This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Linuxbeak (talk | contribs) at 01:03, 3 November 2007 (→I'm back!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:03, 3 November 2007 by Linuxbeak (talk | contribs) (→I'm back!: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

Current issues

Dozens of bad-quality edits as a result of a coursework assignment

It seems that a lecturer/tutor at Macquarie University has set his students an assignment which involves adding contributions to Misplaced Pages (see page 25 of this).

In recent days, this has resulted in large numbers of bad-quality, unsourced, POV essay-like edits from multiple new accounts (all containing "mas214" in the username); see e.g. the following edit histories: , , . (There are too many affected articles to list them all here...)

This was originally suspected as sockpuppetry, hence User:Icairns reported it here: Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/TUMAS214; this report contains a list of the accounts involved (20 so far).

Any ideas on how to deal with this? Using Misplaced Pages as a testbench as part of a coursework assignment is just bad form; should we contact the tutor involved?

Regards, Oli Filth 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just treat them as normal editors, explaining how they can improve the quality of their contributions. A.Z. 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that these particular students will never use these accounts again, hence, will never read their talk pages, etc. But this problem will recur every time this course is run, which is why I suggest that the tutor be contacted. Oli Filth 16:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Tried that. The problem is they disappear as soon as they're done with their work, and none have them have tried to talk to any of us. The main problem, I think, is the root of this -- they're writing essays to put into wiki articles, which just isn't kosher because essays are POV'd almost by definition. I think the professor needs to understand and explain to the students that they should be adding cited facts, not essays. If they do that then this would be a great way to have the encyclopedia improved once a semseter. Gscshoyru 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict — The response depends in part on what the assignment was, I think. This could be used as a learning experience in the area of collaborative working or the value of business rules (only using the term as it's generic = specifications for action and contribution) as part of an information product. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to give into the temptation of blocking the users and forgetting about it, but that's not really in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I believe we should contact the course tutor and tell them that Misplaced Pages is free- they can make their own copy of relevant articles and host them on their own server for people to add to. Or if the tutor insists their students should add to Misplaced Pages, we should inform them they'll keep getting blocked and reverted if they don't follow our policies. --Deskana (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how they are any different than other new users who don't understand what we are about. 1 != 2 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the individual users are transient. It's the fact that they're being "forced" by a tutor to edit en masse. In effect, it's organised vandalism (albeit non-malicious). Oli Filth 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the "forced" comment - this would appear to not be a voluntary editing activity. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deskana, and the forced comment -- and additionally, Until, the other major difference is that they post what they need to and then disappear, and never see the comments we leave them. Gscshoyru 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Posting and leaving is common amongst new users. It is a good idea to contact the university, but I don't think these users pose any sort of unique challenge to us. 1 != 2 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is true. However, it theoretically has the possibility of becoming a constructive source of content. Which is why... we should contact the instructor. I think we're all agreed on the "contact the instructor part." Gscshoyru 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, like all new users they have a tremendous potential to add to Misplaced Pages. We also have the opportunity to influence their behavior and expectations before they edit and never come back which is a good thing. 1 != 2 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem as he essentialy lets his students loose after telling them "here's how you create an account, here's how you edit, now go wild". If the assigment did at least mention ever so briefly, say, if I can only choose two, at least wp:npov and wp:v... I think that properly handled, these assignments could potentially be a positive contribution to wikipedia. Does anybody know if he himself is a wikipedia editor?--victor falk 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As a professor, this whole thing intrigues me. I was thinking of having my students next semester do an assignment where they had to add one cited sentence to a relevant wikipedia article. Is this not welcome? I think an assignment like this could benefit both wikipedia and the students. Or is it just an issue with the specific assignment? Rangek 18:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it has the potential to be useful, I think that in all probability, forcing a bunch of newbie editors to go round making edits may result in more harm than good. The above is an example of this! From the professor's point of view, I don't understand how this could make a good assignment; why does it have to involve editing a public website? What's wrong with normal essays? If the students get an essay wrong, no-one else has to sort out the mess. Oli Filth 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is much easier to grade 200 sentences added to wikipedia than it is to grade 200 2-3 page essays. Plus, I would hope that if the student added nonsense to wikipedia the professor would revert it as they graded it. (Eliminating or at least minimizing the "someone else sorting out the mess" aspect.) Also, I would think it a public service to add a hundred or so cited, relevant, sentences to wikipedia. Scholarship (even in this most modest form) should be shared, not just relegated to the classroom. I also think that it would make the students work harder, since their work will be "in the public eye". Rangek 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With no disrepect intended, if 200 essays is too much work, then why not get the students to each hand a sentence in on a piece of paper? Regarding the "professor reverting", as we've just seen, inevitably that's not what would happen. In this case it took 3 or 4 editors to figure out what was going on and try to undo 2 weeks' worth of damage. And unless the prof happens to be an experienced Wiki editor, they're probably not in the best position to judge what is/isn't appropriate for Wiki. I agree that scholarship shouldn't be consigned to the classroom, but at the same time, Misplaced Pages isn't a testbed for experimentation and foul-ups that professors should be falling back on to save themselves some effort. If the students' work is good enough, then add it once it's been graded! Oli Filth 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit on something here. It could be some kind of wikiproject maybe? If mentored properly it could be a great way of fostering good editors. Here's some interesting info Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2006-12-26/Wikipedia and academia Just a caveat: I'm afraid it could increase the risk of articles becoming academic instead of encyclopedic.--victor falk 20:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Under Misplaced Pages:School_and_university_projects#Suggested_exercises there seems to be a project just like I was thinking of doing, i.e., having students add cited sentences to wikipedia articles. I don't think we have to worry about "articles becoming 'academic' instead of 'encyclopedic'" with contriubutions from an introductory level class. Rangek 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth making some kind of an effort to track all these university-lead edits? I know that a friend of mine has a similar assignment task at his university, involving editing wikipedia. Although this has some potential to really improve wikipedia, i do wonder if we should compile a list of known assignment tasks and which topics they cover, to help us keep an eye out for a flood of bad edits. As a side note, does this in a way fall under the category of meatpuppets? Hugzz 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As you folks have eventually found, the question of how to deal with students, professors and assignments in Misplaced Pages is not new. I was one of the folks who kicked this off in 2003, and as you can see from the above page it can be pulled off successfully. I hope you will not go with your earlier sentiment and try to prevent this type of dynamic from happening. Professors need to give good guidelines and learn about the Misplaced Pages community culture, rather than just telling students, "Go wild," but you should know it can be done well. As to the earlier comment by Oli Filth, despite what you'd think, grading stuff on Misplaced Pages is about 5x harder than grading individual handed-in assignments. Think of tracking what account is what student, doing all the diffs, figuring out the quality of an edit versus others, et al. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have been using Misplaced Pages now with my students this semester and it is really a great experience for English as a foreign language students. We have had to adapt to Misplaced Pages culture as well as improving writing skills. My class fits in well with the notion of taking time to adapt the students (and the teacher) to Misplaced Pages norms but I can understand why some classes may not want to "waste" time in that way.Thelmadatter 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted the instructor yet? There is still a lot of this stuff coming in. - Ehheh 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. If no one has then I think I shall do so. And the assignment is due today, so it'll stop after today. But it'll make us better off next semester if we explain this. Gscshoyru 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the useful things about school assignments is that we have the potential to explain to the teacher how to do it, who then will show the students. Our present tutorial material are actually quite useful for this, especially WP:FIRST. But if anyone wants to a specialized page, let me know and I'll help. One of the problems they have is finding appropriate topics that are course related. for some course it might be tricky, but I think anyone experienced here could help make suggestion--mine would tend to be bios.--it's adaptable to almost any course subject. (It occurs to me that we might have a button for "missing articles possibly related to this one") DGG (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, he finally responded. Here's his response, intermixed with my letter. His response looks pretty good, I think.

Hi Gscshoyru
> Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:AN#Dozens_of_bad-quality_edits_as_a_result_of_a_coursework_assignment
Thanks for passing on the link to this discussion.
> Though your assignment has the potential to be a useful source of
> content for Misplaced Pages, currently, most, if not all of your students'
> contributions have been reverted for violating policy, most
> specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:NPOV and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:CITE. (Please keep in mind when
> grading this assignment that any user's contributions can always be
> viewed in the history of a page, which can be gotten to by clicking
> the "history" tab at the top of the page.) Specifically, your
> students' contributions are essays, which inherently argue a point of
> view by design, and though they do cite verifiable, reliable sources,
> their citing style doesn't follow Misplaced Pages's specified citing style,
> or sometimes their essays are not cited at all. The citing issues are
> relatively minor (though they need to be addressed as well),
> but the point-of-view issues are the real problem.
For context, the assignment was designed so that students would properly engage with new media technologies and get a better understanding of the way wikipedia functions. (They were also required to create online presentations using publicly available tools.) As far as the wikipedia assignment was concerned, it was hoped that they might actually make some useful contributions in areas relevant to their study.
We did discuss creating our own wiki, but there are pedagogical advantages in contributing to a public forum - not the least of which is the fact that "something is at stake". Giving the evolving nature of the new media and the ways users are being encouraged to actively participate in content generation, the wikipedia exercise was designed to allow students to engage with a significant part of the "web 2.0 machine".
> Content in Misplaced Pages should
> be in the form of facts, backed up by sources -- not the form of an
> argument, even if backed up by sources. It would be best if this
> caveat would be explained to your students carefully -- though in your
> assignment sheet you tell them to "keep it neutral," you may not have
> fully explained what that means, and since this is a college
> assignment, any written papers will be written in the form of an essay
> because that's what they've been trained to write. (I know -- I'm a
> college student myself). If you explain the citing and writing style
> to the students beforehand, and grade them on their adherence to them,
> then your assignment could be an excellent source of new content in
> semester to come, which would be welcomed.
You've made some fair points. Whilst we did encourage neutrality, it could have been better emphasised and contextualised. And yes, our students may have adopted an argumentative stance out of habit. (My experience though is that no matter how often you explain matters of style and substance, students will do what students do!!) However, we should have included your NPOV (and other) tutorials in our course guide, and overtly focussed on its contents elsewhere in the course material. And we could definitely have considered an assessment criteria which takes such guidelines into account.
> Please take a look at the links I gave you -- the first one especially
> may do a better job explaining than I can, and please respond either
> here or in the discussion I linked you to. Or both. We await your
> response.
>
> Gscshoyru

Again, thank you for the comments. We hope to run similar assignments in the future (and I suspect others will too) - although it will be much modified based on feedback from tutors, students and of course, yourselves. I think such assignments have the potential to be useful for both students and wikipedia.

Best Regards
Sherman

And that's that, I guess... if anyone has anything else to add or respond, say so here. Gscshoyru 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's funny that this issue was raised on October 28 and in the course guide (linked above) it says it's due on the 31st? Some people left it a little late I think. :) James086 12:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who successfully made it through college, I'd say the dates are within normal expectations. The majority of papers and assignments are usually completed in the hours before they are due -- for many reasons. -- llywrch 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert war at Featured picture removal candidates

see Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length. Any thought? The Placebo Effect 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss this with MER-C, but he refuses to respond to me. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

revert to the debate closure of Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length?

On a side note, any reason why I shouldn't revert to the 01:44, 29 October 2007 revision and protect this page from editing? That's when the debate was closed. I am feeling like spanking the people who continued arguing there afterwards. Seriously, discussion pages are here for something... (I know this is not AfD, but...) -- lucasbfr 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

go ahead, i would have done it, but i voted. The Placebo Effect 14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I support reverting to the debate closure by MER-C and protecting (if needed). The discussion had grown stale with no new points being raised or addressed, which is why I had suggested restarting the nom. With a new version on the way, there is no point in restarting, and none of the edits since has been constructive. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody is yelling, I reverted to version by MER-C at 04:30, 29 October 2007. I did not protect because I trust you guys to behave -- lucasbfr 18:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. If you insist, please move the additional comments to the talk page. -- Ned Scott 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AWB request list needs processing

Please, process the AWB list because it is 4 days old. I am impatient to use this nice software. Lantonov 07:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an administrative issue. Please post to the application discussion page. JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 11:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Jody, but it is an administrative issue - only admins can approve users, I think by adding the username to a protected page. The instructions tell the users that if their request is over 24 hours old, to mention this (nicely) at WP:AN. This is exactly what Lantonov has done. I would clear the backlog if I had anything to do with AWB, or just knew what the procedure was to approve users, and the criteria for approval. Neil ☎ 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It says any admin can do it, so I went ahead and approved three (including Lantonov). Cheers.--chaser - t 12:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I didn't realize that - thought it had to be approved by the folks at AWB. JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For your amusement

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales. Oh dearie me. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So who is going to step up and close this? This is outside the realm of dispute resolution since the engaged and aggrieved parties are not involved. We went through this with Essjay, need not repeat ourselves. Keegan 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried to close it. I think the talk page could be a useful centralized discussion location but as Jimbo has made it clear that he made the block as Jimbo (and not as just any other admin) then there is no real point to continuing. Thatcher131 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's deeper symptoms here, but not from Jimbo's side, there's issues from the other one. Jimbo has a grant of trust from the community. That grant is made even stronger by the fact that he doesn't need it as god-king, but we freely give it regardless. The trust in the core philosophies of the community, as articulated by Jimbo originally and believed in by all who contribute productivly is what makes us us. There are failures of enculturation that have occurred in the last couple years, with new users who either fail to get or outright reject our core values. The all-prevelent wikilawyering used by, in this case trolls, and in other cases by users wishing to ignore the desire for free content or fanboyish rush to save unneeded articles is nothing more then a symptom of that. We are not a democracy nor are we anarchy. We are wikipedia. There are portions of the project, users whose goals place them at odds with the values we stand for, that are not in any way compatible with wikipedia. It's time to cleanse. 3 cheers for Jimbo. -M 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for always backing up Jimbo because he is the founder of the project, some of his actions as a admin/bureucrat (god-king sysop?) have been quite bold and I do agree that the desysoping of Zscout370 may have been overkill. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't defend him soley as founder, he took a needed step. Zscout isn't permanently gone, he get's his bit back in a few days, and honestly, he isn't dumb. I've talked to him before. He should've known better. A bad judgement, but we all make them, and that's how Jimbo appears to feel, too. He specifically said that Zscout remains in good standing, will get the bit back, and they just need to have a brief talk. Everything seems fine and we got rid of a troll. Where's the problem? -M 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Zscout already has his adminship back. Jimbo restored his rights within 24 hours. . - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not that Zscout is gone, it is the fact that the reason for desysoping seems invalid and looks like overkill. Zscout was desysoped for "wheel warring" but when one checks Miltopia's blocklog he only unblocked that account once , now I'm not complaining about the block but the desysoping was out of order, Jimbo should have tried to "have abrief talk" with Zscout before removing his sysop status for wheel warring that is clearly non existent. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Just once in a while, just once, we need to block a bloody troll and be rid of them, without everybody else screaming loudly about abuse of process, WP:BITE, giving extra extra extra extra long rope, rules, guidelines, precedent and all the other bollocks that we always hand to the nasty little bastards, scattering good editors to the four winds in the path of being "reasonable" to unreasonable, irritating little gits who will run to WR or WT to bemoan Misplaced Pages policy and how we all persecute them by tolerating them for far, far too long. This is the 9th most popular website in the world. It's time we started vaporising trolls with prejudice and stopped wikilawyering and extending pointless, pointless "I really mean it next time" extra chances just because, if we don't, all hell lands upon the admin/crat/godking who does. I'm sorry that Zscout got the shitty end of the stick, but, really, what did he expect? We should have no time for martyrs and no time for trolls. Badmouthing Jimmy and queuing to fuck him over isn't exactly building an encyclopedia. Or have people missed that particular minor aim of this place amongst the artificial drama? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly does this justifies the desysoping? I don't have anything against the block but what I'm stating hasn't received any kind of reasonable explanation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The people shrieking loudest about this (I don't mean you, Caribbean H.Q., I don't know you) are also the ones who shriek loudest about there being no process to desysop or that the process is too convoluted etc. These people want it both ways - immediate desysoping and death to those who would dare to desysop someone. This, I would say (and again I don't mean you), is part of the definition of trolling.

ZScout's desysopping was explained at the time: wheelwarring over the block of an obnoxious troll isn't on; and a quick desysopping (not unprecedented here) is something done to protect Misplaced Pages. Zscout got his bit back (others were not so lucky in the past) and remains in good standing with much respect from all valued editors. So that problem is over, unless people want Jimbo to be branded with the Mark of Cain or 6 years of consensus building to be swept away in order to replace it with 3 days of kneejerk reaction. These are possible, but I question how desirable they are.

Whatever, less whingy more writey is in order for us all (myself included - I'm typing this whilst uploading to Flickr photos I will later move to Misplaced Pages and write articles around. And updating my new iPod, but that's not important right now). ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wot Redvers said. Zscout is cool, if my email conversations with him are any indicator, Jimbo is comfortable that Zscout is a good guy, a serial drama creator / enabler is gone, and I find myself wondering why we are still kvetching about it. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the current policy on 'Secret Pages'?

I suspect this has come up before, and I don't normally care about such things, but looking at the autograph page above made me link to a couple of the signees, and I found many of them had text on their user page that say, 'Find my secret page!'. So I went to google, and got this result. While I realize a lot of these links are to user talk pages, congratulating them for finding it and things like people creating barnstars to congratulate each other, 10 and 20 pages down the search I'm still finding so-called secret pages. I *believe* that this has, in the past, been treated as silly but ignorable, but we're nearing 70,000 ghits on secret pages limited just to en-wiki. Is this something that can/should be dealt with, or is it just disk space use that we need (as in 'can't stop') to let slide? --Thespian 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE balanced against WP:COMMUNITY. If these are proactive editors who want to enjoy the community then why not. Bandwidth et. al. is not our concern. I personally think secret pages, signature pages etc. are a waste of effort, but if the editors who create them for themselves also create meaningful content / revert vandalism / identify CSD stuff / generally contribute then on balance I'd prefer to keep the secret pages if we can keep the editors. Pedro : Chat 21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

These editors often don't make useful edits, though. I'm fine with allowing useful contributors to have autograph pages or whatever, but if someone is using Misplaced Pages as a webhost or a game, then I'd say nuke 'em. Natalie 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the edits signing one of the pages is an administrator (@pple)! @pple does make useful edits.Miesbu 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(To clarify, I don't think the users should necessarily be blocked, but the time-wasting pages should be deleted and the user warned. Natalie 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

If they don't make useful edits, WP:MFD is what you are looking for. I would advise against a mass nomination of multiple users' pages - someone tried that with signature books I believe, it was a disaster. Mr.Z-man 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not commenting on individual issues. Autograph pages (as an example) may be contrary to WP:ENC but if the editor has made (arbitary figure) 200 good edits then let them keep it. If they've turned up and done nothing but work in their user space then that's an MFD issue. Per Mr.Z-Man wholesale deletion with or without warning will just irritate potentialy valuable future editors. Pedro : Chat 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm usually seen arguming for t olerance for editors expressing their individuality, but I think such pages and autograph books are expressions of jvenile lack of seriousness, and should be removed. expressing one's affiliation is fine; cultivating friendship related to WP is fine; obtrusive activities that have no conceivable relationship to the encyclopedia are quite another matter. Let's start as Z-man suggests, and go slowly, beginning with the worst of them. DGG (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the secret pages are the only thing an editor has worked on, I don't see a problem with it. I've certainly got a plethora of private pages in my userspace (though they're generally only private because I'm the only one that would find use for them). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the correct figure is about 300 pages not 70,000. Addhoc 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, though it gives 350+, not 300. It's not as bad as I thought, but I still think that's excessive (and won't count variant names and the ones I saw labelled 'Page of Secrets!' and such). The user pages that I peeked at that had these links were....messy, and it might also be my RL (I do user interface design engineering for software and web sites) that's adding to my reaction, since my first reaction to several pages was 'Dude, I can't find *anything* on your pages, let alone a secret link!' ;-) --Thespian 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 71,000 from en.wikipedia.org for secret page. (0.13 seconds)⇒SWATJester 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

May be, but a lot of those pages are just pages which contain the words "secret pages" – only about 350+ are actual secret pages. ~ Sebi 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are entire clusters of users who spend time doing their own secret pages and finding other users' secret pages and autograph books. I agree that the disk space and resource usage isn't a big concern, but it definitely seems like users come together in clusters. And there's a difference between private pages used for article development versus private pages being advertised with, "Find my secret page and sign it!" I've never asked anyone to sign User:Elkman/Cook County NRHP, for example. --Elkman 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its also really easy to find such pages if you know a user has one. Mr.Z-man 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that if users want to have them, let them have them. If it keeps them in a good mood and excited to get on Misplaced Pages every so often, that's great. Even if they only make a few edits while they're on, they're making a difference. нмŵוτн τ 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Secret" pages? What the eff is the point? They must not know about Special:Prefixindex. Delete the stupid nonsense as a violation of WP:USER. We should've done this awhile ago with the signature books: now the cancer is metastasizing. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care that much, but just an FYI: the good ones I've seen hide them well enough so that they don't show up using the prefix index. нмŵוτн τ 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, that's not possible...unless it's in someone else's userspace. — H ₂O — 09:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, a page of relating to secret pages that isn't a secret page, strictly speaking. ~ Sebi 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind people having secret pages, as long as they can be coaxed to contribute to the encyclopedia and not just each other's talk pages, etc. Perhaps there are some people who will join Misplaced Pages because of the opportunity to make a secret or autograph page, and then become productive editors. I do object to people treating Misplaced Pages as if it is nothing more than a game, and I think the secret pages of such users should be deleted. I don't know what the cutoff point for productive vs. nonproductive editor should be, though. People have different standards. --Kyoko 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of these "secret spaces"? User:Zscout370 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide you with an example of a secret page because it wouldn't be a secret any more. (Ha ha.) Actually, though, here are a couple example: User:Uchiha23/Secret Page, User:Penubag/Secret page, User:Efansay/Secret Page, User:Zenlax/Sandbox2, and anyone who's credited at User:Vic93/HiddenLinkAwards. Or, better yet, anything that links to Image:Missing barnstarPn.png. --Elkman 04:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with Pedro. The problem is, no one is going to police this (I mean, check to make sure that people who create or spend their time finding secret pages are also making quality edits). I agree that the activity as such is harmless .... but nevertheless i think it ought to be discouraged if not outright banned because it sends the wrong message. I think Misplaced Pages needs to tlerate if not cultivate a freedom of expression, but I think that that stops on the user-page itself. I think all other pages should have some relevance to the objective of Misplaced Pages, which is to build an encyclopedia. This includes sandbox pages and talk pages which yes, build community, but community organized around the common goal of building an encyclopedia by working on articles. Secret pages are just a game and one that trivializes Misplaced Pages. Surely Wikipedians who happen to like these sorts of things can join facebook or some other internet forum to support their pleasures. Let Misplaced Pages be Misplaced Pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Many talk pages, including those of adminstrators, are similarly guilty of idle talk, thanks, hellos, etc. The main difference is that they are not called "secret pages". Lighten up! Even one of the signers of a secret page is an administrator who has made useful edits. Miesbu 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Kmweber

I've blocked this user because of their continued disruption to the Requests for Adminship process. I think ] sums up quite nicely the reasoning behind this block. If any administrator wishes to remove this block, please do feel free, but I strongly believe we need to remove this disruptive user from the project and I would prefer discussion rather than outright reversal. Nick 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Kmweber - edits to the WP:RFA namespace are the disruptive edits in this case, btw. Nick 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Giving an opinion on an admin candidate (even a misguided one) at RFA is not disruption. That's exactly what RFA is for. Friday (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, it is disruptive. Nick was less giving than I was, and I support this. We simply do not have time for this trolling for attention. Mercury 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The disruptive part I see is people getting bent out of shape over it. He's entitled to his misguided opinion; he's giving it in the place designated for such opinions. Friday (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The designated place to try to disallow self-noms is the WP:RFA talk page, not on the RFAs for self-nominated candidates. Mr.Z-man 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, my below comment. This needs to stop from this editor. Mercury 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on this particular block, can we please not turn Jimbo's words on the RfC into some kind of excuse to go on an all out witch hunt? If you can't justify a block without referring to a comment from Jimbo, the block isn't justifiable. - auburnpilot talk 23:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can, with respect... the disruption comes after folks telling him time and time again the comments are not welcome, and not needed. Kmweber continuing to comment after that, is disruption to the project. If an unblock occurs, I may open an RFC, or request arbitration on the matter. The petty disruption has to stop, somewhere. Mercury 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I wasn't commenting on this block. My point was that if you can't find a reason to block somebody within project policy, a Jimbo comment is not your salvation. I have no problem with this specific block. - auburnpilot talk 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. His opinion was that all self-noms are power hungry which assumes bad faith, especially as self-nomming is explicitly allowed in the process. The opposes had nothing to do with the users' contributions or possible value as an admin. The way he was doing it was a very WP:POINT-y way to get the process changed. Mr.Z-man 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who self-nominated and has spoken negatively regarding kmweber's opinions in the past, I cannot endorse this block unless he's done something more than just express his opinion. While we can certainly argue against such an opinion and do our utmost to ensure that it does not become prominent, we should not act as thought police, banning those who merely think differently than we do. Expressing an opinion in a forum specifically created to solicit opinions is not disruption. -Chunky Rice 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

People who post opinions with the perceived intent to make a point disrupting a process is trolling. This is blockable to prevent the disruption. We are not the thought police, but editing is not a right. Mercury 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing disruptive going on here. Making a point is fine. It's only when you create a disruption to make that point that there is an issue. What exactly is the disruption here? He voted like everybody else? -Chunky Rice 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The disruption is the knee jerk voting, and the provocative way the vote is worded. Power hunger is a bad faith assumption. A string of nine oppose votes pasted, is disruption if the argument carries no weight and comes with a bad faith assumption. There is no need or time for this here. Mercury 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good block, I was going to suggest something similar earlier today when I saw he was back. What he is doing is a very pointy attempt at disrupting RfA and quite frankly, it's more trouble than it's worth. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If an editor held the position that all schools are inherently notable (a position held by some, but not supported by policy or guideline), and subsequently voted to keep any school article that came up for deletion, should we ban such an editor for disruption? -Chunky Rice 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If the opinion is made in such a way as to disrupt the project. Yes. Mercury 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how this voting in an open vote is disruptive? -Chunky Rice 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its supposed to be more than just a vote, you are supposed to have a good reason. To use your example, if someone goes on every open school AFD and pastes in the same response on all of them, implying that the nom was made in bad faith, that is disruption and an abuse of process. Mr.Z-man 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but your hypothetical only works because it's disruptive to accuse people of bad faith without evidence. If he copied and pasted the same argument about how the nomination was wrong, then that is not disruptive or abuse of process - it isprocess. --TheOther Bob 05:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This block only makes sense to me if he's a kook. I'm generally in favor of blocking kooks; they do more harm than good. But one idiosyncratic opinion is not a good indicator of kookery. Is he continually unreasonable? Friday (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on my observation of the archives and prior discussion on this behaviors, yes, I would say so. Unreasonable. Mercury 23:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. He makes no edits at all, except to RFAs. That I find a problem. Users who are part of the community should be giving their opinions, not drive by opposers. I'll put it bluntly - he is not qualified to be making such decisions on RFAs. This is obvious because nobody shares his view on it. The general consensus is such votes are harmful and so, the block is good - he is "harming" the editors of the encyclopedia. Majorly (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I consider that a very dangerous precedent to set. I don't want anyone blocked for only caring about one thing, nor do I want the community to be defined in such a way as to only allow qualified individuals to participate in community issues. --TheOther Bob 05:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Support block, virtually no mainspace edits to redeem weeks of what can only be described as trolling. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So this guy has a negative opinion on self-nominated RFAs. How does this at all affect the encyclopedia? He does not seem at all disruptive, unless someone can show me some more substantial diffs.—AL 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the contribs. The opposes are very recent. See my above comment regarding bad faith assumptions and trolling. It is not the opinion. It is the trolling and the ABF. Mercury 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there is already an RFC on this exact issue at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kmweber, how about making a case there that he's doing more harm than good, and let people think about it for a few days. Maybe he should be unblocked temporarily to participate. I can't deny there's some support here for the block, but indef may be a bit hasty while it's still being discusses. Friday (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block — I view RFA trolling as prima facie evidence of deserving a block. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If he's trolling, it's a clear case. In the RFC on this exact issue, nobody made a case that it was trolling. Nobody has presented diffs of trolling here. Friday (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block? For expressing an unpopular opinion at RFA, really? Obviously he's out to make a point, but has he actually made a difference anywhere? Even doing this to apparently a couple dozen RFAs I can't imagine that even one of them would have passed had Kmweber not said: "No self-noms". The disruption (to the degree there is any) is mostly by annoying the community. That said, we are talking about someone with almost 5000 edits scattered sporadically over 3+ years, and just before being blocked he was productively copyediting. I don't see any credible way in this case to jump from "Hey, we'd like you to stop" to an indefinite block with no intermediate sanction. Dragons flight 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't fall into the trap of thinking indefinite means infinite. It's only indefinite until he announces his intentions to stop disrupting RFA. It takes a real knucklehead to keep doing something long after everyone has told you to knock it off. He can't honestly say he was surprised at this outcome. --Cyde Weys 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Everyone told him to knock it off"? Read the RFC, two dozen people told him that casting unpopular, ideologically motivated votes was acceptable the last time around. Given the feedback he recieved there, I think the outcome here can legitimately be considered surprising. Dragons flight 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Response from Kurt

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kmweber, I was perfectly justified in believing that the Misplaced Pages community did not view my actions as disruptive and blockworthy. Since that RfC, nothing had happened to indicate to me that the community consensus had changed. At the very least, then, it was absurd to block me indefinitely without warning. If the consensus has changed and what I am doing is no longer acceptable, I will stop--but neither at the time I did my most recent opposes nor when Nick blocked me was there absolutely anything to suggest that.

I'm willing to stop at least until this matter is sorted out, and if community consensus indicates that it is not acceptable then I will stop altogether. I'm aware that consensuses (consensi?) can change; the point is, though, that there was no reason for me to think that it had. At the very least, a warning, giving me a chance to stop, would have been appropriate before blocking me for engaging in behavior I had every reason to think the community agreed was perfectly legitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an unblock based on the above. We can sort this issue with less drastic measures. Friday (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I will not support an unblock unless the editor makes a promise to cease the trolling altogether forever. Anything less then that will cause me to produce evidence and request arbitration in the event of unblocking. Mercury 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Going to arbcom to look for a topic ban might be an appropriate step. People are throwing around the word "trolling" without good evidence for this. We're all against trolling, that is not the issue here. The issue is that people disagree on what's trolling. Continuing to calmly express an unpopular opinion isn't automatically wrong. Friday (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't need ArbCom to ban him from RFA. We can do it through consensus here, but I would only agree to an unblock if it is a self-imposed RFA ban, not a forced one. Mr.Z-man 00:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd only support an unblock if he agrees not to comment on RfA's anymore, full stop. His comments at RfA are incivil and give no constructive critisism to the candidate. I could understand at a push if he was making some supports as well, but he doesn't, every single comment is an oppose and for the same reason - it's purely disruptive. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan, if he agrees to stop trolling, then unblock should go away. Jbeach 00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with a ban with all wikipedia namespace, as he trolled AFDs in the past as well. Jbeach 00:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Friday and read the existing RFC as basically saying that expressing unpopular opinion in good faith, even very stubbornly, is not a blockable offense at all. Discussion of whether that has changed (and a new RFC or RFAr) may be warranted. Unless there is something significantly more substantial and obviously troll-like than imitating Boothy (a historical user who opposed nearly everyone) then he should be unblocked. Dragons flight 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Kurt has already agreed to stop "trolling". ("There was an RfC on this earlier. On my own accord, I stopped engaging in the contested behavior until a very clear consensus emerged on the RfC that what I was doing was perfectly legitimate. I'll do the same again. I'll stop until this matter is re-resolved, and if it turns out that consensus is against me, I'll stop altogether. But if consensus is that I'm still in the right, why should I stop doing something the community as a whole believes is OK just because a few people don't like it?") I disagree strongly with an indef block for what I believe is good-faith concerns, however poorly worded or patently absurd they may seem on face value. Since when do we block people for expressing an unpopular opinion? east.718 at 01:26, 11/1/2007

Fucking awful block. Opposing self-noms isn't even remotely disruptive, and in my view is a very valid opinion. If you can't find a trustworthy user who is willing to go through your contribs from top to bottom and vouch for you, then maybe you shouldn't be at RFA just yet. How is expressing that idea an indefinitely blockable offense? I won't even go into comparing this with Mikka's recent pointy oppose spree in response to being blocked for edit warring, after which he was defended by everyone and their mother. I hate to assume bad faith, but is there an underlying disagreement here? Because I can't find basis for this at all, especially since the community consensus was already completely clear that it's fine. Curious in Cleveland, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to note that (as a current RfA candidate), I considered self-nomming simply because I wanted to present myself as 'I am ready, and choose to do this.' I had already had Llyrwch look over my history because I wanted to get a feel if an admin agreed with my self-assessment. When I mentioned self-nomming to Llyrwch, he said specifically that I'd get votes against me simply for self-nomming, so why do it, when he was ready to nominate me? I decided to go with that, simply to avoid having votes against me that were not based on my actual contributions, but instead made as a a WP:POINT. So do not assume that self-noms *haven't* had that look at them, that they haven't been mentored or worked with/under admins who have told them they're ready, etc. That said, though I disagree with the people voting against me for edit number count issues (a look at my edits often shows I do 20 edits in one spree; a recent one had 30 changes and 6 cites being added in one technical 'edit'), they're completely in their right to do so, and I don't think they should be stopped, though I likewise believe that the body of work, both size and breadth, is more important than things you can tell about a candidate in 20s (self-nom, edit counts, etc). --Thespian 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a terrible block, user had an RFC that produced no consensus toward this action. And then without a warning, a indef block? No too mention that the block has caused way more disruption then any number of his (misguided) opposes at RFA. An unblock is called for here. This is going way too far in punishing unpopular opinions. RxS 03:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't any less disruptive than previous RFA trolling by Boothy, Masssiveego, and Anglius, for example, and I'm pretty sure Kmweber has contributed far more good to the encyclopedia than that trio. Why can't we just ignore it like we used to? (Or just add a note saying "Kurt adds this to every RFA. No one agrees. It's easier to ignore it.")--chaser - t 03:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dragons flight. Given the outcome of the RFC, it's impossible for me to endorse this block.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For a point of comparison, User:Politics rule was far more trollish at RfA (he showed up one day opposing people based on made-up edit count stats, and got just a bit subtler after that, but he got people to actually listen to him), and we didn't block him until he turned out to be a sockpuppet. I dislike Kmweber's votes, but at least he is very clear about why he is making them so that you can disagree with him. This block seems like a case of "WP:IDONTLIKEHIM". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just a minor correction: Politics rule was not a sockpuppet; he was actually abusing multiple accounts to vote stack RfAs. east.718 at 05:47, 11/1/2007
While the repeated comments were certainly getting tiresome, the fact is that everyone has their own opinions on things; this editor should be free as anyone else to offer that opinion if he feels it's necessary. I'm fairly certain the bureaucrats can weigh his comment on its merit when they come across it. This block was, I would suggest, unnecessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Note. The question is of course whether disruption goes beyond RfA. On that subject, please see , , , . at AfD. There is a general pattern here, and it's quite odd. Whether it justifies a block I don't know. Chick Bowen 05:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- That isn't disruption, that's just extreme inclusionism. I'm sure the closing admin would not put much stock in his vote. east.718 at 05:47, 11/1/2007
I commented in the RFC as well, so I'm just repeating myself, but I'm really disappointed to see this block. This is an opinion, from an established editor, that disrupts no one. It was put up for community comment, and the overwhelming consensus was that it was an opinion very few agreed with, but a valid one nonetheless. Even those who asked that he stop nonetheless overwhelmingly opposed a block -- so to come along and impose one is against community consensus. The only valid reason that anyone has put forth for blocking is that his opinion "assumes bad faith." But that's...well, I'm sorry, but it's baloney. Every oppose vote assumes some level of "bad faith," under that definition. His oppose vote is based on the belief that, given this piece of what he considers important evidence (a self-nomination), he cannot assume that the candidate has the character traits necessary to perform as required as an admin. That's exactly what every oppose vote says - that some evidence indicates that the candidate isn't ready for the mop. The only quibble is over whether Kurt's over-valuing this particular piece of evidence. If he is...so what. This is not disruptive behavior, it's behavior clearly within the bounds of normal Misplaced Pages discussion, and I think this block was extraordinarily ill-advised and contrary to community consensus. --TheOther Bob 05:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I too think the block is unjustified, especially since he's expressed willingness to go along with community consensus. delldot talk 05:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am stunned that he was blocked for this. What the heck is going on here? No one factor contributes to a position in an RfA. An editor is not required to detail all their reasons for a given position, and a self-nom might be a contributing factor, but the only one mentioned. I also have a problem with self-noms, but that is not enough to get me to oppose someone. I might mention that as the main or only reason, but I look at their past contributions. Someone with a strong past record will be enough for me to overlook their self-nom, and I suspect this is true of User:Kmweber as well, or others. We have too many weak candidates for admin, and we worry about silly issues rather than core important issues.--Filll 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban

OK, I'm quite happy to unblock if Kurt agrees to a self-imposed topic ban, anybody have any objections to this or wish more/less restrictions before I unblock ? Does anybody wish to write up a formal topic ban or will I just unblock on the understanding that if he goes near anything other than the WT:RFA page, he can be reblocked ? Nick 08:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC) un

I think he should agree before being unblocked. If he resumes editing in a non-disruptive way, then later on he can request to properly participate in the RFA process, and we can consider lifting the topic ban. The block was completely justified. The time has come to stop enabling trollish behavior. - Jehochman 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks being preventive in intent, this is fine by me as well. But as Jehochman says, we need an undertaking not to disrupt (and by that I don't mean a Wikilawyering commitment not to oppose just because of self-noms, while carrying on with the opposes anyway). A six month embargo on all participation in RFAs or associated debates would be fine. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Confused. Nick, you propose Kurt will be unblocked provided he doesn't touch anything but the RFA talk page? So if he reverts a bit of vandalism to an article (admitedly unlikely) we block again? How does this help anything ? Pedro : Chat 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand what is meant by a topic ban, he would be banned from editing any Request for Adminship, but would be permitted to discuss on the central talk page any proposals he might wish to make. Edits outwith the WP:RFA area would be unaffected and he can edit wherever he wishes. It might also be worthwhile asking that he make no RfA related edits outwith the RfA namespace either, such as canvassing for people to Oppose on his behalf, for example (though that's quite unlikely, I believe). Nick 11:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Un-confused If the proposal is that Kurt can edit anywhere he chooses but within the RFA space only on the general talk page then I srtongly agree with overturning this block. Pedro : Chat 11:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd oppose the topic ban. I think community consensus was that this activity, while not the warmest, cuddliest thing a person could do, is acceptable -- and that blocking a person for engaging in it reflects disagreement with the viewpoint rather than any violation of policy. Given that the community thought that a block was inappropriate, a topic ban seems to be inappropriate as well. Instead can't we just drop it? --TheOther Bob 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus at the RFC was not that this contributions to RFA were unacceptable. Has his participation there gotten worse? I see no reason to ban him from making comments you disagree with. That's not how we do things. All this talk of enabling trolls is off the mark- he's not a troll. Friday (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
He should be unblocked regardless of any conditions. There's no consensus for this block (as shown above) and a commonly held principal is that an editor is indef blocked only as long as no other admin is willing to unblock. I also agree with Friday, calling someone a troll does not make them one. That word should not be generalized to include anyone whose opinions you disagree with. Jimbo's comment about clearing out trolls does not apply here. I'd consider any unblock here justified. RxS 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He's trying to be reasonable on his talk page. I've unblocked for now. Yes, I see that some people supported, but several opposed too, and even some of the block supporters seems willing to soften their position. I invite those who think there is an ongoing behavior problem to continue discussing it at RFC or some other suitable venue. If there's consensus that his RFA contributions are unacceptable, he'll stop. Last it was discussed in a calm manner, there was no such consensus. Friday (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock without any restrictions. No ban. We've previously discussed this as a community, at the RfC. The RFC consensus very clearly said did not merit a block! That RfC evidences no support for the notion that his edits were a problem meriting a block; I can't find a single view on the page that indicated it was behaviour that could ever merit a block. The strongest views against his behavior are those by the certifiers, NewYorkBrad, and TwoOars (the last two of which explicitly disagree with blocking), which got between the three views a total of 6 supporting comments. With between 30 and 40 participants, the RfC is very clear that it is acceptable to express unpopular minority opinions at RfA. The block is completely unwarranted, no topic ban is needed, and the admin that acted needs to change their behaviour far more than KurtWeber does. No evidence here that there is any reason to think that the community consensus is different than at the time of the RfC. GRBerry 13:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Immediate unblock pending clarification of community consensus, for which this page is not the proper forum. Friday beat me to the unblock, but I would have unblocked at this point as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we be calm next time?

I have to express my strong disappointment in the way Kmweber was railroaded here. For an indef block to come out of the blue, with no intermediate sanction, for behavior that's already been discussed at RFC? That is simply not reasonable. Yes, we should show trolls the door- no reasonable person disagrees on that issue. But a troll is not just someone who gets called a troll. There has to be actual trolling. I don't know where this idea came from- has he irritated the wrong person lately? All I know for sure is, the last time this issue was discussed calmly on the wiki, it was the RFC and there was nothing resembling a conclusion that his behavior is actually disruptive. Annoying, perhaps. So, be less easily annoyed. Giving an unpopular opinion at RFC is no big deal. Friday (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the block is an almost perfect example of when to apply WP:IAR. This user was engaging in behavior which was unhelpful, continuous, borderline disruptive, and just plain really flippin' annoying. The fact remains that his behavior was such was mentioned to him on many, many occasions, and he refused to change it. Even though there is no policy to back up this block, there was a wide consensus that his behavior was, after all, unhelpful, continuous, borderline disruptive, and just plain really flippin' annoying. So he was blocked. We're willing to unblock if he agrees to finally halt his widely-agreed-to-be-annoying behaviors. When he does, he will be unblocked. A disruptive behavior will have been removed, peace will come, the contributor will remain as well. That is WP:IAR. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This still ignores the fact that two dozen people told him, in an RFC on his actions, that making such votes was acceptable. Given that, I can't see how one gets to "wide consensus" that this activity warranted a block. Dragons flight 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, but Ignore All Rules isn't Ignore All Consensus, and consensus was that a block was inappropriate. Being annoyed by an opinion...well, it's not a good reason to block. I guess it goes back to the similarity between opinions and the bottom-rear portion of the human torso -- in particular the universality and fragrance of both. We depend on opinions to operate; sometimes that means that we get ones that annoy the living bejesus out of us. So we take it in stride, disagree, and move on -- we don't block to silence valid (if unpopular) viewpoints. --TheOther Bob 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. From the outside, it looks like this block was done in a spirit of "Jimbo's told us we can block anyone who is being disruptive", with no thought as to whether it is agreed that this set of actions are disruptive, and how disruptive it is. Despite the point being made that positive contributions shouldn't be used to cancel out negative contributions, I can't help but feel that contributions like this do outweigh the "oppose, self-nom" point being made by Kmweber. Frivolous !votes in RfAs are nothing new, and nothing to get too worked up about. Just as the person making the frivolous !vote or point should be making the point somewhere else, so those wanting to scratch an annoying itch should find other ways to resolve the dispute. The technical point that an indefinite block is only indefinite if nothing else changes, can be lost on some people, so the block log should probably say "until xyz". Carcharoth 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this action may be a reason for creating an account specifically for such opinions, so as to not risk one's main account just because people don't like the opinions being given. The fellow's been banned for giving requested opinions and for clearly stating that for one class of candidate he votes against that class. Would it have been better if he voted against the same people but gave a different reason so nobody knows the real reasons? Next will be banning due to votes against incumbents, against first-time nominees, against people not confident enough to self-nominate, against low-visibility workers? The block is an enforcement against the requirement that opinions be provided, as it establishes that true opinions are not acceptable. (SEWilco 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Part of being disruptive is actually doing something that has an effect, and that is what is missing from this situation. I expect kmweber (talk · contribs) is being largely ignored by closing admins at XFD and bureaucrats at RFA as his !votes generally carry no compelling reasoning behind them. Is it annoying to see someone tilting at windmills? Possibly. Is it actually having any appreciable effect other than possibly annoying some people? I think the answer is pretty clearly no. Personally I wish Kurt would find something more productive to do that make meaningless !votes (even if they are his opinion), but I don't see any evidence that what he is doing is having any appreciable effect. If you don't like it, ignore him or follow dispute resolution.--Isotope23 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do we have an essay on Tilting at windmills? We should, then it can join the stable of shortcuts and essays based on real words and sayings and parables. WP:WINDMILL. A list of such is at Misplaced Pages talk:Trifecta#Random sayings and analogies. Carcharoth 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's annoying and disruptive. Once, twice, yes, but to keep on doing it when you've been told that you've made your point and if you want a change that's not the way to achieve it, all that does is to piss people off. It's a case of don't be a dick. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of pre-discussion for any long-term blocks. If this block had been proposed first and discussed, it would likely never have happened. Is that good or bad? Carcharoth 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So now it's going to arbitration arbitration? Look, the community consensus was that this activity was not disruptive and that blocking the guy was inappropriate. That's been made abundantly clear here and at an RFC -- the community simply does not agree with the view that Kurt should blocked for voicing his opinion or punished for doing so. A few people disagree, but they're by far in the minority. Yet rather than listening to all the people asking to just let this drop and, you know, letting it drop, I guess now Mercury is going to "make a federal case of it," for lack of a better term. Come on, man, let it drop. --TheOther Bob 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, its not going to be accepted by arbitrators. It will be declined at first sight I would imagine. Waste of time all around - I'd say posting this was a waste of my time, but I don't have anything better to do right now... :( (realizes there are like a bizzillion articles to work on and goes back to work). Wickethewok 23:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- If the arb case continues, the only thing that is likely to happen is Mercury being censured for being too eager to indef someone for daring to express their opinion. And every user above who described Kurt's oppositions as trolling should be ashamed of themselves. Neil ☎ 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Hmm, so Kurt expressing his opinions on a series of discussions is fine, but others expressing their opinions that his actions constitute trolling isn't? Maybe I'm advocating for the devil a bit here, but somehow that seems logically inconsistent Neil.--Isotope23 13:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I don't think personally I would have indef blocked, and I don't think nick's intention was for the block to be a permanent thing. (Nick, correct me if I'm wrong). Mercury 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

- - How could anybody think that it would be a good idea to send this to arbitration? east.718 at 02:05, 11/2/2007

RFA have space for retorts. So if one say "self nom is a power grab" then often people add "but it's considered ok". Different people have different opinions. Some people say that you need a certain number of edits to win RFA but others don't. One of those opinions is not trolling or reason for ban. Another debate is an RFA is "no big deal per Jimbo" vs. "hand out tools to only a few". Again, neither side should be banned on the excuse as trolling, just discuss. Discussion is very wikipedian, banning to get rid of opinions you don't like is not very wikipedian.Miesbu 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Having just discovered this thread (sorry, been either working on articles or busy away from Misplaced Pages), I would say this: Ugh. I don't agree with Kmweber's opinion, but IMHO he was expressing it in a reasonable manner. Further, a person isn't annoying unless you honestly can't ignore what she/he is doing. So instead of looking to the simplest solutions in this case -- ignore, engage in a discussion, try to build a consensus (which simultaneously helps to build community, which in the long term helps to suppress troublemakers) -- this whole mess is turning into an exercise in wikilawyering. I hate watching this because instead of proving that we don't need clearly defined rules, it would seem people are clamoring for more of them -- if not laws with penalties & the like. -- llywrch 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cough

WP:UAA needs some admin's attention. --əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked and/or cleared all but one, which I'm not certain is a violation. As this is my first night on the job, I'd love an extra set of eyes on it. Dppowell 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine, I removed remaining User:Erictheocartman as it is not a BLP concern. Keegan 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

revert war on nazism page.

"neon white" not only repeatedly reverts stuff on the nazism page, he also repeatedly removes discussion of his reversions on the talk:nazism page, making it impossible to discuss the issues.

The edit war on "Nazism" has escalated to an edit war on "talk nazism". He not only edits "Nazism" to accord with his view of his nazis, he edits "talk nazism" to delete disagreements with his view of good editing practice - there are now more neon white reverts on "talk nazism" than there are on "nazism"

James A. Donald 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not get into the specifics of who is right and who is wrong, I will merely direct you to our dispute resolution process. There is no three revert rule violation and the "war" is not worthy of protection over. Keegan 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of other people's comments on Talk pages is vandalism. Whether it's 3 reverts or one, it needs to be stopped. Corvus cornix 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not always. Removal of article talk page comments is acceptable if the page is being used as a chat forum on subjects unrelated to Misplaced Pages, and in all namespaces in the case of trolling, severe personal attacks/legal threats, libel, and copyright violations. In many cases it's vandalism, but certainly not all. It should, however, not be done by users involved in the situation, as that creates the impression of partiality. Picaroon (t) 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Menudo (band) and Menudo la banda

Apparently someone moved Menudo (band) to Menudo la banda, and someone else reversed this but the edit history is still at Menudo la banda. I would appreciate it if someone can help fix this; the correct article title should be Menudo (band). --Metropolitan90 04:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will fix it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and Unblocks

I'd like to propose two ideas that might need to be communicated to the admin community:

When placing a potentially controversial block, announce it and invite discussion. State in advance the conditions on which you would approve unblocking. This can save a lot of drama in case you are unavailable to discuss your block.

Before undoing another administrator's actions, except for blatant mistakes or bad faith actions, try to contact the other admin, and if that fails, let the discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI run long enough that you get a WP:SNOW consensus before doing what you want to do.

Does this make sense? This advice may seem obvious, but a lot of administrators seem to have missed these two points. - Jehochman 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly support that. CBD's unblock of Privatemusings, for example, was absolutely not supported by anythign like consensus, and most of those opposing the block don't actually know the identity of the aother account. Everyone I've spoken to who does, appears to support the block. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why should a block made without such discussion stand if consensus is split and policy does not support the stated reasons for the block? I'm all for discussion. Rather than an involved party placing a controversial block a discussion can allow comment from others and then any needed action can be taken by a neutral admin. However, if a block is placed without discussion, the stated reason for the block is not supported by policy, and extensive subsequent discussion shows the existence of strong opposition to the block then no... I do not believe that consensus for unblocking need be found before that action can be taken. Someone acting without consensus or any clear policy support, without discussion, and without even any prior warning does not get their controversial action 'certified' as the default case. --CBD 13:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I am with CBDunkerson; in cases of immediate disruption, then blocks should be placed without delay. But where there is an underlying and longrunning problem, there is no harm from suggesting a course of action and waiting until consensus has emerged. Indeed it is far more disruptive to have a controversial block placed, and then to have a long debate over whether it should be overturned, and whether an overturning was premature, and a meta-debate about whether policies were followed. A considered and debated block is far more likely to stick even if there is discontent with it. Sam Blacketer 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't look for a snowstorm to undo a block. If the block is not well supported, it possibly should be undone (or just allowed to expire if it's short.) Blocks are a blunt tool; we should sometimes try less drastic measures first. Friday (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to post something like this. This seems OK for long-term blocks, but for short blocks like 3RR, it seems that something different is needed. Discussions can sometimes take longer than 24 hours (though they shouldn't really be so protracted), so the length of discussion should be somehow proportional to the block length. I strongly support the idea of making clear under what conditions the blocking admin would agree to an unblock, though in some cases this might be obvious. An important point is to mention (and if possible, link to) any such discussion in the blocking/unblocking log. Being around to discuss things is important. If you are not around, there should be no complaint if a discussion overturns an action in your absence. Admins don't own their actions. User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy seems relevant here. Carcharoth 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

- I agree with the above; as I often take up 3RR reports I am always willing to unblock if it seems likely that they will not be disruptive, and there can be no objection to another admin undoing a block for the same reason. The blocks are for the benefit of the project and not for my ego. Sam Blacketer 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"potentially controversial" is the stumbling block here; what can be obviously "in the right" to one person can easily be seen as dickish by another. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- When undoing another admin's block (except for obvious mistakes or ABF) then you should ALWAYS contact that administrator prior to removing the block. Wikidudeman 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - No argument here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Not sure what ABF means, but what if the blocking admin is unavailable? How long do you wait? I still maintain that discussion among other admins can overturn another admin's actions. WP:WHEEL uses the term ~~"unilaterally"~~ (I thought I did...) for a reason. Always requiring discussion gives the impression of ownership of admin actions. I'm not advocating overturning for no reason, but discussion and a good reason can lead to a good faith overturn in the absence of the blocking admin. Maybe the blocking admin will return and explain further, but unless the blocking admin had left notes behind, the unblocking admins would not have been aware of these further reasons. This all depends on the timescale of course. Blocking someone for a week before you go on holiday for a week is not a good idea. Blocking someone just before you go to sleep for 9 hours might be unavoidable, but things don't stop until you wake up/get back. It also depends on the urgency of course, and this should be weighed against the urgency of the original block. If the block prevented ongoing disruption, undoing it may restart that disruption. Other considerations can come into play as well. It is a complex judgment sometimes, with many aspects needing to be weighed against each other. You should still notify the blocking admin, and discuss if they are around, but no need to wait until they get back. But, as always, have a good reason for blocking and unblocking - and except people to object if you don't provide a good reason. Carcharoth 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting advice when you are in doubt is essential, but I would draw the line at "doubt", not "controversial". As for unblocking, it is current policy that you should not undo another admins block without first getting their agreement or a greater consensus from the community to do so. 1 != 2 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the "don't revert an admin action" sentiment comes from inappropriate feelings of ownership. Admins, we should not own our admin actions. It's sometimes reasonable to undo one, even without "permission" from the person you're reverting. It shouldn't be common, and we should tread carefully, but undoing an admin action without persmission is not automatically unreasonable. Friday (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's generally something we should be careful about, but admin actions are hardly sacred -- I figure it's mainly the sudden actions, or the repeated reversals of administrative actions back and forth, that can set a bad example and potentially reflect poorly on the community, in the few cases where such arguments are prominent enough to garner some media attention. We do need some stability to keep good people around. Sanity checks and group discussion are useful, and if it's better off for a blunt action to be done or undone to allow a discussion to continue, or a situation to calm down, then timely response may be of particular importance. "Ignore all rules" shouldn't be taken as a "license to kill," but as a "license to think." Take a few moments to consider any administrative action, whether deleting, protecting, blocking, or reversing any such action, not only in terms of how it may affect the people involved, but also the project as a whole. Mistakes will be made, from time to time, let's all just try and improve situations when and where we can. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have always seen it more as "Don't revert an admin action without discussion and/or consensus". It is not about OWN, it is about not edit warring with admin actions. It is about setting a good example for the editors that instead of reverting back and forth a consensus can be formed. 1 != 2 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Let's try again.~~ Read the following:

"I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Misplaced Pages. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption."

After reading that, can you explain what is wrong with a good-faith revert of an admin action? Continuous reversion, when discussion has shown the matter is not clear, would be wheel-warring, but a single, reasoned overturn is not. It is balance between not letting the first admin to act to be the one to set the status quo, and avoiding admin warring. Carcharoth 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think 1=2 agrees with me - sorry! Carcharoth 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of AGF can result in "Good faith" edit wars where one user reverts in good faith and another reverts in good faith, ad infinitum. AGF doesn't exist in a vacuum as a policy, You also need to discuss changes that might be controversial before making them. Undoing another admins actions when they aren't clearly a mistake almost always causes controversy and dispute and thus shouldn't be done. Talk about it first and if a agreement can't be met between the two parties then take it somewhere for further discussions and consensus. Wikidudeman 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That fails to recognise that sometimes urgent action is needed before discussion can take place (eg. reblocking for a new reason after the unblock - which wouldn't be a wheel-war anyway), or that sometimes discussions can take longer than the block length. It also opens the door for wikilawyering over blocks while the blocked person's sense of injustice increases. In all cases, some common sense should help, recognising that while there are exceptions, you need a good reason for the exception, and that continual action back and forth is harmful. Again, it is a balance and there aren't really bright-line rules that help. If someone thought one of my actions was wrong, I would prefer they undid it rather than wait for me to get back. The caveat is that if I disagree, I will discuss it with them! :-) Carcharoth 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you block a trouble maker another admin unblocks them and the person continues to cause problems then you can simply re-block per the problems caused since the unblock. No big deal there and no need to discuss. If someone is blocked and you want them unblocked and want to discuss it and the discussions occur longer then the block, so what? The person is unblocked anyway and maybe a note can be left in their block log notifying of the decision from the discussion. Wikilawyering doesn't work and it never should, ever. Wikidudeman 17:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we need a SNOW consensus situation to overturn a controversial block. A block (or any admin action) should only be upheld with consensus. A lack of consensus should be enough to reverse. Often, I feel like Misplaced Pages favors inertia a little too much. Sometimes a lack of consensus is enough to merit some sort of action. In fact, I was inspired enough to write my first essay. -Chunky Rice 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to overturn one of my blocks, please, go right ahead. Bearian 19:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, so leave the discussion open for a few days, or until it snows, whichever comes first. Given the traffic on this board, that's like 30 minutes - 48 hours depending on how interesting and important a case it is. Avoid unblocking without agreement of the blocking admin, or else a reasonable amount of discussion and a consensus. We all need to respect each other more. Misplaced Pages is not an anarchy. We look like a madhouse when admins run around unblocking each other without any discussion whatsoever, and the chaos encourages trolling. - Jehochman 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Per the original proposal; am I right in presuming that a "potentially controversial" block is one where there isn't a series of escalating warnings, or discussion, regarding some behaviour or other, on the talkpage, and isn't otherwise obvious vandalism and disruption? If so, I would believe that an invitation to review such an action would be most wise. If then consensus appears split, or against the block, then another admin might unblock, but should always give a clear reason to the original blocker. The block/unblock might then be discussed until a final consenus is concluded. Thems my thoughts on the matter. LessHeard vanU 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the second point is already covered in the blocking policy, in the part about unblocking. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Kirby harassing Sukecchi

Green Kirby, as part of some ongoing feud with Sukecchi, today posted this (anonymously) to Misplaced Pages:Help desk: A Misplaced Pages user identified as Sukecchi has used an extension of your site to pronounce his sexuality and express his wish for a boyfried. This is info that is better suited for My-Space or other sites. His abuse of your site weakons your its redibility. and signed it "Concerned Parent". This, to me, is past the point of mere Wikiquette violation. chaser had been trying to work with him, but.... --Orange Mike 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for a myriad of reasons. See talk page. Given that they were already given a second chance on an indef block this week and given their history, this could be longer. Feel free, anyone, to change duration - Alison 16:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

One week sounds fine to me. I hadn't seen the help desk post. I'm trying to balance the low article content to drama ratio against the fact that he's 13 and his dad is helping him, but if it continues next week, then I'll know it's become intractable and I will re-block indef. Based on notes on my talk page, I'm sure this really is his father, but I've asked that he get his own account if he wants to continue posting his feedback (being charitable).--chaser - t 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Martin-Jenkins

Resolved

Can something be done about the constant vandalism to this page. The same vandal keeps reverting my edits although each time with a differant IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a few days of semi-protection. The material being added looks like a violation of WP:BLP, and there's already a sourced mention of his friction with other colleagues. --Elkman 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Appeals of Keep at WP:AFD

I can't find any information about what to do when someone wants to appeal a keep decision by an admin, or brings forth new evidence. Nobody so far has questioned any of my deletes, but three times I've been questioned about my keeps, in one case of alleged abusive sockpuppetry. Any thoughts? Bearian 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In general those still can go to deletion review. It's probably better to resolve the abusive sockpuppetry claim by presenting evidence or via checkuser before making a claim that the AFD was tainted. That said, if the arguments are more important than numbers (depends on the AFD) it shouldn't make much difference. If you're persuaded, there's no harm in changing your closure as long as you don't go back and forth about it.--chaser - t 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bearian, the points I make about the duplicate "keep" votes in the discussion aren't sock allegations: they were actually posted by the same user repeatedly, probably unaware of protocol, and can be verified by checking the AfD history. He didn't use socks to influence the voting, it's just that he changed his signature in the preferences so that it read "Bill" instead of his username. The same username is still visible in the page history. Thomjakobsen 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the said closure. Thanks. Bearian 20:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that AfDs are explicitly not votes, and decisions should be made on the basis of arguments rather than how many people show up and say keep or delete. Assuming that's still true, then I would say it shouldn't matter how many sockpuppets show up and say keep or delete - the decision should not have been a head count no matter what, so it shouldn't matter if the head count changes. However, if someone brings new information to you that would drastically change the situation, perhaps DRV or a new AfD is in order. Natalie 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)AfD not being a vote, the number of keeps and deletes is, of course, only the start of deciding the result. As was said above, the arguments are what must count. I have closed AfDs as keeps with a majority of delete votes and deleted where there's a majority of keeps. Explain the reasoning in the close and complaints are limited to those who want it to be just a vote (and can be dismissed) and those who would have complained even if the majority agreed (and can be dismissed, but more carefully). The deciding factor is a mix of consensus and cogent arguments. Also, never be afraid to relist if neither is clear, even though that frequently means someone else will close it minutes later based on personal opinion or headcount, alas. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this specific case: the only "keep" was from a single user who then changed his signature, made another comment marked "keep" (probably in good faith, but it looks superficially like a second keep), and then finally changed to a "delete" without striking through the previous "keeps". So it's not a case of the "headcount" shifting, it's a case of all "deletes", but the page at the time of closing still looked like there were two "keeps" in the mix. The question is: if the closing admin takes another look at the discussion in light of this and agrees that the consensus was to delete, can they revert the initial closing decision without taking it to DRV? Thomjakobsen 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. We don't do process for the sake of process. Pardon me, I mean, we shouldn't do process for the sake of process. Human beings editing a human encyclopedia == changes of mind and being open to persuasion. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to first ask the original closing admin to reconsider before going ahead "behind his back" so to speak. Thatcher131 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise: in fact, this is what the person I was originally agreeing with said her/himself: "if the closing admin takes another look at the discussion..." ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, this has been resolved. I changed my closure and deleted the article. Bearian 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems perfectly fine. I also think, though, that if you weren't sure or wanted a broader discussion, a DRV discussion would not be out of line. Natalie 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)DRV has a reputation as a bit of a bear pit and often in my experience descends into a pillory on which to put the closing admin to allow the DRV community to throw things at them. If it can be avoided (closing admin revising a decision, reopening and relisting the AfD, starting a new AfD) then that is better than stepping into a corrosive environment often inhabited by people who are only there because of their particular slant on 'pedia policy. IMHO. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that characterization of DRV. There have been some memorable battles there, of course. But 90% of discussions are very civil and direct, particularly when there is a tangible circumstance to consider, like sockpuppetry. Chick Bowen 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the possibility exists that all I've seen are the memorable battles... after I'd been untied from the pillory and cleared the rotten tomate sur le visage I'd been served with. And your mileage may vary, of course. And does, clearly. I'm stuck in gear on this one: DRV is more poison than it isn't. Mixed metaphors a-go-go from me tonight :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

One obvious answer: The DRV instructions say to discuss a change with the closing admin first - this is because the DRV/community preference is for (if a change is appropriate) the change to be made by the closing admin without DRV involvement. So yes, the closing admin can, and should, revise their change if they think it appropriate. GRBerry 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can open, worms everywhere

It's worth noting to all administrators (in fact, all editors period) that the recent kerfuffle about no longer tolerating trolls on the 'pedia doesn't mean that any and all annoying editors/editors we disagree with/SPAs/similar are trolls.

Just like how the terms "vandal", "vandalism", "incivility" and "NPA" are now vastly overused by all and sundry when they mean "doesn't agree with me" or "is enforcing policy" etc, we should all avoid debasing the words "troll" and "disruption"/"disruptive" just because they are fashionable.

New editors pick these overused terms up quickly (in the case of "vandalism-only account", helped by Twinkle offering them a helpful checkbox to tick for AIV reports to accuse clueless newbies on their first edit or regulars on their 25,000th) and start misapplying them. We don't help this as regulars here by seizing on the term "troll" and applying it liberally - something we've started to do in the last 24 hours and are already getting thrown back at us on ANI and here.

There are trolls, there are disruptive users, there are pointless idiots we would be well shot of... but labelling thus anybody and everybody who we would have blocked anyway dilutes the power of the words and plays into the hands of the trolls themselves.

A little cautious language again, perhaps? <sideshow type="bob">And I'm aware of the irony of being the one to mention "cautious language" so there's no need to point it out</sideshow> ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I almost uniformly use the term "disruptive" because words like "troll" and "vandal" are little more than pejoratives. I think disruptive is a good, general term for anti-social behavior in this community. It's also good because it has no bad-faith assumption attached to it; you can be disruptive while acting in the best of faith. --Haemo 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet oftentimes, "troll" and "vandal" are the only apt and succinct descriptions of editors who act as such, and serves as an eye-catcher to the problem(s) at hand. Of course, no one disputes that the words must be used with care. —Kurykh 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We should refrain from commenting on editors. Describe the actions (disruptive, unencyclopedic, spam, conflict of interest, pov warring, etc). --Rocksanddirt 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So we can't call people trolls, but we can say they are trolling? ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a special place where people can go and troll, just to blow off steam. Oh wait, it already exists. It's called /. - Jehochman 19:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Or call the comment what it is. Personal attack? baiting another user into incivility? be clear in descriptions of behavior that violates policy. IMO "troll" and "trolling" are meaningless. --Rocksanddirt 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between people who occasionally make personal attacks or bait other users versus those who constantly do so. Neither of those behaviors are tolerable, but people who are always attacking, baiting, disrupting, and vandalizing should be shown the door. The people who occasionally attack or get overheated in the middle of an argument, but whose editing is otherwise productive, don't need to be driven off the project. That may have been what Jimbo was referring to in his block reasoning -- that Miltopia had a consistent track record of being disruptive and that he was no longer positively contributing. --Elkman 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good essay, Redvers. That is why my preferred term is "troublemaker". Keep in mind that Socratic questioning could be understood as trolling. (AFAICR, I've used "troll" only once -- & that was a special case.) -- llywrch 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Merkin POTD

A somewhat controversial image, Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, was promoted to Featured Picture status some time ago, and now it's time for its day in the sun as POTD. User:Pharos suggested that we might talk up the benefits of this being a professional quality free-license image, even if such discussion were a bit self-referential. I've made an initial stab at it at User:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Comments are welcome at User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Thanks. (cross-posted to Talk:Main Page). howcheng {chat} 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think promotional, ex-commercial images should be featured on the main page. Featured, sure, but by giving them space on the main page we're going to see a flood of corporate interests releasing images to us solely for the purpose of getting a POTD spot. While this might at first seem okay - "who cares what they're motivations are, they're helping out regardless" - it would nevertheless be a loss for the non-profit nature of Misplaced Pages. We haven't had this issue before because did you know articles, featured articles, and news stories can't be released to us for our use - but images can, and once we place one ex-commercial image on the main page, we will get a lot more, and the door will be too wide open to close again. Any mid-size or large corporation which sells products related to something that a picture can be taken of can easily pony up the money for a professional photographer to come take a spectacular picture, and from there it's just a skip, hop and step over to Misplaced Pages's main page. We shouldn't let that happen. You can't (or at least, aren't supposed to be able to) buy an spot in a Misplaced Pages article, even though a few people have tried, and even less a spot on the main page. In conclusion, this image and images like it should not be featured as pictures of the day. (Cross-posted to talk page you mentioned.) Picaroon (t) 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn over this. In principal, I agree a lot with Picaroon. But part of me thinks "What if National Geographic decides to donate some of their spectacular photography?" Would I mind at all if National Geographic donated something like ? Would anyone really mind? Even if their purpose was to get an image on the front page? And there is no guarantee that a donated image would even make a featured picture. I guess there is a chance that corporations may try to game the WP:FPC system. As long as we are very careful of abuse, I think only good could come from corporations donating photos with the intention of maybe one day making POTD on the front page. I don't see many scenarios where blatant advertising would have enough encyclopedic value to get featured. But again, I haven't thought this through yet, and I agree a lot with the principals Picaroon pointed out above.-Andrew c 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Open the f-ing door. I'd love for Misplaced Pages to have the problem that so many commercial organizations were donating free images that we didn't know what to with them and then had to pick and choose which ones were worth featuring. Free content is free content. If some ex-commercial images of high quality end up on the main page for a single day, then in my opinion that would be a small price to pay for an increase in the breadth and quality of images on Misplaced Pages. Dragons flight 05:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand this objection. We might be flooded with high quality free images? That's bad? -Chunky Rice 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. Blatantly self-promotional, commercially produced image. The picture nomination was not impressive and passed largely as a result of the sheer number of sophomoric support comments from teenage fanboys. Soft pr0n finally makes the front page. Not exactly one of our finer moments, IMO - Alison 02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that Bomis used to have pornographic content but the powers that be on wikipedia usually try to live that down. Do we really want wikipedia to be associated with something so naff and sleazy?Merkinsmum 02:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As Michele Merkin's mum, I would think you'd be more supportive of the idea.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a search for an article (it's Michele Merkin, BTW, with only one L), and I'm not convinced that this particular picture adds that much encyclopedic value to the article, nor am I convinced that it's in the same class as other POTDs that we have had in the past. What I mean by encyclopedic value, this picture shows off her Merkin's body, but not so much her face... so for me it ends up being somewhat generic in its effect. I don't know quite how to say this. It comes off more as soft pr0n as Alison says, and not something that genuinely enriches the article or the encyclopedia. I'm also very concerned about the idea of commercial interests "gaming" Misplaced Pages's WP:FPC system as mentioned above, and getting free publicity that way. --Kyoko 04:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair enough picture to illustrate a stub/start article about a minor celebrity known mostly for her state of undress. Nothing inherently wrong with the female body, and if a greedy corporate outfit wants to release self-interested commercial publicity photos to the world's repository of free content, good for them! Who cares why they do it, it's great that they do it. On the other hand, it is a little cheesy. Definitely not featured picture or featured article territory. I'd rather reward a photo service with featured picture status for releasing a nice picture of a horse, or a newsworthy event, or a cupcake. To summon the words of the immortal Joan Rivers, grow up! Wikidemo 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture review is that way, by the way. MER-C 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted!)I'm not sure that I can get on board with these objections. Addressing them in the order in which they were presented: 1) The photograph was provided in response to a request by an editor for a free image of the subject; the subject didn't just provide it out of the blue. As such, it's no more self-promotional than any other image provided by a subject in response to a request (of which we have many). If we weren't prepared to accept such things, we wouldn't have the OTRS system in the first place. 2) Likewise, many of our other photographs here were produced by commercial photographers: All of the many images provided by User:David_Shankbone, and all of the Commons pictures from the National Photo Company Collection of the Library of Congress, just to name two examples. If anything, we should be encouraging commercial photographers to contribute content, since they generally take better pictures than amateurs, and they often have access to subjects and events that amateurs do not. 3) Ms. Merkin is a professional model, and the photo illustrates her performing her job, which is one of the main reasons that she's notable in the first place. We wouldn't have any objection to a photograph of a politician giving a speech, or a baseball player swinging a bat, and as I see things this isn't any different from a functional standpoint. 4) The image is large, focused, and high-resolution, the subject is looking directly into the camera with an unobstructed view of her face, and the subject isn't wearing a strange expression, which immediately makes this better than about 99% of the other photographs of notable people used here to illustrate their appearance in their articles. 5) In addition to Michele Merkin, it's also used prominently in Glamour photography, and given the nature of that article's subject material, it'd be extremely difficult from a functional standpoint to develop a thematically-appropriate image with no sexual overtones. A lot of the comments in opposition to this image seem to arise from a desire to censor Misplaced Pages, by isolating certain categories of images into a ghetto or backwater. In my opinion, if an image does a good job of illustrating its subject(s), and the subject(s) are worthy of coverage here, then there is no reason not to treat that image just like any other with the same status. -Hit bull, win steak 05:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Frankly, I don't give a damn about the image, but Hit bull is absolutely correct IMO of the rationale for a featured place. Keegan 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconding the above. --Haemo 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree with HBWS. There is no reason this can't go on the front page. In addition to possibly encouraging other sources of professional photography to contribute to Misplaced Pages, who doesn;t appreciate the absolutely inevitable cries of OMGTHINKOFTHECHILDREN that will echo from the corners of several talk pages? We've always claimed Misplaced Pages isn't censored, it's time to put our money where our mouths are. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Hit bull, win steak (talk · contribs). This image is appropriately licensed, of a high quality, and was donated by a professional at the request of a Wikipedian. That is precisely what we should encourage, and preventing it from being on the main page is an odd double standard. Today we have an image of a dead, bloody, Chinese soldier on the font page; I'd say that's more offensive than the side of a woman's right breast. - auburnpilot talk 14:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is making a straw man argument. It's not about censorship. It's the cheese factor, plus it's an unremarkable photograph. Get something like one of these, and we should put a fashion shot on the front page - . Wikidemo 15:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's is a deadly dull and boring picture. The subject isn't interesting; the pose isn't original; the significance is non-existent. It's not even pornographic enough to be worth censoring. Face it: there's nothing noteworthy about the picture. The dead soldier picture has a lot more going for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As MER-C (talk · contribs) pointed out, if you have a problem with the image being identified as a featured picture, you want Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates#Nomination_for_delisting, not here. - auburnpilot talk 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary undent) There are a few points I see:

Is the picture encyclopedic? Probably, though it can be argued.
Is the picture promotional? Perhaps to some extent, but putting a picture of any human being on the Main Page is promotional to some degree. Picking particular things out as promotional runs the chance of POV.
Is the picture inappropriate for the main page? Depends on how strictly we apply WP:CENSOR. Personally, I think it might not be a great idea - in the same way that Raul has a list of featured articles he won't put on the Main Page, there are some images which might be damaging to our reputation, even if they are completely fine in the context of our no censorship policy.
Should the picture even be featured? Go to review, this is about a potential POTD.

Those are my thoughts. In summary - it's probably OK, but it might not be the greatest of ideas for PR, especially if some journalist is offended and decides to say that Misplaced Pages is filled with porn (which may be a ridiculous statement, but somebody will say it). Nihiltres 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholly with point 4. My main goal here is to determine the appropriateness of putting this on the Main Page, and if we do that, is it OK to have a somewhat self-referential caption in order to point out why exactly this is notable (the release under a free license) in order to combat the "OMG pr0n on the Main Page" comments. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm not being ambiguous, in point 4 I mean that this discussion ignores that the image is featured - I have no opinion about the image in and of itself. A self-referential caption isn't a good idea, though it is otherwise an excellent idea to publicize offwiki that we will use high-quality images from people and companies if they are offered under a free license and not blatantly promotional. Michelle Merkin made a good decision to give some decent photos, and we use decent photos when they're given - that she, as a model, has had the luck to have her image on Physical attractiveness is unsurprising given that her image is both encyclopedic in that context and high-quality. Finding ways to make people interested in donating high-quality images is a good idea, even if saying so on the Main Page isn't. Nihiltres 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hit Bull and others that the featured picture review process is available for all those who disagree with the image in itself. Misplaced Pages is not censored and does it not deserve as much space as an image of a dead child or a flagellated slave. I agree with nihiltres in most regards, especially those regarding a self-referential caption. I agree with Wikidemo that a fashion picture would be a good image for the front page, if we were able to get one on the appropriate free-license. As it is, we don't have one. The Merkin image probably won't be a PR coup but it might get some more free-use images coming in. Woodym555 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED should rebut most of the complaints. As for the caption, the image is used in Glamour photography, Physical attractiveness, Michele Merkin, and Beauty. Just summarize the relevant language from those four articles into three or four sentences to be used in the Main Page caption. On the Main Page right now, we have a blown apart Chinese man with flys all over him. Let's not make this into a big deal. -- Jreferee t/c 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't featured picture review, if it's in line, put it on the front page. Wikidemo claims that it's an unremarkable photograph, but so are many featured pictures, it doesn't take an artistic genius to do a close up shot of a piece of fruit using an overpriced camera does it? This isn't going win any photography prizes is it? If it leads to more promotional images sent to us under free-use terms, then that's great, whether we'll feature them is a different matter. But we've featured this one, and it's her turn on the front page. - hahnch e n 23:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not every act of editorial discretion is censorship; most are not. What we put on the front page advertises to the world what Misplaced Pages is. It's entirely reasonable to want to convey that we are about things more substantive than lo-calorie cheesecake. To play the same game as Vogue, and Cosmo, GQ, Maxim, and People, and fifty other magazines, and to play it far worse than any of those, doesn't put Misplaced Pages in a great light. I sense we have a problem opposite to censorship, that some are promoting and defending meaningless content precisely because it is a mildly provocative image of a sexy young woman, and giving short shrift to our encyclopedic mission in the process. The nudity isn't the problem, it's utterly tame and would be at place on an outdoor billboard. The dead soldier, by contrast, is more informative and thought provoking, even though less professional. It raises an issue a lot of people don't know, that the US and China were in direct military conflict during the Korean War, and encourages people to read up on the important topic. Incidentally, I don't know what this subject has to do with WP:AN but the discussion is far broader and more policy-oriented than a mere image de-listing. Wikidemo 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Then that's an issue to raise at WP:FPC. I was not aware of this featured image until I saw this thread on AN, but it conveys as much about the subject as Image:EIAJconnector2 edit.jpg does its. And it's also used on more articles. If we can get a great promotional photo of a band under free use, then it's a heck of a lot better than a grainy image taken at a concert with a cameraphone. And if we do get a flood of these in, which is ideally what we'd like, then our featured standards will naturally raise to take these into account. Misplaced Pages won't feature images just because they're the celebrity du jour, and even if we did, given the queues, they won't be when their picture is on the main page. - hahnch e n 00:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know?

Did you know... that Misplaced Pages, the free encyclopaedia, placed on its front page DYK section an article about Dave Teo, a Singaporean conscript whose court case has not yet even started, let alone furnished a conviction? "We will laugh at your calamity: we will mock you when your fear cometh" (Wikiproverbs 1:26) Guy (Help!) 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please note, this is not a dig at anyone, updating DYK is dull handle-turning and nobody loves a dull job, I was just thinking that perhaps we should all have a look at some of the DYK noms from time to time and decline some of the more contentious ones. Including election candidates in current elections. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- More screeners are always welcome at T:TDYK, a reasonable objection usually keeps a nom from reaching the main page. Anyone can make comments there, even IPs... screening is a pretty dull process though, as you say, but if no comments there in the 5-day period... it's hard for admins to catch everything, unopposed nominations are added by default unless there's a backlog. In this case, no one objected, although interestingly the original nom didn't mention the conscript's name. It's now off DYK altogether. --W.marsh 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Sadly, DYK has joined WSS as the hive of instruction creep here in the last year. Both processes, when I last used them in 2006, were simple "post a line here, work done by others there, output to be seen here" things. A year later, both require their blocks lined up in a neat row and fuck the rest of the 'pedia, both are effectively being run by a tiny community with nothing better to do, both have huge hurdles to climb to get anywhere, both slap down anyone who complains with the crappy and creepy "well, other people manage okay so there isn't a problem (except with you)" rubric, and both make egregious errors that it is impossible to challenge safely.

The result is a process so in love with the process itself that awful rubbish is given priority without review because someone active in the clique in question has given it the nod without really thinking about it.

Root and branch reform is needed in DYK and WSS, but the clear fallout deters many people, myself included.

And, random surfers, please note the lack of personal attacks here. I'm stating my opinion and naming no names (I don't even remember any names), so save yourselves the threatening emails. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dave Teo ... article was created by an administrator and there had been a comment/suggestion from a known DYK participant, so it was reasonable to assume it was up-to-snuff. As a side note, I don't do much DYK updating these days, but it had been 17 hours (!!!) since the last update and I'd had enough spare time to get that done. howcheng {chat} 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please lock my userpage and talk page.

I've grown tired of this fighting. Maybe i'll be back in 2008. If ever. thanks for everything. muchas gracias. YoSoyGuapo 00:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Couillaud

Couillaud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Couillaud has already warned for a 3rr violation earlier today
Personal attacks, racially insensitive language and inflamatory language with: " he still can't spell either my name or the country "Namibia". "
Saying that "YoSoyGuapo is bad at spelling and grammar is like saying that Elvis is a dead rock'n'roller"
Mocked my hispanic heritage with "If it turns out that Misplaced Pages doesn't have the cojones to deal forcefully with this kind of trolling, I don't think I'll stick around"
Calling me "googleman" because I research articles.
stating that I learned English last week
commenting on my spelling and stating that he was a grammar nazi
YoSoyGuapo 00:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm back!

Hey everyone, I'm back from a wayyyyy long wikibreak (over a year!). I'm going to get back into the swing of things and hopefully be editing on a somewhat regular basis again as well as doing RfA promotions and name changes and the like.

Could someone be so kind as to inform me of any major changes that have occurred during the year that I was gone? Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages noticeboards