Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive152

65.69.81.2
Edits by 65.69.81.2 seem to limited to inappropriate edits. How is this handled? Bebestbe (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Warn (as you have done) and if the behaviour continues, seek a block. -Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 hours. In the future, please take cases similar to this to AIV. Thanks :) seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What is notable and what isn't notable
Although I have been on wikipedia for a while now, I am getting rather confused about what meets the notability requirements. A number of English football (soccer) clubs (such as Garstang F.C. have been put forward for AfD, however, the reasoning for their deletion is not based on any policy but on what are descibed as "generally accepted notabilia requirements for English clubs" which apparently are agreed on the WP:FOOTY project but no-one seems to know where it was originally agreed. I am sure all these clubs will end up being deleted as that just seems to be what happens, but there just seems to be a lot of ambiguity over what is and what is not notable. And some well written and well sourced articles are being deleted. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article says that this club is this club plays in a league that is at the 11th level of the English football league system or "football pyramid". You should ask on WP:FOOTY at what minimum level an english club needs to be play on to be notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If memory serves me, clubs in the top seven tiers are considered inherently notable.  caknuck °  is back from his wikisiesta  01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy of clubs from the top 10 levels was originally on WP:CORP, but was unilaterally removed in this edit. However, it has remained as a well-estbalished consensus since amongst WP:FOOTY members as shown in this discussion in March 2007, and in all the previous AfDs mentioned in the Garstang one. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've stayed away from football aside from Norwich City for the last year or so, but in my day it was always "top 10 tiers of the pyramid or fully professional" as the criteria (that "fully professional" bit was to let AFC Wimbledon stay, I believe). I don't see any reason to change that. – iride  scent  00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with The Martin Luther King jr. page
One of the users, Malik Shabazz, has tried to block some of my accurate edits about MLK's ties to some people who were investigated by the FBI for ties to Communism. I hate to say it, but the user is violating the neutral point of view and good faith policies. I am only trying to say how Myles Horton was never proven to be a Communist, and the user continues to block my edits. While I respect this user's want to reduce hate, unfortunately Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist newspaper American Renaissance, has tried to label Wikipedia as "propaganda" of black nationalism in one of his articles yesterday. If we do not include more facts about MLK's ties to alleged Communists, we may very well expand the White Pride movement. Me, I hate racism. Thank you.Kevin j (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Though this doesn't reflect on the reverting, I don't concern myself one whit with what the White Pride movement views the world, no more than I would the Flat Earth Society. Were I motivated to do anything by the White Pride movement, I would be very concerned about my sense of reality and self. --Moni3 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Kevin j is adding original research. His source barely mentions Dr. King and doesn't mention the SCLC or its critics at all, but he has spun it a lengthy sentence about how critics tried to discredit the SCLC by its association with the Highlander Folk School (the subject of his source). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the source says "On the 25th anniversary of the Highland Workshops in 1957, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the featured speaker." Kevin j has written "Critics of King's organization [the SCLC] tried to tie him with Communism through a speech he gave at Highlander Folk School in 1957; the school's head, Myles Horton, had been investigated by the FBI at the time for allegedly being a Communist, but had repeatedly denied being a supporter of the Communist Party and was never convicted of the charge." Trying to write about critics of King or the SCLC based on a source that only mentions that a speech by Dr. King is WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Having spent ten minutes looking at the diffs, I tend to support Malik Shabazz's take. Kevin j appears to be adding unsourced information, MS appears to be checking the sources and reverting, Kevin j has decided to forum shop to AN. Per Mon 13, Kevin j's arguments (that we should change our article because of the possible opinion of that article held by a repulsive group of losers) is not very compelling. I respectfully suggest Kevin j should slow down and consider very carefully what he is about. Meanwhile, there's nothing to see here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr Tagishsimon, you are wrong. The ADL has stated recently that the number of internet activity has increased among white pride groups.Kevin j (talk)
 * Which does not amount to an argument for adding unsourced assertions into articles, does it? Nor does the increase of internet activity mean that the information you were trying to add was either appropriate or required, even were it sourced. There is, in short, no connection whatsoever between the internet habits of so-called white pride groups, and your editing of the article, except in your head. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, YOU ARE MISTAKEN. You are not seeing things from a neutral perspective sir. YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ MY SOURCE-WHICH YES, I DID INCLUDE- AND ARE JUST BELIEVING ANOTHER PERSON'S OPINION.Kevin j (talk)


 * Hmmm, ALL CAPS. Not exactly the best method of getting everyone to take you seriously. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick browse of the OR edits Kevin J made to the MLK article, and some other recent edits make his claim that his edits are somehow motivated by a concern about expansion of the White Pride movement a bit tenuous. If anything, they seem the opposite, including adding info to Brown v. Board of Education he originally gleaned from that great anti-racist crusader Lew Rockwell. In any case, editing that is guided by concern abuot the White moron movement one way or another is a no-no. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see a little AGF here, folks. I'm inclined to suspect the possibility that a well-intentioned, young and naive (and not highly literate) editor may be the problem, rather than any covert racist agenda. I could, of course, be wrong. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed...the editor might very well be simply well-intentioned, young and naive (and not highly literate). Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential ban evasion?
I'm not really sure how to proceed with this one, so I'm just posting about it here. , a new account, just made this somewhat inflammatory post on a talk page. The comment mentions the banned user Artaxiad, so I'm wondering if this new user is somehow involved with whatever issues went down with that. This doesn't really strike me as a WP:UAA, but I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention. *shrug* &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Banned as an obvious sock. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 01:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system
I'm having a problem on the Solar energy page with an IP user. This user has insisted on a lead graphic which I and many others have objections to. I tried an RfC to work out a resolution back in Nov-Dec and despite a 6 to 1 vote to remove this picture it keeps coming back. Why should something this simple be such a big problem? The issue bogged down the GA process and it looks like it's going to kill the fledgling FAC process. I think if there were other regular editors on the page this IP would go away but it's basically just me and periodically Itsmejudith. I've brought it up here twice before with no response. I'd love some help. Mrshaba (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored the image. I worded the summary wrong. But I suggested you all go to the talk page and discuss changing the image. I will warn the user for Edit Warring. Rgoodermote  00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. We've discussed things extensively: Rfc Pictures, Images (note: Apteva is a sock the IP uses), Picture change, Image selection. Others have had issues with the picture here. It ticks me off that someone could carry on so long against so many different people. Mrshaba (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the IP continues just label the image removal vandalism. Because it is clear that the image is agreed upon.Rgoodermote  00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my... Thank you so much. Mrshaba (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is far from being resolved. Mrshaba is an SPA with a possible COI who is simply blocking content from appearing on the page. Apteva (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is the IP. I would say sock but I haven't seen others. Also, we resolved this on your IP's talk page. Rgoodermote Not an admin 06:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. And no, not a sock. A long term editor who rarely uses a username. Have asked for mediation, but see no hope of resolution, short of chastising Mrshaba. Apteva (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hadn't called you a sock, but sorry if I made you feel like I did. Anyways, to resolve this you shouldn't be annoying the user. You should first all find an agreed upon resolution. You already have my suggestion and I feel that is the best. I also believe you two should sit down and talk it out peacefully. You are both near the realms of incivility and have both of you have been in an edit war. I am hoping nobody blocks you two and they will not if you agree to just talk it out and listen to each other. Rgoodermote Not an admin 06:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing away with Administrators_open_to_recall
I have asked here - Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall - whether it is worthwhile continuing with this process. Is it fair that some admins are on it and others aren't, and also, what can be accomplished here that cannot with Requests for comment/User conduct or arbitration? Anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations
...is backlogged again; some of the entries are a week old. All users are welcome to help out. shoy 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing what I can to help out, but more eyes would really be great. Glass  Cobra  23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Please do not make backlog requests on this page. As the template at the top of this page points out, the proper procedure is to add an template to any area that is backlogged and requires administrative attention. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've cleared it out, waiting on an admin to come through and process all the CSDs. bornhj (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Need a second opinion
I don't know if I am in the right place, so I apologize up front for that. I am a new contributor here, and I thought I was making good decent edits. But, I feel like I got a back handed accusal of Conflict of Interest sneaked in with a Welcome, which I felt to be patronizing for the real warning. Can someone take a look at 1) my edits; 2) the history of my talk page (I deleted the "Welcome-COI" note); and 3) the message I left on my user page, and tell me what I have done wrong? If things aren't right just tell me and/or block me. Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're a new contributor, deleting warnings from your Talk page so early in your career is not advisable. User:Herbythyme tends to have good judgment about external links, and you could probably have a conversation with him as to what links might be included per our External links policy. The COI warning is routinely given when it appears possible that a new contributor might have promotional intent. Your addition of links, combined with your user name which suggests you might have an interest in an organization based in Fortuna,  may be what gave rise to that. Having a sensible conversation with Herby would be a way to dispel that impression. Using the word 'vandalism' in edit summaries when removing removing a good-faith edit by an experienced contributor is not likely to win friends or influence people. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I got the warning BEFORE I added any "External links", other than as references. I had not added a link to the "External links" section. The "History" section did not have any references before I added some. The person should have looked at the additions, not just because they were links, but how and why they were used, before slipping in a warning under a "Welcome" banner. I think it was cheap, and discourages me and possibly other new users. So, tell me what I did that was wrong? This beating around the bush, or hinting, double-speak, isn't sitting well with me. Best O Fortuna (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay: you've asked for a second opinion. Here it is, square on the nose. Are you ready? Having looked at your edits, as well as the timing of the COI message, I can find nothing wrong with your actions, and on the contrary, in the time dedicated to looking at your work, I judge it to be of higher than normal quality. My view: Herby was a way too quick off the mark with the COI. Hope that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I guess I will take that as it is safe to go back in the water? I don't see any fins, but I didn't see any before either. I just want you guys to actually look at the edits before handing out COIs and the like. I am guessing that some good quality contributors have been lost like this. Less good editors mean more bad ones as a percentage. Please let your fellow warning distributors know. Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about lost contributions due to overzealous RC patrollers; there are lots of people here who are more concerned about following to the letter guidelines and general statements like "We shouldn't have too many external links because some of them might be bad" than producing a relevantly-hyperlinked encyclopedia article. There's nothing wrong with what you were doing.  While I'm not condoning the actions of Herby, you have to understand that we get a lot of linkspam, and not everyone who watches contributions always assumes good faith and tries to reason it out with the other editor before engaging in edit wars; while it isn't a good thing, obviously, it happens.  Just live with it, don't feed the trolls, and keep on improving the project.  Celarnor Talk to me  04:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is probably worth reiterating that poor innocent Best O Fortuna had not touched the external links section, fullstop.. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - I apologised to the user without hesitation for any offence caused. However I also pointed out that the template clearly says may have a connection.  Equally my edit was reverted by the user as "vandalism". -- Herby  talk thyme 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

image renaming
This file has a duplicate in the wikicommons, and I would appreciate if an administrator could rename it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circumcision_by_Country.png

The newer version in the commons is a better version of the map to illustrate worldwide circumcision rates. Thanks Revasser (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason not to just delete the local version? Kevin (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The version on Commons contains this exact copy in it's history, so I would think it would be safe to use WP:CSD. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the original version being deleted - but I'm not sure how to go about that. If you administrators could do so, that would be perfect. Revasser (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (I'm not an admin but) Certainly, though just to let you know, you can tag certain images and pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion with one of the templates described on that page. Just add the template and reason to the image description page directly. This specific situation seems to pass WP:CSD. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done - now we wait. Thanks a lot for your help. :) Revasser (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Beware of new Grawp tricks
Grawp's most common IP range is under a hard block. He has figured out a new trick to get the block modified so he can vandalize.

He makes rapid vandal edits to the IP talk page (which is the only page he can edit while hard blocked, ). Some unsuspecting admin blocks the IP for "vandalism" anon-only and ACB. However, single IP blocks override hard blocks, so this now allows him to edit from that IP using previously registered sleeper accounts.

When dealing with IP vandalism from the Grawp range (mostly 71.107.x.x and 71.108.x.x) check for rangeblocks first using the rangeblock finder on the IP talk page, and then protect the IP user and talk page if necessary, or hard-block the IP, but do not soft-block the IP. Thatcher 11:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Enlightening. Thanks. Rudget   ( logs ) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not fix it so a single block doesn't override the rangeblock? Jtrainor (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jtrainor. Isn't this a bug that should be fixed? Or has it already been filed at Bugzilla? hbdragon88 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's deliberate, so that if there's a "good" IP caught in a rangeblock, it can be unblocked. What we should do is have a bot or someone with AWB drop a note on all the talk pages there, with a summary of Grawp's new trick. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: what about an option in the block form that disables the ability to unblock an individual IP when setting a rangeblock? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That bot/AWB idea of Nwwaew's is a good one. It should be on the userpage, though, not the talk page (or both), as I would imagine the first thing that would go woul dbe that notice. Neıl  龱  19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be simpler to include Grawp's ip range as part of the "sensitive ip addresses" notice on the block form page, with a note to hard block ip's rather than soft block. I admit I don't pay as much attention as I did to that template, but it would be of assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, other vandals are also creating sock accounts for Grawp. I caught JtV doing it yesterday. If certain vandals persist in that and wish to make a career of it, they also risk rangeblocks (yeah, even on telecomitalia.it) - A l is o n  ❤ 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran into that yesterday and wondered what was up with that. I protected the page, but didn't issue a block. Another admin did. Anyways, it would be nice if the block screen would give a warning that a range block is in effect for a particular IP. The rangeblock finder is easy enough to use, but it's yet another step that I would have to remember to use. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconding and emphasizing the above comment, “…it would be nice if the block screen would give a warning that a range block is in effect for a particular IP.” — Travis talk  20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thirding. Has anyone proposed that anywhere?  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have opened 14634 requesting currently active range blocks be listed on Special:BlockIP, all inerested parties should feel free to add appropriate comments. The ball is now in the developer's court to determine if it is practical to add this enhancement. --Allen3 talk 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... you guys should know about 76.172.178.99 which was editing mainspace freely without receiving any prior block to mine, I don't think that this one was using that particular trick. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's Grawp.  Enigma  message 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doppelgängers aren't of much help either, but I don't think that by a matter of chance this user appeared today a few hours after a series of Grawp moves. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, that's pretty clever. Sad that someone wastes what is probably a gifted mind on vandalizing Wikipedia. After looking again at the conversation above, I agree that the block page should prompt somehow or have a notice that the IP is already blocked via rangeblock. That would effectively solve the problem, as I doubt admins would block anon only if it's already part of a hard rangeblock.  Enigma  message 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest lobbying whoever takes over Huggle (currently User:Fritzpoll) to disable the "automatically block repeat vandals for 24 hours" feature. I personally don't think this should ever have been an option - at the very least it should force you to read the IP's talkpage to see if they're explained why their edits weren't vandalism - but at present it's possible for a user to go through warnings 1-4 and be blocked without anyone ever seeing either the talkpage or the BlockIP screen. – iride  scent  17:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Comic Book Bin
While The Comic Book Bin may or may not be notable, in its own right, in light of this all the assorted permutations of the name probably warrant some close watching. (This has also been mentioned on WR, so some assorted characters may also try to join the fun...) – iride  scent  16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I bother adding a comment to the article (on their website, not Wikipedia) telling them they're wasting their time? J.delanoy gabs adds  17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. WP:COI does not ban people from writing about themselves, despite what so many users think, and there's some chance that a viable article could come out of this. Besides, if you refresh that post you'll notice that they now have Kohs warning them, and for all his faults I don't think anyone would doubt that he (ahem) understands the COI policy here better than most. – iride  scent  17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, just wondered. I hadn't seen that other guy's comment. J.delanoy gabs adds  17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has (at the time I wrote this) 77 pages (not counting images) waiting for review. I marked one of them as patrolled nearly two hours ago. Just wanted to let you know... J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 17:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Something odd is going on there...Aldeberan, Epsilon Eridani, Tau Boötis, and Upsilon Andromedae (all notable stars) are listed, but none of them have the CSD tag, nor does it appear that they have had it over the course of their last 100 edits. Anyone have an idea what's going on at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion?  Horologium  (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably one of the templates which is 'up' for deletion, which is transcluded onto those particular pages. Rudget   ( logs ) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They all transcluded Template:Sciencearticles – iride  scent  17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an old unused template, now deleted. Purge C:CSD, the star articles should be removed.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Barnstar
On User talk:Jeanne boleyn a barnstar of "Racial Purity". Content of user's page suggests to me that user may not be aware of the implications. Ning-ning (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From some of her contributions, I'd say she is very well aware of the connotations. The Barnstar should go.DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP is absolutely aware per its contribs. Removed. giggy (O) 10:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I saw this on her userpage. My politics are far- right; I'm a Monarchist, I believe in God, and I despise the current PC mentality. Clearly she didnt care about the connotation. This should probably be monitered. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This less than civil "editor" just left this message on my talk page. Could an admin resolve it. .— Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 06:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given the editor the standard "free speech does not apply on Wikipedia" speech. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I was concerned about this comment; I have the right to detest the PC mentality, which is rearing it's hideously ugly head right at this moment and breathing it's foul, rancid, stifling breath into my face and trying to strangle all individuality and freedom of thought. Which is a person attack against myself. Seriously is my breath that bad? — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now she has reported me to another admin seen here. Please this is a little silly. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 07:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I really don't see that as a personal attack. It seems to me to be an attack on the general movement of the PC culture, not on you. You are reading too much into that, as you are to the Pigman thread. They are entitled to be riled somewhat, as are you. Just let it go now I think, move on, if they act in a racist manner in the future, then they will be blocked. Woody (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say diffs like this suggest to me that the editor should be very closely monitored for both racism and personal attacks. She has apologized to the target of that attack, but still I feel that she should be watched. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Hill, I should inform you that I am married to an Italian, two of my children are Italian citizens as well as half Italian by blood. In fact, my 17 year old Italian son is beside me now. I have seen hateful remarks directed at the British, the Irish, Americans,Jews, etc. I have never used an ethnic or racist slur. I always profusely apologise when I let my impulsive temper get out of hand. Might I suggest that you men resent a female who has strong opinions of her own? I'm sorry but I feel ganged up on by a group of young men because I'm a woman whose political views do not coincide with your own. I have the right to my opinions as you do your own. Monitor me if you wish-it's your right to do so as it's my right to protest this bullying.jeanne (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't give a damn if you are a woman or a man, if you make offensive racist comments such as the one I linked above, or say that you appreciate a "barnstar of racial purity" then I will call you on it. Profuse apologies are all very well - but to complain when an editor rightly removes racist material from a talk-page is to me very suggestive of your underlying attitude. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way - thanks for calling me young - I don't get that much nowadays! DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Might I suggest that you men resent a female who has strong opinions of her own? I'm sorry but I feel ganged up on by a group of young men because I'm a woman whose political views do not coincide with your own" - oh come on now, you surely realise that you're skating on thin ice. Appart from all else, everyone knows that internet users are unisexual, as it's very rare that a user goes their whole life without being mistaken for the opposite gender ;). Now, in case you're being serious, I can assure you that anything going on here has nothing to do with anyone's gender, just as it has nothing to do with anyone's race, religeous belief, political views etc. Talk Islander 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a lurker on the AN page, I think I can safely say that sexism is not an issue, since gender is mostly not evident in a username. Some of the most revered members on Wikipedia are women. I think people are taken back by your opinions, as you stated on your user page that you are prone to expressing them as you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The most ironic part of this controversy is that there is no such thing as an "Irish race" or an "Italian race." There are no human races. The only way such people differ is in culture. Even people from lands as distant as Africa are almost identical genetically to people from Ireland. Humans are far more similar to each other genetically than other animals. What a idiotic barnstar! And her comment that somehow an Italian should feel guilty for the actions of his ancestors is also ridiculous and offensive. Even though I am also of "Celtic" ancestry I find such chauvinism deeply offensive to my humanity. No one, regardless of their surname, deserves to be addressed in such a manner.--Hello. I&#39;m new here, but I&#39;m sure I can help out. (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well put, Hello I'm New Here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Duncan. :) --Hello. I&#39;m new here, but I&#39;m sure I can help out. (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there's no such thing as race, how can I be called a racist? You just walked into that one with your eyes wide open. Also, I AM MARRIED TO AN ITALIAN, TWO OF MY CHILDREN ARE ITALIAN, I DID NOT PUT THE CELTIC CROSS ON MY TALK PAGE I AM NOT A RACIST. Now can we call an end to this pathetic farce of an Inquisition?!!It really has become, like, totally BORING, so if you'll excuse me I'd like to take a jaunt over to YouTube and have a wee listen to The Undertones, Cockney Rebel and Lene Lovich, so I can really be entertained. CIAO.jeanne (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not a racist, yet you express appreciation of a "barnstar of racial purity". You are not a racist, yet you only want to see "Irish faces" when in Dublin. You are not a racist, yet you base an apology on an editors "Celtic blood". Bollocks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop taunting each other, both of you. This is unseemly and against our policies to assume good faith and behave in a civil and adult manner towards one another.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Board elections results announced
See Board elections/2008/Results/en. Perhaps a watchlist notice might be in order? Naerii 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations are in order for m:User:Wing - Well done sir!  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and good luck Wing.  MBisanz  talk 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats to Wing. I don't know 'bout no watchlist notice though.  Really?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to Wing from me. Regarding the watchlist notice, there's an announcement of the results at the top-central part of the screen, so I don't think a watchlist notice is really needed. Acalamari 21:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No input?
Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive437

So there's nothing I can do about this? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Typically, follow the warning levels and report to WP:AIV. Is this a slow edit war or something that doesn't really fit there?  Saying "repeatedly" doesn't help as much as diffs would.  I can't tell from the other edits what's going on (that whole Warhammer 40,000 is WAY too in-universe if someone who knows a bit has no clue what's being argued).  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI could be the right venue too. Supply diffs next time, that may be why you got no response, admins are busy and generally won't hunt for evidence, you need to provide it. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my error - I thought I had placed this on WP:ANI - it was only when I looked at my contribs I released it was on the wrong admin page.  Please mark as resolved or remove, as applicable. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 12:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect pages being tagged as uncategorised
A fair few redirect pages have been tagged as uncategorised by User 91.198.174.201 and User SoxBot VII - whether they're the same, I don't know. Is there a problem somewhere in the code ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, ignore this - I see this issue has been covered at WP:ANI CultureDrone (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mission SF Federal Credit Union
After I placed the speedy deletion tag on the article, the article's creator deleted the tag. Went to the user's talk page...apparently the article had been tagged before. Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted again. Kevin (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And again; I salted it this time.  Horologium  (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee announcements
A large amount of work has been in progress by the Arbitration Committee, in the background, for a considerable time, to look at a number of systemic problems deemed of importance, and possible solutions. These have now been posted up. They include a package of some 10 measures, mostly related to one of three things - things needed so the Committee can do its job without being clogged up; things needed to try and finally address a few of the more serious, systemic and perennial dispute resolution problems that repeatedly waste editor's efforts and time, and a number of clarifications and other matters.

Included in this is an announcement regarding Checkuser access.

It's been a lot of work, and a lot of deep thought. We do not plan to do it often, but we equally believe that if these work we have targetted each of the main problems we are aware of, in a very clear way, rather than "half hearted tinkering at the edges". The long term harm of these is non-trivial.

There will be discussion. I look forward to it. please take time to analyze the announcements as a whole, and read the small print carefully :)

With respect,

FT2 (Talk 14:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee

(Minor note, I will be away much of the rest of today, until Saturday. Please be aware of this if I do not myself reply immediately. There will be many comments, hopefully the pages are mostly self explanatory and most questions will sustain a day or two's delay if needed. It'll be discussed longer than that. It took longer than I thought to finish writing up. It's been some days in the writing. - FT2)

Main page: Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements

Index of sub-pages: -- Thatcher 15:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Appeals Review List
 * Checkuser appointments
 * BLP enforcement guidance
 * Consensus seeking processes
 * Clarifying the role of the Committee
 * Activation of view-deleted-pages
 * Skilled content warriors
 * Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

Proposed ban on Bart Versieck
has a long history of editing others' talk page comments, despite being warned several times not to do so. See his talk page and the talk page archive--it's littered with warnings about this behavior. It's been the subject of at least two admin discussions ((here and here) He's been blocked at least eight times for this since 2007, each time promising to stop. He's also engaged in similar behavior on the Dutch Wikipedia.  Most recently, he was blocked for three months--but this was reduced to three weeks, with a stern warning that the next block would be much, much longer and possibly indef.

Well, earlier, discovered he'd done it again. To my mind, this is the last straw, and I propose a community ban. Blueboy96 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support ban — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support ban It's not just the talk pages either, it's main article editing. There were lots of problems with his behavior on Ruby Muhammad, for example, and I think that at least one of his blocks (possibly one of mine) related to his distortion and refusal to abide by talk page consensus on this page. Cheers, CP 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I'm no fan of Bart's edits to other users' comments, how is this edit the last straw? It wasn't exactly an on-topic comment that he removed, and I probably would have removed it too. Looking at his contributions since the last block, this appears to be the only time he continued the same behavior. This is not ban worthy, and the indefinite block should be reversed. - auburn pilot   talk  02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - diff shown isn't ban worthy. PhilKnight (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support ban - CP sums it up.  Soxred  93  03:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He may be trouble at times, but if that edit's the last straw, then we'd have to ban an awful lot of people. His block log says quite a bit about him doing this in the past, though how many of his edits have been modifying comments and how many have been removing edits like the one above are two very different causes for alarm. Wizardman  03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support ban. The stated diff is admittedly trivial, but this is just the last in a LONG stream of behaviour which snubs the TPG guideline.  He refactors other's comments often, including removing edits, despite promises not to do so any more.  Dutch Wikipedia block log shows this is not just a problem here. Please also read this which shows how exasperating the user is.  Moondyne 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While I'm aware of the user's past issues, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that diff. He removed some nonsense comments from a talk page after adding a template to it. I probably would have done the same thing, and have done so. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Z-man. Indef should be overturned if he notes what he's done wrong and agrees to do something constructive about it (read: ask for second opinions even in cases like this.) giggy (O) 05:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have some sympathy with anyone who fixes other people's posts. I've done it myself in the past, but I hope I know where the line should be drawn. I try to limit myself to fixing things like incorrect formatting (eg. closing a bold or italics bit), fixing a header if the number of "===" are wrong, fixing a link if it wasn't closed properly, fixing incorrect wikimarkup taggs (eg. a or  tag not closed), and even egregious spelling mistakes if I can resist (I know I should resist!). I also try and only do it while adding a comment myself anyway. The difference, I suppose, is that I haven't been asked to stop as many times as Bart has, though someone did ask me not to the other day. I then promptly apologised. Let's see if I can find some diffs. OK, here is an example from yesterday: . I had clicked on the link WT:BIO, knowing what discussion Woody was referring to, and end up at the talk page for the notability guideline, not the biography wikiproject talk page. A fairly common mistake, so I fixed the shortcut to be WT:WPBIO. Other times, I do cross the line, particularly with regards to indentation. Normally, when I see an indentation I don't understand, I ask the person concerned. However, the other day I "fixed" an indentation: . The editor in question asked me not to do this: . I then apologised: . I also found another example of fixing. See here: . So what is needed here, I think, is recognition that some fixing is possible, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and if you cross it you should just apologise and adjust your behaviour. The question is whether Bart is crossing this line (we need specific and recent diffs) and whether he is adjusting his behaviour (Bart needs to speak up and say something). From reviewing this, I think he is crossing the line (he actually alters what other people have said). Whether he is continuing to do that (the diff provided here was merely removing a comment that was off-topic) is debatable. Providing old diffs may not be enough to prove that he is slipping back to his old behaviour. I recognise that he has done this in the past, but I don't think an indefinite block is needed for this (it is not dangerous disruption, just highly annoying and misleading). I would also note that there is history between Bart and Canadian Paul on the "oldest people" articles. Unblock Bart and let him respond here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support block  True, the diff provided indicates a very minor incident - but one that is part of a long standing problem with this editor. We have been here many times, and often BV has promised to reform and not edit other peoples contributions and the community has given them another chance. Once again, it has been found that BV is incapable of keeping to that undertaking. Rather than commenting on the admittedly minor nature of most of these edits, can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP? If that is not possible, then can anyone indicate why they think that this "last chance" will alter BV's attitude toward editing other peoples contributions? It is fairly obvious that a ban is not possible - there are too many good opposes to it - so I am content to support the indef block. The block can be lifted when there is community support for allowing BV to edit again, under such restrictions, mentoring, edit paroles, as is considered sufficient to resolve the matter, or not lifted as is deemed necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. Someone should tell him about this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will make a note on the user talkpage. If there is sufficient reasoning in any unblock request I recommend unblocking to allow BV to participate here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP?" Well, LessHeard vanU, I'd say Bart Versieck's contributions speak for themselves in that respect. Since his last block, Bart has made 195 edits. Only one indicates a continued behavior, when he changed the word merger to merge (simply removing an "R"). The majority of his edits remain unaltered (not reverted/still the top edit), and that would suggest they are valuable and beneficial to the project. - auburn pilot   talk  14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is good, but are they edits that are of particular value that could not be made by anybody else? Is the community risking a noticable dip in the quality of editing by blocking this account, or will others likely take up the slack? I am trying to determine whether there is a case for the community allowing yet another last chance, or to provide assistance to stop this behaviour, rather than allowing the indef to stand. It seems to me that if this behaviour is to be "tolerated" rather than sanctioned there should really be some gain to the encyclopedia for doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * LessHeard vanU, to play the devil's advocate here, what edits have any of us made (and you in particular) that could not have been made by anyone else? That is a very dangerous line of reasoning you are following. Thank you for posting the note to Bart's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my point. I would (like to think I would) not expect dispensation for a repeated problem of mine based on my contributions. I don't see why the far greater majority of good edits should allow a pattern of disruptive edits be ignored or passed over. This is not an isolated incident, but an apparent inability to not slide back into bad habits, and to remain true to an undertaking. It needs to be resolved and not allowed to continue on the basis of "it was only a little one, and the rest of the time they have been okay." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)That's simply not how we determine whether or not somebody should be indefinitely blocked. We don't say "Yeah, your edits are good, but they're not good enough". Of course somebody would pick up the slack, just as somebody would pick up the slack if I disappeared after making this edit. Yet, nobody is proposing I be indef blocked because somebody else could do what I do. One questionable edit out of 195 since his last block does not warrant a ban or indef block. Bottom line. - auburn pilot   talk  15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But it isn't just one in the last 195, but the last in a long line of disruptive edits over a very long period. The other points I have covered in my response to Carcharoth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Completely uninvolved editor checking in here, but isn't this editor already blocked indefinitely? I would suggest that this is the case, see: Block log. I still didn't see the reason clearly enunciated for the block, certainly the dif provided seemed quite insignificant and could have been attributed to a vandal's adding onto a page. FWiW, I have tried to sift through the very extensive edit history of the aforementioned editor, and what some would characterize as "disruptive," others may see as examples of content disputes. I would caution restraint and suggest a mentorship based on the "critical friend" model that allows the editor to initially seek a counsel before entering into contentious situations. Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC).
 * comment I edit on alot of the same pages as Canadian Paul and Bart. Which mostly are the supercentenarian pages. Im curious to ask if anybody has asked Bart why he deleted the comment on the talk page? --Npnunda (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support ban per nom. Postoak (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how there is clearly no consensus here for a community ban, I suggest he be unblocked, especially given the horrible evidence used for blocking in the first place. On a side note, unless there is some sort of an emergency which there clearly wasn't in this case (the edit used as reasoning was 3 days before the block), isn't it customary to discuss before applying the block? Mr.Z-man 17:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban It is bad to edit or remove others' talk page comments, but I don't think it would be correct to ban him from the project. Masterpiece2000  ( talk ) 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose ban Very out of proportion block/ban. -- Ned Scott 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A compromise?
Seeing as there's some pretty strong opposition to a ban, I won't object to cutting the block down. But seeing as he's engaged in this behavior with many warnings--even if he isn't banned, I would think a long-term block is in order in light of his past behavior and his repeated broken promises to stop. Indeed, in one of the earlier discussions, quite a few admins wondered why he hadn't already been slapped with a long block. Blueboy96 19:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a deal where:
 * He is unblocked now
 * He voluntarily accepts a restriction that he can be immediately re-blocked for one month by ANY administrator, even an involved one, if he touches anyone else's Talk page comment in the slightest way, even to remove what appears to be a vandal comment. Such a block would require only a simple announcement by the blocking admin at WP:AN that the reblock had been done. The reblock would double on each occurrence.
 * I suggest this mostly because the most recent example of a violation seems too harmless to issue a long remedy. But under the new plan it would be blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I much prefer the indef block, I could live with this. The biggest trouble is having to rejustify and rehash every single time he's disruptive. Issuing a month-long block is likely to attract the attention of other admins who may think it silly to give such a long block for minor offenses, which means we have to do a whole other long discussion recapping attempting to convince others about the nature of his behavior. If I (or anyone else) can point to a community decision, that makes things a lot easier. I'm a little hesitant to unblock him immediately, however, because he also violated the compromise that took forever to hash out on the Ruby Muhammad page, where he has caused a lot of problems in the past. It might be useful to add that the same blocking solution be applied for WP:BLP violations. Cheers, CP 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I wouldn't be adverse to an immediate unblock so they can take part in this discussion - but there needs to be the unblock request first. Any sanction can then be applied after the discussion when there is consensus. It would be beyond foolishness for there to be any problematic edits during the discussion, so it wouldn't be placing the encyclopedia at risk to unblock under such circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as it's understood that it'll eventually go up to indef with repeated violations of this restriction, I can go along wtih this. To my mind, knowing that a bunch of admins are hovering over him with banhammers at the ready is just as effective as a long block.  Blueboy96 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Having admins hovering over you with the banhammer is enough to effectively end someone's wiki-career. I know it was his own actions that brought him to that point, but just stop a moment and think whether you would be able to edit under that sort of pressure? I sometimes think it would be more dignified to put someone out of their misery. There is also an unwritten assumption here that he has to be squeaky-clean for some undefined period of time. Will he ever be able to relax again or not? A year, two years, three years? These sort of probationary periods should always have a time limit on them, and should never be open-ended. I will personally say here that if Bart agrees to this and edits with no problems for three months, then a breach of the conditions after three months should lead to a short block and reimposition of a three-month probation under the hair-trigger banhammer (or Sword of Damocles, as we should call it), rather than a jump to indefinite. Otherwise, you may get the silly position of people, a year later, pointing to this discussion to justify a ban. In my view, just as we warn before most blocks, we should also warn before a ban discussion. An official last, last chance if you like. Not everyone realises they are running the risk of a ban until the ban discussion starts. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After seeing Carcharoth's view, looking at the Ruby Muhammad debate, and going through this editor's Talk archives to peruse the discussions around the block notices, I'm changing my position to Support the indef block. There was more than just the Talk-editing problem here, though that was the most flagrant issue. If indef is too long, how about one year. EdJohnston (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: why don't you formally topic ban him on ever removing or editing *any* comment by other editors on talk pages instead of doing a full ban? That would leave him an opportunity to continue his work on articles. If he violates the ban, then you can temporally block him for a long time or indefinitely --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've run into this guy and things haven't improved. Sadly, support a long block. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't support a longer block. I think the suggestion of EdJohnston is good. Unblock him, and if he edit or remove other's talk page comments, any admin can block him for a longer period. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 02:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, this has been done before. Refer to his Block log and the most recent deal on his talk page where he made a promise to accept conditional editing privileges with the edit comment "good deal".   Can someone explain why it'll be any different this time?  Moondyne 04:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * sure, give him another last chance, it will result in an indef ban anyway at some point. he simply doesn't appear to see what he is doing wrong, every block he opposes shows he doesn't (want to) understand why he was banned. the suggestion by EdJohnston is nice (though he himself sees later there is more to it), give it try and see where it goes, it got my money on another talkpage edit within weeks, maybe days. Boneyard (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We've been through the block -> "promise not to do it again" -> repeat violation cycle so many times with no results. Versieck is warned at each violation that he will be blocked for an extended period or be banned. Time to practice what we preach. I feel that the original 3 month block should take effect as originally defined by the administrator. His ability to edit articles should be restored after the block. If it happens again, then he is banned. Postoak (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User is asking again for unblock with a template on his talk page. See also his comments below in the transcluded section of his talk page. While I'll admit, I'm new to this situation and have not gone through all Bart's checkered past, I don't think that the removal of that forumy comment should be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That being said, should he be unblocked, I do endorse a topic ban on all editing of others talk page comments (no matter how forumy or trollish) and Bart seems willing to submit to such a topic ban as seen below. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * initally he again doesn't appear to understand why he should keep away from talk pages, then he gives in with a single line, a line we have seen several times before. then finally he again doesn't accept the reason for the block, he keeps thinking it is unfair, without him understanding what he is doing wrong it will never stop. Xenocidic when someone keeps breaking the same (perhaps small) rule then at some point a small edit will have a huge effect. to the admin who unblocks this user please make it very clear to him to which rules apply to him once he starts editing again and be willing to follow up with an indef this time. Boneyard (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The below was a section of Bart's talk page that was transcluded during the discussion, and was subst'ed to WP:AN for the historical record. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Partial transclusion of User talk:Bart Versieck

 * I have created this section of Bart's talk page so he can make a statement to the WP:AN thread. – xenocidic  ( talk ) 14:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a very big problem indeed, because my computer's browser at home doesn't accept cookies anymore since a couple of days (hence my anonymous contributions yesterday evening, which have been deleted afterwards, and now I'm at my job's), but I honestly don't understand at all why I have been blocked this time around (no harm done): could you explain, please, for that so-called "violation" has just been a justified deletion, and one that has been restored by someone else, by the way, so I'm definitely going to appeal this block, plus, moreover, an eternal ban is absolutely out of proportion. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit is not "a violation of the talkpage consensus", it's just mentioning the fact that her claim is not proven, so it's a longevity claim: alternative date of birth and "ostensibly". Extremely sexy (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But why would it be forbidden for me anyway to edit a talkpage at all, especially since the one concerned is justified? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of keeping this unarchived at WP:AN - since the block appears still to be in place, you may be glad of it - I would reply that it is very dangerous for you to remove (wholly or partly) any editors comments, be they vandalism or not. You have a record of doing this inappropriately, and (as can be seen on the AN thread) very few people are going to get into a debate of whether it was justified or not. I would suggest, should you be allowed to edit again, that the next time you see something that needs removing you report it to someone else to review and act. It might not seem "fair", but you do need to accept the consequences of your previous behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the best solution. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I repeat, for "Postoak" and the like, that my so-called "violation" has turned out to be a legitimate edit, which was, moreover, restored only a couple of hours afterwards by another editor, so this ban is utterly unjustified. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted, it is agreed that any removal in whole or part of any other accounts comments on a talkpage is inappropriate and prohibited, and you will seek the review of another editor (and I am willing to look at any such matter) in respect of any potential vandal comment. On this basis I have unblocked the account. Again, as I have commented, this is the very last of the last chances you have had and if this matter arises again I will be the admin proposing we first melt down the key, grind it into tiny pieces, and then fling random pieces among the high mountains, dry deserts and very deep oceans (or enact a community ban, if easier). LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Please, just get on with editing the encyclopedia and consign this episode to the past!

User talk page question
Hello... just wanted to double-check something regarding appropriate use of user talk pages, as I can't find anything in the regular guides. I've got a new user (User:Dumpster muffin) who is repeated blanking his/her talk page (their prerogative, of course) and replacing it with multiple copies of a very high resolution image. This of course results in multiple large files loading when one goes to that page, which (for all intents and purposes) renders the page non-functional. Use of the image appears legit, as it is a US government "public domain" file from Commons. However, I'm on the verge of blocking the guy because he keeps restoring the page. Thoughts? --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  06:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like image vandalism to me. Granted it's not in the article space.   weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd want to say WP:DICK applies, but basically, it's just disruptive and a preventative block seems appropriate. If he's really nuts about it, his talk page will have to protected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an interesting discussion on m:Talk:Don't be a dick about what constitutes being a dick. I reckon this meets the bill. Blocking won't stop them being a dick on their talk page, but protecting it will. giggy (O) 09:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, being a dick shouldn't be the sole reason for blocks (it'd be much quieter around these parts then), but protecting would make it so that basically no one but admins could use the talk page. That's still not useful.  A block to stop them from continuing to do it is the key. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know - the dick stuff was more philosophical than relevant. Block them, and if they keep going, protect the page. giggy (O) 11:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. The guy seems to have stopped for now, I'm assuming because WBOSITG also removed the images. (Strength in numbers...) Might be worth a mention somewhere as part of what is (and isn't) considered appropriate on talk pages. Thanks again. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation errors
Has anyone else noticed an increase in the number of "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem" errors recently ? Normally, I can edit without seeing any, but today I must have had at least a dozen....the error itself is shown as "Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cable_barrier&action=submit, from 91.198.174.37 via sq23.wikimedia.org (squid/2.6.STABLE18) to 10.0.5.3 (10.0.5.3) Error: ERR_ZERO_SIZE_OBJECT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:32:24 GMT" - is there somewhere I should report this ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:VP/T is probably the right place for this. shoy 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More hardware is what is needed. But then, I would say that... I work for a hardware company... and I think it's being looked into. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help me
My user name was blocked a long time ago, even though my page had information typed in from other wikipedia users that my name should not be blocked. And yet I got blocked anyway.....the person who blocked me thinks im some white nazi person or something when im not. Im actually Indian. My user name is User:Aryan818, can you please unblock me? Ive been blocked for a billion years now. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The foregoing message was posted to one of the MedCom pages. Sunray (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This account is not blocked, according to the block log. Kevin (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be an autoblock - what message comes up when you try to edit? <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The actual account may be, which is indeed indefinitely blocked. ANI discussion may be of interest. Admins may want to browse the user's deleted talk page as well; especially of interest would be this edit (admins only), which was from May of this year and is an uppercase personal attack more than anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this diff from the above IP is also of interest. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that adding "DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER" to one's User page does not apparently prevent admins from blocking one. Now, the IP's contribs are overwhelmingly to Indian related topics (with the notable exception of this rather scary item) but without access to deleted contribs I can't offer much more info.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose unblock, for the record. It was a good block at the time, and I don't see that anything has changed since then. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing has changed since this ANI discussion. It is unlikely that the user, who claims he is of Indian background, has the name "Aryan," a word which doesn't exist in any Indian language; the Sanskrit word for "noble" is "Arya."  Besides, even if his name is Aryan, he should find another user name, since "Aryan" offends many people.  If my parents had made the mistake of christening me with one or all of the seven dirty words, it wouldn't give me the right to demand those usernames as an act of filial homage to parental stupidity. No reason why Wikipedians should be wasting their time on this tired nonsense.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are being are tad harsh Fowler. I also oppose unblocking him because he has been reluctant to realise the sensitivity of his username and he has responded very rudely whenever anyone has tried to make him understand this. However, chances are that his name is Aryan since it is a quite common name in India, regardless of whether the word exists in Indian languages. Also he hasn't edited in any Nazi related areas so to almost accuse (I realise you only use the word unlikely) the user of pretending to be Indian and having the name Aryan is assuming bad faith. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So when are you going to block this? Or this? ;^) — Justmeherenow  01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do your research you will find that the Hindu Swastika has been under a lot of controversy and many editors wanted to remove it from all Hinduism related templates and have it replaced with an Aum sign. It wasn't going to be removed from any article because on an article, the context can explain the significance and relevance of the swastika. Also, the unfortunate thing for Aryan is that the number 818 also has Nazi connotations. One part of a username having Nazi connections doesn't seem that bad, but when both parts can be related to Nazism it most people who see this user at first glance won't believe that it is a coincidence. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 06:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't just the use of the "Aryan" name which is problematic, although it is, but the addition of the "818", which is a neo-Nazi symbol for "Heil Adolf Hitler". This user didn't seem to understand that, although he might not think the name is offensive (and it is, with a great deal of assumption of good faith, possible that the user is not intentionally being offensive), but that other users consider it offensive, and that is the criterion that should be used.   Corvus cornix  talk  02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy on Jimmy Wales' on-wiki authority
See WP:JIMBO, See that article's talk page for the reasons for the page's creation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Damnit that was a shortcut to his userpage - what am I going to use now? Viridae Talk 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Jimbo is probably the same number of keystrokes if you're not in the habit of keeping caps lock activated. —giggy 05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That works :P Viridae Talk 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help me
My user name was blocked a long time ago, even though my page had information typed in from other wikipedia users that my name should not be blocked. And yet I got blocked anyway.....the person who blocked me thinks im some white nazi person or something when im not. Im actually Indian. My user name is User:Aryan818, can you please unblock me? Ive been blocked for a billion years now. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The foregoing message was posted to one of the MedCom pages. Sunray (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This account is not blocked, according to the block log. Kevin (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be an autoblock - what message comes up when you try to edit? <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The actual account may be, which is indeed indefinitely blocked. ANI discussion may be of interest. Admins may want to browse the user's deleted talk page as well; especially of interest would be this edit (admins only), which was from May of this year and is an uppercase personal attack more than anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this diff from the above IP is also of interest. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that adding "DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER" to one's User page does not apparently prevent admins from blocking one. Now, the IP's contribs are overwhelmingly to Indian related topics (with the notable exception of this rather scary item) but without access to deleted contribs I can't offer much more info.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose unblock, for the record. It was a good block at the time, and I don't see that anything has changed since then. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing has changed since this ANI discussion. It is unlikely that the user, who claims he is of Indian background, has the name "Aryan," a word which doesn't exist in any Indian language; the Sanskrit word for "noble" is "Arya."  Besides, even if his name is Aryan, he should find another user name, since "Aryan" offends many people.  If my parents had made the mistake of christening me with one or all of the seven dirty words, it wouldn't give me the right to demand those usernames as an act of filial homage to parental stupidity. No reason why Wikipedians should be wasting their time on this tired nonsense.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are being are tad harsh Fowler. I also oppose unblocking him because he has been reluctant to realise the sensitivity of his username and he has responded very rudely whenever anyone has tried to make him understand this. However, chances are that his name is Aryan since it is a quite common name in India, regardless of whether the word exists in Indian languages. Also he hasn't edited in any Nazi related areas so to almost accuse (I realise you only use the word unlikely) the user of pretending to be Indian and having the name Aryan is assuming bad faith. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So when are you going to block this? Or this? ;^) — Justmeherenow  01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do your research you will find that the Hindu Swastika has been under a lot of controversy and many editors wanted to remove it from all Hinduism related templates and have it replaced with an Aum sign. It wasn't going to be removed from any article because on an article, the context can explain the significance and relevance of the swastika. Also, the unfortunate thing for Aryan is that the number 818 also has Nazi connotations. One part of a username having Nazi connections doesn't seem that bad, but when both parts can be related to Nazism it most people who see this user at first glance won't believe that it is a coincidence. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 06:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't just the use of the "Aryan" name which is problematic, although it is, but the addition of the "818", which is a neo-Nazi symbol for "Heil Adolf Hitler". This user didn't seem to understand that, although he might not think the name is offensive (and it is, with a great deal of assumption of good faith, possible that the user is not intentionally being offensive), but that other users consider it offensive, and that is the criterion that should be used.   Corvus cornix  talk  02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy on Jimmy Wales' on-wiki authority
See WP:JIMBO, See that article's talk page for the reasons for the page's creation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Damnit that was a shortcut to his userpage - what am I going to use now? Viridae Talk 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Jimbo is probably the same number of keystrokes if you're not in the habit of keeping caps lock activated. —giggy 05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That works :P Viridae Talk 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, its the liberal elite!
These are just some for the "articles" (they are mostly stubs) I have found on anti-liberal/left wing slogans.


 * Hollywood Left
 * Liberal elite
 * Champagne socialist
 * East Coast liberal
 * Gauche caviar
 * Limousine liberal
 * San Francisco values
 * Chardonnay socialist
 * Massachusetts liberal
 * Chattering classes

Could all these be merged together under the title of Anti-liberal hate speech or something. Some if these are so absurd. While I am a proud "Latté Liberal", this is a little OTT. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 04:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what talk pages are for. Naerii 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And added to that, Champagne socialist doesn't even mention liberals, and unless you can find an abundance of sources to the contrary, "Anti-liberal hate speech" is more than a little POV. Naerii
 * Yes, but lets be honest, there are so many articles it would take months to get a consensus on every talk page, ive never been involved in multiple mergers. They are all ment to mean the same basic thing. Thus hopefully an admin could help me? — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 05:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Slap on all pages and pick a talk page. &mdash; Maggot Syn  05:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, they should probably be merged to liberal elite. I will give it a go. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 05:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's Pinot noir socialist, if you have any real taste in wines. And Napa Valley is far too crass and commercial. Come, dear. Let's brush the dust off the leather seats in the Range Rover and do some tastings along the Russian River. And bring the Sierra Club manual so we can choose a good stroll; did you get the Bose stereo fixed like I asked? ;) Durova Charge! 11:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heard in Cirencester some years ago (father to small son): "Peers, do be careful with that Mike and the Mechanics CD". 'Nuff said. -- Rodhull andemu  10:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock opinions
made an extremely troubling edit here, which I indef blocked him/her for. At a glance, this editor appears to be a good faith contributor other than this incident, and my assumption was that the account had been compromised. It doesn't appear to have been compromised after all, but the user appears remorseful and has requested an unblock. I'm willing to accept that this was a momentary lapse in judgment, and I'm thinking of reducing it to something like three days, and an apology to Persian Poet Gal. Is this too lenient, or does it sound about right? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the above edit is deleted, here is a link to it. I would be against unblocking.  That is completely unacceptable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see the edit but I thought it would be worth pointing out that OnTheMantle has explained what happened. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith and all, I'd vote for an unblock for a second chance, but I'll stay out of this for now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a line in AGF...How can you possibly assume that the editor had good intentions with that edit? - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think since it was a direct attack again Persian Poet Gal she should choose whether to unblock. Also they should have to complete a 2nd chance -- Chris  14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4chan...it figures. That edit is awful, but 4chan is not known for mature and rational individuals. I'm inclined to unblock him, but any further inappropriate edits should result in an indef-block. As Chris G has suggested, I'd like for Persian Poet Gal to weigh in here.  Horologium  (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I believe this editor was goaded against his better interest or his account was compromised, after all we all make mistakes. I usually do not unblock accounts which solely intended to troll and have zero good edits their name. Since this one shows evidence of a better contribution history, I think a second chance is acceptable with the condition that some sort of explanation or proof of control of the account is shown. If they ever make the mistake to act so irresponsibly again I would suggest to block without any questions.<i style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</i> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that he proved he was in control of the account on his talk page. I'm willing to give the second chance and have decided to unblock his account.<i style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</i> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Evil Spartan
He suspected me of being a 98E sock. I just asked him if Patstuart was his Commons account. Haymail (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why?  Corvus cornix  talk  07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why what? Why did he suspect me or why did I ask him? I'll assume you mean the latter, and it's because he admitted as much on the Patstuart talk page on Commons. Haymail (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you ask him, and why does it matter? And why did you feel the need to report this question here?  Corvus cornix  talk  07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Haymail = User:98E. So blocked... Tiptoety  talk 07:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone cares, Haymail interpreted commons:User talk:Patstuart/Archive 2 as Patstuart saying he's The Evil Spartan, when in fact Pat said the IP was TES (19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC) comment). —giggy 07:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * . Tiptoety  talk 07:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems backlog
I've been whittling at it for a couple of days now (finished off or consolidated 8 days today (in a measly 5 hours. Am I crazy, or what?), but there are currently 20 days worth of backlog here. When it was tagged "backlogged", on May 18, there were only 12 days backlogged. I'm thinking the tag isn't resolving the problem at the moment. Assistance would be most appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll direct some of my energy on CV. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm still plugging at it, though heading out of town for the night in a few. I dream of a world where there is (at least temporarily) no copyright problem backlog. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community?

 * Is it proper etiquette to suggest actions for discussion, eg for articles to merge, when you tend to disagree with the suggestion but are unsure what consensus will be? If I get around to it I'm going to contribute the determination here to the "Etiquette" page.

Argument in favor. Where there's recurring suggestion (eg in the case at hand) that an action such as a merge should be taken, some participants feel frustrated and simply want to know if the suggestion should be taken or not so that they can be contributing on an article in its proper placement or form. This leads them, though they disagree with the action, to formally propose it themselves to get a sense of the community and move on.

How I understand the argument against. A person proposing an action he or she is against is making a strategic action that forces (similar to a Zugzwang in chess) opponents' hand to have to explain their rationale, giving advantage to the proposer, which is rude and results in unnecessary bias; ie when other contributors continue to suggest some action but don't initiate its formal resolutionjust ignore them.

— Justmeherenow  17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Following the questioned procedure has been termed by a user as disruptive, hence posting the issue here and requesting administrative input. — Justmeherenow   18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposals for administrative actions which are not per se supported by nominating editor are both appropriate and commonplace. As long as a proposal is phrased neutrally, perhaps including the general sense of informal arguments made in favor of a nominated action, it is completely irrelevant whether an editor "in their heart of hearts" initially endorses the action.


 * Obviously, as with most any action on WP, there are cases of abuse. A "push poll" that disparages or negatively insinuates about a proposed action is a misuse of process.  I have seen those, but the merge proposal that prompted this inquiry was nothing along those lines.  LotLE × talk  18:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I would term it disruptive, but I struggle to understand how it would be an act of good faith to propose & presumably mount an argument for an action that you think should not be taken. Surely in all circumstances in which it is possible to do that, it is possible to do the opposite: for instance, on a talk page, to open a discussion, for example, merge thoughts in which you might state that you believe it's reasonable to discuss a possible merge, but set out arguments against it ... rather than propose the merge merely to precipitate the discussion. If discussion of an action is likely enough that you'd think it worth mounting a Zugzwang, the harm you'd occasion is to mislead others about your own preferences and about the extent to which the proposal has support. And that being the case, it sounds a rather hazardous undertaking.


 * It's worth noting that IINAA, I merely lurk here. I'm sure you appreciate etiquette questions are for the whole community not merely admins, just as I appreciate that asking admins is a reasonable shortcut to better informed input. I leave it to you to decide whether the outcome of this discussion is something that should be added to WP:Etiquette ... but if it is, then it should properly be discussed there and not here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have frequently seen good-faith AfD nominations by editors who do not necessarily support the deletion. Normally these arise from suggestions on talk pages that a given article should be deleted, but where the editors making that suggestion do not do the nomination (for whatever reason).  In such cases, an editor generally supportive of the article existing puts the article on AfD as a "sanity check" to gauge opinion of previously uninvolved editors.  In such cases, it's probably best practice for the nominating editor to skip voting him/herself (but even that seems borderline).  The point is that all the additional editors are perfectly well able to use their own judgment about the notability, etc. of the article so nominated.  All of this seems good, proper, and helpful.  A merge proposal is essentially identical to an AfD (in fact, AfD's often result in "merge" consensus).  LotLE × talk  19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would depend entirely on the circumstances, and the form of the proposal. I would say that these things have a way of unfolding on their own, and an attempt to "force someone's hand" doesn't seem especially constructive. Rather than contributing directly to Etiquette, it would be better to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Etiquette. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [ec] Lulu, I thought I'd wait for more uninvolved people to comment on this, rather than having it as a continuation of our conversation on Talk: Lolo Soetoro - I assume that was the reason that Justmeherenow brought it here (although I agree that maybe Wikipedia talk: Etiquette is a better place), and you and I have already stated our opinions on the Soetoro talk page. But since you are commenting here on this I guess I will too. (I would like to hear from more uninvolveds though.)    My opinion is that making a proposal when you oppose it is inherently unfair to the proposal because you are not the best person to make the arguments in favor of it, or respond to other people's comments and defend the proposal.  Supporters may or may not be available or think the article is at the right place in the process to make a merge or delete nomination themselves, and they may not be ready or able to participate in discussion at that time -  when they are ready to make a proposal, they do so, and in any nom that is disputed they take the role of defending the proposal, sometimes vigorously. I think an opposer making the proposal is something akin to gaming  to force their hand.   My observation here has been that merge and delete noms are generally, if not always, made by supporters of the proposal, when they think it is the right time to do so, and they defend it, discuss it, hopefully reach consensus on it which sometimes includes their changing their own minds about their support.   As Tagishsimon said above, part of  making a nomination involves mounting an argument in favor of it; it's asking for an awful lot of good faith for an opposer to sustain an argument in favor of something he or she actually opposes. I suppose that an uninvolved, neutral person might be willing to take on the support role (that was not the case in the specific nom that precipitated this AN discussion), but I don't think I've seen even that  and I don't think that is particularly fair to the proposal either.  And I'm not talking about the technicality of who initiates the proposal - I'm talking about mounting a defense for a position: if a  neutral party makes a proposal in order  to move things along and a supporter is willing/able to come in and take over the support role, then I likely wouldn't have a problem with it, although would still question the timing if it is an opposer who does so.  As for my referring to this in the Lolo (and Maya) Soetoro proposals as "disruptive", I'm not assigning motives or citing policy breaches (because I haven't looked for any policy/guideline on this), but they were not the action of a neutral party, and I think they were improper; they are disruptive, in my view, because they take attention away from the editing of the article.   Tvoz / talk 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tvoz, I have great regard for you as an editor, and agree, non-Loloites (see Lolo Soetoro) are the best to comment here. But Justmeherenow invited me, so here, again, are my two cents. If any user is suggesting a major change to an article, I don't see why it matters who formalizes that request. From the Lolo discussion, the request was to merge that article with other Obama family members. I oppossed this request, however, since one user kept suggesting it, it seemed like it was worth getting further input from the broader wiki community. Therefore I added a reference request to the main merger page to get broader input over at Lolo. I later removed that request when it was clear nobody at Lolo favored a merge at this time, including the user who kept referring to it.


 * How is someone in favor of something inherently more objective than someone oppossed? If an issue is hanging then why not promote the discussion to get more input and encourage a consensus? That seemed to be what Justmeherenow was doing. There you have it, the wisdom of the wiki world from me. ; ) --Utahredrock (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not what I said, for a change. I don't think someone in favor of something is inherently more objective, I think that someone in favor of a proposal is more likely to give a convincing defense of it and someone opposed is more likely to give a convincing argument against it.  WHat's confusing about that?  This is not unique to Wikipedia, it's a true point overall. In debate club one is supposed to effectively argue any side of an argument, but  this isn't debate club. Tvoz / talk 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still highly confused here. How/why is a proponent of an action uniquely qualifed to propose a debate/discussion? This is completely illogical. Anyone on either side of an issue is clearly equally qualified to raise the issue. Some really smart people can equally argue both sides.--Utahredrock (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't voting, but by analogy: if you want one guy to win, don't vote for the other guy.

In the same way, when trying to form a consensus, always state/argue/open discussion on the thing you do want, lest you convince everyone to do the thing you don't want. ;-)

And try to avoid proposing things. Typically it's a waste of time, since there's a "revert button". Either do, or do not. If everyone else really hates the idea, they can just revert you. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Not following that. Consensus is reached after discussion (hopefully), and one of the best tools to make a decision is to have a vote--though I suppose it's also true to say that "consensus isn't voting." Not following the rest of your comments very easily.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Utahredrock - votes are discouraged as they don't lead to consensus, which means compromise. They separate into two groups and the "losers" just have to eat it. That's not consensus. Kim is saying that arguing the other guy's position is dangerous to your own because the other guy might "win" - I agree, but also think it is unfair.  Tvoz / talk 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yin and yang: the political power of a mastery of deference and anticipating others' concerns, in a creative tension against an absolute need for boldness if anything's ever to get accomplished."'It's simple: - Remain neutral - Don't be a dick - Ignore all rules.' (Anonymous epigraph featured on Kim Bruning's homepage)"
 * — Justmeherenow  00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, according to what ignore all rules means, you're supposed to think of an action that both is what you want, and is closest to what you believe other people will support as well. You should then boldly do it. Go ahead, it's a Wiki, that's how wikis work! Mediawiki is pretty tough piece of code, so nothing you do can hurt it.
 * Most of the time, that's all you need to know. However, sometimes, someone will really really disagree with something you did. They will revert you, and you know you screwed up. That's when you need to discuss and negotiate with them to figure out what they really want. Once you think you ahve that figured out, you can go back and edit again. Sound familiar? ;-)
 * Note that this is a cycle! The point of a wiki is to edit, so try to get back to editing as quickly as possible.
 * Majority voting is not typically used as a decision making mechanism, except in exceptional circumstances. Lots of stuff that look like votes are actually opinion polls, which can be a useful tool for figuring out where you are in the consensus process. Learn about how consensus works before you try to use opinion polls yourself.
 * The reason you should always put forward your actual preference is due to something called the Abilene paradox, where you end up doing something that nobody actually wants.
 * Finally, the "anonymous epigraph" actually has a link right above it. It's the policy trifecta, a prototype for the 5 pillars which I like very much. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't votes combined with discussion the normal method of handling disputes on Wikipedia? I've seen that repeatedly in the Wiki-kingdom.--Utahredrock (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall that – once upon a time – WP:POINT contained a specific admonishment to the effect of 'don't propose doing something if you don't want it done'. While there are no doubt occasional exceptions to that principle, it is a good rule of thumb.  Putting forth a proposal for something that you don't want is abusing the assumption by other editors that you are contributing in good faith.  Wikipedia isn't a battleground, election, or chess tournament, and pretending to hold opinions as part of some sort of strategic feint or debating tactic is frowned upon.
 * If there is a genuine issue in question, misrepresenting yourself as a proponent of the 'other side' opens up the chance for all kinds of misbehaviour&mdash;deliberate or not. Dirty tricks may include damning by faint praise (clumsy or incomplete presentation of the other side's arguments), becoming a 'convert' brought over to a 'new' way of seeing things, and using straw man arguments (misrepresenting the 'other side' to a lesser or greater extent so as to make it less appealing).  I've seen all three, done with varying amounts of good (and bad) faith.
 * In the particular case I really don't want to troll through the whole history of the article, but it looks like Justmeherenow added a {merge} tag to Lolo Soetoro and then went to the talk page and left a request for comments without further explanation of why a merge would be either worthwhile or detrimental.  A couple of hours later he went and opposed his own merge proposal .  A while later, when another editor pointed out to Justmeherenow that his actions might be construed as fixing the debate (my characterization), he deleted his 'oppose' and comment with the statement that he had 'decided to stay officially neutral'.


 * Justmeherenow, you can't declare that sort of thing after the fact&mdash;you can't have back the cloak of neutrality simply because you decided to try to stuff the cat back in the bag. By deleting your comment you misrepresented yourself to every genuinely neutral editor who might subsequently look at the merge proposal.  A third party coming to the page from Proposed mergers would see only a proposed merge without any arguments in favour.
 * What I see here is an effort by an editor opposed to a potential merger of the article trying to dynamite any future possibility of such a merge. His intentions were good, but his methods were not.  Looking through the talk page, it appears that Tvoz had occasionally suggested that a merger would be an appropriate eventual course, but Tvoz never acted on that.  It's also clear that Tvoz is aware that such a merger would be opposed, and it seems unlikely that he would proceed with a merge without discussion.  (Even if Tvoz did try it, it seems probable that the merge would be reverted and a discussion begun.)
 * There was no urgent need to have a merge debate right this instant, and there was no reason why Justmeherenow could not have asked Tvoz to present any merge proposal at an appropriate time. As it stands right now, I would be concerned that editors in the future might erroneously rely on this tainted and flawed debate to conclude that the merge issue had been settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * TenOfAllTrades, That's a long-winded way to say Justmeherenow acted in bad faith. I disagree. A user was repeatedly suggesting a merge. Why not ask for other input on the idea? To assume a proposal for discussing the topic is bad faith is itself bad faith. This whole discussion is pretty ridiculous, but kind of fun too--in that weird wiki way.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you TenofAllTrades - you have it exactly right, and stated it more clearly than I did.   Tvoz / talk 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I "trolled" this noticeboard for admin comment and I got it. Thanks TenofAllTrades. I'm going to cross out my own comments in the "Merge proposal" section and archive it. — Justmeherenow  23:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Short version: You can do it, and maybe there's some utility sometimes. But most of the time it's a bad idea, because you risk an Abilene paradox. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I'd rather stay home and play dominoes on the porch, thanks ;-) 

Orangemarlin and other matters
The announcements made today by FT2 (including both the Orangemarlin issue and the various other matters) were posted without the approval or prior knowledge of the Committee as a whole. Further, no formal proceeding, secret or otherwise, has taken place regarding Orangemarlin or any other editor named in that particular statement.

As far as I'm concerned, these announcements have no authority or binding weight whatsoever.

Not on behalf of anyone but myself, Kirill (prof) 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice: Most of the conversation dealing with this topic and the topic above has been moved to /Orangemarlin and other matters

This is better than TV! *grabs a bowl of popcorn* --Dragon695 (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, now we have some drama. As far as I know FT2 and Kirill are both respected members of Arbcomm. If they can't handle their shit between each other, then we are all fooked. I await with anticipation. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

? NonvocalScream (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jtrainor (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that beer with the popcorn? R. Baley (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with R. Baley. You better have brought enough to share with everyone! (or at least a soda for me?) SirFozzie (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad we can agree on something. . .it's like old times (for me anyway). R. Baley (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * .*chuckles* Agreed, man. Not good being at loggerheads with folks I respect. I still disagree, but as long as we disagree with respect to each other, right? SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. . .but both ways. . .that would be important to me. R. Baley (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh? Huh? HUH!? Wha'? Er... LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * for me, the give-away, or red flag, or red herring in the announcements--even before I saw the above comment by Kirill-- was the statement that they were posted  "For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee" -- but without any indication of consensus among them. Normally that language is used at the end of an arb com case, to announce the final decision--but the various elements in the final decision have been previously voted on it, and in complicated cases it is rare that the remedies (as distinct from the platitudes about expected user conduct in general) get complete agreement. We know who voted for them, and who abstained or opposed. To that extent, arb com operates in the open. We know the views of the individual arbitrators. But there was no such information here. Nothing in the previous actions of arbcom indicates that they would have been unanimous about all the detail in the announcements either.
 * This is not to be interpreted as a criticism of the individual proposals--many of them I think are very good ideas. They should have been written as proposals to the community, they would probably have been adopted with some modifications, and we would have had a good discussion about our basic operating principles.. DGG (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion backlog
Hi, don't know if i'm in the right place... But here goes; Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion has a backlog. The article section isnt too bad now but the image section has 21 in it now! Two images I nominated this morning are still there and most of the images that were already there, are still there! A sysop needs to look in to this please. Thanks AGU! Defender (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 21 images is not a substantial backlog. DGG (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Down to 2 images. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 15:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say thanks to the sysop that cleared the backlog! I believe it was user:Gwen Gale. so thanks :-) AGU! Defender (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Color code Full and Semi Protected Page Notifications
Color code Full and Semi Protected Page Notifications. the title speaks for it's self.

Request a Red back ground color for full/locked pages and either a Bright Yellow or Dark Orange for semi...

Yellow should be a warning color code, Green a suggestive normal color. But a Red Background needs to trigger the stop influence we have all been trained to take notice of. Have a Better Day. UBUIBIOK (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Colors for Template:ambox were decided when the template was created. Red is reserved for deletion notices. Orange is used for content issues (like NPOV). Yellow is for style issues (cleanup templates). It was decided by community consensus that protection templates should be white. Paragon12321 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser advice sought
This editor: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992 is getting to be intolerable. All his named accounts are blocked indef, but he comes back on a daily basis, sometimes on several occasions. The pages he targets are too numerous to semi-protect. He has said that he's now left school so I presume he's using a home computer, which appears to use IP addresses within the range 88.111.128.0/17 but this would block 32,768 addresses. Could a checkuser advise whether the collateral damage would be too great here as I'm getting tired of his nonsense? Thanks. It's probably worth also taking a look at Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992 -- Rodhull andemu  15:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a checkuser ... but I would think softblocking that range would at least stem the tide. Blueboy96 16:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let's try it for 72 hours & see what falls out. -- Rodhull andemu  17:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kainaw
Could someone please block this user?! He is being a problem to me. He hates me for no reason. He thinks I don't want to listen to anyone, which is a BLATANT LIE. And as you can see on his talk page, he threatened to have me blocked. It's only fair that he gets blocked for some time. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Notified him. You are seriously going to claim he has "no reason" when you say "I have responded in your stupid little discussion", complain to WP:ANI with much worse stuff ("Would people stop fucking (sorry about the langauge) asking that question!"), get ignored, and then come here to complain once it's archived?  Give me a reason why I shouldn't just close this thread and warn you to leave it alone.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Plus WP:AIV forum shopping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition (what the hell), I see from this discussion on your talk page and at the Reference desk talk page, that you are being disruptive at the Reference desk as well. Stop accusing other users of being uncivil when you simply tell you not to do things.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Archived AFD nominations for Burger King products
This is a strange one, so please be patient so I can describe what I am asking.

This concerns the Burger King products article. In September of 2007 there were some concerns that this article too similar another article called Burger King menu items which was deleted as the result of an AFD in February 2007. (Both were sourced from the original Burger King article, and split off as the article grew too large) There were some house keeping moves made on the article and for a short time it was renamed to the Burger King menu items name.

While this house keeping move was going on, another contributor thought that the renamed Burger King products article was a recreation of the deleted Burger King menu items article and started an AFD that ended with a result of keep.

The problem was that the content of AFD discussion for the first article was deleted and the second AFD discussion discussion overwrote the first discussion.

What I need an admin to do is:

1. Move the 2nd AFD discussion and its associated talk page, found here, to Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items (second nomination)

2. Using the record of the first AFD, found here, and restore it to its proper place as the first AFD under the title Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items.

This is a house keeping move that is need to correct the overwriting mistake.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dealing with now... --- RockMFR 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was already mid-move. Done. - auburn pilot   talk  18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-opening this thread
I am proposing this user page for deletion per concerns posted here. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User has only four edits, all from over 6 months ago. I've deleted the user page as unsourced negative BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mohsen chavoshi
I marked this page as patrolled because I thought it looked legit. I then tried to move it to Mohsen Chavoshi, but the latter is [create=sysop]. I am not 100% sure if Mr. Chavoshi is notable or not, there wasn't really much on Google, but I doubt there would be for a Persian singer. Can an admin (or three) look at the page and if you think it should be A7-ed, delete it, and if you think it is legit, unprotect the capitalized version and move it there? Thanks. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 01:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 01:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

History of people, places, or things
Should the idea of adding the foundations and/or history of the different clauses for Wikipedias' vast amount of articles be pre-dominately included? I have what seems to be a problem in this respect. I believe a brieg history (one or two paragraphs) should be included even though there might be a seperate article representing the history of any particular article. If not, should the brief history-outline be included in the summary at the top of the page, or am I way off base here? Thank you for your time. InternetHero (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That suggestion would be handled better at Village pump (proposals). This noticeboard is intended for matters that require intervention by administrators. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. No problemo. Thanks for your time.InternetHero (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Account Creator permission
I currently have access to the account creation tool (proof), but I don't have the "Account Creator" permission added to my account, which sometimes gets in my way of making accounts. Can an administrator please add the permission to my account? Thanks. iced kola(Mmm...) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅  Maxim (talk)  22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Rotary International
This page is still being disrupted by an editor who is quite likely, who has been discussed around here before - an ANI thread here and a followup here. For those who need a scorecard, Pierre Larcin has a bit of a campaign going about Rotary, and has been banned from .fr because of it (as noted in those links); his account hasn't edited for quite some time, but a series of IPs have been editing the article and disrupting the talk page by attacking other editors. I semiprotected the Rotary International article for a week which stopped the insanity, and told the most recent IP to stop disrupting in no uncertain terms. The response was uninspiring.

I'd like opinions on this; should the talk page be semi'd for a while in hopes that he gets bored, or would a rangeblock (which I have no idea how to do) perhaps help? He hops IPs regularly, though, which is problematic. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think sprotect is the way to go, perhaps at a week at a time. I would be wary of any rangeblock to a group of French ip's - they are likely to be among the higher non-native English speakers editing the encyclopedia and may cause some collateral damage.LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Semiprotect done; however, if there's anyone with a longer-term solution they could share, I'd appreciate hearing it - having to semiprotect every week may get annoying. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not mean just renewing the sprotect every week, but sprotecting for a week every time an ip pops up with the same message. Hopefully there will be periods when there will not be any vandalism. If the vandal is prepared to wait out a week then up the tariff to a fortnight. Stick a notice to that effect on the article talkpage, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. We'll see how it goes for a while at the current level. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Candidates for speedy deletion
There is a backlog of speedy delete candidates. If an administrator could take a look and clear it up, that would be great. S. Dean Jameson 21:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't that much of a backlog, traditionally that is 100 or more, though I will head over now for a bit. Woody (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'm just getting into looking through new articles (and ones that slipped through the cracks) for potential speedies. I didn't realize that it usually runs a backlog. Sorry about that. S. Dean Jameson 21:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, you haven't seen it when it's really bad. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  22:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Wikimedia error and E/C)No need to worry, or be sorry, you weren't to know what is considered a backlog; the cat is down to about 10 now. The worst I have seen it was 100 images and 250 articles. ;) Regards. Woody (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it so hard for people to read? The top of the page clearly says to use on pages which are backlogged and require administrative attention. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I already apologied for reporting it here. I'll apologize again, if necessary. S. Dean Jameson 02:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another apology would be two too many. No worries at all. I think peoples' nerves are just a little frayed right now. --barneca (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The cat that the template puts admin backlogged pages into isn't watched very well, so a post here is often helpful so we're aware.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

bit of 'blue sky' news....
g'day esteemed administrators! If you find yourself a bit fatigued by some of the weekend's dramatics - might I suggest a small antidote - as many (if not all) will now know, Ting Chen was recently elected to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation - I had a brief chat with him over the weekend, and you can hear some thoughts, reflections and one or two thank yous here - NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_23. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's_featured_article/requests straw poll
I have started a straw poll to ascertain support and opinions on changing the current request system from 5 nominations at a time to 14 days ahead of time utilizing existing templates; in order to permit greater community input on the TFA process and shift informal TFA requests from the User talk space. - RoyBoy 00:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves
There is a bit of a backlog at Requested moves, some going back to June 4th. Thought someone might like to know.  JohnnyMrNinja  06:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:BlockIP
Any IP listed on Special:BlockIP has the following notice at the top of the block form: "You are blocking a sensitive IP address belonging to the U.S. Department of Defense. Please be sure to notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee immediately." Something doesn't seem right. Click on a random IP at the recent changes and go to the block form and you'll see what I mean. Spellcast (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See this ANI thread, this diff and this user talk thread. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban notice: User:CBMIBM
Longterm disruptive user, formerly known as and several sock accounts, has been the subject of a cross-project discussion on meta, here: meta:Babel. It was determined that he has been causing massive cross-project disruption by pushing some bizarre OR issues across almost all wikimedia projects. This user is driven by some kind of religious fanaticism to promote a bizarre idée fixe regarding the Greek alphabet, involving various fringe reinterpretations of the function and status of certain marginal symbols and letters (including "Yot", "Heta", "Stigma" and others). In the course of the Meta discussion he avowed that his campaign is motivated by his his "Ultracatholic inquisitorial fanatism to fight for preserving of heritage of my Catholic Faith. God obliges me here: http://www.giftstor.org/tomkiel05fst.html in general to fight for His Catholicism, especially against stubborn sinners who perform removals of Catholic Heritage". He also described his idea as follows: "I am specifically promoting PIE [i.e. Proto-Indo-European] as first ever human language, and Greek as first ever human IPA-equivalent alphabet. All is explained here: ".

Given the obvious disruptive potential and impenetrability to rational discourse shown here, I have indef-blocked CBMIBM on this project and propose treating him as community-banned. I would ask fellow admins to help watch Greek alphabet, Stigma (letter), Yot (letter), Heta (letter), and Greek Alphabet, against any further activities from suspicious new accounts or IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikinger also went on repeated excursions into OR territory and revert warring on technology articles. I support treating the user as community banned.  They don't get our rules after repeated explanations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * If I'd known this guy was still around I'd have kicked him out myself. Endorse community ban - strongly - and I'll watchlist the relevant pages. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, he hasn't been around here much. The damage recently has been mostly on other wikis, but that on a massive scale. I've been going round about a dozen wikis cleaning up after him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan Police Service
I've just reverted a vandal edit from an account registered to London's Metropolitan Police Service, which on a look through its contributions seems to have quite a number of vandal edits, as well as articles about the MPS. Although it's not on the sensitive IP addresses list, thought I ought to post a heads-up about it. – iride  scent  00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that this ip is rather sensitive, especially where there is criticism of Mr Plod. I have seen it before, and suggest treating it like any other vandal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Concrete suggestions worth discussing at an RfC
I know some may be heartily bored by some of the drama recently, but there is some movement towards some concrete improvements occurring here on the RfC on arbcom:


 * Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee

I think if this is discussed now it will be a good outcome of a messy affair, so the more input the better. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we have a watchlist notice about this? It's kind of a big deal. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

172.168.229.217
- I'm pretty sure I can remember IPs in this range being blocked for being a TOR so I recently blocked this IP as an open proxy. Was I right to do so? If you could, I'd appreciate a reduce of the block or review as appropriate. Thank you. Rudget  ( logs ) 17:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Zenmap doesn't show any open ports at the moment. How did you determine it was an open proxy? Spellcast (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The system's probably right. I was sure that I remembered something about this range brought up at ANI, but clearly not. I'll reduce the block to the vandalism norm-block. Rudget   ( logs ) 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Clubhabbo
This article was created originally last November in this thread. Today, someone resurrected that old thread. I don't know if this is going to be a problem or not, based on the posts they seem to be doing it because they're bored. Just wanted to give a heads up. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC) After viewing a few pages on that site, it makes you sign up to view more. I signed up so I could get the links to post here; all they want is an email address.

Molobo
After some discussion I have agreed to play nice and let back in under certain conditions/restrictions - 1RR per week and civility supervision, as detailed here. This is not to ask for consent: this is merely notification. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also added to Editing restrictions. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images in "List Of" articles
Yes, again. It would be useful if some more admins with fair-use knowledge could add their knowledge here - unfortunately, though I have been trying to explain the issues across the talk pages of these articles, it appears difficult to get through a minority of editors. Thanks, <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no problems there. Perhaps the issue is your absurd misunderstanding of what fairuse is. Your stated goal to wipe out all fairuse on en wikipedia leaves me with the impression that you are completely unable to evaluate image use in a useful and objective manner. I suggest that the difficultly lies with you and not these editors. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you can produce a diff that shows my "stated goal to wipe out all fairuse on en wikipedia", an apology for blatant lying would be in order there, followed by you reading WP:NPA. Oh, and I've reverted your WP:POINT edit of adding a random image that fails WP:NFCC back into the article. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 16:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I confused you with st47. You actually call fairuse "copyright theft" and so what am I to take from that? That comes from the WP:NFCC talkpage, find the quote yourself. And your WP:POINTy revert was reverted in response. My revert was not WP:POINTy because I reverted and then presented my rationale for why it passed NFCC #8 on the talkpage of that article. The subject in the low-res screen shot is the topic of extensive coverage in that section. For people who have never seen the character or played the game, it provides visual context and understanding. Therefore it is relevant and not just "decoration" as you put it. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article, though? The character is discussed, but their appearance isn't relevant to that.  If the character's appearance was important to their character, and that was discussed, then you might have a point. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want it, I will let you have the final word here. I will resume our conversation at the proper locations after I've done some ref fixing for a little while to WP:COOL down.--Dragon695 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where have you raised the issue on Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City? I don't see it. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies - that should've been Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I've fixed the above link. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 16:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In all honesty I don't see why the edit war in that list is still going, if there is only one image covering a main character which doesn't have an article of his own, then perhaps keeping an image its not really decorative at all, its not like they are using an image for every single character. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But if you have one image that fails policy, why not two? or three?  or fifty? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what non-free policy might dictate, I'm certainly surprised that an edit, revert, discuss cycle is not being followed. Reverting while discussion is ongoing is bound to make it less likely that anyone will get through to anyone else, isn't it? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend closing this thread, and centralizing discussion at the ANI thread rather than maintaining both. --Elonka 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * be bold! --Dragon695 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely better off in one place. Please continue discussion at WP:ANI. -- Rodhull andemu  01:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Weirdness
Someone tried to archive something, and they put it in the wrong place. I moved it to the correct place a split second after the original archiver moved it to another incorrect place. Can someone sort this out? The archive should be located at Talk:Iowa class battleship/Archive 3. Thanks, and sorry for the mess... I guess that's why they call it the mop :/ J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably should be more specific. I need an admin to move Talk:Iowa class battleship/Archive to Talk:Iowa class battleship/Archive 3 and delete all the random redirects surrounding the page moves. Thanks. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ to the furthest possible extent of my comprehension of your request. — Kurykh  00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you got it. thanks. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war happening at Violet Blue (author) and Boing Boing
I wish somebody would wade in here; The boyfriend of the subject of the Violet Blue (author) article added material to both that article and to the Boing Boing article that appears to me to be for publicity purposes, to not be backed up by a WP:RS and to not be particularly germane to either article in the first place. An edit war has ensued over that material and over the COI tag added to the Violet Blue (author) article with 3RRVs by both "sides" in both articles, backed up by IP editors that appear to be sock-like. Would somebody please wade in here and establish order? Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have the energy to figure out the problem, but it seems to me that Violet Blue is a respectable journalist who respects open and free communication, and if this problem is not quickly resolved she should be able to take care of it if anyone would care to approach her off-wiki and simply ask her to respectfully control her supporters. I won't post an email address here but if you go to the San Francisco Chronicle main page and search for her column you will quickly get to her work email address.  Hope this can help.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Transcludable XfD discussions
Village pump (proposals) - I have made a proposal that TfDs and CfDs be handled in the same way as AfDs and MfDs, as transcluded subpages. A small consensus seems to have formed, but there have been very few responses. As these are very important Wikipedia pages, please take a look and help form a broader consensus (or tear it apart). Thanks!  JohnnyMrNinja  08:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin
''I just wanted to personally weigh in here with a request for calm. Nothing permanent has happened. I am unclear on the facts (just heard about this today... from a lot of people) at this point, and it is not my style to jump to conclusions quickly. I can state some general principles though, which should soothe people a lot. It is ok for the ArbCom to work quietly with people to resolve conflict in a way which preserves dignity and minimizes drama. We have done that a lot, both formally and informally, and it works well. It is not ok for us to have secret trials in which the people to be punished have not even been notified or offered the opportunity to defend themselves. I have no opinion at all about the editor(s) in question, because I have not studied the facts of the underlying case at all. However, it is part of our longstanding governance traditions that there is a right of appeal, and I can overturn ArbCom decisions, and I would consider that a lack of opportunity for defense would be in the category of reasons I would consider valid. The main thing is, there is no reason for drama right now, drama is not necessary, what is necessary is a thoughtful look at everything, and assumption of good faith. If errors have been made, things can be set right quickly enough.''

I would particularly urge Orangemarlin and Odd nature (and others) not to engage in "civil disobediance" to prove a point, etc. (No one has threatened this, to my knowledge, I am just saying is all...) To everyone: let's all be on our best behavior here and sort this out with a minimum of dramatics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One way to minimize dramatics would be to suggest that, in the future, arbitrators not present cases that were completed entirely in camera and then immediately thereafter make themselves unavailable for comment. If a secret case absolutely must be presented posthaste, presumably it is with regards to an issue of such import that an arbitrator would be willing to reply to questions for at least the next hour or two. Also, presumably, arbitrators would not have a problem with identifying who voted for/against/abstain with regards to each measure, though this is secondary. Regardless of what the facts of this case may be, the way in which it was presented was the equivalent of casually dropping a bombshell. The community should not be blamed for the dramatics in this case (a statement not intended to imply that you're blaming the community). Antelan <sup style="color:#b00000;">talk  05:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has noted a number of controversies involving the editing of Orangemarlin and Odd nature, and acting on its own volition and in the interests of minimizing disruption, has discussed the situation privately, and published their findings and remedies in the RFAR arbitration case which is closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Orangemarlin is admonished for editor conduct, placed on editing restrictions for one year and a mentor to be appointed by the committee; Odd nature is admonished for editor conduct. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this common practice? I've never heard of an arbcom acting as both prosecutor and jury in any case before, especially not in a closed session. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 15:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, its been done before, in the NSLE and JoshuaZ desysop cases there was no on-wiki discussion before the decision was announced.  MBisanz  talk 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The precedent that this sets is a bit on the chilling side if these users were not given prior notification that the case was being heard and (more importantly) an opportunity to present evidence in their defense. I don't know about NSLE, but in the case of JoshuaZ, he WAS notified and was in frequent 2-way communication with arbcom during the case.  That's completely different from waking up one day and finding out arbcom has made a determination against you.  If it is now our policy that arbcom could be considering your actions and my actions right now and, as Amerique says, acting as prosecutor and jury, and there's no notification whatsoever until the verdict is rendered, that's a bit scary. --B (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is more or less correct. I was in full communication with the ArbCom prior to my desysoping and communicated with them for sometime after that. (There were serious problems with that case and I am, to put it mildly, still pissed at the ArbCom and think they screwed up at multiple levels but lack of communication in the initial case was not one of those issues.) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect (and with no specific opinion on the process used) I think Orangemarlin would have had good reason to expect that his behaviour patterns leading up to as recently as 11 days ago could not continue indefinitely, and the result could have come about by any number of means. Unfortunately, and I have fairly solid experience on this side of it, the community is absolutely terrible at dealing with challenges (even fairly ordinary ones!), especially when it's up against dedicated essay-writers determined to use community process to confound community expectations, and especially when they can count on unswerving support from others. Secret trials are definitely not the way forward but I can see why it may have been used in this particular case - we do have to think about what the best outcome for Wikipedia as a whole is. Orderinchaos 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am disturbed about this from a number of perspectives. (1) I see very little if any evidence of bad behavior presented associated with User: Odd nature. (2) It is quite disconcerting to see User:Orangemarlin not allowed to mount a defense against the charges. It looks like railroading to me. I also have just finished skimming through the evidence, and I believe a lot was left out, and there are multiple interpretations that are available for some of the "negative evidence". I do not claim that one or two outbursts of Orangemarlin were not problematic (as I have stated previously), however this one-sided presentation is a little unconventional, to say the least. (3) A lot of the claims I read seem to be based on misunderstandings, possibly associated with cultural differences. (4) The characterization of the Rbj case strikes me as somewhat incomplete. (5) The open-ended nature of the assorted allusions included is troubling. (6) Some might interpret some of the statements as inconsistent, given other rulings of Arbcomm.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This was an exceptional case, and the matter was clear and unambiguous. If Orangemarlin wishes to appeal, he may. But for various reasons, this was the right way to go about it. We have that discretion, and we very rarely use it. But on this case, we have done so. By the very nature of what we saw, the user defends via smoke, and invented pretexts, and smears. We have no interest in enduring a week or two of that, or asking others to. We considered emailing the user for comments before posting, but that too would lead to email and "smoke" as well, and wikidrama and hearsay until it was belatedly made public anyway. So by his own conduct, the option we chose was exceptionally, a summary case, with notification and announcement at the same time. In light of the nature of the case and sheer volume of egregious examples, it is appropriate. FT2 (Talk 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about in camera stuff, but in this case I think it was justified, at least on first reading. "Clear and unambiguous" seems a good summation to me. I'd encourage Giggy and Avruch to consider standing for RfA again fairly soon, and encourage the community to not be so quick to jump on bandwagons of accusations if they choose to do so. Both those RfAs were, in my view, poisoned. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think my standing for RfA any time in the near future would have a positive consequence on the community. —giggy 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Giggy, I urge to reconsider - if not now, sometime in the future. My observation of your work on Commons suggests to me that you'd be a great admin. Kelly  hi! 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hope I didn't suddenly become a good Commons admin in the last few weeks... ;-) —giggy 08:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I read In light of the nature of the case and sheer volume of egregious examples.... What was the nature of the case, and where are links to just some of those egregious examples? And ''nem. con.'' of how many people, and why aren't they named? -- Hoary (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. Where are examples: Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence is what I think he refers to. I missed it when I first looked at the case, I suppose the link doesn't really stand out. —giggy 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the votes are shortened to a tally anyway, when the case is closed; typically, detailed votes (with counts and rationales) would be found on the proposed decision page. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Utterly unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The case discussion page would be a good place for longer comments and queries, so as to not clog up the notice board. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. This isn't about the case.  This is about utterly unacceptable behaviour by the arbcomm, the kind of behaviour that has driven at least one excellent contributor away.  Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An excellent contributor with a long habit of threatening opponents. If what FT2 says its true, then its too bad arbcom didn't sanction him for RFAR/Jim62sch.  Or is threatening to notify another editor's employer that his edits violate company policy on computer use part of being a "good contributor". Thatcher 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thatcher, the arbcom stated "We therefore urge that responsible administrators and non administrators look forward if issues such as this come up, and we do not recommend the community to open up long-closed "history", unless it will have a significant effect going forward." Please don't violate their request. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is utterly unacceptable, Guettarda, is the history of case after case of the conduct exemplified. We aren't process wonks. That - or more - was always going to be the outcome of Arbcom discovering a user has a history of that kind. The only thing that benefits from doing it otherwise, in our judgement, was not the community, which should be what counts. It would be beneficial to minimizing, distracting, or burying the issue. We decided that wasn't going to happen, this time. I'm sorry if you disagree. FT2 (Talk 17:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about threatening to out contributors to the press, and refusing to retract the threat? I guess that is ok, huh? I will note that you have completely mischaracterized the Jim62sch situation.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, the arbcom stated "We therefore urge that responsible administrators and non administrators look forward if issues such as this come up, and we do not recommend the community to open up long-closed "history", unless it will have a significant effect going forward." Please don't violate their request. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I believe that is a pending situation that has not been decided on, not a "long-closed history".--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am asking you to stop discussing the long closed 62sch situation. It is doing little more than opening old wounds. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself. Videmus Omnia Talk  18:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure Thatcher. So if you agree with the end, the means is acceptable.  What you are saying is that OM would have quit even if the case had not been conducted in secret?  You have some evidence to back up your claim?  Not to mention at least one... Guettarda (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that those folk, some of whom are widely perceived as part of the putative "ID cabal", here strenuously protesting this matter, are not doing their reputation much good. Address the issues. I am not happy about the in camera nature of this, but ArbCom has stated they had their reasons for it. Address those reasons and address the evidence, instead of attacking Thatcher, et al. Or, better, accept it, internalise that the tactics that OM uses are unacceptable, and vow not to use them yourself going forward. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see...you complain about being described as a Wikipedia Review editor, and then turn around and tar others with the term "ID Cabal". The problem here isn't the evidence, it isn't the conclusions, it's the way in which it was done.  Secret trials are unacceptable.  Guettarda (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Secret trials are indeed unacceptable, except when they are absolutely necessary. They scare the bejeepers out of me, even in something that isn't a government. ArbCom, has stated this was one of those cases where it was necessary. I criticise ArbCom from time to time, as you may know, but I'm prepared to take them at their word on this, barring concrete evidence that it wasn't. I see no such concrete evidence. I see rhetoric. You, Guettarda, would be well served to internalise the issues with OM's behaviour that were raised in the evidence here, and look within yourself, and endeavour to in future do better. That's actually advice that applies to everyone, myself included. But some more than others. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My point isnt that this discussion shouldn't be held in a visible place, or that it should be curtailed at all. I am simply suggesting that this discussion shouldnt be held here as it will adversely affect the utility of this noticeboard.  The arbcom talk page, RFAR talk page, the RFAR case talk page, or the VP ... they are all good places to have a long and protracted discussion about these issues. Sorry for any confusion. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a long question; I have a short one. I'd like to thank Giggy for pointing me to the "evidence". It looks more like a prosecutor's statement. So where's the defense? -- Hoary (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not exist, obviously.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me correct that. A defense exists and could be mounted. If Arbcomm had seen fit to let us "dogs" mount one.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the 'defenses' OM has used in the past, I'd be surprized if the committee would find it compelling. That said, I don't care for this type of hearing.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing like prejudging huh? Wow I bet it feels good.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been strongly critical of Orangemarlin in the past (especially in the Jim62sch affair) and I tend to believe that these sanctions may in fact be justified, but even I must chime in here with my criticism of Arbcom. Doing such a case in private may be justified. Doing it without even notifying the affected individual is totally not on. And to justify that decision, afterwards, by saying that the defense couldn't not possibly have been convincing is in very bad taste. I also note that I find FT2's compilation of evidence, on a cursory reading, far from compelling, and not of the quality I'd expect from a document that has already gone through the critical filter of the whole committee. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully endorse what Future Perfect's said, I was going to say the same in very similar words. This is not how I expected my current dispute with OrangeMarlin (here) to end. The Tango case made me feel that Arbcom has understood that a certain type of admin behaviour is highly problematic. Now it looks like Arbcom itself is behaving in a similar way. Double standards of this kind is the safest way to make me really angry. I will be on a wiki strike until at least 1 August. Bye. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How could OrangeMarlin really defend some of those actions, especially in the Wikiquette and Twinkle incidents cases? Repeatedly reverting a valid edit as in the Wikiquette is common -- but then deleting the comments as uncivil, calling the user a sock, and then attempting a block? A similar thing with deletion of comments/sock/ect. happened in the Twinkle incident. These actions are indefensible. This has been blown way out of proportion; a stern warning was needed, and it was handed out. It should be clear that these types of actions are simply unacceptable and, as far as I can tell, indefeasible, especially so recently. Now OrangeMarlin is raising a huge drama episode when he could simply accept that these actions were unacceptable and refuse to do it anymore, and he would be fine. I think this sets a good precedent. Deleting people's comments, calling people trolls and socks -- these are just disruptive, and when you seek a block after you've done these things -- well, that's sort of mind-boggling. If OM was a newbie, maybe things would be different. Now, OrangeMarlin has an appeal, and perhaps new evidence will arise. But glancing at these incidents, it's pretty clear that there's not much that can be said. OrangeMarlin's best approach would be to apologize to all the people he's offended, showing with dignity that he's learned. Unfortunately, perhaps the ArbCom may be using him as an example, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just glancing at these incidents it's clear that they look superficially bad, and just looking at the evidence presented shows an open failure to investigate or understand the context. That's why there should be time for an open defence before sentencing, and why the community should be given the opportunity to examine such evidence before the arbiters draw their conclusions. Just because you don't see a defence doesn't mean that there isn't one. These issues make this secret trial invalid, and the case should be examined afresh. . . dave souza, talk 10:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. An additional point: if the alleged offenses were "so egregious" that they required a "secret trial" one would think that the penaly would have been much stiffer.  In otherwords, the outcome belies the claim.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Arbcom?
I don't know where Lawrence has been, but would it be appropriate to continue the work he started here: User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft, in light of these current issues? Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per he won't be around for a few months.  MBisanz  talk 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lawrence has contacted me privately and indicated he is retiring, he has asked me to move the draft RFC to the Wikipedia space to let the community at large work on it. Since I won't be certifying it, would someone else like to do the move?  MBisanz  talk 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee per retiring Lawrence Cohen's request. He delayed this for several months, partly at my request. I ask fellow editors to set aside individual grievances and focus on systemic and procedural matters. With respect, Durova Charge! 01:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee
''Moved duplicate thread started by Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival. Please note that several hours before he initiated the duplicate thread with assertions about the purpose of the present RFC, the actual reasons had already been explained to him at his user talk page. He chose not to reply.''  Durova Charge! 17:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The posting of this proposal in its present form seems to have arisen in part from provisions in the case Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes that give administrators wide discretion in enforcing the Biographies of living persons policy. As such, it is likely to be of special interest to administrators. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note... Contrary to the above, this RfC was drafted long before recent Arbitration Committee issues came to light. Progress began in March. It is a grave mischaracterisation to label the RfC as discussion on 'enforcing the Biographies of living persons policy', or any individual cases. It is a review of the entire Arbitration process. --Barberio (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for volunteers
WP:RFAR/Orangemarlin#Orangemarlin placed on parole and a mentor appointed says [bold added] Should Orangemarlin wish to criticize on-wiki, the personal views he believes another user holds, or the non-wiki actions he believes another user engages in, he should refer the matter to an Arbcom appointed mentor (to be appointed) who will assess whether the matter has merit and how best to raise it.

There may not be any immediate need for this, as this role is unnecessary until Orangemarlin wants to criticize certain views of editors. That said, it would be useful for any users willing to act as mentor to please add themself to this list, so the committee can appoint someone willing.
 * Note that Durova and Lar offered their services below before I could even call for volunteers. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I offer my services in mentorship to Orangemarlin. Durova Charge! 16:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OM has announced his intention to retire. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If he chooses to return at any time, this offer stands. Durova Charge! 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would too, if desired. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Appointing a frequent user of Wikipedia Review would be like adding peanut butter to the chocolate! PouponOnToast (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For completeness perhaps you could take the time to recite all my offices and participations... not just one, hm? Start, perhaps, with my being a steward, or perhaps with my being an admin on 4 WMF wikis, CU on 3, 'crat on 2 and oversighter on one... I offered because I suspect that most here recognise I'd give OM a fair shake, and it would not be my first mentorship... not merely because I'm farsighted enough to realise that criticism should be evaluated regardless of the source, although that certainly helps ensure impartiality and demonstrates a lack of prejudgement. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentors are supposed to be trusted by their mentees to be acting in the mentees' interest. Do you believe OM would trust you, Lar, to do such? Accept that such a belief might be irrational, but please do acknoledge that it exists. For instance, do you think you could mentor me, given my possibly irrational belief that you provide aid and comfort to people who act with malice aforethought? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentors need to be trusted by the community, first and foremost. The wishes of the mentoree are not as relevant. If OM is given a choice of mentors, he can choose as he likes but I would say the list of mentors first needs to be vetted against whether the mentor is trustworthy, impartial, and fair, as well as judicious. I'd be fine with Durova. But I would not be fine with, for example, you, or Filll, or Guettarda... I mentor people with possibly irrational beliefs all the time. If you think you are in need of mentorship to improve your on-wiki activities (a view that may not be held only by you, mind you) I'd be happy to consider it. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks, such as the one you engage in above. They are unhelpful and disruptive. The mentor-mentee relationship requires trust between the two parties. I believe you are well aware that OM does not trust you. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In light of this case, I'd be wary to claim personal attacks where there are none. Lar has not attacked anyone. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Lar personalized the debate by suggesting that I require mentorship ("a view that may not be held only by you, mind you"). While Lar's sutability for mentorship is at issue, given his volunteering for enforced mentorship, my sutability as an editor (or lack thereof) is not. Ironically, you were one of the individuals who I would hope would volunteer to mentor OM. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh... I misread you, I thought you were indeed acknowledging that there indeed are those that look at your approach somewhat askance, which would be a very positive step on your part, I think. If you were merely posing a hypothetical, I apologise. No personal attack was intended. But even if I meant to imply that you might benefit from mentorship in opposition to your own acknowledgement of it, I think you'd have to stretch the definition of personal attack pretty far to include that but not include your subthread starter... your insinuation was pretty clear to me. But to reiterate, in the hypothetical case that you were to seek mentorship I think I'd be perfectly capable of effectively mentoring you. Or blocking you if the mentorship failed, as I have done in the past. Your beliefs about the matter are less important than that of the wider community. Mentorship typically is a "take it or leave it" matter. Some latitude to pick is given, but the ultimate decision is not up to the mentoree... ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt Orangemarlin would accept me as a mentor given our history. :-) Thanks though. --Ali'i 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Guettarda (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Which sounds delicious, actually. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peanut butter and chocolate? Sounds good. - auburn pilot   talk  16:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's maintain a respectful tone, please. Orangemarlin has announced retirement.  Durova Charge! 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant no disrespect - as I have indicated on Orangemarlin's talk page. I merely questioned the metaphor; subsequent discussion has clarified it further. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only assume Durova's comment suffers from either unfortunate placement (not directed at the above two comments) or a serious misunderstanding. Nothing disrespectful in either comment. - auburn pilot   talk  17:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No disrespect intended on any side, I hope. Certainly not on mine.  Just long experience in how easily these things can veer off into counterproductive directions.  It's sad that things came to this.  Durova Charge! 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to volunteer as a mentor if needed. I'd also like to say that I have a lot of respect for OM's work on the difficult and contentious parts of the project that many of us tend to ignore, but agree that he is sometimes much too abrasive. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Brilliant; perfect choice (I was going to suggest either TimVickers or Casliber). I've been mentoring OM in my own little way, trying to show by example why the tone set by some of his other co-editors on some articles isn't the most effective, and I have had reason to believe lately that the message has been received.  I've followed OM's talk page for A Very Long Time, and I believe that he should do well under Tim's mentorship.  I suggest that ArbCom missed the boat here a bit, by failing so far to rule on a case about another editor who sets an example and the tone for OM and his co-editors.  I think we can't apply one standard to OM and another to other editors who edit similar articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AEB1
<outside comment, off the cuff>...and in the interests of minimizing disruption.... Yeah. That worked well. Good call. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, participating in RFARs is very stressful and disruptive. Now that the arbcomm has decided to go for secret trials, if we're lucky no one will ever have to present evidence or argue about interpretations.  Heck, they won't even have to file RFARs.  Why not streamline matters a little more - just pick 3 editors a month at random and sanction them.  Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazing how helpful hyperbole can be. Thanks, Guettarda. Kelly  hi! 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is equally helpful. Thanks Kelly.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Seriously, though, everyone needs to chill. It's not like this ArbCom action had any impact on anyone in real life. Kelly  hi! 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By the same reasoning, none of OM's alleged actions had any impact on anyone "in real life"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but is was apparently disruptive to the Wikipedia community, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. Kelly  hi! 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not granting the premise, but you mean like this travesty of justice isn't? We have already lost one good editor, and we may lose more.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how demanding that someone abide by site policies is a "travestry of justice". And maybe this sounds kind of cold-hearted, but another editor will come along to replace Orangemarlin should he not recover from his "retirement" hissy-fit. If that editor is not a member of Wikiproject Intelligent Design, and does not cause needless drama, then we have a net gain. Kelly  hi! 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeper, you were out of line there - you used sarcasm just a few lines above, and you admonish Kelly for it? Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said my post was sarcastic. OMG!  Just kidding, good call NUNL.  Apologies Kelly.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No sweat, all in good fun. Kelly  hi! 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I fail to see what's "fun" about this to OM and ON. It's hard not to wonder which day I'll get that little orange message bar on my talkpage that says "We've been talking about you secretly, and in an official capacity as community elected arbitrators.  Even though the community chose us to act towards the betterment of an open community, we decided not to involve them in our discussions about you.  After talking to each other, we've decided to sanction you, Cheers!".  Where's the fun?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Anyone who thinks this is fun has to imagine what it feels like to be notified that a group has met in secret and decided you have no defense for some terrible "crimes" that they compiled into a list, and that you should be sanctioned and shamed for your terrible acts. And also imagine when you read the list of "crimes" that they are completely one-sided misreadings of the situation. But some group has acted as prosecutor and judge and jury and now is enforcing some punishment against you. Fun huh? If you think that is fun, the precedent that has been set here could easily be used against anyone else on Wikipedia in the future. Including you. Because you have no right to a defense. Whatever you did, it was indefensible.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record (I hate that phrase), I don't condone the uncivil way that OM approached certain topics or editors. Not in the least.  But he should've had the opportunity (I won't say "right"), but the opportunity, to play out his hand before being publicly embarassed like this.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate where you're coming from. But I'll save my effort for defending editors that actually deserve to be defended. As I've said elsewhere, this has no effect on "Orangemarlin" in real life, or even on-wiki, so long as he behaves himself. The hyperbolic histrionics are actually a little amusing. Kelly  hi! 19:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course OM does need defending, because you have already decided he is guilty, right? And if any say he should be granted the opportunity for a defense, that is proof they are guilty too, right? And as for having no effect on him on-wiki, I think you are being a bit naive. Oh well.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Orangemarlin is guilty (in my opinion), and I daresay his peers that have engaged in similar tactics should reflect on their own conduct, as well. Kelly  hi! 20:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not all "peers" Kelly. I've never cross-edited with OMarlin, other than to challenge his civility on his talkpage or an article talkpage.  I've been not shy about confronting him, and I found him to be rather rude on more than one occasion.  That does absolutely nothing to change my opinion that he has been severly mistreated here. Severely.  I'm equally disturbed by this blind acceptance of a "Surprise! We've been watching you! You're sanctioned!" ArbCom secret ruling.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh - I just don't see how Orangemarlin has been mistreated. He violated community norms (even a cursory review of the evidence shows that) and was warned not to do it again. Orangemarlin wasn't blocked or banned, he chose to retire rather than live by the ArbCom's decision. That's his call. He could have continued here perfectly happily by living with the ArbCom's decision, which was pretty reasonable if you read it. Orangemarlin chose to leave - oh, well. If he continues to have the same level of obsessiveness with Wikipedia, which I'm sure he will, he'll be back as a sockpuppet. If the sock complies with WP policy, then we win - the disruptive behavior has stopped and we continue to gain the benefit of Orangemarlin's knowledge. If not, someone with his level of knowledge in his specialized areas will be along eventually. Be practical. Kelly  hi! 21:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading at "I don't see how Orangemarlin has been mistreated". If you don't see that, then we don't have anything left to talk about. May it never be you in a secret Arbcom.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will be a problem, since I don't make a habit or attacking or harrassing other editors. But if the ArbCom does ever sanction me unjustly, I'll just create a new accont and carry one as before. Kelly  hi! 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean like a fugitive criminal? Forget all friendly (and other) contacts you have made on-wiki, lose your reputation, change fields of interest to reduce the chance of being accuses of sock-puppetry? I'd rather people would stand their ground and try to improve the system than turn and run away. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfucking believable. "I don't see a problem with this, because if it ever happened to me I'd just change my identity and carry on as before". Weird doesn't even get close. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AEB2

 * Troubling, troubling all very troubling. When a committee confers in secret and decides one's fate in closed session one can't help but wonder, what next? RMHED (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully they'll sanction the rest. Naerii 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The rest of who? The rest of the editors who haven't been told there are any problems? IMO you're missing the point, which RMHED and Keeper76 have stated clearly; its not OM; its not OM's behavior: it is the precedent this sets. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The rest of the uncivil editors that are gaming the system on enwiki? Maybe I am missing the point, sorry, I just find it a bit hard to get worked up over the supposed injustice against OM in light of the overwhelming evidence presented by the ArbCom on his behaviour. Naerii 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am disturbed that the editors examined where not given a chance to communicate with Arbitration Comittee about their conduct before the case was decided. I am disturbed that the Arbitration Comittee is so sure of themselves and their investigatory skills that they believe that hearing from parties under investigation can add nothing substantial to their understanding of a case (perhaps they got this one right anyways but with such methods it is only a matter of time before a castrophic failure in understanding).  I am deeply disappointed that the Arbitration Comittee would take the the time to begin, on June 14, an investigation from the ground up on a long-term issue of no urgency, while a similar long-term case sits in its second month with no input from the Committee. -- Birgitte  SB  22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. --Duk 05:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to say... Jesus. I can see where the AC/FT2 are coming from: Orangemarlin has had it coming since long before Krimpetgate. As KillerChihuahua says herself: "AGF is not a suicide pact. If someone writes a post with blatant personal attacks, signs another user's name, then starts posting in multiple places calling for the banning of the innocent party, they are a troll. Calling them such is not a failure to AGF: it is a logical deduction." I think the assumption of good faith was exhausted so long ago that AC had to conduct this in camera to make the actual process as straightforward as possible. The vehement defence for Orangemarlin's actions given the amount of evidence actually given really sickens me and makes my belief that there is an upper class of Wikipedians who may do what they please firmer. Sceptre (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, in light of your earlier comments, it appears that your assumption of good faith was exhausted before you'd even looked at the evidence, and that your own "upper class of Wikipedians" communicates on another forum. Please learn to look beyond superficial impressions, and accept that fairness requires an open and detailed defence. .. dave souza, talk 10:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I stopped assuming good faith against editors like OM when he accused Krimpet of being a WR shill. No amount of "but she is!" would change the fact that he accused a trusted administrator of POV pushing against science, so to speak. The sheer fact that he and Odd nature brought along the "unbiased" Fozzie/B/Sxetp/me/Alison/anyoneelsewhopostsonWR RFC speaks wonders about their actions. Sceptre (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many people - not just those who have commented - were lost for words when he and his supporters launched his missive on the Giggy RfA. It's actually one of the worst stunts I've seen in my 2½ years here, and that's even considering I wasn't exactly a supporter of that particular adminship bid myself. And then to see him try it on again at Avruch a couple of weeks later, not to mention the repeated disruption on AN/I over the past two or so months - I am only amazed in fact that more were not caught up in the net and it was effectively limited to two people. Sometimes decisive, swift action is required. That's something people surely have to recognise. Users who tag-team and attempt to derail community processes and throw up furphies as distractions to prevent meaningful discussion, then complain when the community is not involved in an ArbCom decision, are the height of hypocrisy in my view. (It's not the first time it's happened on Wikipedia, nor is it likely to be the last.) On the method - I have my issues with how this was done, but I hope that the community outcry on it means we won't see a repeat and so that much will not be an issue again. Orderinchaos 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any defense of OM; let alone "vehement" defense, Sceptre. As I say above, it isn't the editor; nor the actions; which warrant the lion's share of concern here. It is the actions (previously perceived as of ArbCom, now of FT2) - the actions of a secret hearing/trial. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if not here, then when it came up in the past. Sceptre (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So long as wikipedia doesn't appoint a chancellor with emergency powers this is still hope for us all :) Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh we do :P never mind lets all go home for a cup of tea and just come back to this when arbcom actually tell us what happened. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 01:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, when I saw chancellor wikilinked, I thought it was going to go to this chancellor. ;) Does that mean I'm too much of a geek? --B (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. On Wikipedia, 50% of all employed analogies are to Star Wars, and the other 50% are to the Nazis. You just guessed wrong. :) MastCell Talk 05:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, Godwin's law anybody? MER-C 11:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry MC, but I never use Star Wars metaphors. I prefer Star Trek, but then again, it's old school.  So, I'm going to go for the 33% Star Wars, 33% Star Trek, 33% Nazi, 1% Others.  I know House doesn't appropriately explain statistics, but you should know better.  I'm disappointed.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't the problem, Sceptre. The problem is how ArbCom is handling the case in absentia.  By doing so, they aren't entitling him to any kind of defense.  For all we know, the guy could be completely innocent; the account could have been hijacked; unfortunately, until someone does a CU, we'd never know.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the case. It is blindingly obvious that the account has not been hijacked, as the majority of the evidence has already been discussed at length around the traps, with the account holder participating and defending their edits.  The account holder has not once mentioned that they are not responsible for the edits involved.  Besides, committee members have CU; it is terrible to suggest that the Arbitration Committee members involved in this wouldnt have run a CU if there was the slightest indication that it was necessary. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a major failing in the actions of User:FT2. In his own words, the thing was done in secret, without letting anyone defend themselves because We have no interest in enduring a week or two of that, or asking others to. If FT2 has no interest in enduring someone defending themselves (guilty or not), then he clearly should no longer be an arbitrator. Nfitz (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why single out FT2? If he speaks for a majority of the Committee then it is the Committee's standards that deserve examination, not his alone.  Although it remains a bit unclear whether he is indeed the messenger, please hold your fire until you see the whites of his eyes.  Durova Charge! 08:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt there would be any effective defence of OM's actions. LaraLove and giggy already tired of the related drama and bickering, and that was at an RFC. I have no doubts that it would be arduous for all if took to RFAR (but by necessity, we may have to) Sceptre (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your doubt based on inadequate research and confidence that "it would be arduous" to properly examine the case simply shows the clear injustice and lack of legitimacy of this secret judgement. At the RfC there have been hopeful signs of agreement on principles of behaviour, and I've deliberately not reviewed flimsy evidence presented there as a detailed examination would show fault on both sides and result in the drama and bickering you fear. Please learn from the RfC. . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's flimsy to call the editors a "cabal", "incivil", or "canvassers" - Naerii's analysis of RFA voting patterns, RFAR/OM/Evidence, and #wikipedia-en-admins logs, respectively are very strong pieces. Sceptre (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to have evidence that seems strong, another to deny the opportunity for response. This isn't about the outcome of one particular case so much as what precedent we accept for cases generally: new information can come to light.  Someday the reputation under scrutiny may be your own.  Durova Charge! 14:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt that all deserve a fair hearing and the adequate opportunity to present their defense.--MONGO 14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also caution anyone who thinks that the right conclusion has been reached in this case. Maybe it has, maybe it has not, but the precedent here is a bit disturbing.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was about Dave's RFC post, not about this case. Sceptre (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I'm reading of this, I can conclude two things right off the bat--OrangeMarlin's behavior was clearly unacceptable, yet there was nothing that I could see that required an in-camera ArbCom hearing, let alone denying a chance to mount a defense. This isn't nearly on the level of l'affaire Nathanrdotcom, unless I'm missing something. Blueboy96 15:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to agree there. Looking through the evidence it was difficult to actually differentiate anyone's position on anything. I don't, and have no desire to, edit in the subject area in question - but the whole thing really seems no more serious than I have encountered many times here. Editors and admins who when challenged in areas where they seem to think that they are correct, and only one view is possible, carrying out a scorched earth policy. Not to defend such actions, but I see nothing that justifies not doing the whole thing in public - which will likely occur even more publicly now. Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One problem with "looking through the evidence" is that it fails to give a balanced presentation of what happened. It is, in essence, more spin than evidence.  Jaysweet and B have critiqued two sections.  I see other areas where it just doesn't match my recollection of what really happened.  Of course, that's why we have evidence pages, that's why we allow people to answer the accusations against them.  Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it isn't spin, though, the fact that OrangeMarlin wasn't even offered an opportunity to defend himself in (to my mind) the absence of any exigent circumstances troubles me more. Blueboy96 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with everything said about this case being a bad idea, but I do agree with the general principle - this was a bad way to handle the problem. The explanation for why this case was done in secret without the benefit of community comment sounds an awful lot like "well, this was going to be difficult, so we decided to bypass the whole community involvement part".  I have a lot of respect for editors who are willing to work on ArbCom - I know its a thankless duty that requires extraordinary amounts of donated time and wading through tons of shit daily, but I still don't believe taking the easy way out was the right answer here.  Shell    babelfish 20:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just seen all this today. Even if everything said about OM should turn out to be true (about which I should say I have absolutely no idea), how can this ever justify a secret trial with no defence? I've been through ArbComs where those accused and his socks used the entire process to smear and defame innocent editors to the nth degree and nobody even suggested a secret trial. Even if the allegations were to be substantiated, I don't see anything about OM that puts him in a special category and beyond the normal requirements of Natural Justice. If OM's accusers say they have a good case against OM, let them post it openly and see what OM and fellow editors have to say about it and then make their decisions in the clear light of day. Fainites barley 13:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am hopeful that ArbCom/Jimbo/FT2 can issue a full and complete statement on this matter, explaining whether the case and sanctions are valid, why the case was not dealt with on-wiki in the usual fashion, and why there has been a lack of communication on the matter. If the answer to the first is in the negative, I am also hopeful for a full and complete explanation of why FT2 chose to post the case, along with what actions are being taken to maintain confidence in the Arbitration Committee. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy to Wiktionary
Is the transwiki process still running ? There are articles that have been tagged with the "Copy to Wiktionary" tag for over a month... CultureDrone (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, so make a unified login and go for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Would that it were so easy. I tried to do just that very thing, but near as I can tell, you have to be an admin at Wiktionary to import articles there. I brought this up at AN on June 2nd (hmm. Got a response there I missed. Once I brought it up at Village Pump, I stopped watching.) The flat answer is, no, the transwiki process is not still running. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll check with Connel about his transwiki bot. His other bots seem to be running ok on Wiktionary. Please don't do manual transwikis, it makes a mess that Wiktionary admins have to clean up. (I'm also a Wiktionary admin). -- Versa geek  01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote Connel about a month ago, on May 24th. To quote from my last AN post ('cause I still don't know what it means :)), he said there is an issue with "false positives" in Special:Import, and he didn't foresee the bot up and running any time soon. He suggested that an admin may be found on Wiktionary in the event of an emergency transfer; I don't know that there are any emergencies in this list, but I have been concerned that they are stacking up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

London article seems quite huge
Hi, please feel free to send me elsewhere if there is a better place to sort this out. I tagged the London article with very long as it nearly shut my computer down with it's size. It currently clocks in at 134K. A regular editor just removed it citing that article "was tagged a short while ago and a reduction made". It seems to me there is still work to be done toward that effort but I don't want to disrupt on things and really can't help here as the article's so large I can't even look at it to help much. I also had started a talk page thread citing Wikipedia:Article size but am unsure what would be appropriate next steps. Any insight or help appreciated. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banje <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">boi 00:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You started a thread on the talk page, so let's see how that goes first. — Kurykh  01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, going through the revision history (last 1000 edits or so) I found that the same tag was removed previously and the article had grown from 120k at the beginning of April 2008 to 142k, mainly due to references being added, and is now at 137k. There also seems to be a fair amount of anon IP vandalism and page blanking so semi-protection may be helpful. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banje <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">boi  03:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First, this isn't an administrator issue. Second, the page is not long. The current readable prose size, as measured by Dr pda's prose size script per the instructions for calculating prose size at WP:SIZE is 53 kB (8692 words). Compare to featured articles at Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics. There is no justification for adding the tag, unless you can show areas where summary style isn't effectively used. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Benjiboi was talking about article size, not article length. — Kurykh  03:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Article size is measured by WP:SIZE (I don't know what distinction your making between size and length); we don't penalize articles for being well cited. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yes, article size as is seen when you get that note suggesting anything over 30k may be too big. Thank you for the feedback. I did state "feel free to send me elsewhere if there is a better place to sort this out". Although technically the article is within a recommended or allowed limit, I was more concerned with the spirit of why size is a concern. In this case, this was the first article I've encountered that nearly crashed my system because of its size. I don't always have access to the most advanced set-up but I think compared to many parts of the English-speaking world I'm ahead of that curve. In any case, I appreciate the feedback but since I can't really look at the article anymore I'll leave it to them to sort out. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banje <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">boi  03:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * May I be so bold as to suggest that the problem may either be in your web browser or operating system configuration? A 134 KB article should not shut one's computer down as you put it. I just check with my older Win98 machine and London loaded up with no problems. --Dragon695 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to respectfully point out that some people may be viewing/editing from places such as work or a public library where they can't control those things. shoy 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mess of copyvios
Can some admins look at my last few contributions? Someone introduced a lot of copyright violations about people who are probably not notable. They were all brought to AFD before the AFD nominator noticed they were speediable. My reasoning is, on the off chance that any of those people really are notable, someone can create a legitimate article in the future. Thanks. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Final decision in Homeopathy arbitration case
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. User has been banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the evidence page is still missing, very disappointing. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have contacted the committee about this. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Any response from them? This doesn't go over very well. Bstone (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the evidence page had allegations of the real identity of certain editors, which was claimed to be relevant. That part of the evidence page (and comments relating to it) clearly needed to be excised, and the GFDL makes it difficult to restore the evidence page without traces of that appearing.  I think the final copy of the evidence page with the list of editors might be acceptable under GFDL, but I'm not sure.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that a refactored (to remove the bad bits) final copy of the evidence page, along with a list of editors, would be just fine. All the editors are presumably still active, so they could also be contacted to resubmit their evidence by e-mail for ArbCom to post as a new version of the evidence page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I should point out the deletion log entry: 11:58, May 26, 2008 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence" ‎ (Personal information concerns. (ArbCom can still see the deleted content; please keep this deleted until they decide how to deal with the outing.)) --InkSplotch (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruption and/or vandalism: Crownprosecutor and Pensionsdepartment
and appear to be one and the same. They've engaged in serial BLP violations, most glaringly at Melanie Phillips. They're either formulaic vandals or extremely repetitive trolls who've mistaken Wikipedia for a virtual rock. Their modus operandi has been to idenitfy various media personalities as Jews, crucially none of these additions have been attributed to reliable sources and all of which are now reverted. Both have been warned. It would be really appreciated if someone else could put the Phillips article on their watchlist and help monitor these two. SoLando (Talk) 19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They're the same person. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Possible copyright violations
Can administrators help fix the backlog in this category? (Non-admins can also help in cases where deletion is not necessary.) It's embarrassing that we have a two-week backlog in getting rid of flagged copyright violations... Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it be embarrassing? There really is no rush, we could take a page from COM:MELLOW and stop running to AN every time something gets a little behind. Considering the who bruhaha surrounding the massive screwup in Luke Ford deletions, I think copyvios should be handled in a very slow and deliberate manner. Haste make waste, mostly of people's time. --Dragon695 (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's extremely embarrassing that we can't clean up things that are illegal cut-and-paste jobs. This is something that could actually get wikipedia in trouble, especially if it isn't dealt with promptly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review article
Based on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article finally getting the greenlight, I thought I would tackle our other bete noire. I have created a draft Wikipedia Review article, which you can find at User:Neil/wr. Now, in my opinion, it's radically different from the various previously deleted versions, is neutral, has more than sufficient reliable sources/references, is fully cited, and meets WP:WEB (the applicable guideline).

Normally I would just put an article into mainspace if it was radically different from AFD'd versions. However, I am not daft, and realise this is a touchy topic -I would love to avoid drama. Would the appropriate step to evaluate this draft be DRV, do you think? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  14:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, given this has been deleted at AfD, a DRV would be the best step. I don't see any problems with the article and would expect it be moved into mainspace, but it's best to get a firm consensus at DRV.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On first impressions, the article looks good. The sources in some points fail - I don't like the Finklestein and Shankbone references because they're Wikipedian's themselves, and I don't like the Metz reference because its recently been his trait to criticise Wikipedia. I agree with Ryan it should be taken to DRV, though. Sceptre (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Author is a Wikipedian" is irrelevant to WP:RS, as is "Author has criticized Wikipedia." Apparent bias on an author's part can effect how a source is used, i.e., it might be necessary to attribute the source, rather than to simply state what is in it as fact, but if it is RS without those criticisms, it's RS after them, same as any possibly controversial statement found in RS. --Abd (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the Finkelstein source and the text sourced from it is not controversial, so attribution isn't necessary.--Abd (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say the Finkelstein and Metz ones are fine as they are in reliable sources (The Guardian and The Register). I wanted the Shankbone one in there because it's the only one I could find that contained criticism of WR (and Google News certainly believes the publication it appeared in to be reliable, as that's where I found it). I'll take it to DRV, thanks guys. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now at Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_1. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks okay to me. Well worth a discussion on Deletion Review.  --Jenny 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony, you did an outstanding job fixing this article Neil! However, one thing concerns me, you know MONGO and SlimVirgin are going to pitch a fit when they find out about this, right? --Dragon695 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's different to that which was deleted, just put it in mainspace. DRV is, I was told some time ago (by which I mean: things may have changed!), solely for the dispute of the procedural closing of an AfD: ie, was consensus judged correctly? It shouldn't be there to give an article a second trial. Any discussion could and should probably go on at WP:AFD. Martinp23 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. DRV is for review of deletion decisions. The prior deletion decision was correct (I assume, I don't know, but it's moot for this) and should not be reviewed. This is a new article. Put it in mainspace. AfDs do not delete "subjects," just articles. What DRV would properly find is that the old deletion decision was correct, based on what was available at the time. Which would leave us back where we started. What will happen, I predict, is that someone will try to speedy or PROD it. If it is deleted without an AfD, this is a new deletion decision and would be reviewed at DRV, and, I predict, what DRV would do is to require a new AfD. Normal process. (And if the speedy deletion was not reasonably founded, some administrator might get a whiff of wikitrout.) Let's hope that the editors mentioned above keep their heads cool. I'd suggest that if any editor is tempted to comment in an AfD because they detest the subject of the AfD, they recuse themselves, not comment, and trust the community will make a reasonable decision without their participation, they will save themselves, and Wikipedia, a lot of grief. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, normally I would. However, Wikipedia Review is, not unreasonably, a touchy topic for some editors, and I would like this article created (or not) in the gentlest, least dramatic, least controversial way possible.  If that means going via the more formal DRV route, so be it. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  17:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a neutral and sourced article about a notable subject to me. DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Certainly others may have different opinions; however, I don't think it is gentler to go straight to Deletion Review. That would be asking to overturn what we must assume was a correct deletion, and it is the least fuss, the gentlest to assume that the decision was correct at that time based on the article at that time. If we got to Deletion Review, we'd be asking the community to decide that the old review was incorrect, that it should have been decided differently. That's contentious, isn't it? Instead, put the article up. If it gets deleted, don't make a stink, go to Deletion Review. In other words, those who'd like to have this article should, I'd suggest, simply assume that this is a new article, which, from comments here, it is. (Obviously, I can't read the old article and don't think it worth the time to go over the last AfD, because I believe it is moot.) I would not assume that any editor is going to make a fuss. If somebody decides to make a fuss about an article that is neutral and sourced (or that is within obvious reach of being so with ordinary editorial process), let them do it. But it is a bit rude to assume that another editor will make an improper fuss. Even if they would have done so at one time, people change, and we should make it easy for them to change, partly by continuing to assume good faith. That's my advice, anyway. I'd treat Neil, temporarily, as the "custodian" of the article, i.e it's his decision what to do, and we are advising.--Abd (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything, I think DRV would be counter-productive because it would implicitly invite comment on the old article and its AfD, neither of which is relevant to whether the new article belongs on Wikipedia. That sounds like a recipe for confusion and drama to me. I think it's great that Neil posted here before moving the article to mainspace, but really it's a different article and the best move for now is, I think, to be bold.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * at the moment it seems to be moving to a SNOW restore, which would make this thread moot.DGG (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would be most advisable to let it run for the full time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please don't close it early. I do not want anyone complaining they were not given a fair chance of expressing their view. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
There is a backlog developing. There have been arguments about whether four-hour old reports are stale or not, and it's been a while since anyone has acted on a report. Martintg (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please use adminbacklog on pages to mark a backlog. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Afd big backlog
Just wanted to put out a call for more syops to come to Afd as the backlog is at 222 right now. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note this category which exists specifically for this sort of situation. — Travis talk  12:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review
I have blocked for 24 hours in the heat of a moment, which I probably should't have. However, I did so after an extremely disruptive WP:POINT edit resulting from a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. After I told him how we should list actors in an infobox, he edited Doctor Who MoS just to get under my skin. If he uses the unblock template, feel free to handle it as you like. Arcayne has a history of ignoring consensus and arguing his case to the point of being tendentious, and his block log speaks for itself. I'm ready to be chastized... — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeez Louise, I have just about had it with all the crappy administrators. If you make a mistake—and you did—then hold your hand up and fix it. Blocking someone you're edit warring with is just unacceptable. Have you considered resigning? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you just unblock him yourself? <strong style="color:#000">Avruch 00:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edokter, you can fix your rash mistake by unblocking this user now (and putting something like "my mistake, block not supported by policy" in the unblock summary. I suggest you don't wait for another admin to do it for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, But it won't improve anything. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I imagine it probably could have, had you pursued DR or mediation.
 * Could I trouble someone to point out where I can report an admin for using their tools inappropriately? I mean, if it is a page different from here specific to admin de-sysopping. The inappropriate block is on my record forever, and I am rather pissed. As the admin in question disregarded repeated suggestions that he seek out a fellow admin to advise him prior to using his admin tools, he knew he was using his tools incorrectly. He shouldn't get to hold onto them. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're being very naive Arcayne. Administrators are invulnerable. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I have been known to tilt at windmills ever so often. I am not really prepared to let the matter go, especially considering that the blocking admin admitted that it wouldn't improve matters. Clearly, the tools need to be taken away until he is in a happier place. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It comes with the terrirory. Admins are human too, and make mistakes. I have corrected my mistake. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've corrected your mistake, but have you apologized for your mistake? Both relevant.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will apologise if I know Arcayne would accept it. Right now, I doubt it. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologizing has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone will accept it or not. Human nature 101.  That doesn't absolve you from "the right thing to do".  If you are only apologizing because you feel this will "go away", then it isn't an apology.  If you are apologizing out of contrition for your actions, and Arcayne doesn't accept it, then that is on Arcayne, not you.  101.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is also relevant is that, apology or not, Arcayne now has an undeserved block on his/her record. What record does Edokter have of his/her fuckup? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can check to see if Edokter is open to recall, but my advice would be to drop it. Unless you've evidence of a history of misconduct, or something far more egregious than this, he won't get much more than mild chastisement from anyone else. <strong style="color:#000">Avruch 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How do I have the block log purged of the inappropriate block? If there isn't a way to do so, I would like to request a short block for Edokter, as his inappropriate block was inherently contrary to his admin responsibilities and the gudielines, Since he said the matter wouldn't improve, it might be helpful to protect those articles he haunts for a little while. At some point, I'll be asked to explain the block in my log, and who knows if the admin in question will even be here then? I don't want a pound of flesh. An apology would be spiffy. As well, a short block is in order for Edokter, too - maybe the remainder of the 24 hours he wanted to give me. It would certainly be ironic. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He already noted in your block log that the blog was not appropriate. That's all that's needed here.  Friday (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Developers can do it, but they won't. Save the link to this revision, and if you're asked to explain the block at some point in the future just paste it. <strong style="color:#000">Avruch 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Only the devs can purge a block log, and they've made it clear that they are only willing to do this if there's extremely serious circumstances, such as personal information. With respect to a block for Edokter - that would be punitive because he did undo the block. Just put it down to a bad block - if there's problems in the future, we can look further into it. Don't worry that you have an extra block in your logs - the unblock in the log makes it perfectly clear that the original block was wrong and against policy so that will never be held against you.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should not have too much tolerance for admins who block inappropriately, but calling for resignation is premature. He screwed up here. He knows it. Unless it sort of thing happens regularly, it's not that big a problem. Friday (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I posted a rewrite in edit conflict. Okay. I guess I can let it go, as per the good advice I was given here. I do agree with Friday that Edokter has little in the way to reflect this mistake, though I am stuck with a block log. Maybe a block of a minute explaining the issue to balance things out? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we don't use blocks to highlight admins mistakes - I admit, you had a bad block, but making another bad block doesn't help things.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c reply to Friday) Although I'm sure it feels like a bigger problem to Arcayne, I agree Friday. A pattern is needed, not a simple mistake.  If there's a pattern, fine, I'll gladly support an RFC or desysopping.  A one-off though is not enough.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic, I really am; something similar happened to me not so very long ago. But there really is nothing that can be done about your block log. And asking for a tit-for-tat block makes you look as bad as the blocking admin. Put it down to experience. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I consider the matter resolved, and hope it doesn't reoccur. Sorry for asking for the reciprocal block; I guess it was rather childish. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What's needed is - Edokter to apologize, Arcayne to accept it, and everyone move along and create a better encyclopedia. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What's even more needed here is for Edokter to hand in his mop and go back to editing the encyclopedia. He has violated several policies and violated the trust this community put in him. He needs to resign. Tho gracefully is no longer an option. Bstone (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, any admin who finds him/herself in an editing conflict with another editor should absolutely not use the tools against the other editor. Witness this similar thread at AN/I. Just don’t do it. If the problem is serious enough for action, take it to AN/I, 3RR or whichever board applies, but step aside and let another admin handle it. Compare: Cop: I have shot Bob’s leg in the heat of a moment, which I probably shouldn’t have. Can another cop please clean up the mess for me and tell him I didn’t really mean it? This has been a public service message. — Travis talk  03:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that getting oneself blocked over the format of an infobox is rather ridiculous. — Travis talk  03:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As is comparing the existence of a block-log on a website to a police bullet in the leg, when you think about it. (Note: this opinion of mine may arise from my residence, a city where the police currently seem hell-bent on shooting anything that twitches. YMMV.) Gladys J Cortez 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so maybe my point was a little over-the-top, but it does dramatize the need for admins to refrain from using the “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality, especially with editors with which they have a dispute. — Travis talk  12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)