articles. The effect, even if well meant, has the effect of promoting the organization and driving web traffic to it.
    4. The privacy and data collection concerns have not been addressed. Are we willing to, in essence, send the IP address and subject matter of the reference of every Misplaced Pages user who dereferences a DOI-modified citation, without notice and consent, to a third party that is not under the control or scrutiny of the Wikimedia Foundation? Also, not a good policy, and deserving of exceptional scrutiny. --MCB (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The analogy to CC is that we do not store copies of their licenses (the legal text, I mean), but rely on their repository to both provide it and keep it stable over time. Likewise, every CC licensed image includes a http link the CC site and as far as I know no one has every suggested that this raises privacy or data collection fears. The answer to the rest of your points is simply yes, it is appropriate. The DOI system in an internationally maintained and recognized ISO standard that has become a fundemental standard across the scientific publishing industry. That standard relies ultimately on a single, distributed database accessed through dx.doi.org. In using the DOI system, you can't avoid dx.doi.org any more than one could effectively use the internet without using DNS. The usefulness of the DOI system outweighs your hypothetical risks. Dragons flight (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Re point 1: This bot can either be told to run on an individual page by a user (manually) or set to run automatically on all articles that use Template:cite journal. Manual use implies that it's immediately supervised by the user who ran it, so that user implicitly takes responsibility for any inappropriate removal or URLs or other inappropriate action by the bot. (That responsibility could be made more explicit.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Re point 4: There is at least one other DOI resolver (http://hdl.handle.net/) which we can switch the templates to use if dx.doi.org goes down or has (or in the future adopts) a troublesome privacy policy; because we're using templates to construct the URL to resolve the DOI, it's (comparatively) very easy to change all the DOI links on Misplaced Pages. ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    More re point 4: The DOI system was designed by the publishing industry largely to serve as a universal means of linking to their papers, so if we're linking to the journals, it doesn't seem terribly different to link via DOIs. In fact, at least the Astrophysical Journal (chosen just because it's the journal I read most) uses DOIs resolved by dx.doi.org for links in references in its papers—even references to other Astrophysical Journal papers. Moreover, every external link on Misplaced Pages, including DOI links, has the external link symbol, which implies that the link points beyond the control of Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia Foundation; a concerned user can check the URL before clicking. The external link symbol seems like notice to me. ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm also a bit unclear on the scope of the privacy concern. Are you suggesting that a) all DOIs should be removed from Misplaced Pages, b) all DOI links should be removed from Misplaced Pages (keeping DOIs as text information only), c) only humans should add DOIs to citations, or d) something else? ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I like the idea of a DOI bot, but it shouldn't remove a URL just because the URL happens to resolve to the same resource as the DOI. It's fairly common to supply doi= for all citations, and to use url= as well for freely-readable papers. That way, a reader can easily see which papers can be read without a subscription. A bot that removes url= simply because it happens to resolve to the same location breaks this common style convention. This point is discussed in a bit more detail at User talk:Smith609 #DOI bot problem with issue=, pages=, date=. Eubulides (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with Eubulides. It is a common convention, esp. on medical articles, to provide a direct URL only if the text is free. Removing that URL loses information, even if the DOI ends up at the same location. Colin° 09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Some comments on the above:
    1. The "manual mode" of the bot is a bad idea, since it makes it completely unclear who made an edit, since the edit is recorded as having been made by the bot. An automated tool like this needs to make sure that the edit is recorded as having been made by the user who invoked it, with the edit summary noting the use of the tool. This is what is done with Twinkle and WP:AWB and is needed for accountability of both the user and the bot.
    2. I'm surprised to learn that copies of the CC licenses are not kept on Misplaced Pages. That is unwise and should be remedied. The full text of the GFDL is kept on Misplaced Pages.
    3. Supposedly the DOI bot is only dealing with actual journal citations to journals whose publishers are involved in the DOI project, but that is clearly not the case, and the bot indiscriminately edits all sorts of citation which happen to use {{cite journal}}. Besides the policy issue, the bot appears to be broken and I have changed the block to indefinite pending, at least, repairs. Consider these recent edits:
    In addition to the other issues I raised, DOI URLs are totally opaque, and give no clue as to the actual host of the material, or whether the host matches the citation. We do not use "TinyURL" or "SnipURL" URLs in citations (or other services which redirect URLs and conceal the actual host server). There's no reason to encourage them in the case of doi.org; like TinyURL and SnipURL, we are depending on the security of an outside organization for the integrity of our references. --MCB (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    (Dedent) While I don't like the idea of the bot removing the URLs of sources, I am strongly oppesed to having an admin to block an approved bot because they don't like its purpose. The bot messed up an edit, but if it is approved and is performing tasks in the method descirbed in its approval-request then the bot should not be banned. It should be debugged and returned to service.

    That said I don't like the idea of removing urls and I would have objected to this bots request. We can build cite tags (titles, publishers, dates) using an external database but don't build a Rosetta stone I have to look at every time I want to read a source. --Lemmey talk 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    As far as blocking the bot - the bot is not doing what it was claimed to do in the approval process. The specification given in the approval was to add DOIs. It was not stated that it would remove URLs. User:DOI bot/bugs#Current issues Since it is making changes that it was not clear it was approved to make, stopping it until it can be fixed or pending approval of its extended changes seems appropriate. Zodon (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Eubulides. Axl (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Proposal

    So, in order to try to come to some resolution in this, and balance the usefulness and wide acceptance of DOIs with the privacy, security, transparency, and data integrity issues for Misplaced Pages, I'd like to propose some changes to DOI bot that would have to be implemented before it is restored to operation (in addition to fixing the current problem with malformed citations).

    1. The bot may only edit citations where the reference is to a publication included in the DOI system.
    2. The bot must not remove or alter an existing URL.
    3. The bot may add a DOI reference to a citation.
    4. Ideally, the DOI should be rendered to display after the anchor text of the URL, with "DOI" as the link text, or (as with PDFs) a symbol indicating a DOI link.
    5. If the bot is used as a tool in "manual mode", the resulting edit must be attributed to the user who invoked the bot, with an annotation like "(using DOItool)" or similar.

    I think these answer some of the policy concerns while maintaining the usefulness of the tool. --MCB (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Can you provide an example how of #4 would look?--Lemmey talk 04:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I would amend this to allow the bot to remove urls of the form (doi server)/doi (where doi server is dx.doi.org or doi.acm.org or another of a small list of known doi servers), since urls of this type do not provide any useful alternative to the doi, but to leave any other url in place. And your "Ideally, the DOI should be rendered" has nothing to do with the bot, is out of place in this proposal, and should be taken to Template talk:Cite journal and Template talk:Citation. I have no particular objection to your other points. In fact, I was under the impression that your other points were mostly how the bot was supposed to behave in the first place. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with MCBs proposal. Also agree with David's modification (formatting should stay out of this, removal of URLs to known DOI servers is acceptable). JFW | T@lk 07:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I struck out #4 above, which, as David Eppstein and Jfdwolff note, is beyond the scope of this discussion. The intent is that where there is both a normal URL and a DOI link, the user would have the choice of which to follow, but that is an issue with template rendering, not with the bot. I'm unclear on "removal of URLs to known DOI servers"... does that mean the case where the only URL already in the citation is to a DOI server? --MCB (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment
    Three points as the bot's operator:
    1. The erroneous edits last night were a result of a faulty patch to address issues of "messiness" in the code; I got distracted for 30 minutes when I thought I'd fixed it, and when I returned to check the edits realised I hadn't. I thought I'd reverted all of the erroneous ones, and apologise for those I missed!
    2. If there ever does prove to be a failure with dx.doi.org, the {{Doi}} template can be amended accordingly;
    3. It's going to be about a week until I get time to fix the patch, so there's no need to rush to a verdict!
    Thanks, Smith609 Talk 08:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Point #1 seems overly restrictive, and redundant given the other points. Before going haywire, the bot was making good edits where it e.g. fixed PMID syntax () or filled in missing details even if it couldn't locate a DOI. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I could see adding PMIDs to the list of permissible citations to edit, since that's a similar system. What I was getting at was that the bot should not attempt to edit citations where there is no actual journal reference (even if the citation happens to use {{cite journal}}), and that that should be enforced in the software. You would think that might be redundant, but how else can edits like this or this be explained? The bot should not be editing citations like that, even if invoked manually by a user. So I would like to see that limitation in the software. --MCB (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, that's what you mean. Yes, the bot shouldn't try to reinsert citations it hasn't changed back into the document (even if this wouldn't make make any difference in the absence of bugs like the recent one). But that's more of an implementation detail, really, rather than a substantive restriction of the bot's scope. In any case, it should take at most two lines of code to fix. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Also, I'd like to request some clarification of point #5: do you mean the bot should list the invoker's username in the edit summary, or do you actually mean it should make the edit using the invoking user's account? I was going to say the latter isn't possible (without extra software installed by the invoker), but having thought about it a bit more, I think it almost is: while MediaWiki will refuse to save an edit without a valid edit token, it should still be possible to provide a button the sends the user to a prefilled edit form (in either preview or diff mode), which they'd then have to save themselves. This would, in effect, completely separate the manual interface from the bot, except for them using the same DOI-finding backend. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, I mean the edit should be made using the invoker's account. That's how Twinkle and AWB work, as well as the "undo" functionality in MediaWiki. A prefilled edit form, as you mention, would be fine. If somehow that can't be done, listing the invoker's user name in the edit summary would be a bare minimum. --MCB (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The thing about TWINKLE and AWB is that they're not bots per se; they're programs, akin to user scripts, that everyone who wants to use must first install for themselves. You can't use them just by clicking a button (although, with the recent availability of TWINKLE as a gadget, it does get close). A closer parallel to DOIBot's manual mode, as currently implemented, would IMHO be what Sandbot does. But yes, the prefilled edit form trick could be a nice solution, assuming it actually works like I think it should. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    The proposal seems reasonable.
    • I don't think that it should be allowed to remove URLs of the form noted by David. Removing these URLs might make the entry less usable by other tools, or by editors who were not familiar with the DOI system. There may be other tools that use URLs, but don't use DOIs. Also it means editors would be pushed towards using DOIs over URLS. (Most people working with the web knows how to use a URL, most people don't know off the top of their head how to resolve a DOI - e.g. you can't necessarily just copy it and toss it in another browser tab to see where it goes when you are in the middle of an edit.) In some cases there could be reasons why editors would prefer some DOI server over another, for instance to work around problems in the DOI system, etc.
    • The item about removing or altering an existing URL might be softened a little. It might be reasonable to allow the DOI bot to do copyediting of URLs to known DOI servers. (i.e. if a URL to a doi server is misformed it might be permissable to correct it. But not change it so that it used a different DOI server, or change an item that doesn't use a DOI server to one that does.) If there are identical URLs it might be permissable for it to remove duplication. (However if this is too difficult to codify clearly, no objection to leaving it as proposed.) Zodon (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    While I don't mind a bot adding document identifiers, this is the only function for which DOI bot was approved, and the bot is going beyond that mandate. By not restricting itself to only adding document identifiers (and doing so without barfing), it has revoked its approval.
    Further (slightly OT but addressing some of the points mentioned above), I recommend a consolidation of doi handing such that...
    a) DOIs not turn the title into a link but instead appear just like ISBNs and OCLCs at the end of a citation.
    b) that {{citation}} and {{cite yaddayadda}} not link to doi.org directly but instead use a template ala {{doi}} that could then generate links to one of the doi servers (pseudo-randomly, so WP would not appear to favoring one or the other).
    -- Fullstop (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have yet to see a principled reason why it's bad to turn the title into a link, in the case when a direct url is not also listed. "We send traffic to a commercial site and commercial = bad" isn't convincing. What is the rationale for making the DOI visible, rather than just hiding it and letting it work the way it's supposed to? However, I would support changing the templates to use an interwiki link ] instead of a direct URL, if someone else will undertake to do the template hackery and thorough testing needed to make this work. I'm less happy with {{doi}}, though, as it has complications with DOIs that have angle brackets in them — it needs to be given two differently-encoded versions of the DOI in that case (which is I believe why it still uses a direct URL instead of the DOI: interwiki). Possibly the same issue would make it difficult to program the templates to use the interwiki. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


    Back with bots, I've summarised a more comprehensive list of DOI bot's current capabilities at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/DOI_bot_2. I would welcome constructive comments related to the tasks the bot would perform there, in the usual fashion. To summarise: the bot will add missing parameters to any instance of the cite journal template, where it can determine beyond reasonable doubt that the parameters are correct. This includes adding a URL parameter, since consensus here suggests that this will at worst cause no short-term harm. It will also remove duplicate (but not blank) parameters. Smith609 Talk 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Vandalism on Special:UserLogout

    Just a heads up ---- looks like there's a bit of vandalism (or a big gaffee) on "Special:UserLogout" page. When I pull it up - it prompts me with the default "You have new messages" prompt - however the link that this banner goes to is someone elses page (specifically - it's a userspace for 66.151.41.1 ). I tried to pull up that page while logged in, however, it won't let me fix the gaffee. Perhaps that's an admin only thing!

    F.U.R hurts Misplaced Pages 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    That is very likely the only thing. When you log out of an account, you are "logging in" to an IP's contributions. So, someone on your IP has new messages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Is anyone as worried about KoshVorlon's polemic in his/her signature? Should he/she be asked to change it? Corvus cornixtalk 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Review of topic ban on User:DemolitionMan

    Following a WP:AN thread a couple of months ago, DemolitionMan (talk · contribs) was placed on a topic ban on British Raj related articles. This followed a RFC and a a previous editing restriction confirmed here. On the last thread it was stated that the restriction would be reviewed in two months time, now. I'm looking for a consensus of opinion on whether the topic ban can be lifted, or should remain. Thanks. Leithp 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    A quick review of the editors contribution history shows very little editing since the topic ban anyway, so lifting the topic ban shouldn't be troublesome - unless they return to the previous editing problems (in which case it is re-imposed longer/pernanently). I would point out that I was involved in some previous discussions - and may be included in some of the links, but haven't bothered clicking them - as a fairly neutral party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think the topic ban could be lifted if DemolitionMan is willing to express willingness to follow policies and abide by any community restrictions. One of the links above suggests he never recognized the 1RR as actually applying to him. In the thread about the topic ban he does not seem to recognize any problems with his editing or any desire to cooperate in the future. For a recent nationalist POV edit on Kashmir see , for which his edit summary was 'rv vandalism.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    And on the talkpage: I don't think that he's quite ready to acknowledge that changes in his editing are required. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    His response to the review is here. Leithp 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Honestly, I don't care if my ban is continued or lifted as I don't see myself editing articles on wikipedia except for correcting grammatical errors. I take "facts" expressed here with a pinch of salt and usually double check them in another resource now. The views expressed here are more subjective than objective and I think that is a humongous shame. To elaborate further on what I said to Leithp - I personally think that this board is a sham - despite there not being a consensus last time, the ban was upheld on basis of comments by POV pushers. And I think Leithp was the plaintiff, judge and jury last time around - he will be one this time too. The ingrained racism masquerading as political correctness is painfully obvious to me and I am not going to bother civilizing him or his cronies. Honestly, they are not worth my time and effort. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Apparently problematic user

    I figured I'd post this here since I don't exactly know what the right thing to do is in these circumstances but User:CheetahKeeper persists in posing as an admin/bureaucrat, and just reverted my edit removing the false information. -- Mentisock 23:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    I have removed the boxes from their userpage, alerted them of this thread, and left a warning here.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks. -- Mentisock 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Take a look at the user page. The user says s/he has joined various other Wikis. Only one other has been joined and it was Wikispecies. I just wanted to mention that. Rgoodermote  23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes I was aware of that. However, this obvious forgery indicates the user is being obviously deceptive.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah I noted that in the talk history when I went sniffing around. Wondering how anyone could think they could get away with that. Before I become a nuisance have a good one.Rgoodermote  00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The username CheetahKeeper also does not exist in many of the Wikimedia projects they listed. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well, that didn't last long... — iridescent 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    So we have deception and forgery here. Thats obvious, but was any actual harm done? Did the user use his faked credentials to give weight to his edits or discussions? If not I think the only actual resolution here is for somebody to explain what he did was wrong and for the rest of us to point and laugh at him. CheetahKeeper -> Cheat a Keeper(wikipedia? keeper of information) --Lemmey talk 05:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I took a look at the recent contribs of CheetahKeeper and reverted a few block notices on IP talk pages. -MBK004 05:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Block Notices in 'I am blocking you'?, 'I will block you?', or 'You may be blocked if you continue...'? --Lemmey talk 05:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The actual block notices that admins like myself use to notify a user of a block. -MBK004 05:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Then that is a clear indication of harm to users, harm to the authority/respect of admins, and harm to the image of wikipedia regardless of weather or not the user deserved any such notice. If I were in the position I would have instituted a 90 block. How old are the notices and can you provide links? --Lemmey talk 05:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    ←I also removed this banner in which she threatened to block anyone who changed the name of the article. I'm not familiar with the established consensus on that page, but I can't see it being compatible with either blocking policy or WP:BRD. --Bfigura 05:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Here are the two notices that I reverted, they seem to be a few days old: , . -MBK004 05:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    As these are still recent and overtly in violation of Pillar4-Code of Conduct I suggest a block of not less than 89 days. (On a lighter note I cut off a day because he is right about the tiger being Siberian.) --Lemmey talk 06:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I understand your concerns however am concerned that MBK has falsified information. i have never blocked anyone i have only merely suggested that they will be blocked if they continue there vandalism which i do believe ANY editor has the right to say/post, all i have ever done is revert vandalism, does anyone wish to deny or disprove that?? i think not. I have caused no harm and have infact helped in a small way to stem a number of vandals i have welcomed new users and helped them. I did not delete your notice it was infact archived ""http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CheetahKeeper/Archive_May_2008"" Your concerns are valid and i respect them.CheetahKeeper (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Er... "all i have ever done is revert vandalism, does anyone wish to deny or disprove that?? i think not." So how does impersonating Jimbo fit into that? — iridescent 12:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The statement "i have never blocked anyone" is only true because the community has never invested you with the tools required to block anyone. Looking at your edit history, you have a long pattern of impersonating administrators and leaving duplicitious block messages. This one was over a year ago. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Claiming to have blocked someone when you aren't even able to do that and impersonating Jimbo are certainly much more than "revert vandalism", and are completely unacceptable behavior. Aleta 14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I removed this warning issued by CheetahKeeper because the userpage in question (User:Mastersuccessfull) doesn’t warrant it. —Travis 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Deletion of local images already on Commons

    Attention, all Admins.

    When deleting an image, such as Commons:Image:Magdalen-cliffside.jpg (previously at Image:Magdalen-cliffside.jpg), with the reason CSD I8: Image exists on the Commons, please make sure that, when the source is given as the English Misplaced Pages, all the required information has been transferred to the Commons image. If not, please do not delete the local file until the Commons file has all the necessary information. This will prevent many cross-wiki headaches and ensure that many free images do not end up getting deleted because of poor image descriptions. (The example given is just an example of an image that was uploaded to the Commons from en.wp, not necessarily one missing required info.) Anrie (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Full instructions here. Make sure you RTM. :) GDonato (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have, but some admins here seem not to, so I thought I'd mention it here again. Anrie (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Template:In the news

    Can we use this image of the cyclone, Image:Nargis 01 may 2008 0440Z.jpg? Spencer 10:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    The source link says nasa.gov - makes it public domain --Lemmey talk 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

     Done Have a good day, GDonato (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks, Spencer 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    For the record, not everything on the NASA website is PD, only things created by NASA (this image was created by NASA, so it's fine to use). --bainer (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    For the record, Jersyko retires

    Resolved – Dereks1x sock blocked

    Admisistrator Jersyko just retired.

    My wife was harmed because of Jersyko's actions and requested him to resolve the whole situation.

    It seems like he made a defacto admission of guilt and withdrew from Misplaced Pages rather than try to fix the situation.

    Can you help to fix the situation? I am NOT here to fight so you can ban me but that doesn't solve my wife's problem. (You know this issue is genuine otherwise I would not know Jersyko retired so suddenly and he would not have retired so suddenly.) Nancyshusband (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I didn't mention what the problem was. If you are willing to help, just ask me and I will explain things to you. Nancyshusband (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Please don't be coy. State your problem. If you are unwilling to state your problem, we cannot help you here. I'm not going to jump into murky water without knowing how deep the water is. If this needs to be private, look into WP:OTRS. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    What is OTRS. I don't know how it works and if you need to download something, no thanks.

    From what my wife tells me, there are some adminstrators in Misplaced Pages who are considerate and some who treat people roughly and badly. I am looking for some considerate administrators who can help.

    Essentially, my wife was kicked out (sorry, don't know the lingo) of Misplaced Pages. Jersyko was responsible. It was such a bad judgement that I think Jersyko decided it was better to resign, retire, wipe out his user page history. This is telling enough.

    So my wife is trying to undo being expelled. She said she went through the usual method...talk page, e-mail. No use. Now that there are special circumstances (administrator leaving, guilty conscience?), can anyone listen? She said she is unable to post comments on her talk page (somehow an administrator has put a lock on it because she asked too many times to be un-expelled). Nancyshusband (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Again, what is your wife's username? This cannot be reviewed without some history, which would be at that user's talk page (as you note). UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Come to think of it, I don't know what my wife's username is. I'll ask her. I also don't hang out in Misplaced Pages often so forgive me if I don't respond.

    Here's what I think. If an administrator won't un-expel her and somehow restricted access to her talk page, human nature/wolf pack psychology is that most administrators aren't willing to do so either. The major new thing is that the administrator responsible for this problem is Jersyko and he has resigned. Does this convince any administrator to look into the matter more and then possibly un-expel my wife?

    If so, you need to talk directly to her as she knows all the details (but she can't talk here because she has been expelled, suspended, or whatever the term is). Nancyshusband (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    People join and resign from this project frequently. You are assuming that the only thing on this users plate is this situation you have described (which you have not even given us enough information to research). We are not mind readers, we dont know what you are talking about. Until you give us enough information to go on, we cant do anything. We need her username or we cant do anything. Thanks. Chrislk02 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    (ec) The fact that a blocking administrator has retired is not prima facie evidence of a bad block, deletion, or anything other than the fact that the admin has retired. I'm looking at Jersyko's Block Log here, and cannot find any indefinite blocks for which the user made repeated appeals (which would have triggered a protection for their userpage, as you indicate happened with your wife), nor can I find any discussion on Jersyko's now-deleted talk page that discusses a request to unblock anyone who matches your description. It's possible that Jersyko blocked your wife for a brief time, and then another admin increased the block to indefinite, in which case it would not be listed in Jersyko's log. Either way, we cannot review an individual block without knowing the username of the individual whose block we are to review. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, User:ForeverFreeSpeech appears to fit the bill of what he is describing althoigh the proection was by jzg. Chrislk02 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Good times, that's twice this week I've AGF'd a sock. Party. Bonus. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    For the record, the account in question is Watchingobama who sent me a long email begging for unblock. Im not familiar with the sock case here but will trust existing sock tagging. I also blocked the user from sending emails too. Chrislk02 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I see this has been resolved, but I wanted to confirm that I don't see clear evidence that User: ForeverFreeSpeech is related to Dereks1x, but that this AN complaint certainly does appear to be about Watchingobama - the latest in the ongoing Dereks1x sock farm to be blocked. The fact that Jersyko had nothing to do with Watchingobama (as far as I recall) wouldn't stop Dereks1x from making his accusation - the facts never stopped him before. And I see that Derek is back to the "wife/husband of" gambit again. Clearly the blocked "Nancy" is a Dereks1x sock, but on the chance that the blocked "Nancy" is some Dereks1x sock other than Watchingobama, I believe admins should be very careful regarding any unblock requests that come in, as he typically will write to an uninvolved admin who is unfamiliar with his m.o and make a convincing case.
    I also want to say that losing Jersyko - a conscientious and fair administrator who has absorbed a fair amount of abuse and false accusations from this disruptive sockmaster - is a blow to the project, and if it is at all a result of being harassed by this unrepentant user, I think it's a damn shame. I happen to know that the dishonest screed posted above is typical of Dereks1x's harassment and disruption, and is a reminder that his community ban should be considered permanent. Any thought that the fact that some time has gone by since the ban was initiated warrants giving him another chance (as was briefly discussed a few months ago) should absolutely not be entertained - he has spent the year creating and editing from many more socks, escalating it to the point of running for admin and - it appears - becoming one, albeit for a short time. This is a bad faith user, and he should be treated as such when identified. Tvoz/talk 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Enquiry

    User:Noahand has been spamming links while editing per his contribs Special:Contributions/Noahand . all his edits are putting referrences to that website. Is that website worthy enough of being put on Misplaced Pages? --Creamy! 16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Looks fine to me except on a cursory look they don't generally cite sources, but then neither does Britannica IIRC. Seems well-written, covering a range of topics, and as credible a source as many we use. --Rodhullandemu 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The problem to me is none of those links are used as sources. They are only external links appended at the bottom of all those articles. In some cases (e.g. E. D. Blodgett vs Blodgett, Edward Dickinson) their articles do contain more information than ours, so using them as sources would make sense. In other cases they aren't even usable as references (i.e. Leonard Cohen vs Cohen, Leonard). So it all looks like plain old link spamming IMHO.
    / Raven in Orbit (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    RyRy5

    Resolved – Apis (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yesterday, RyRy5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came to my talk page asking for rollback. It seems it was removed just over a week ago for the second time for reverting non vandalism. Has anyone previously been asked to give RyRy5 rollback? It smelled a bit like admin shopping to me, and I'm sure I recall this happening on previous occasions. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Just briefly looking at his user talk posts (checking the last 150, looking specifically for admin posts), it seems you are the only one he asked. He seems to be focused/focusing on his recent article that he created and that was nominated for DYK. I don't believe he is admin shopping. I also don't know the history of why he lost it, but judging on the post he left on your talkpage Ryan, I would assume he realizes what he did wrong and has made a promise not to "do it again". I would support a re-rollback. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    (ec) I removed it a month or two back, and he started asking other people for it back almost immediately. That's what he does. Honestly, I don't see any harm in giving it to him. He doesn't do any more damage with rollback than he does with any other kind of editing. I think he's a little kid, and so a week is a long time to him. I don't think he realizes these requests aren't all that reasonable. Friday (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Apologies, Friday, I didn't look that far back. I looked at his last 150 user talk posts, as I assumed Ryan (Postlethwaite - they're both named Ryan) meant recently has he been admin shopping. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'd still class in the last couple of months as recent to be honest. I was really interested to see if anyone had discussed admin shopping with him previously. He probably doesn't know it's not good practive. On the giving him it issue - I see no problem with that really, he does seem sincere and it can easily be taken back. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    his admin coach discussed it with User:Neil when he gave it back the last time, I suggest asking him on the issue TravellingCari 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I was in on that last discussion - I don't think anything fishy is going on, and it's probably been long enough since the last request... Tan | 39 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Don't necessarily think there's anything fishy, but last time he asked (and asked) until he got the answer he wanted. I think SteveC had reasons for thinking he wasn't yet ready and may have something to add to why. I'll notify him of this discussion TravellingCari 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed. We should not bend to harassment here, which is what he's basically doing. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe PersianPoetGal/Girl has warned RyRy5 in the past about Admin shopping for rollback. Its one of the flaws of RFR that any admin can give it out, without knowing all the past situations, maybe a stronger removal log note. MBisanz 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally, I would strongly dissuade the restoring of his rollback so soon, as I am not personally convinced in his adoption, that he can yet differentiate between what is/not vandalism, as seen in his adoption. Although he is slowly making some progress, I feel he's still not ready for rollback. While I'm not an admin, I feel that as I'm his adopter, that my opinion should be considered. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • As much as I've appreciated RyRy's growth in the last few weeks (giving him a barnstar no less, something I rarely if ever do), I agree with his adopter, S.Crossin. Whatever the community decides is fine with me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That being said, RyRy, according to his talkpage, has just been rewarded with his first DYK, something I've yet to accomplish. His heart is in the right place, and I would strongly oppose any sanctions against RyRy. I personally won't be granting rollback, which is a ridiculous and misunderstood tool anyway, but at the same time, I will definitely go to battle for him if he is being inappropriately targeted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Too big a deal is made of rollback. It does nothing that can't already be done with Twinkle, with the undo button, or indeed by hand. If someone's going to edit war or remove things inappropriately they're going to do that with or without a rollback right. I saw someone make a hilarious comment on a thread like this before that went along the lines of: "Does anyone ever get reverted and think 'He rollbacked me?! damn, an undo I could have taken, but this is just too much." -- Naerii 23:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    This is off topic, but I totally agree with Naerii on this one, and have stated so a few times elsewhere. All the discussion, admin time spent, and drama over this function that won't cause an editor to revert any fewer or any more edits seems rather silly. Tan | 39 23:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    I also agree with Naerii on this. Rollback, as a "right", is stupid. I've used it maybe 10 times, and I've been "rollback approved for months. Give it back to RyRy. He wont' abuse it. It's a meaningless "right". (which makes me ask --Tan, do you want it? I'll change your userrights so you can try it out. Let me know. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    My opinion on rollback is that Twinkle renders it mostly irrelevant. However, it is the fastest way to revert edit(s). Since it's more powerful than the Undo button, it's also more controlled, and that's why I'm much more concerned if someone rolls back a good faith edit, than if they undo the same edit. Finally, rollback leaves no edit summary, while you can leave one when undoing an edit. Reverting someone using rollback is basically saying "I consider your edit to be vandalism or at least vastly unproductive." Enigma 23:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    RyRy came to me about 2 weeks ago or so asking to have rollback reinstated, my advise to him was to contact the administrator who removed it. After contacting User:Friday, he found the same answer that I was going to give him: "no". While he has improved a great amount over the past few weeks, I do not feel it is time to give him rollback back, nor would I trust him to use it. 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Tiptoety
    • (ec) Hello. I'd just like to say that I will not use rollback on edits that I am not sure of (As SteveC C. taught me in a way). Instead, I will either leave it alone or use popups/undo. I cannot use Twinkle since I use IE. And just one other think from Friday's comment. I am not a little kid. I will not give my full age but I am older than some users think. I just feel 10 days is a while to me. I've been stadying/reading up a bit from Steve Crossin's vandal program and figured out some stuff. But I won't use rollback activly, but mainly on page (article and project space) blanking.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Then why do you even need rollback if you are just using popups for the same thing? Tiptoety 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    RyRy, I've added rollback to your user rights based on your post here on AN. If you misuse them again, I'll remove them myself, and probably block you from editing altogether. Be extremely careful in how you use rollback, my reputation, as well as yours, is on the line. Don't let me down. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you. But the block, I don't think I should use it very often now, at least until my adoption is over. Also, how long will the block be?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    You're not being blocked, RyRy. Malinaccier (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    (ec)Ermm....does it really matter? Just do not abuse the tool (which I do not think you should have), and you will never need to know. Tiptoety 01:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Malinaccier is right. You are not blocked. I'e given you rollback (aqain). If you misuse it, then you will be blocked. Don't misuse it. As far as you're concerned, rollback is for vandalism only. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Think of yourself as being under review. If you abuse it, you lose it, and there's quite a few people watching. That being said it's been long enough since the last shot that I think it's warranted to try again. Orderinchaos 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Just a note: I sincerely hope that the information I provided here will help RyRy5 to understand when and when not to use rollback and what does and does not constitute vandalism. —Travis 03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Friday wrote, "I think he's a little kid, and so a week is a long time to him." This comment does not help the situation at all. It is an inappropriate personal attack. Please be more civil, Friday. Bstone (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yet another exaggeration of WP:NPA? John Reaves 03:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Here's a thought. How about we mark this discussion {{resolved}}, and get on with other things? The issue here was RyRy's rollback, whether it should be restored, and whether he was admin shopping. He wasn't. His rollback has been restored. Is there anything else about RyRy that needs to be discussed here? If not, then please mark this as {{resolved}}. Just my 2c worth. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet

    Resolved – sock blocked

    Atyndall93, Sockpuppeting, suspicoun on using one account for deleteing then recovering it (for points). To make it less suspisous he has been reporting them. Please see his history of editing for my proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobonoob (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    An admin might want to make a quick review of Bobonoob's contribs; it does not bode well. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Eh, indef blocked. Nothing to see here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Move archive screw up

    Resolved

    Hello, it appears there was a problem with the page archive when the article Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy was moved to Jeremiah Wright controversy, in that the archive was not moved with the page and is not linked. Here is the archive; should I simply move the archived page to match the new title, or is there something else? A response would be much appreciated. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Page moved and archive box added to talk page. You can do this yourself next time. Please ask if you have any questions. Carcharoth (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    FYI- This issue is discussed at Help:Merging and moving pages#Talk subpages. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 10:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Request for BAG membership

    I've posted a request for Bot approvals group membership here, comments are appreciated. Mr.Z-man 05:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    And, I have nominated Krimpet here. If folks would, please provide input there as well. SQL

    Question re: URL structure

    Anyone here with a good understanding of Internet redirect practises? I've just removed a few URLs placed by User:Siliconshrew (contribs) that don't meet WP:EL. In the process of checking them out, I noticed that a) they are all registered to the same person, Wayne Smith of Australia (yes, apparently the Wayne Smith); and b) a check of the source code shows that they all just seem to be "wrappers" (for want of a better term) for the content from other sites with different owners. (For example, ganjagrower.com appears to wrap around ozstoners.com, masterwho.com wraps around internationalhero.co.uk, and so on.) The user has had issues with external links before, and this seems... odd. Any thoughts? --Ckatzspy 07:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Quacks like Universe Daily to me. Ban away. MER-C 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks - the link was helpful. Found a few others as well. Cheers. --Ckatzspy 09:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    You should have reported this much earlier... An edit like this as their first edit is pretty much a dead sock giveaway. :-) Grandmasterka 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    BAG Candidacy

    I have accepted a nomination to be considered for membership in the Bot Approvals Group. Please express comments and views here. MBisanz 08:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Complaint against user "Treelo"

    Resolved

    Yesterday I added a new section to the "Hungarian language" article about use of politness constructs in that language. That is an important topic, similar to the situation in the japanese language, yet it lacked any mention in the artice previously.

    Literally within just two minutes, user:Treelo deleted my new additions from the article, claiming it was "non-constructive", even though it is impossible to read my additions in such a short time, as the material was more than half a page's worth.

    I told Treelo on the talk page he is a jerk to delete material without actually reading it and not asking for expert help if he is unfamiliar with judging a particular topic. Definitely no one should run amok over Misplaced Pages like an elephant in the china shop.

    I wish to have my additions restored! Thanks in advance, Regards: Tamas Feher from Hungary. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    There are a few concerns with the content you added. Regardless of the appropriateness of the addition to the article (and its relative length), the biggest problem I can see with your addition is that it lacks sources. Please see WP:Original research and WP:Verifiability for more information. Treelo does seem to have reverted your edit hastily, without much forethought and with a total lack of any explanation, though, and should be more sensitive about performing such reverts in the future. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    PS, this might be a Huggle problem. Treelo, you may want to slow it down and be a little more careful when using that program, as it makes inadvertently reverting constructive edits very easy. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, right, not certain how this made it to AN/I. Anyway, apologies to you Tamas, I did remove your edit and also read your comment you left but that was my mistake and down to not reverting it once I had done it and also getting a rash of comments from actual vandals whilst using Huggle and dismissed it in the same way. I have reinstated your contributions and will still try to exercise more caution if/when I use Huggle in future. --treelo talk 10:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 29

    Resolved

    I noticed that in the logs for the AfDs that need closing (WP:AFD/O), April 29th is absent, though April 28th and 30th are present. This would not be an issue if all the debates were closed, but there is a very large number of debates on the 29th that remain open, yet the day was never picked up by the bot. I would like someone to either find a way to get the bot to re-catch it, or some people to help me close them all, since they're apparently hidden. Wizardman 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Weird. I'm on it. (closing debates, not fixing bots)... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, bot is working. Added 4/29 to WP:AFDO, ran mathbot, picked up the opens. Seems resolved? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yup, resolved now. Was apparently never originally added, but it's good now. Wizardman 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Community-imposed revert limitation?

    Miyokan is currently blocked for 10 days. I suggest he post his comments on his talk page and someone can copy them over to here.

    Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    This chap's an incorrigible revert-warrior, with eight blocks for edit-warring under these 2 different accounts, and a good deal more edit-warring in his contributions that he has not been blocked for. He can write ok content, but when it comes to disputes goes completely haywire in a manner both tendentious and disruptive. These disputes are usually related to recent Russian history and contemporary Russian politics, due to his intense Russian nationalist perspective. I suggest we, as a community, formally limit him to one revert per page per day for a period of a year, excepting obvious vandalism. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Support generally in any cases like this. This is the best way to keep people that would or could otherwise be decent content editors from being totally booted. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Always better to try to reform than ban, so I support. MBisanz 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Nice to give this user some time to think about himself. This user has been doing the same thing on other articles and with other users. I have been watching him for some time now, so I think this should do some good. — NuclearVacuum 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Object - too strict. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support As a person's history of problems gets longer and longer, there is an expectation that something will be done. Proper enforcement of the policies may have a beneficial effect on a number of intractable disputes, especially those that involve strong national feelings. This revert limitation seems rather innocuous compared to blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support. Sounds quite logical. Qst (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Why not hit them gently with the carrot, rather hard with a big stick? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - Seems logical based on his constant conflicts, users that edit war over politics are usually the harder to convince otherwise. Carrots? - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose - A year is a bit much, and might as well be permanent. If this is to be a temporary injunction in an effort to teach a lesson (and it should be), it should be a month or two at most, for now. The user can then be blocked or the time period stepped-up if they still don't seem to be "getting it". Equazcion •✗/C • 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Concern that it would do more harm than good. I've interacted with user:Miyokan on South Ossetia where he was a very positive force in that article to add much needed neutrality. From what I can see from Turkey it looks like Miyokan was in the right however he did make more than three reverts in 24hrs. Eventhough he's not a new user he might not understand the whole dispute resolution process as it is complicated to figure out. I suggest someone explain the dispute resolution process to him and let him know how to deal with situations where he is right without repeated reverts. My concern with moving the electric fence to 1RR might just mean more frequent crossing of the electric fence. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Dispute resolution is not that hard to learn. He's had eight blocks in just under a year. That's enough time to get to grips with the rules. Moreschi (talk) (debate)
        • If the longest he's been blocked for is ten days, I would rather see more stepped blocking first, rather than resorting to this exotic sentencing idea. The logistical complication this creates just isn't worth it yet. In other words, I'd rather block someone for 2 weeks and then a month and then 2 months, rather than create a "special situation" for an entire year. Imposing 1RR on someone for a year is in a way a punishment for everyone else who has to uphold that restriction. Again it's not worth it yet. He hasn't had to sit through any substantially tough blocks yet, so let's see if one of those gets the message across first. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Plus: I think the point of the suggestion is to be more lenient with this user, but I think the method is somewhat misguided. I have a feeling that given the choice, he would rather take even a month block than have to walk on the eggshells of 1RR for an entire year. I know I would.Equazcion •✗/C • 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Geonotice getting backlogged

    Misplaced Pages:Geonotice has open requests dating back to March. It appears that the geonotice maintainer, Gmaxwell, has gone on extended vacation (hasn't been seen on Misplaced Pages in weeks) and he's turned off his Misplaced Pages email. Is anyone else capable of executing Geonotice requests? Kaldari (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    I have no idea how these are implemented. Does anyone else? Stifle (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    We could disable it by commenting out the "Geo-targeted watchlist notice" section of Mediawiki:Common.js. However, the notices themselves are run on Gmaxwell's toolserver account, so having someone else maintain them would require a toolserver account and probably duplicating his code. In other words, it wouldn't be easy. Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Greg's very involved in Wikimedia technical issues, but not editing Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Geonotice basically works now by me personally e-mailing requests to Greg, which started because I was the most frequent requester (I suppose it's somewhat of a dysfunctional process). I've already e-mailed a few days ago (said he was on it), and, responding to this, I've just pinged him again.--Pharos (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Cyclone Nargis‎

    This high profile news story has been subject to some fast moving vandalism this morning, and I'd like to request a few people add it to their watchlist (which is probably preferable than protecting a major current event). Dragons flight (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Noted. Thanks for drawing attention to this. For reference, any significant increase in disruptive edits should be reported at Requests for page protection, where an administrator will take action. Anthøny 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Iantresman

    Iantresman was indefinitely blocked after 5 hours' discussion at WP:CSN last July. The ArbCom declined to hear an appeal of the block. However, a syllogism:

    • Major premise: A user is considered community banned as long as no uninvolved admin is willing to unblock them
    • Minor premise: I am willing to unblock Iantresman (talk · contribs · count)
    • Conclusion: Iantresman is not considered community banned.

    As such, I propose to unblock Iantresman under the following conditions:

    1. Iantresman is subject to a 1RR restriction on pseudoscience-related issues, which is to be considered broadly. He may make no more than one revert on any such page in any 24-hour period.
    2. Iantresman's probation instituted at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation is reinstated until 2008-09-23, the remainder of the one-year period after deducting the time from that case until the indefinite block.
    3. Iantresman is placed under the mentorship of Stifle (and two other users to be determined), who may, by unanimous agreement, terminate this arrangement and restore the indefinite block if it is determined that the arrangement is not working.

    User:Coppertwig has agreed to be a second mentor; open to suggestions for a third.

    Bearing in mind that the worst that can happen is that Iantresman restarts the conduct for which he was banned and is then reblocked indefinitely, I would hope that we can give him a chance to continue as normal member of the community. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    • While the subject may no longer be considered ban, by the fact that you would unblock the editor, I suggest that you do not have consensus to perform that unblock. To unblock without consensus, or otherwise the agreement of the blocking admin, would be to Wheel War. Since consensus is required, I would support unblock as proposed by you on the basis that the third mentor should be a neutral third party - not familiar with the editor concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ian was a major edit warrior and all-around headache. Arbcom would have us believe "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work." If past experience is any guide at all, Iantresman's renewed participation will make that aspiration more difficult to achieve. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Certainly, but that experience is nearly a year ago. What is to say that he has not changed? If his behaviour simply carries on where he left off, then he simply gets reblocked. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think you need to get consensus to overturn in order to unblock, if the last consensus was to ban. Seems like there has been a few admins of late that disregard this concept. Maybe I've been reading the banning policy wrong all this time, but I thought there was a difference between a community ban (brought about by discussion) and a de-facto ban (an indef block no one is willing to re-consider). The latter can be overturned by an admin willing to do it, but the former needs a new consensus of the community (or those willing to weigh in) to make a change in the status of the user. R. Baley (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC) BTW, I oppose lifting it at this time. R. Baley (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally, I would object to Coppertwig being a mentor for any kind of contentious or aggressive editor as he already has shown an inability to control such difficult, abusive editors in his support of such an editor who took over the Che Guevara article during and subsequent to its FACR, an editor who still owns this article with Coppertwig's support. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • We really need to update WP:BAN policy. I'm not casting any aspersions on this situation, but it's getting rather obvious that the definition of a ban as "something no other administrator would undo" has become completely unwieldy. There are what? 2,000? More? administrators on en.wp. Again, no aspersions on anyone in this thread, but getting 2,000 people to agree on ANYTHING is nigh-impossible, even the obvious. Therefore. this definition is one that is not completely clear and gets in the way of the functioning of a smooth-running encyclopedia. Ban appeals should be reviewed by ArbCom. If they decline to take up a ban appeal, then I say that is the final answer on the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I am going to have to agree with Fozzie on this one. Iantresman has had two separate ArbCom appeals rejected. That says a great deal more about this case than I feel Stifle or Coppertwig will acknowledge. Clearly, this is an editor who has proven to be disruptive and has shown little hope of changing his ways. The articles he used to frequent are better since his absence. I know I am not an admin, but I am strongly against an unblock. Baegis (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Iantresman is a rather good example of a civil POV pusher, who has long history of tendentious editing on Plasma Cosmology and related or similar articles (Eric Lerner, Redshift quantization etc). Some of his project-space contributions also suggests he views policy discussions as an extension of his promotion of pseudoscientific topics. I fail to see any how he as an editor or Misplaced Pages as a whole would benefit from the proposed mentorship. Neither would a topic ban on science and scientists be a workable solution, as he has shown no interest in editing articles outside the domains of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Therefore, while he no longer can be considered banned, he should remain indefinitively blocked. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If we are going to take that approach, we need to ban everyone, and work out a way to only let back in the people where "Misplaced Pages as a whole would benefit" if they were editing. That would not just include POV pushers, but also those who over-zealously guard particular areas and fail to work with other editors while doing this, with predictable consequences. Good luck with that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The CSN discussion is archived at Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10#Iantresman. Remember that the community killed off CSN because it was frequently used by teams of partisan editors as a votes for banning exercise, often without waiting for uninvolved participants to comment. That discussion was flawed from the outset; we've since learned that the multiple editors the opening statement described him as disputing with were all sock-puppets of the same user. When we eliminate the opinions by the rational skepticism meatpuppet team, all of whom are involved editors, not uninvolved; we realize that there never was a consensus of uninvolved editors in the first place. I said in the more recent ArbComm case that they should accept the case because they could impose topic based restrictions more readily than the community could. However, I think Stifle's proposed 1RR restriction is good enough, and thus I support the unblocking on those conditions. GRBerry 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Could you name the specific editors in the "rational skepticism meatpuppet team" so the rest of us could take this information into account when reviewing the evidence? Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    AIV

    Resolved.

    -Keegan 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    'tis backlogged --Gurch (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    The bot is also failing to automatically change the backlog tag. xenocidic (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Request for watch for vandalism

    Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Sceptre/allpages - I'm getting harassment by ED readers and it's spilling to autoconfirmed accounts doing the abuse. I can't get it admin-protected because I wouldn't be able to edit it myself. Sceptre 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    You can get the anti-vandal bot User:ClueBot to check edits to non-mainspace pages by adding them to User:ClueBot/Optin. Hut 8.5 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:I'm On Base

    I'm concerned that this editor is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but rather user it as a MySpace. His contributions show that he spends all of his time in userspace, and none in mainspace. He has started giving a challenge on his userpage. When I asked him about this challenge, I made a point that instead of telling other users to edit an article as a part of a challenge, he should work on the article himself, and ask for help if he needed it. He responded by telling me he is not a good editor, and telling me to be bold and edit the article (which were my words in a comment to him). He has since blanked his page, but you can see my comments in his talk page history, and his comments on my talk page. He recently has had his IP blocked, and I believe been accused of sockpuppeting, I think. He also had an RfA, which he tried to re-open a few minutes ago, and opened an RfB for himself immediately after he tried to re-open the RfA. King iMatthew 2008 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Update: He added a fair-use image onto his userspace, and I removed it, explaining that a fair-use image is not allowed on a userpage, and twice he reverted. I gave him proof that it is not allowed, he asked me if I'd like help editing an article to "make up for it." I then politely said that I was fine, but he should edit the article he used for his challenge. A few minutes later, he changed his challenge from editing an article, to creating a "cool" userbox by Sunday. King iMatthew 2008 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Uninvolved admin needed

    Resolved – Topic ban is extended to an indefinite topic ban. Pseudoscience probation extended to one full year (from today). Block may be extended for likely abusive sockpuppeting, pending checkuser results. — Scientizzle 01:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Could a previously uninvolved administrator review the discussion found here and close it out? Anyone taking the task may also wish to review the discussions found here and in the sections below it. Thanks!!! Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Regarding Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage:

    I just added my name to the applicants' list there. I also noticed that User:Guerilla In Tha Mist did too more than a week ago, but no decision in either way has been yet made for him, while another user has already been approved. Since the page says If the list contains entries that are over 48 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN, I thought I'd do so. Just wanted to let you know. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 02:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Urgent

    Resolved

    I need to speak with someone, anyone on email immediately. This is urgent.--Urban Rose 02:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Go for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    How can we help you? Tiptoety 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    I just sent Ryan an email.--Urban Rose 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for your email Urban. I've dealt with the issue and it was certainly a very important email. I've responded to you with further details. Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Wikifun

    Any complaints to marking this as historical? It hasn't had a substantive edit in nearly a year, and has had only 15 edits in more than two years. Plus, this doesn't exactly help the encyclopedia, and if it were created today would probably end up as a WP:SNOW delete at MfD, or at least a userfy. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    I went ahead and put it up on MfD: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikifun. If that fails, then marking it as historical seems like a good idea. -- Kesh (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Is this appropriate?

    Resolved – All sorted out now.

    After being notified that the article Pheo-Con‎ was put up for AFD, Jack Cain (talk · contribs) copied a pre-AFD version of the article into his userspace, which also included linkspam and WP:BLP violations that has been removed from the original article. Is this appropriate for Misplaced Pages, especially since he is preserving the original version of the article? --Farix (Talk) 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    BLP applies to all pages, so go ahead and remove the violations ASAP. --Haemo (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    And it's a GFDL violation, among things. You can't just do that. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    I blanked it for now. It should be deleted really (the GFDL violation) and notified him of this thread. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that userspace was "open" for storing things like this. I don't see what the problem is. Jack Cain (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's a GFDL thing - I've explained it on your talk page. Neıl ☎ 10:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Marked as resolved. Neıl ☎ 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    removal of RfA comment

    Resolved – Non-contentious removal --Bfigura 05:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Since the community has repeatedly upheld Kurt Weber's right to comment in RfAs as he sees fit, I'd like to draw admin attention to the following: KojiDude (talk · contribs) had opposed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig like this.

    Tiptoety (talk · contribs) first replied to KojiDude's oppose, and in turn supported the RfA here. He then went on to remove KojiDude's !vote instead, while Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) decided that the !vote and the entire conversation doesn't even belong.

    Now back to Kurt Weber: Either, or. All, or none. Which is it gonna be? Dorftrottel (talk) 04:37, May 7, 2008

    The user clearly stated that their !vote was a joke, and they were going to remove it in the future. It was in no way constructive and was disrespectful to the candidate. And as such I saw no harm in removing the !vote from the RfA. Tiptoety 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    We've established many times that people are entitled to comment however they want but it's hard for me to get really upset over the removal of a joke vote. I wouldn't have removed it myself since we usually don't even remove sock votes unless they're extremely disruptive but rather just strike and indent them with a note explaining it was a sock for the closing crat. Unless they're really disruptive or violate policy, I think comments should be left and the closing crat can ignore it or weight it as they wish. But I find it rather ridiculous that people are even arguing over a joke vote; seriously, it seems like a pretty trivial thing to be bickering over. Sarah 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    I concur the vote was tasteless and inappropriate. Humor is welcome at times, but not in the form of an oppose, which, quite frankly, was confusing and of course lead to an unnecessary clutter of commentary, hence why I choice to remove the conversation and place it within the discussion page. I did not simply delete it. Wisdom89 (T / ) 05:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please understand that I did not remove the !vote, but instead just striked it. I found it tasteless and inappropriate in that venue. No harm done, now lets move on? Tiptoety 05:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    The difference between Kurt's opposes and Koji's is that Kurt makes his opposes in seriousness. I don't care either way if Koji's oppose stays or goes but I do know that it's definitely not worth opening an AN thread about. -- Naerii 05:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Naerii, Kurt is making a serious point, the joke is a poor one and disrespectful of the candidate. It was correctly removed. Dean B (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    I also have to disagree with this "all or nothing" wording. One is obviously made as a joke, and the other is a serious point. I strongly support the removal of the vote. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 05:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    So I trust that we can all move on then. There seems to be general agreement that the analogy to Kurt's oppositions is wholly inaccurate. Shall someone mark this as resolved? Wisdom89 (T / ) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE

    Resolved – People are allowed to create articles, no admin intervention needed. Al Tally (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    I don't know if this is a policy violation or not, but User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE has created more than 90 (and the list is growing) new articles in the 2 hours with only the content

    '''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' is a ] in Bangkok, Thailand. ] {{thailand-stub}} {{museum-stub}} {{asia-struct-stub}}

    see his contributions for more.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yep that is quite normanl for User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE. Normally he does towns and villages though. There is usually a few people working around him to fill the rest. As far as the notability of museums is concerned it might be worth revisiting the articles in a couple of weeks. Agathoclea (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Category: