Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128

Relisting of AfD discussions is getting ridiculous

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 19. It's ridiculous to see how many discussions have been relisted on this one day alone. Make a decision, people. Either come down on one side or the other, or call it a no decision, don't just leave these things hanging for weeks. AfD's are supposed to last five days, not ten, not fifteen. Corvus cornix_talk 04:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, as a frequent closing admin for AfD's, unless you rather see a lot of "no consensus" AfD's even for articles that is suppose to be deleted, I don't think it is a good idea to make 5 days a hard rule, a lot of deletion debate do need input from experianced editors to point out whether if the article should be deleted or not, and I don't think the process needs to be rushed. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

so what happens if there's no difference after relisting? Does it get relisted ad infinitum until it gets to a point where it's at the point a particular user wants it to be, at which point they pounce and say, "closed"? Corvus cornix_talk 04:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On discussions where no one participates, I'll relist it twice at most, and then close it as no consensus if no one participates. If only a small number participate and there's no clear consensus, I'll relist it twice before closing it no consensus. Just my little personal rule, others may do differently. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want them relisted, vote on them! Give admins something to work with! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I do no think that admins are purposefully "looking the other way" and ignoring closing AfD's, they are just busy and there are a lot of AfD's. Give it time. Tiptoety ^talk 04:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If I see an AFD that has been resisted more than once, with only delete votes or only a nom, I'll usually close it as "Delete" based on no one caring enough to try to keep it. Mr.Z-man 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Really! That's quite disturbing. Just because people aren't watching over articles like a mother hen so they see one has been AfD'd they could be deleted. As someone who has been sidelined from working on articles only to try to rescue an article at AfD I find that highly problematic. Not everyone who I looking for information is also watchlisting every article worth keeping and many are not here every day or even every week. I would much rather err on keeping something borderline that needs improving rather than deleting something because the right set of editors hasn't shown up to fight to keep it. Very discouraging to creation of articles in my opinion. Benjiboi 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If an article could go two weeks on AFD without a single vote, that means it could have been PRODed without opposition anyway...Someguy1221 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The hope is that if the subject is truly encyclopedia-worthy, there will be more than a couple users in the pool of about 5000 active ones that want to see it kept. Mr.Z-man 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I understand your objection, but disagree that repeated relisting is a bad thing. If you read the time stamps on many relisted AfDs, you will see they are busy in the first few days and then completely drop off. In these cases, you can suspect that relisting will lead to further discussion and consensus can often arise. Yes, at some point no consensus has to be concluded, but five or six people disagreeing is not enough to determine that consensus on the issue is impossible to come to. SorryGuy  Talk  04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department. It's been relisted twice now. How many !votes does one discussion need? And relisting things doesn't make the number of AfDs go down, it makes things worse. Corvus cornix_talk 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with it though? If it makes the consensus clearer, then so be it. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

i don't think that is what happens. I think people will just harden their positions, the discussion will become heated, or else people will just say, "how many times do I need to repeat the same arguments," and drift away because they're bored with the whole thing. Corvus cornix_talk 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, a lot of times, the relisted debates are the ones with so little comments or a debate with a nomination statement like "WP:N" with absolutely nothing else on it. I don't think people will "harden their positions" if there isn't any position there to begin with. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As it currently stands, there is no clear consensus (or even a slightly muddy consensus) in that discussion. If, after relisting it twice, no clear consensus is reached, I would lean toward closing it as no consensus myself, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't relist ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department. I only relist if there is no quorum, e.g. a nom. and one keep or just a nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I likely wouldn't have relisted it the second time. I'd have to think about the first one. I think there was enough discussion after the first relist to close it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you want to fix this, try spamming AfD at the village pump and elsewhere. What's needed is more people participating, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisting should only be used where the debate is so sparse that it is not even possible to see that there is not agreement over what should be done (or if there was some other causal reason for restarting things). Merely having a split debate is fine - it means there is no consensus, which is a logical outcome of a process that tries to determine whether there is consensus to delete or not. Relisting just because making a decision is tricky is not correct; unless there is a consensus to X, the result is no consensus, and to answer Yamamoto Ichiro's question at the top: yes, more no consensus closures are fine if the community has not reached a consensual position on what should be done. Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department was unnecessary the first time, and just wrong the second time. Admins are charged with calling the community's position on the debate, and if there is no consensus over what should be done, then they must say so, not re-spin the wheel until faced with an easy closure. Splash - tk 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just closed that onewith a merge and redirect to the Great Falls, Montana article since there is more then enough discussion even after the second round of discussion (after the first relisting). The majority didn't want to keep the article and many of the arguments on the Keep side was weaker then the Delete/Merge side. It is now merged and redirect although those who to fix/add/remove stuff can do so if necessary.--JForget 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I had always considered that 4 or 5 votes (or more of course and even sometimes 3 when it is 3 delete or 3 keeps or 3 redirects) in 5-7 days is more then enough for an AFD discussion to be closed without re-listing it.--JForget 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody votes at AFD. If an AFD gets relisted, it's because there's 3 votes, all of which conflict with each other. A solution would be if after one relist, if there's something like 4 delete, 2 keep, 2 merge for example, an admin makes a call based on the article's merits rather than consensus or lack thereof. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good example of when a relist is the thing to do - with 3 divergent opinions being the only material, it's not really possible to even see if argumentation might make a difference, and so a relist is ok. But relisting in the example given above was unnecessary even after the first time around; as in some other cases, relist was used (in good faith) despite the fact that it was apparent that there was no agreement on what the disposition of the article should be i.e. there was 'no consensus'. Splash - tk 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• You can also help out by closing them as keep. See WP:NAC. But then you deal with the weeks of WP:DRV that you'll have to go through. Consensus not being reached yet and discussion ongoing and article improving are all a natural and beneficial part of the process. What is so bad about relisting them? What is harmed? Why rush to make some half-assed decision or waste the discussion with a no-consensus. I relisted over a dozen on the date you listed, yes, including the fire department one. Look what happened after that relist... 5 people !voted delete and 1 merge. If the people are only participating because they are pissed off at the relist.... then good! If I closed more than a dozen in a row as No Consensus, I'd get screamed at, and delrevved to death. You can't just whine about relisting with no concrete plan for how it can be done better. Well, you CAN, but why???? JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Jerry's assessment here. As a relatively new AfD closer, I can't imagine intentionally closing something with only a !vote or two as keep, delete, or even non=consensus without pissing someone off (either the nominator or the !voter). Relisting is the only way to go in those instances. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keeper76, I think everyone agrees with your point, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department had 6 people at the first relist and 9 at the second. Splash - tk 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've closed far more than that in a day as no consensus, and have never once found such a closure properly executed go to deletion review. If there is no consensus, say so; it is not a waste of a process to evaluate consensus if it concludes that there is, in fact, no consensus. People wanting to delete an article merely to get it off AfD is an extremely bad situation to try to encourage, as it has nothing whatever to do with the article. A concrete plan for not relisting is to close as no consensus where no consensus exists and there are more than a few people contributing. If the debate is too tough for you to make a decision on, then leave it to a more experienced admin to handle - the trouble with relisting is that it draws the process out for weeks on end (literally, in the case of a double relist) and overburdens AfD with discussions that could have been dealt with adequately earlier. It also tends to freeze articles as noone wants to contribute to an article that might die shortly, whereas a no consensus closure gives the concrete reprieve that is needed. Splash - tk 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• One thing that often helps get a discussion going is to post the nomination in the appropriate Wikiproject's deletion list. Sancho 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department isn't a good example because it was initially relisted by a participant right after her own comment. In general, lack of useful input is a recurrent problem, advertising might help, but opining can also be time intensive. Nevertheless, commenting on an AfD with few contributions can sometimes be more helpful than relisting.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is also a poor example as my suggestion, merging it, was the ultimate result (and, obviously in my own opinion, the best result). However my comment could easily have been ignored for its singularity, especially on an AFD which was already due to close, so I re-listed it, mostly hoping that the previous participants, particularly those who argued for outright deletion (and of those, particularly my good friend Mr. Goodman) might still be watching the discussion and possibly willing to reconsider the need for deleting, which is rarely a genuine "need" per se. Then there was a flurry of mixed opinions by several new participants, and thankfully a closer well-endowed with common sense. Yes I took a gamble here, but I don't believe I wasted the time of anyone who wasn't already actively seeking to waste their own time (it was, after all, an AFD). Some might accuse me of "gaming the system" too but I'll let the result speak for itself. — CharlotteWebb 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We had a debate earlier where an article on a band was nominated for deletion on 3 February, citing notability. No comments were made, by the author or anyone else, for or against deletion. The debate was relisted on 13 Feb, and again received no comments at all. Since the AfD tag, the article had received no edits at all. This article was likely have been a good candidate for WP:PROD, and another admin agreed. Would it be worthwhile to treat debates where there was no discussion whatsoever after 10 days as an uncontested prod? Obviously, a request to recreate such an article would be approved immediately, as with a prod. It would be an alternative to relisting over and over again. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in a case like this you could gently "prod" the contributor(s) with one of those impersonal and incredibly verbose talk page templates. I believe there's one that uses some 500 words to say "Warning, your shit's on AFD, you might want to look into it", but I can't seem to find it this instant. This would actually be useful in cases where nobody shows up, while still annoying the rest of the time. — CharlotteWebb 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPN anyone?

If anyone is interested, an objective opinion would be useful at WP:BLPN#Mike Lupica. Summary: my two edits removed a criticism section that was larger than the entire rest of the article combined (check the article sizes before and after). A POV-pushing IP disagrees. Input is much appreciated. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation - proposal

As the community knows, I've recused on editing Prem Rawat at this time, but one would expect that in this situation experienced contributors would know better. Should the editors there be encouraged to to engage in WP:DR in a constructive manner? It do not think it possible to make progress in improving the article in an environment in which edit-war is the rule of the day. I ask uninvolved admins to take a look, and assess if article probation may help restore some normalcy to the editing process there. I ask the community to consider article probation -- 1RR per day, or per week, NPA, and talk-page disruption probation for 30 days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that's what article probation means. I've been applied it recently, actually! El_C 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes.... see Wikipedia:General sanctions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Never! El_C 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd support an indefinite probation. It can always be revisited later and changed if nothing else goes wrong. Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Article probation would likely be very helpful in getting the situation in-line. Vassyana (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea, as far as I'm concerned.

Jossi committed to not editing the article, which I appreciate. Then he tries to get hold of the article via proxy (...Momento, anons &c). Which I don't appreciate. Then we have to deal with the disruptive POV-pushers, like Momento. Jossi still wants to protect his favorite POV-pushers, which I don't appreciate. And he knows he won't hold it that way, so tries to get measures passed for a general restriction of all editors of the article, which I don't appreciate. He has tried a protection request before. But that would still not solve the fact that we have to deal with the disruptive editors like Momento. This is only what I can tell from my personal experience. The fact that I got little or no appreciation for jumping in to work out solutions on a topic I'm barely interested in, doesn't bother me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations are unneeded and unwelcome here, Francis. You are now involved in that article, and would hope that you would appreciate ways to encourage orderly editing there, such as this proposal. Let uninvolved admins weigh in on this and evaluate the need or lack thereof for article probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a counter-proposal to my proposal. You're too heavily involved in preventing edits to the article. That's all I wanted to say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You can present evidence of that, if you have any, and make any other proposals. (and please do not refactor this page) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a counterproposal to the above #Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs), so I propose to keep them together, not as separate sections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Concur with Lawrence and Vassyana. Support article probation per evidence. – Steel 21:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation is fine in some instances, but keeping an article in a sort of unmoving purgatory isn't exactly a good solution either. If the agreement is for probation of the article and that'll still help the information to grow, then that's fine. What would be ideal is if the involved parties would hold off and wait for uninvolved editors to weigh in first, and then a solution could certainly arise rather quickly. Jmlk17 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, as per the evidence, I believe the best course of action at this juncture would be probation. Jmlk17 21:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I protest, involved as I am in trying to get the article on the right track again, and humbly ask to have a look on my proposal above, which comes down to (more explicitly than I stated above) checking disruption, starting with the most disruptive long-term editors. So please take note of #Slightly disruptive editing of Momento.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7 contribs.29. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "talk-page disruption probation " is. How do we define "talk page disruption"? I'm also concerned that that list of involved editors is not complete, including Cirt, Francis Schonken, and Momento, but excluding Rumiton. Momento has edited disruptively by repeated reverting material claiming the BLP exception, so I'm concerned that he will not comply with a 1RR limit either. I think that rather than target specific editors it would be better to implement a strict 1RR limit on all editors of that article. And dispute resolution is always appropriate. Will Beback NS (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither did I speak of nor remotely suggest "talk-page disruption probation", nor do I know what it is supposed to mean. I suggested to get Momento in line with harmonious editing. With usual measures. Two times 24H block (as already happened in a short time span), if keeps disrupting, longer block, if never reforms, get him out of the system. He cost us enough time as it is. I'm hesitant to let myself, and other more generally constructive editors, be restricted on the same par as rather clearly uncollaborative editors. That's not what we should deserve.

BTW, why do you use an alternate account? Or is that not unusual? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If Momento breaches 1RR, he will get dinged big time under probation. Dispute resolution was proposed, and there are no takers, Will. And, in any case, page probation will only assist in providing an orderly debate during dispute resolution. And yes, 1RR restrictions on all active editors is what this probation proposal is about. Talk page disruption is breaches of WP:NPA, and other such behaviors at the discretion of uninvolved admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that editors actively editing that article should allow uninvolved editors to assess if article probation is needed or not. So far, three four such editors have argued in support of that measure. Let others evaluate this without further comments from involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm involved, and for that reason said what I said. So I still invite not to look only at the list Jossi provided (and which doesn't say much when you're acquainted with the situation), but at least also have a look at the material I presented in the previous section #Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs), which takes a bit more time to read the stuff I referred to, but hopefully gives a clearer picture. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis, you do not need article probation if there is one editor that is misbehaving. You may need article probation when there are 'multiple editors engaged in edit-wars, SPs, dormant accounts, personal attacks, and other such things. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, my experience (and I've been following the article quite closely for the last weeks) is that neither SPEs nor dormant accounts aren't all that much of a problem. You don't edit the article, so no worries there either. All the other editors balance more or less, without causing disruption, except Momento. I gave part of the evidence why I came to that conclusion above. I didn't want to bore anyone, but said I was prepared to give more. I don't think edit-warring is all that much of a real problem currently, and if so, I'd rather go back first to semi-protection, but even that seems uncalled for currently. The most acute problem is really one editor misbehaving quite somewhat more than the others. And I still hope Momento gets the gist of it, but the disruption he's causing has to stop, either with him behaving, or increasing periods without him. Really, I only speak about my personal experience, as an editor completely uninterested in the subject of the article (as said, I think the article's subject boring), but trying to make a high quality Wikipedia article on the subject nonetheless. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise, editors could be told that article probation is being considered, and that to avoid it becoming formal (with the attendant risk of admin action if it's not adhered to), they should stick as closely to 1RR as they can bear to (one revert per editor per week). And the article could be sprotected to avoid drive-by reverting. Then we could re-assess in a week to see whether it has helped, and if not, impose the probation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As said, I think sprotection uncalled for at this time. Maybe propose it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you'd think it useful. 1RR/week would even be less fruitful as far as I can tell. The article is still undergoing needed changes, as part of the outside criticism levelled at it was to a certain degree justified. The process is dynamic, but apart from a single to my taste too pedantic editor, not disruptive (for comparison: I have the Fibonacci article on my watchlist for some time which is, for some reason unknown to me, favoured by anon trolls and vandals - at a certain time, after a period of several anon abuse per day I suggested sprotection, which was declined: by comparison the Prem Rawat article is currently relatively calm)

The suggestion to notify editors about this discussion, is probably a good idea though, see Talk:Prem Rawat#Notification --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Things have cooled off a bit (maybe because of the possibility of probation was looming), although trolling and personal attacks have continued happening. If the situation deteriorates again to a point in which probation may be warranted, I will bring this again to AN for evaluation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it valid to semiprotect an IP talk page to keep the IP from removing warnings?

See User talk:75.47.140.0 and User talk:Rschen7754#User talk:75.47.140.0 - it's my understanding that this shouldn't be done, but I may be wrong. --NE2 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that this should only be done on a case by case basis and is not the guaranteed right of the administrator. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to jump in, but I'm sure NE2 was asking someone else out there on the noticeboard. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a right to defend my actions... --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it. The only situation I can think of where it's necessary to prevent an editor from editing their own talk page is if they're blocked and abusing the unblock template. Most of us ought to know that a warning-free talk page does not mean a clean editing record, and the warnings are still in the history, so there's not that much reason to insist that they remain visible. It could look a little vindictive, to be honest. -- Vary | Talk 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

However, when deciding whether to block or not, the administrator frequently does not look at the history - neither do the bots. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bots don't block and administrators damn well should be looking at editors' histories before blocking them. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bots report people to be blocked. Also, in regards to AIV, the editor will never report the vandal to AIV if there is only a test2 template, even if the vandal removed 30 other templates. Finally, all an experienced IP vandal has to do is keep removing the vandal warnings, and then they would escape detection for a long time. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not if people check the talk page history. I don't know how the bots determine what warnings to leave and when to report, so I can't speak on that, but I do know that checking the current revision of their talk page for visible warnings is not the best way to figure out an editor's recent history. Flesh and blood editors at least should not be relying on an admin to prevent an editor from removing warnings so they won't have to spend a few extra seconds checking out the talk page history. If you're concerned that the editor is going to 'escape detection' by removing one first-level warning, I'd think that watchlisting the talk page and keeping an eye on it would be a less bitey way to handle the situation. -- Vary | Talk 05:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

However, I do not stay on the computer 24/7 - I have to sleep and go to class and stuff. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So deal with it when you get back. How much damage do you think one IP can do in twelve hours without someone taking notice, blanked warnings or no? -- Vary | Talk 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite a bit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be blocking anyone if you aren't prepared to look at the talk page history each and every time. Frankly, I'm finding this conversation more than a little unsettling. Sarah 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(in rs) Unsettling? I find this potential for vandal abuse unsettling. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this wasn't even a vandalism warning; the IP blanked a talk page that was simply a redirect to another because he thought the non-talk title should redirect to a different place. --NE2 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my call - however, the IP has been making disruptive edits anyway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this makes a difference, but the IP removed the warning with the summary "No Legal Threats"... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly endorse Yamamoto's unprotection of the talk page. I actually went there to do it myself. Sarah 05:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? I don't get what you're trying to say by posting a diff of someone restoring a message in reply to my endorsement of the unprotection. I don't really care if IPs are allowed or not allowed to remove messages but I do care that you seem to think it's a-okay and acceptable practice to go about blocking blind. If you don't have time to check talk histories or just can't be stuffed, leave the blocks to someone else. There are plenty of times when talk pages are very misleading and I find the idea of you going about blindly making blocks without checking the account properly very disturbing. Sarah 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, the error would reside in not blocking the IP - so you can't say that the user would be blocked unfairly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IP's don't fall under Wikipedia:User page, page trolling and blanking on anon IP talk pages is Not acceptable and is vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Says who? --NE2 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So AOL or any other SHARED IP are treated the same under WP:USER, don't think so. We block shared and multiple user accounts, you can't assure against ths IP being a different individual in a month, can you? Wikipedia offers wide latitude to "users" to manage their user space as they see fit such as delete warnings. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community, IP's are not considered userpages. If they are, Where?--Hu12 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses are just like other users in the sense that they have every right to edit an article that any normal registered user can (with exceptions in the technical regard). Wikipedia:User page says "Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia" (emphasis partly mine). IPs are participants as much as any normal registered user, so blanking of a talk page is commonly accepted and should not be reverted or classed as vandalism. Not all IPs are vandals. Spebi 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that there is a person editing behind the IP and he/she deserves all the consideration and respect as any other user, however IP's are not userpages, nor are they given the latitude under WP:USER. Blanking or trolling of a shared/dynamic/proxy/TOR/ect IP talk page is vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused here. I'm not particularly sure what the situation is here, but I am sure that any user, registered or not, is allowed to blank their own talk page to remove warnings. What do you mean by "however IP's are not userpages"? Spebi 06:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A user page is devoted to exactly one person. An IP page refers to anyone using that IP, which may well be many people, not just one. I may have the right to blank "my" user page; I don't have the right to blank one I share with others. - Nunh-huh 11:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Messages on talk pages are intended for just one user - the one who receives the orange message bar. If the message is intended for them and they have read it then they can remove it. If the message isn't intended for them they can remove it too because no one else is going to get the orange message bar. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing a message and blanking are two different things. An IP page and a user page are two different things. - Nunh-huh 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking and removing a warning are exactly the same thing if the only message on a Talk page is a warning, which was the case here. And your assertion that "an IP page and a user page are two different things" is laughably false.

I tire once again of editors, particularly administrators who should know better, treating anonymous editors as second-class citizens in this project. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nunh-huh is correct; IP address users are not allowed to blank their talk pages, only registered users. I'm not sure where that's written down,--or if it is at all, rather than being standard practice only--as I was told by Snowolf. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Snowolf isn't the authoritative source there. I have no objections to IP editors removing warnings from their talk pages. If they removed "shared IP" notices, I would discuss that with them, but removing warnings is perfectly acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know he's not the authoritative source, but I've seen what he said being put into practice (sorry for not being clearer). · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've just semiprotected this IP talkpage for the length of their block, (for somewhat obvious reasons) and I'd also do it for abuse of unblock, but that's about it I think. Black Kite 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• If a person is abusing their talk page while blocked, then the page should be fully protected for the duration of the block. Black Kite's protection meets that sandard. When the block expires, the page should be unprotected. If a person (IP or username) is not blocked, their talk page should not be protected. In any case, removing warnings is not abusive, it is perfectly acceptable, even if it leaves the page blank. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• These things have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. The idea behind allowing users to control their own talk pages is that we don't want to humiliate people by forcing them to edit with warnings on their talk pages, as though we've forced them into the stocks and are throwing rotten tomatoes at them. So generally, if someone removes a warning, we know they've seen it, and that's the end of it. However, there are situations where the behavior of a user is particularly egregious and we have reason to believe that an administrator may shortly need to see the warnings — for example, during a block that might be contested, or where the behavior has been repeated — and then I would say it's valid to protect or semi-protect the page to stop the warnings from being removed. This applies whether it's an anon or an account, though the more established the editor, the more we should assume good faith. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the opposite is true. IP users and new users are the ones who benefit the most from an assumption of good faith. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There's no opposite. Case-by-case basis is sound. Be flexible, use common sense, and do not invoke rules for the sakes of following rules, blindly. (I suppose that in your case, CBM, I may be arguing for naught, but still, perhaps you'll pick up on it — it's possible) El_C 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Case by case makes sense, but nobody should be edit warring over IP talk pages, that's just silly. Instead, make sure that any warnings given (including the level and page affected) are also in the edit summary so that others can quickly look and assess the situation. R. Baley (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754/Problems with Wikipedia --NE2 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not relevant to this discussion alone. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand any of this. The only case I've seen where blocking an IP solely because the IP was editing the IP's user talkspace is for materially refactoring others' comments. Blocking IPs for simply removing warnings is nutty. It's all in the page history and ought to be in the edit summaries, if it's not in the edit summaries, oh well, those were kinda pointless warnings now weren't they, would've been just as well not to have left them.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• The IP wasn't blocked: the associated talk page was semi-protected to prevent the editor from re-removing a first-level 'test' warning. All the talk about blocking comes from the protecting admin's justification for the protection: that other admins, when deciding whether or not to block the IP, might not check the page's history and see the warnings, and thus would get a skewed view of the IP's history. -- Vary | Talk 21:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yeah, I meant that. Brain cramp. Everything I said about blocking I meant to say about protecting the page. I just didn't. :-)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Sack

Would it be possible for an admin to salt Benjamin Sack, as attack pages keep being created at this title. Thanks, EJF (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked the account doing the creating instead. No need to salt the article if it's just one disruptive account causing the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Juvenile rape suspect's name?

This edit to Upper St. Clair High School doesn't look kosher to me. It looks like someone has added the name of a juvenile suspected of rape, even though, as of a couple days ago, the article (and this news story) stated that his name would not be released because he was a high-school freshman. --zenohockey (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, this may be a prank or it may be the defendant's real name. Either way, it's a breach of WP:BLP and probably worse. Difficult to tell if it's a case for oversight, however. Page will be monitored & semi-pp if required. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If the name has not been reported by any news sources, it should be removed as unverifiable. Until sources are found this is (at best) original research or (at worst) libel of a different person who had nothing to do with it. I would support blocking the "informant" if he continues to add unverifiable content, but recommend against protecting the page as that would impede legitimate edits (which would, by definition, be accompanied and supported by sources) in the event that further information is released. — CharlotteWebb 19:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit was oversighted and I've semi-protected the page. I noticed an IP from what I assume is the same range (probably the school) blanking the section, so we should keep an eye on it. John Reaves 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

George Stamatis

Could someone look at this article please. Two anon editors seem to be engaged in an edit war at present. I've drawn their attention to WP:3RR, but I'm concerned in case one of them is the subject of the article, which is tagged as an autobiography, so I'm not sure if protection or a block is the best solution. Any thoughts please? —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

70.109.223.188 is generally being quite constructive, it's the various other IPs that are the problem right now. It's just been prodded anyway, but I can imagine it going to AfD. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, which is why I left a softer message on their user page than the standard {{uw-3rr}} warning. I've suggested s/he cools down, but I understand their frustration. The PROD has alredy been removed. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspect editing

Require a few other thoughts on the editing activities of User:Kbrian. I would normally just remove the added links as spam, but the editor is mass adding the links as references rather than external links. The editing pattern suggests the user is only here to do one thing, and that is to promote the site. It is telling that the 6th hit on google for the site is Project spam report, originally generated because of editing in November by an editor with the sites username. SFC9394 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pssssssssst!

Can someone take a look and auth these 2 users? Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage One of them is for the german wikipedia. --Party!^{Talk to me!} 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright issues, Jim Bailey

User:Williamkieffert and User:Campbellman222 are employees of Jim Bailey, an entertainer known in the 70s for his impressions of female celebrities. While I commend these two for editing fairly and collaborating with Orangemike and myself in cleaning up the Jim Bailey article and making it NPOV, I'm worried that the images they've uploaded may not comply with our policies. Since image policy is not my forté, I'm asking for additional eyes on this matter. Related links:

• User talk:GlassCobra, the bottom topics
• User talk:Williamkieffert
• User talk:Campbellman222
• Williamkieffert's upload log
• Campbellman222's upload log

Thanks in advance. GlassCobra 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming they hold the copyright on those photos, everything looks in order. I'd be very leery of making that assumption, though, since a lot of them seem to be screenshots from shows for which I wouldn't expect Bailey to own the copyrights. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thinking. What do we do? GlassCobra 02:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We could list them at WP:PUI - that would be my suggestion, but I don't have time to do so right now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit desysopped

Since Archtransit became an administrator on January 10, 2008, a number of issues have been raised concerning his blocks, unblocks, and other administrator actions. His conduct has been the subject of a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit, where the views of Archtransit's conduct have been generally negative and his responses generally deemed unsatisfactory. Substantial community time has been expended in commenting on the disputed actions and seeking to improve Archtransit's performance as an administrator, including on ANI, on the RfC, and on Archtransit's talkpage. An admin mentor has expressed further concerns on his approaches [2], and it has appeared that the situation may lead to an arbitration case being presented with a view to desysopping.

Separate from the above, the Arbitration Committee has also received checkuser findings and extensive analysis of editing histories, and has independently concluded by an overwhelming weight of many types of credible evidence, that User:Fairchoice, User:Whoaslow, User:Bqwe123 and User:Lethte, who were variously blocked, unblocked or in on-wiki debate with Archtransit, are in fact sockpuppets of Archtransit himself. Archtransit was asked to comment on this finding privately and his answer was felt to be quite evasive, focussing on why it was better that an accusation should not be made, rather than evidence which might help refute it. Archtransit stated essentially as his defense, that if puppetry had occurred it would still not be a problem since (he felt) no false consensus was created. We do not agree with this reasoning. We conclude that abusive and disruptive sockpuppetry has taken place, involving at times gross misuse of tools. Our conclusion parallels the apparent view of the community that even apart from this, there is insufficient communal confidence in Archtransit's abilities to appropriately use the tools recently granted by the community.

Accordingly, Archtransit is desysopped. He may not seek to regain administrator status without the approval of the Arbitration Committee. All of the sockpuppet accounts will be blocked. Additionally, Archtransit may only edit Wikipedia through one account and any change of account name shall be reported to the committee.

The committee is continuing to investigate whether Archtransit himself may be the sockpuppet of any other user. Evidence bearing on this may be presented either below, or privately to the Committee. Further action will be taken if developments warrant.

By agreement of the committee

evidence summary:

1. Archtransit and the named accounts edit exclusively from the same dynamic range in the same metropolitan area.
2. (Point of information): There are four accounts with significant edits in the relevant area (Archtransit, Fairchoice and two others), as well as a significant number of accounts previously blocked for trolling and socking.
3. Archtransit edits only during certain times of day and claims to have no internet access at other times. Each of the 3 other significant accounts on this range also edits during the same time window, and none has any edits from any other location.
4. A number of the users blocked and unblocked by Archtransit are also within the same relatively small metropolitan location. This is considered very unlikely to be chance. The administrative actions of Archtransit included unblocking related accounts that had been blocked by others for "trolling".
5. Further information from checkuser indicates that despite the confounding effect of the dynamic IP, these different accounts are still strongly evidenced as editing from the same connection.
6. In January, on one occasion, Archtransit and another account (Lethte) edited from the same IP within 2 minutes of each other [email protected] [email protected]. These two edits were on the same IP. The IP is rapidly reallocated, but the gap between post and block is suggestive even so, because of the extreme brevity of the two minute time period. Additionally, some 9 minutes before Lethte, Archtransit was posting on that same IP [3].
7. On January 22, 23, and 30 Archtransit blocked or amended existing blocks of Lethte, Bqwe123 and Fairchoice. These blocks were notable for having autoblock deliberately disabled. Other blocks for cause of other users (other than username blocks) did not have this setting.
8. The edit windows and interleaving strongly support sockpuppetry rather than friends or strangers.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Confirm and endorse. This is as serious an abuse of administrator tools as has ever been encountered. I would like to thank all those who tried to work with Archtransit, even though unsuccessfully, and thank the checkusers who determined that the problems were even more serious than originally thought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I knew there was.. problems to say the least, but.. just.. wow. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was coming much before this. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (GMT)

Is there a way for a checkuser to make sure there are no irregularities at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 747? I'm fairly certain it's OK, but I had one heck of a time with Archtransit on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, there was a strange support early on, when the article was nowhere near featured status; if that's a problem, it's pervasive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which user names? Thatcher 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Checked again, there were two supports that kept the thing going well before it met criteria: Dwarf Kirlston and Brískelly (who has a long block record on the Italian Wiki). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Both unrelated. Thatcher 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic. I've been really very troubled about this account since I learned about the block of Jeh and my suspicions about it only increased throughout the RfC to the point that I raised my concerns and suspicions with an arbitrator a week and a half ago. So I'm really relieved that ArbCom has investigated it and stepped in to desysop without us needing to drag it through Arb, which was an almost certainty. It's a shame that it took so long to get to this point and that we allowed him to continue trolling us in this way. Kudos to those who tried to assume good faith and tried to to help him, Ryan you don't owe us an apology at all, you're a good dude who tried to do the right thing by trying to help someone. Sarah 04:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry guys - I tried to help him through the RfC even when most were calling for his head, in retrospect I should probably have let this go straight to ArbCom. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ryan, you and Riana rock for giving it your all... ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)There's no shame in making some extra effort to help somebody out. Hopefully we can learn from this- apart from the above open question, there's also some broader questions: How did this happen? What can we do to prevent it happening again? Friday (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A while back, I suggested that we start offering a 30-60 day probationary period, with new admins encouraged NOT to use their new abilities willy-nilly during this first period, and to perhaps set up an experienced admin as a guide for the probationary period to explain things and to ease the new admin in on their path. SirFozzie (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• This was in my gut instinct well before his RfA, and from my earliest interaction with him over the Boeing FAC, but how can I oppose an RfA on gut instinct? As an average user (not an admin), I'll tell you that I'm extremely reluctant to oppose an RfA; it's not in the "no big deal" culture. I think the more important question is how can we more effectively desysop when problems surface? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per gut instinct. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Ryan and Riana. R. Baley (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Archtransit's RfA was successful with unanimous support. No issues were brought up at the time, so there wasn't any need to think he wasn't going to be like every other administrator. Unless you're suggesting we revamp the entire RfA system, Friday, I don't think there's any way we can determine the rogue-like capabilities of one or two editors who previously had perfect track records as non-administrators. There are, of course, ways to handle troublesome users once they have the administrator tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We could surely borrow the COS's testing machine and patch to "determine the rogue-like capabilities of one or two editors who previously had perfect track records as non-administrators". Daniel (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another idea might be to require all RfA candidates to submit to a checkuser. Yes, it wouldn't prove their not sockpuppting, but it might prove if they are. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, COS? The only things fitting that acronym that I can think of are the Church of Scientology and Chamber of Secrets. The former seems to be a more logical fit. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the former :) Daniel (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Would be good to explore RFCU for all RFAs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think RFCU for all RFAs is a good idea. False sense of security. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of performing a checkuser on all admin candidates. For one thing, m:CheckUser policy says, "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." I don't like the idea of using CheckUser as a fishing expedition, no matter how good our intentions are. Another consideration is that we might find evidence through CheckUser that's irrelevant. For example, Appraiser (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who I've met personally) has been caught in several autoblocks related to Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and sockpuppets. Apparently, Appraiser works for a large company that funnels a lot of users (both registered and anonymous users) through a firewall/NAT connection. Any evidence found as a result of such a CheckUser request would be irrelevant at best, or harmful at worst. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Endorse Holy shit. That's rediculous. This was FAR worse than I suspected. I am shocked, as his RFA showed NO potential problems. This was clearly planned from the outset. As an aside, I see no reason to change or alter RFA. This shit happens, like any other system sometimes this stuff gets through. RFA is not to be held responsible as a process when someone clearly intentionally games it like that. Any system can be gamed, by anyone willing enough to do so. This clearly shows that, and any attempt to add a checkuser requirement to RFA will be pointless, since that will be gamable as well. Hot damn. I still can't believe this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that's probably a good argument for not adding a checkuser requirement to RFA. Better that people game RFA and then get blown up like this than encourage them to think up ways to game checkuser... Choess (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the "gut instinct" strategy outlined above is that the people following their guts tend to catch flak for it. This case with Archtransit is the perfect example. Not to say "I told you so", but I knew something was wrong with this block ... it just didn't feel right. I couldn't explain it, though, because it wouldn't have occurred to me that an admin would block his own sock (although I have seen the drive-by-self-vandalism tactic used before). I was not the only one to express concern over this block, but, without anything concrete to support it, I backed out of it.

So the question then has to be, what good is gut feeling if it is rejected by the community? - Revolving Bugbear 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another sock farm relationship

I'm convinced now that Archtransit is related to another long-running sock farm. My suspicions were raised before sockpuppetry on the part of Archtransit was confirmed. I believe that Archtransit is related to the Dereks1x sock farm. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dereks1x.

This comment by Archtransit seals it for me. In the comment, Archtransit makes a number of pronouncements and accusations that are spot on with Dereks1x and his socks. For example, Archtransit insists on "due process", a hallmark of Dereks1x and socks. Furthermore, Archtransit singles out Ryulong in the comment above, and I believe that some Dereks1x socks did the same in the past. Next, Archtransit discusses an ominous "letter to the editor" above and makes a veiled threat to discredit Wikipedia in the media if he's blocked. At least one Dereks1x sock has done the same (the exact sock escapes me at the moment, perhaps it was the most active sock, User:VK35). Finally, Archtransit's only interaction with me was regarding the "rights" of indefinitely blocked users. Archtransit insisted that the right to vanish allows an indefinitely blocked user who was blocked for a legal threat to come back and engage in the same discussion which ultimately led to their block. This is such an odd argument to make that it caused me to be a bit suspicious of Archtransit from my first interaction, as Dereks1x socks (particularly VK35, of that I'm sure) have made the same or similar arguments. Actually, that wasn't the only thing which caused me to be suspicious of Archtransit--his interest in aviation, a continuing theme for Dereks1x socks as well, also piqued my interest. I suspect that CU would confirm that Archtransit is editing from the same IP range as Dereks1x and socks, though the evidence for most of those is stale at this point, I assume.

I'd be happy to provide diffs of most of the above later, but I'm quite busy at work at the moment. I will refer interested editors to User:Tvoz and User:Bobblehead, who know as much about the Dereks1x sock farm as anyone. · jersyko talk 19:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I failed to mention that Archtransit began editing in earnest soon after VK35 was indef blocked. The timing of Archtransit's account creation also lines up with the creation of other known sock accounts, I believe. · jersyko talk 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, we are aware of this. It's good to have the same suspicion come up in multiple independent editors who were not part of the original investigation. We have the names from the last Dereks1x RFCU; if you have anything more recent, feel free to e-mail me. Thatcher 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, yes. I never had anything to do with that Dereks1x person, but now I only need to read two or three old comments from him. It's immediately evident it's the same style. Bingo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, all you need it to compare a single comment from Dereks1x to Archtransit's comments today:

Archtransit

...If ArbCom seriously will grant me a fair process and not just desysop without letting me respond, then I will respond. Otherwise, it's so time consuming to write a response. That's the ethical thing to do. -- Archtransit 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [4]

Are you also going to desysop my other administratorship? Archtransit (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [5]

Dereks1x

...where I was banned for asking a legitimate ethics question to a candidate for administratorship. The person who nominated this person did not like the very proper ethics question and banned me. Those two and Jersyko are friends. This appears like a group within wikipedia are in cahoots against those who favor high ethical standards. I wish this wasn't true.Dereks1x 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[6]

Please note the references to both ethics and administratorship. Quack quack? — Save_Us † 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well.. That explains why Dereks1x has been so quiet since his last sockfarm was pancaked. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty flimsy to me, plenty of people talk about ethics, due process etc. You might be right or you might be wrong, but I certainly hope we don't start going around blocking anyone who (a) Has some dispute with Ryulong (real or imagined) (b) talks about ethics (c) complains of due process, we'll be blocking lots of people who meet all three, let alone meet two of them --81.104.39.63 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say we should set a campaign to block anyone who talks about ethics or due process, nor did I say block anyone at all. You seem to be twisting my language to make it seem like I want to crusade editors about potential involvement. I said they used similar terminology like "administratorship", which here on Wikipedia, is uncommon (most refer to it as adminship or [being a] administrator or sysop). I added the phrases about ethics to furthur the connection, the word administratorship is uncommon enough as it is, but Dereks1x refered to administratorship and ethics in the same post, as did Archtransit did in the same group of edits today. And as an aside, what do you have against Ryulong? Nobody even mentioned his name and you brought him up. — Save_Us † 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody even mentioned his name and you brought him up" you mean other than the opening post to this section which says "Furthermore, Archtransit singles out Ryulong...". Yes I was drawing a few things together from this thread, and no I didn't mean to seem to be twisting your language, if it came across as that then I'll happily apologise. My main point was that pointing out a few similarities and saying quack quack quack doesn't prove anything, if you like I was trying to give a slippery slope arguement. There maybe a strong similarity between them, and they may indeed be related, but a couple of points like "ethics" and "due process" do not a duck make. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be fair, I did mention Dereks1x's beef with Ryulong above. I understand the evidence may look "pretty flimsy" to someone who is not familiar with Dereks1x et al. Nonetheless I think the case is pretty open and shut for those of us familiar with the farm. Identical editing quirks + identical arguments + identical interests + perfect timing + identical phraseology. If CU evidence confirms, as Thatcher implies above, it's a damn strong case. · jersyko talk 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm not unfamiliar with the process, I've certainly been in the position where I'm certain that two people are the same (or very close), but can't put my finger exactly on why since it's usually a combination of many things. I'm also conscious of a certain amount of bias in looking for confirmation, which is what I was really talking about. Take any two editors with a reasonable amount of contribution and look close enough and you'll probably be able to find some common traits, I guess I'm also a little cynical about the amount of reactionary stuff we get here, something like this happens and everyone is happy to stand behind such findings, another week an admin will block a group of socks on a similar strength of evidence (taking into account that checkuser isn't a perfect infalible way of showing sockpuppetry, it just adds technical weight) and will be crucified for it. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dereks1x has a beef with me? Since when?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some technical evidence connecting Dereks1x to Archtransit et al, however, it is somewhat stale and therefore less conclusive on its own than the evidence tying Archtransit to Fairchoice et al. Which is exactly why it is useful to have the connection made by people who were unaware of the evidence (both here and in private e-mail), because it avoids the problem of confirmation bias if Jerseyko and friends don't know what they are confirming. Thatcher 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't eat your cake and have it too... Will ^(talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll ask: if we conclude that Archtransit is a sock of someone banned more than 10 months ago, what do we do about reverting stuff per WP:BAN? I see closed AFD's, I see closed suspected sock cases, a handful of protections, a featured article apparently... Fruit of a poison tree? I think I know the answer but wanted to bring it up anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that reverting all of his edits will ultimately be doing more harm than good to the project. Just another instance where we need to WP:IAR. Tiptoety ^talk 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since there is no  Confirmed its academic, but anything that he did should be evaluated on its own merits (and, ideally, will have been already) rather than reverted automatically based on WP:BAN. Avruch ^T 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing *requires* that the edits be reverted, in any event. WP:BAN uses the permissive language "may be reverted", not "shall be reverted". In any event, I agree that reverting all of these edits would likely do more harm than good, though his administrative actions should be reviewed carefully, obviously. · jersyko talk 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BAN any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. Of course edits you disagree with may be reverted, but extra care must be taken so that vandalism, non-NPOV edits or violations of BLP aren't added to anything. But this is all assuming that this was made in defience of a ban (i.e. if this really is Dereks1x). Although Archtransit is banned, him being banned doesn't mean we go through the same process, reverting is mostly done because of someone editing in defience of a ban (again, assuming this really is Dereks1x, it could apply here). — Save_Us † 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the contribs of all of the possible socks, I am now convinced that 1) there were no other FACs influenced, and 2) the Boeing 747 FAC is fine. It did receive substantial review from other editors at FAC, and the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation say they were watching all along, and it's fine.[7] From the FAC side of things, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[out] I don't have anything to add right now, other than to say that yesterday I also, independently, came to the same conclusion that Jersyko did, without any communication between us about it. Knowing the history of Dereks1x and those of his socks that we;ve uncovered, it is extremely clear to me that Archtransit is also one. This is not the first time he has tried for adminship, and I would take seriously his question "Are you also going to desysop my other administratorship?" and look into it. I'm available to reply here and by email if there are questions - I'm 100% sure they are one and the same, and also sure that there are many other of his socks doing damage to the project. Tempting as it is, I also don't think assuming good faith when it comes to this individual is warranted and I would recommend a very close look at all of his administrative edits, particularly closings, SSP cases and the like. This is, in his parlance, a "bad" editor and we need to be forceful in our response. He has already cost us too many hours of work. Tvoz |talk 23:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One point I think should be raised is that similar phraseology can be adopted by different people. Probably not the case here, as there is other evidence, but phraseology on its own should never be enough. I've sometimes found myself starting to use phrases used by others, and that alone is not evidence of sockpuppetry. More is needed to confirm a suspicion like that, and as I said, it seems that further evidence is available here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, preparing a future defense for yourself, eh? Clever! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha, I did not know that. (Never tried). Oops! I've somehow managed to use the same wording as you. Let's see if I can adopt any other of your idiosycrancies and mannerisms... That will ensure you go down with me! Clever! Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Seriously, consciously copying others can rebound sometimes, for precisely the reasons raised here. Try to retain a distinctive style you can call your own, unless you want to deliberately engage in satirical imitation. A prize for guessing whose style I am imitating here.

Well, whoever you're imitating doesn't know how to close the </small> tag.--Father Goose (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Investigation

• I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion. After I requested this checkuser, which included Archtransit's sock Fairchoice, Archtransit reacted by blocking me, the first event that raised concerns about Archtransit's judgment. My initial suspicion was a connection between Fairchoice and Profg, or those supporting that account. I recommend following up on this lead. Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Silly question - Fairchoice has been checkusered at least twice, once in the case Jehochman mentioned and once at my request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Profg. The obvious question - why didn't this show up sooner? --B (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to say too much about this, but the Onequestion case was a blatantly obvious case, whereas Fairchoice edits from a completely different IP range, over a number of different IPs. It wasn't immediately obvious until the other case changed the focus. I think that's all I can say here as I was involved in both - Alison ^❤ 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the "uninvolved editor" Republic of One (talk · contribs)? He doesn't edit for 4 months, and then shows up to comment on this one case? I think I hear quacking? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cue the epic "QUACK... QUACK... QUACK... QUACK...". нмŵוτнτ 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another one? Compare Whoaslow (talk · contribs) (already identified as a sock per above) and Keepscases (talk · contribs), who commented on Archtransit's RFA. What caught my eye here was their userpages. Again, not sure if I hear the quacking or not. Maybe I am reading too much into these... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - the account wasn't checked the first time but since then, Whoaslow arrived and subsequent edits proved the link. There is also other evidence which I won't discuss but yes, confirmed - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which ones were confirmed? Whoaslow, Keepspaces, Republic of One? Which ones? All of them? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoaslow was already confirmed in the ArbCom statement. Republic of One is now also  Confirmed. Keepspaces is  Unrelated here. Ok - I think that's enough from me - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban

Archtransit has deceived the community with his sockpuppetry and it looks like quite a serious attempt to disrupt the project. This wasn’t just editing the odd article with a few different accounts, this was a clear attempt to mislead us all. We aren’t even sure who he is, or what accounts he’s had in the past. I see no reason why he should now be allowed to edit here with any account. Maybe I’m bitter because I’ve spent a lot of time with him on and off wiki trying to shape him into a better admin, but I don’t think so – I just don’t like to see this abuse of community trust. I’d therefore like to propose a community ban. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban Yea, I'd have to say the magnitude of the misdeed rules out any WP:AGF considerations. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• (ECx5)I think, at this point, a ban would probably be a good idea, given what's all gone on. SQL^{Query me!} 03:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - absolutely - Alison ^❤ 03:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Go slow. Let's see how this works out. Arbcom is obviously on top of things, let them handle it. Friday (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've actually spoken to a couple of them about this already, and they wouldn't stop a ban if the community decided on that course of action. That said, it's two members of a 15 person committee. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think that a ban at this point is going a bit overboard, as this editor still has a great potential as an editor. We can always watch his contribution history so I do not think it is nessesary yet. Maybe he will learn from this. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP:GUT (per Nishkid's advice), this is not an editor who learns from mistakes. He never heard a word other editors (including me) said to him during the Boeing FAC, he was single-mindedly determined to see it featured (feather in cap at RfA), and other editors had to pull it out of the hat. This is an editor who perseverates and doesn't take advice or listen to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban Agreed, after judging from the responses, the user has shown no interest working constructively, as the user has not leanred anything at all. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban This goes WAY beyond the pale. We've indef blocked for far less than this. I support a community ban; if ArbCom disagrees, let them overturn it... Yes, he has done some great editing in the past, but this is just too much. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - messed everyone about long enough (and I hear tell that all the users involved in his poor blocks were in fact him... good grief). Majorly (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban This type of behavior is miles beyond tolerable. The fact that he continued to game us through his acting clueless on his RFC makes it even worse. Mr.Z-man 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban His deceit goes above & beyond what I could have imagined. We all trusted him. I'd fear that we'd (after an mount of time) trust him again, but that, as before, he'd only be gaming everyone, and pull this kind of stuff again. нмŵוτнτ 04:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Given that the sockpuppetry and use of admin tools has now been discovered and remedied, and given that there is now much attention being paid to this user's contributions, I would urge everyone to consider the cost-benefit effects of sticking the boot in here. --bainer (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • True, and this is something I considered - but given the lies and abuse that came here, could he ever be trusted to edit the project again? This isn't just a small sock problem, he's used a number of socks which has caused the community a great deal of time and effort to debate over. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Go slow, as Friday says. This all seems very abrupt. The case made above is sufficient for desysopping but no one has compiled evidence to suggest that Archtransit is a net disruptive presence. Chick Bowen 04:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban.Endorse investigation: Normally I am loath to jump on the bandwagon--ANY bandwagon--but: damn. After seeing the amount of work put in by Ryan and Riana, and meanwhile THIS person is playing games behind the scenes DELIBERATELY--and I don't want to say "probably laughing into his sleeve the whole time" but it's almost impossible to assume ANY kind of good faith from this individual...Not trying to sound melodramatic, but I still FEEL that allowing him to stay here under ANY circumstances would be a slap in the face to the people whose time and trust were abused. BUT, and here's where my strikethrus and changes come in: it's not about feelings. Those who are calling for moderation are right, no matter how much it galls me. He's been de-adminned; getting all "I am the god of hellfire" on him would probably be analogous to poking a nest full of angry hornets. Investigate thoroughly and dispassionately; if a ban is truly warranted, that will become no less evident over time. Having read that load of manure he called a "response" below: It's time. Well past, actually. Terminate with extreme prejudice.Gladys J Cortez 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think more questions need to be answered before making a decision. Was this whole thing just an exercise in childish immaturity that he will grow out of? If so, that's a solvable problem (given time). Or is he an adult who was creating a sock farm for POV pushing? In that case, it's not a solvable problem. --B (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Well, I think we've heard enough. Endorse ban and move on with life. --B (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban - Has broken the community's trust, and violated countless policies. We've indef blocked for far less than this. Tiptoety ^talk 04:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Way over the top. An Arbcom-ordered desysopping is already a kiss of death with regards to community trust; we do not need to lose what appears to be a productive editor over this nonsense. east.718 at 04:24, February 19, 2008
• Ban from project space. I may be missing something here, but I don't see problems with his actual article editing. It's the behind-the-scenes games that are the problem — and, yes, a serious violation of the community's trust and good faith. Note that I would support a full ban if User:CltFn turns out to be one of this individual's sockpuppets. *** Crotalus *** 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• If there was hope that a block would not be eluded through sockpuppetry, I'd advocate a shorter block (6 months - 1 year) - even if it involved the project space or some sort of edit parole. Archtransit's actions make that unlikely, however. If the community believes a ban to be warranted, I won't overturn it. He can play elsewhere. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• (ecx2)I think I am with B here, it seems to me it would be best to wait until we have some response from Archtransit. I did read the RfC above after seeing this, though, and I have to agree he seems rather stubborn. I also agree with Ryan that I don't think anyone will ever be able to trust him again, and as such I am leaning towards endorsing a ban but would prefer to be patient for now. SorryGuy  Talk  04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Go slow per Friday. While the desysopping was entirely justified, I agree with Friday and Chick Bowen that more needs to be done to determine if his general edits are overwhelmingly unacceptable or disruptive. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So then why would we ban/block a regular user idenf for a situation like this, but not a admin? Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We wouldn't because a regular user couldn't do all the things done here. I'm not saying he shouldn't be banned, just that we should proceed carefully. Is there anything wrong with being cautious in cases like this? I don't think there is. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • No, we should proceed cautiously, but i think we have already proceeded with WP:AGF, and it has shown to fail. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Proceeding with caution and assuming good faith can be very different things. The community has a tendency to act like a mob in these situations. He's done something wrong, but how we handle it is very important. Does he deserve this consideration? Maybe, maybe not, but as Wikipedians we are obligated to put the project's interests before our feelings. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't mind Crotalus' suggestion of a ban from project space, but I certainly wouldn't object to a complete ban either. While Archtransit has an appreciable number of article-space contributions, those should be balanced against the tremendous amount of time and effort that some of our finest contributors wasted on him in their good-faith efforts to help him reform. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I would submit that, in some cases, banning a user causes more difficulties than allowing them to stay under a known account. If editing restrictions are imposed, scrutiny will likely still be required, but it will be less open than if Archtransit were allowed to remain here under the current account. Conversely, if no editing restrictions are imposed, Archtransit's actions (and interactions) will be scrutinised by many, editors, admins & check users alike. And, in this case, I think that is a good thing.
  So I echo some of the above concerns (Friday, Chick Bowen, B, Nihonjoe) and say that I would prefer that this not be considered so hastily and that Archtransit be (at least) allowed to comment. --Iamunknown 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly supported de-adminship early on, however I can only offer a tentative support of a community ban at this time. I strongly support going slow, I don't need to remind everyone that one of the main objections to CSN was the speedy mob aspect to it. This should stay open for a minimum of 5 days, to consider all angles and relevant information. R. Baley (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Certainly it should be open some time, and in this time we should evaluate, investigate and discuss everything regarding Archtransits editing - this isn't supposed to be a lynching. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with your comment. I would prefer that this not be closed early, particularly so that we consider relevant information as it arises. I also wish more people would discuss - but I guess a true discussion is a bit difficult in this type of environment. --Iamunknown 05:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We need to move this discussion to a more thought provoking forum, I think. R. Baley (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban: The Tecmobowl (talk · contribs) banning comes to mind. He was a good article writer with a disruptive argument style - a few 3RR blocks and civility issues. When he socked just a couple times, the banhammer came down. Archtransit, by comparison, is already magnitudes worse of a disruption than Tecmobowl, and it evidently could get worse. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That sounds unfortunate. While socking is certainly bad (esp. disruptive socking or socking to attempt to generate false consensus), it should not, in my opinion, be the action that causes the banhammer to fall. --Iamunknown 05:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think we should use this time to evaluate the severity of the socking and the future productiveness of arch. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Problem is, this is beyond a run of the mill sock. This is a user who socked, rose to admin on his main account, and used his sysop rights to unblock his socks when they got blocked by admins doing their jobs. (unless i've misread the evidence).--Cube lurker (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think the danger from this user is passed now that his game has been exposed and his adminship removed, and considering that he has apparently been a good editor, I think it would be better to not punish him further and instead merely keep a close eye on him. Consider also that, if we let him keep this account, he may be less inclined to attempt to secretly start up a new account (and potentially a new sockfarm). We should encourage him to invest his energies productively and in plain sight. Everyking (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreciate this comment Everyking, but I think the sock concerns are a little deeper than you normal SSP case. There looks to be quite a few socks here. We didn't spot the socks this time, and I doubt we'd spot the socks again if he created them, with or without a ban. I've said it somewhere above - we need to evaluate the pros and cons of him having any account here. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The sockpuppetry is definitely severe; I'm just not convinced that an outright ban will be better for the project than letting him have one account under close watch. What does Archtransit himself have to say about this? Does he want to keep editing under this account? If so, what sort of things would he like to work on? Is he willing to accept that he will be watched heavily and probably have occasional checkusers run on him? I'd like to hear from him in this discussion. Everyking (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd also like to hear this as well - I'll email him now and ask him to comment. We really need this before we take any action. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Archtransit's response, far from helping his case, is an insult to the community. Therefore I support a ban at this time. If in the future he would like to give a forthright explanation and pledge to concentrate on productive work, we should reconsider. Everyking (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban This is one bandwagon that I think is heading in the right direction. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban I'm not sure if we need a community ban or not but it might be better to hold off before making a decision to ban. I've felt rather stupid even articulating my suspicions about this account, so I'm not going to do so here, but I think now that he's been desysopped, the immediate concerns I had are no longer. If he wants to remain an editor, I would be inclined not to ban him, but if he's just going to migrate to another account in the hope of regaining the tools that way, I would ban. So I tend to think it might be better to "go slow" per Friday and see how things play out from here. I also think there is a lesson here for us, that we all should be more proactive participants at RfA, making sure, firstly, that we actually participate there, and that we take the time to properly review accounts with no regard for who's doing the nominating etc. Sarah 05:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Strike the first part. I've looked through these sock accounts and I'm now prepared to endorse the community ban proposal and the unblock (I think he should have the opportunity to respond to these revelations and there's no need to rush to block now the bit has been removed). Sarah 07:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yall asked for it; I have given it to you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Too sudden, too soon. This seems to be a ban proposal because we got our feelings hurt. To my surprise, I completely agree with Everyking on this. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. He's gamed the good faith of the community for long enough. krimpet✽ 05:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Can a ban really insure that he will not create any more socks though? (I still endorse one). Tiptoety ^talk 05:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• This is not votes for banning. Also, agree with Friday to go slow on this. No ban yet. Wait it out and see if Archtransit is repentant. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep ... that's why we got rid of CSN - editors were being AFD'd like articles. I think there are a lot of issues to consider and there are a lot of questions that still aren't answered. There's no immediate threat that necessitates a block right now so I'm at least willing to listen to an explanation and/or apology. --B (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know if this is in policy or not, but where do consequences fit in. If he just ends up back in the position he was less then 6 weeks ago, editor w/out sysop rights, what message does that send. Send to the community, and the next gamer that wants to try the same thing.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Partial ban - RfA ban, civility parole, project space, and stick to one account. And yeah, I have egg on my face, but I still think this is moving too quick. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - AT's efforts seem to be far from what's in the best interest of the site. Achromatic (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Ryan. There is assuming good faith and then there is closing your eyes and hoping against all evidence that this editor will see the light. Archtransit has played us all for suckers and deserves zero consideration. Further discussion and wiki-drama on this matter does not help the project one iota. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose ban. Sockpuppetry, and causing misery with the admin tools is a serious matter, and I fully endorse the sanctions passed by ArbCom so far in the matter. I have not seen evidence that his use of the edit button for article writing has caused any grief though, and if Archtransit wants to continue contributing with that, I'm OK with it. I am never enthused about blanket namespace bans (if an article you are involved in is nominated for deletion, it is ridiculous to say that you cannot contribute to the discussion.) Definitely limit to one account though, as ArbCom have already decreed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ouch. Let Archtransit speak in his own defence, but this looks really bad. Fairchoice, for example, was engaged in tendentious editing in a controversial area and was unblocked by Archtransit himself. That alone would qualify for the order of the boot, in my view. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban This is one of, if not the worse, worst case of admin abuse ever. Even if he weren't an admin, the socking alone is really bad and warrants indef. SO I agree with a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

*No ban - he was stupid, he got caught being stupid, he'll never get to be an admin again, anything else is "How DARE he fool us - block him good!". Restrict to one account, ban from project space, whatever, but a community ban is going too far. Neıl ☎ 11:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - I've changed my mind after reading his evasive and unapologetic reaction. Neıl ☎ 17:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ban is overkill. I was first to press for desysopping when we were dealing with his weird admin behaviour, but unless the ongoing investigations dig up yet more dirt I don't really see grounds for such a radical measure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Probably goes without saying, but this has been overtaken by events. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Sure we should let him speak on the matter, but the sockpuppetry issue and abuse of the admin tools are not unacceptable. It is mostly for the first issue that I support the ban.--JForget 13:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Qst-like ban - He has done productive work, and completely banning him would be overkill. He's just been desysopped, that's bad enough, but a ban before he has a chance to defend himself is too much, too soon. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. It was clear to me when he suggested the user name Tom Abbott to a self-described representative of Abbott Labs that we were dealing with a troll here. Ronnotel (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. We've gone slow enough already. If we consider banning people who violate NOT#SOCIAL, if we consider banning Samiharris/Mantanmoreland or any of the others in the history of the bans here, then banning Archtransit is an easy call. He abused sockpuppets, abused his admin tools, deceived editors and admins in a variety of ways and should be gone. Avruch ^T 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban, per all the other forums/pages where I've outlined the various abuses AT has committed over his brief and conentious time as an admin. He has completely exhausted even the last shred of good will that the community should possibly extend. Bellwether ^B_C 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Bellwether. Worse then bad blocks and other distractions, the divisiveness that has been created between other editors and admins trying to decide "what to do about Archtransit" has been more than enough. Remove the bad apple from the basket, immediately before he taints anyone else's views of this place. A swift hard kick out the door with a goodbye note that says we will be reviewing 100% of his contributions for accuracy. (fixing signature, thanks Avruch) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. I've reviewed his mainspace contributions and Archtransit adds to the encyclopedia as an editor. While he has made at least one nasty threat to a fellow admin, he doesn't generally appear to be abusive or directly disruptive. He has misused his admin tools and for that he is quite rightly dysopped. He has used sock-puppets, and for that his sock-puppets are blocked, which is the standard approach. Is it common for an editor to then be banned for using sock-puppets, especially where the sock-puppets have not been used in a hugely abusive or disruptive manner? Archtransit has lost the trust and respect of the community, but it may be better for us to allow him to make amends by contributing to the encyclopedia than by imposing a ban which punishes everyone. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. Archtransit's comments below have made me change my mind. Terminate with extreme prejudice. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 18:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Troll. PermaBan. --barneca (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Terrible case of sockpuppetry; fooling everyone on the project and then stabbing them in the back is not acceptable, no matter how much/well he had contributed previously. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block, not endorsing ban - I guess I've been put into some sort of mourning, not only because of the lengths some of us went to try and protect their honour where I was personally involved in trying avoid this very situation but also the deliberate misleading of the community in a position of trust. I suppose my voice won't make much of a change in this particular instance, and I feel fooled, somewhat betrayed, for offering what seems a "soft approach" compared to this current state of affairs. I'm endorsing the indefinite block because of the sockpuppets and the RfC, which was seemingly undermined by Archtransit from the very beginning. However, I wish not to endorse a ban on the grounds that I, somewhat imprudently, I still believe that Archtransit should still leave with a least, if not much, a little honour left with his name, even in light of the disruption etcetera. caused by these circumstances, which I can never recall happening before. This situation has become more and more emphasised and contentious with the multiple incidents (e.g. the resubmitting of a much shorter RFC, on the current RFC) highlighting the mistakes (some would call failues) and lack of understanding combined with an undue care attention, Archtransit displayed for the majority of his time here. I am saddened, not least shocked by these findings, however I do accept that they are true. Rudget. 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to ban per the comments posted below by the user in question. Deeply disturbing. Rudget. 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block at the very least, the sock puppetry is enough but this is the icing on the cake [8].-- Ѕandahl 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban with great sadness. What residual doubts I may have had that a total ban was the right cause of action were removed by Archtransit's evasive and threatening reply below. WjBscribe 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban it seems quite clear that all this user wishes to do is waste peoples time. We need to nip this in the bud now. One might argue there are contructive edits in his history, but they are far out weighed by his negative influence here. David D. (Talk) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ban'im. Time-waster, towards exit, rapidly kick. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per the deeply disturbing revelations above + my horrific interaction with the user. · jersyko talk 18:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have grabbed the bull by the horns and added the {{banned user}} template. I think it was clear that this was the case from the discussion above. Woody (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've now added full protection to the userpage. El fin. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

• By User:Zscout370, in case anyone missed it[9] - Alison ^❤ 05:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• This needs to be undone. We're far from concluding this discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed. While I have endorsed the ban above, this is FAR to short a time to conclude that we have achieved consensus on this one. Even AFDs get 5 days. This is WAY too fast, and should be undone. Even people like me that have endorsed the ban can still be convinced to change our minds, and Archtransit needs to be able to comment on this, if he chooses. This is overstepping... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Alison, I already posted when I blocked. The link to the block log shows what I done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yep. I know, but it was being skipped over. FWIW, I endorsed the ban but feel this was too early as consensus was far from being established here - Alison ^❤ 05:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• • (ec)I am sure she knows, just making sure everyone else did too. This needs to be undone now, like Ned said, no consensus has been formed. Lets take it slow. Tiptoety ^talk 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I've asked Archtransit by email to make a statement to me, or by his user talk that can be copied here - we really need some comments from him. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Or someone needs to unblock him. There was no consensus to block in the first place. Tiptoety ^talk 05:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• No notice of block has been placed on his user page as of this writing; I trust that Ryan has conveyed this information to Archtransit. I would have preferred that this discussion continue long enough for Archtransit to have the opportunity to comment. While I believe a community ban is likely at the end of the discussion, there is no rush. Risker (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've emailed him, but yeah, a talk notice would be good. That said, I would prefer he was given a chance to comment himself here - as many have said, there's no rush. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• There was absolutely no reason to jump the gun here. R. Baley (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I believe there is a consensus to unblock because the user does not pose an immediate threat, and because it might help if they joined the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• (e/c)The block was too hasty - there are reasonable concerns which have not been adequately addressed (not the least of which because we simply haven't heard from Archtransit yet). --Iamunknown 05:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• (e/c) Endorse Unblock No rush, where was the consensus to block.....indef? Tiptoety ^talk 05:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And I unblocked him: [10]. Lets not wheelwar over this. Like I said above, I endorse a ban, but I am also willing to let the discussion carry on so that we can reach a conclusion over time, not to block after only 2 hours of discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think Archtransit should be allowed to respond, I also think it would be advisable to have his editing at least voluntarily limited to dealing with this matter until resolved.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ban from projectspace - though, I have a sneaking suspicion that we may not see Archtransit again. Black Kite 10:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• More discussion - A complete ban is hasty at this point. A ban from projectspace might be a better approach. Agree with those that say that some scrutiny of edits may be needed. Agree with those that say that having more experienced editors really participate in RfA's may be a good thing. To my dismay, I supported this candidate based on his apparent zeal. I suspect I'm not the only supporter feeling a bit foolish now. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see evidence provided below. Tiptoety ^talk 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Come on guys, no need for admins to do anything silly here - let's have a discussion about what we're going to do. I've asked Archtransit to comment, maybe we should take a step back until he has (or given time to do so). Ryan Postlethwaite 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Lets give Archtransit time to talk, and maybe he will change my mind and others, but at this time i still endorse a ban. Tiptoety ^talk 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I also like a ban. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Archtransit has had his "time to talk." He's said a mouthful, and little of it was good (see the RfC). As someone who was recently threatened with a block for "trolling" by AT, simply for posting to his talkpage with a legitimate question for his mentors, I fully support a ban, and immediate, indef blocking for any accounts shown to be associated with AT's. Bellwether ^B_C 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree 110% with Bellwether's statement here. Immediate indef block. Immediate community ban. He's had his time to talk. The distraction and abuse are one thing, but the divisiveness that he singelhandedly created between other editors (including Bellwether and myself) is enough to make me want to puke. 110% support your statement Bellwether. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't like to be paranoid, I feel that we should probably review the integrity of his main space editing. Our system of content editing is built on trust, and edits are generally not scrutinized in depth for their accuracy. Since there seems to be little doubt about the extent of misbehavior occurring with the socks, I see no reason to assume that his content edits were as good as we initially believed. If we examine his work and there are no problems that'll be splendid, but I think we have to check. --JayHenry (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the community ban discussion, can I draw everyone's attention to the statement, towards the end, which says "The committee is continuing to investigate whether Archtransit himself may be the sockpuppet of any other user"? This investigation is ongoing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I believe Archtransit had some DYK's in the pipeline over the last few weeks, though I'm not sure how many were successfully posted to the main page. If we are to review content contributions, that might be a good place to start. Good lord, did his socks submit DYK's? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe Fairchoice did, and this was presented as "evidence" of his being rehabbed by Archtransit's unblock. There may have been others, but I don't know. Bellwether ^B_C 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At least one did. Look at Fairchoice's contribs. He created and/or edited the articles Dana Telsey and Anna Loginova as Fairchoice, and then as Archtranist, worked them through DYK (see for Anna Loginova and for Dana Telsey. Considering that helping at DYK was his expressed reason for becoming an admin, it makes one think. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that this was all an effort to earn a little to stick on his userpage... But stranger things have happened, I guess. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to DYK patrollers, creating several DYK-worthy articles is something that very many disruptive editors do to appear responsible and respectable. I can name three of the top of my head, and one of them has about fifty. (And no GA-standard work.) Relata refero (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does someone want to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation to do a random check on Boeing 747? Most of the Support at FAC for that article did not come from Aviation Project members. I was tied up elsewhere when the article passed, and I'm not sure how much scrutiny it got from the Aviation Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I went over the article history of all of the major editors of that article. I found nothing. Archtransit did collaborate with another editor, but looking at that editors contribs list, he's clearly not involved in this mess. I didn't see anything from THAT article, going back to December, that raised any alarms... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron. Just so I'm clear, are you also saying that we don't need a spotcheck that text accurately represents sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his sockpuppets submitted DYKs. See this old revision of Fairchoice's user talk. I don't know about the other sockpuppets; it appears their edits were very limited. Getting back to the broader subject of Archtransit and his impact on the community, I think this situation on a par with the embarrassment of the Essjay debacle. (It's worth noting that the Fairchoice account was created just three days after Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Archtransit passed.) I'm disgusted with this incident. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a horrendous situation—apparently his entire adminship was an exercise in trolling and wasting people's time from beginning to end. That is why the committee acted immediately by an announcement, as opposed to going through the process of opening a case—because we did not want to see any more time squandered on efforts to turn things around once we had definitive evidence that it was not going to happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you also going to desysop my other administratorship? Archtransit (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What's your other account? Majorly (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another sock?

Weasdog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has the similar characteristics of the other confirmed sockpuppets of Archtransit‎. Considering Archtransit‎'s is interested in aviation articles, Weasdog's contributions are very suspect, as his only mainspace edits are to Fokker F.VII, Currie Wot, Avro 618 Ten and Ford Trimotor, all aviation articles. The only other contributions this editor has is giving Archtransit a barnstar And also like another confirmed sock of his, User:Bqwe123, Weasdog was also indefintely blocked (eventually unblocked) in his short time here as a [11] vandalism only account. — Save_Us † 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed Thatcher 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked and tagged accordingly. Woody (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit responds

1. The Arbitration Committee has never asked me to respond or even asked me a question. Newyorkbrad is an attorney, I believe. He should know that this is denial of due process.
2. There is a reasonable explanation. Someone said that I was evasive. I was never asked by ArbCom anything. A user asked me but they are not entitled to everything.
3. I am not responsible for the sockpuppets.
4. Wikipedia is harmed by this. Do you expect me to contribute more if abused by Wikipedia?
5. There are valid concerns raised by outsiders about Wikipedia which we Wikipedia insiders never seem to address. For example, several months ago, there was a discussion about possibly writing down what things administrators should never do. They seemed like sensible things. The user was prompted indefinitely blocked and his/her comments removed.
6. There is cabalism in Wikipedia. Maybe it's human nature. Unblocks are so controversial that now you know an administrator should never do it. Look at Ryulong. He's removed comments on ANI and blocked people indefinitely, nothing happened. I read somewhere that an ArbCom request for arbitration was filed against him and he reverted it, indefinitely blocked the user and ArbCom did nothing (they could say that they didn't know about it).
6a. This tendency for cabalism is demonstrated by my later blocks and unblocks. There was a consensus that they were correct. Look at the RFC and nobody could explain why they were wrong. That shows that they just didn't like unblocks and want to kill any administrator that does so.
7. I have no intention of contributing to Wikipedia again if this matter is not resolved. Making the 747 article into FA was serious work. Looking up references. Socks and trolls don't do this. They don't create articles like I have. There is a reason why I did not create these socks but why explain if ArbCom will not listen?
8. A few months ago, I saw a letter to the editor in a major technical publication about Wikipedia. It was unflattering. I have contacts with the editor. If this matter is not resolved, I plan to write a letter to the editor. This is not a threat but merely reporting unfair treatment and other things that happen in Wikipedia.
9. If ArbCom seriously will grant me a fair process and not just desysop without letting me respond, then I will respond. Otherwise, it's so time consuming to write a response. That's the ethical thing to do.
Archtransit 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying that FT2, an arbcom member is lying when they say "Archtransit was asked to comment on this finding privately and his answer was felt to be quite evasive," From what I can gather, you were asked to respond to the allegations, and you didn't respond adequately. Is that not the case. Woody (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. (Lying according to Woody). No ArbCom member contacted me by letter, phone, email, on Wikipedia, in person, or any other way. Archtransit (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not lying according to Woody. Lying according to you, AT. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice he tried to play a nice litle semantic game with 1 & 2. He wasn't contacted by an Arbcom member. He was contacted by an Arbcom clerk on behalf of Arbcom. Which in my book means you were contacted by Arbcom.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I contacted him as a checkuser saying, "This looks bad; can you explain before I take this to a higher level?" Thatcher 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted, still wikilawyering i'd say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• • FT2 is definitely not lying. Archtransit was contacted by User:Thatcher regarding these allegations, and Archtransit's reply was very evasive and didn't help convince us of innocence. --Deskana (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't buy that. I know and trust FT2, and he's not a liar. Stop trying to pretend you're in the right here, AT. You've been caught. ♠PMC♠ 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Frankly, if arbcom members have seen the communication, then it is you (Archtransit) who is lying. It seems that you are once again trying to put up a smokescreen to deflect the attention. You have been caught. If you really want to carry on editing at Wikipedia then explain to the arbcom the circumstances surrounding these incidents. Face up to the issue, don't hide from it or else get a new hobby. Woody (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• You say you didn't use sock puppets, so what is the explanation for some strong checkuser evidence, coupled with very damning evidence when you look at editing? You're trying to suggest that everyone else is in the wrong and you've been hard done by - sorry but there is evidence to the contrary here and you need to start talking rather than critisising every one else as always. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • Seems to me he is trying to deflect attention from his own actions. We should stop him carrying on with this game right now. David D. (Talk) 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan, our checkusers, arbcom members and evidence are not the suspicious things here, Archtransists conduct is. — Save_Us † 16:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's continuing to troll by claiming that he has another admin account, he's lied repeatedly in his responses above, and he's making threats (I'll tell my editor friend what a nasty place Wikipedia is if you don't let me come back), I don't know what more we can do with him. Until he presented his comments here, I was willing to accept a ban from Wikipedia-space to allow him to make article contributions. Now it's clear that has has abandoned any pretense of interest in being a positive contributor. He obviously has serious problems, and Wikipedia is not therapy. He's wasted too much of our time already. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Future complaints by Archtransit about cabalism, Arb/admin abuse, criticism from unnamed outsiders, etc. should be directed to Wikipedia Review where they will join similar company. There is an emerging consensus above regarding a community ban, and it should be implemented given the lack of a substantial reason to the contrary and no satisfactory response from Archtransit (as per usual). Avruch ^T 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just get out of here already Archtransit, you're not wanted. John Reaves 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit is correct that the arbitration committee did not ask for comment. As it happens, that was not the statement made (see: Straw man). The actual statement made can clearly be read above. It states, "Archtransit was asked to comment on this finding privately". This was 100% accurate. The request, and its response, was made via the checkusers who presented their investigation to arbcom as concerns for review, and they (quite correctly) had anticipated the inquiries needed, and already made them. They presented their concerns, and asked essentially identical questions to what any editor would have asked. Following this the lengthy response was analyzed by two checkusers, then forwarded to arbcom, and the entire findings, and correspondence, and responses, were then again rechecked from scratch by multiple arbitrators (also with checkuser access), to look for flaws. Instead, additional evidence was found, namely two more of the three unblocks cited above.

Likewise the description was not that the answer "was" evasive, but that re-reading the case, "[the] answer was felt to be quite evasive", a correct statement of fact; that was the feeling at the Committee. An explanation of why that was so, the exact qualities which led to that feeling, is also given above.

The desysop is standard procedure for users where there is a conclusion of gross abuse of tools. You will notice, for example, that the sample of evidence cited above, which includes specific diffs, names, and block logs, and a summary of the checkuser findings related to them, is completely sidestepped by yourself, in favor of (effectively) 1/ This isn't valid, 2/ How dare you, 3/ I am not responsible for the sockpuppets, 4/ Cabalism, and so on. This is in fact what we characterized as "evasion".

Specific evidence is presented, twice now, in enough detail to respond. The willingness to misuse tools to create blocks with autoblock disabled for sockpuppets, may indicate why we have desysopped at the same time as (rather than after) this thread.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Archtransit's response to these allegations is "I don't have any sockpuppet accounts" and "I have another sockpuppet admin account and I am not afraid to use it". Um, what the fuck? The rest of his response is not a defense of his actions, but a complete and utter deflection by attempting to claim that he's being ganged up on. Well no shit Sherlock! You're likely to create a large group of editors who act against you given this pattern of abuse. If there is a cabal against Archtransit, he created it himself. Also, attempting to deflect criticism by bring up OTHER admins is the hallmark of the guilty. He shows NO sign of directly confronting the allegations, no explanation for the checkuser results which clearly show that he and he alone managed this sock farm, and he continues to display the same lack of character shown for the past month. While I was clearly leaning towards changing my endorsement of his community ban given arguements to wait it out, and go slower, now my mind is made up. Archtransit has made his defense, and it shows that my initial gut reaction was right. I personally see no need for the community to allow him to continue to edit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to waste any more time with this. Gone. east.718 at 17:29, February 19, 2008

Our long national nightmare is over: Thanks to east for taking care of this. Lets leave it to ArbCom and get on with ourselves. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could say I didn't see this coming. endorse community ban for what it's worth. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Other sysop account?

See this. Can we get some additional attention to this comment where Archtransit claims to have "another administratorship"? Avruch ^T 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's most probably just trolling, don't think it needs looking into too much. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I wouldn't take that claim too seriously. As was stated above, this is likely to be trolling on his part. Ronnotel (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Per Ryan. Rudget. 17:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but considering he gamed RfA the first time... Seems worth some further looking anyway. Avruch ^T 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, this is typical Archtransit. Also, CU isn't for fishing - there's only so much the CU's can check and I'm guessing they've done a thorough investigation already. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• (per loads of edit conflicts) I wouldn't pay much attention to that. Thatcher has not been able to find such an account during checks. He's probably messing us about. Majorly (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is he active on any other wikis? Could be what he is on about. I think it might just be the last words of someone going down on a sinking ship. Woody (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Unrepentant Vandal"?

I've been troubled for a while by a posting on Wikipedia Review by "Unrepentant Vandal" on January 6, 2008. He wrote the following:

I know I've been silent for a while; mostly that was through work but it was also to conceal the groundwork for the following: I now have three admin accounts (utterly untraceable) and a trustworthy friend who will check user on demand (and is aware of what I'm doing, amusingly enough).

Users I "know" and trust enough on WR can private message me with details and for proof.

I haven't decided whether to rampage or to go for ArbCom... watch this space :)

Yesterday, being unaware of the current discussion about Archtransit, I searched through the past month's worth of successful adminship candidacies. I didn't find anything. All of the admins appointed in December and early January appear to be legitimate, and I feel sorry that I had to cast a shadow of suspicion on any of them.

However, at the precise moment that Unrepentant Vandal made his posting on Wikipedia Review, Archtransit's RFA was passing at 42/1/0 and was on a fast track for success. Assuming that Unrepentant Vandal's claims are true (and, having read the entire thread, I believe they are very credible), it's plausible to believe that he was celebrating early, knowing that Archtransit was going to become an administrator in the next few days.

I would encourage the Arbitration Committee and the checkusers to investigate the possibility that Archtransit is "Unrepentant Vandal" and is still operating two other administrator accounts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Far-fetched, surely. Archtransit now looks like a professional troll, yes, but two more admin accounts? When would you find the time for that? You really would have to have no life. Wikipedia Review, and its more foolish users in particular, like nothing better than make us chase our own tails. They know full well we read that forum. And even if this is right, so what? We've properly nailed Archtransit, haven't we? If those other accounts go batshit crazy, we'll deal with them as well. Quite apart from anything else, I find it hard to believe you could maintain 3 different admin accounts on what would have to be 3 different (and geographically separate) IPs without using open proxies. I guess it might be worth checking to see if any suspicious admins are hiding behind proxies, but even if we do find some people doing that, there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation for them to be doing so...meh. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does sound like hot air, "trustworthy friend who will check user on demand" except of course checkuser activity is logged. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is archived, but I had thought the same thing at the same time. The thing which made me rule it out mentally was that Archtransit had not yet been adminned at the time that was posted. Orderinchaos 10:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We're aware of the claims and giving them due attention. Nothing else to report so far. Thatcher 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But even if we do find a couple more admin socks here - sure, we'll desysop and block - but what do we do from there? I really don't think we can checkuser every RFA candidate: it'll be too easy for people to evade the check by preparing in advance and then we've lulled ourselves into a false sense of security. Besides, that's just not what checkuser is for - even admins and prospective admins have a right to some sort of privacy.

I know what you're thinking as you read this - Moreschi must be Unrepentant Vandal! Caught him! Well, no - but that's the problem, you see: we start following up every piece of shite posted on Wikipedia Review and our trust in each other is gone - everyone starts looking over everyone else's shoulders for banned users, checkusers, whatever.

Forget it. We're getting too worked up about sockpuppetry. When a problem user comes up, we need to deal with that problem user without wasting hours of valuable manpower wondering whether they're the sock of another problem user. Deal with accounts on an account-by-account basis. Ultimately, checkuser cannot solve all our problems for us, and we'd be foolish to think it ever could. The result of this may be that we start assuming less good faith of people like Archtransit. It was clear Archtransit was either a troll or terminally incompetent. It shouldn't have mattered as to which. We can't know the other guy's motive. But when we saw he was terminally incompetent, we took the soft option because we had to assume good faith - that he wasn't a troll, that mentoring could solve his problems. More time wasted. Sooner or later we're going to have to start treating incompetence as if it were trolling - because how on earth do you tell one from the other? This'll mean more desysops and blocks, done quicker - a small price to pay for infinitely less time being wasted. Ultimately, Wikipedia is no more a place for fools any more than it is a place for trolls. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why bother looking? Just wait until they out themselves. The worst they can do is try and sway consensus, and if they are so wrong it would not happen anyway. David D. (Talk) 18:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The "trustworthy friend who will check user on demand" makes me skeptical. This is likely just a troll. - Revolving Bugbear 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mandatory CU on RFA

Why would this be bad again, for prospects? Lawrence § t/e 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fishing is the usual response. If all admin candidates are subject to CU, then CU needs to be subject to much more stringent and careful selection (he said with complete respect and high regard for all of our current checkusers). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Easy to evade if you prepare, so will create a false sense of security. Thatcher 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can think of many legitimate reasons why an admin would want conceal on-wiki activity from his RfA. Having one troll get the mop out of 1500+ doesn't strike me as a broken process. Ronnotel (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a perfect tool, but it's still useful as far as it goes. Suggest making this a kind of litmus test, meaning optional for RFA. I'll be opposing anyone who refuses, but the rest of ya'll can do whatever you want. Friday (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A question, Will you submit to RFCU prior to sysopping? Would that fly? Lawrence § t/e 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it's the m:Checkuser policy that would need to be changed. The m:Privacy policy needs no amendment, as it does not cover the actual use of the checkuser tool, just what data is released from it. My point is, the community does not have the authority to change the checkuser policy to allow us to check users with no prior evidence of disruption. --Deskana (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Violates the privacy policy of the Wikimedia Foundation, of which this is only one project. Gives a false sense of security. Would require several additional checkusers. Low risk situation - every action an admin takes is reversible. Easy to game; dedicated trollers can easily manage to beat this system. Mostly though, it's way outside of the Foundation's acceptable use of checkuser. Oh. What Deskana said. Risker (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And a quick expansion of my comments - when both all four checkusers commenting on this issue feel it is not reasonable to do, we should probably take their word for it. Risker (talk) modified now that 2 more CUs have opined 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would add that when any diagnostic tool is applied to a population with a low baseline prevalence, then regardless of how good that tool is, false positives will outweigh true positives (Bayes' theorem, more or less). Using checkuser where there is a reasonably high pre-test probability of sockpuppetry is a good idea, as it leads to a reasonable positive predictive value. Applying it across the board to a population which (hopefully) has a low rate of abusive sockpuppetry will degrade the positive predictive value of "confirmatory" results, and lead to more false positives than true positives, even with highly skilled checkusers at the helm. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. What he said. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The other thing this might help is the open proxies issue. As I understand it, checkusers can identify users operating from open proxies. So basically, if a troll tried to game the system, he'd have to know how to operate from multiple IPs and not doing it by using an open proxy system. I'm sure its technically possible, but I suspect it would raise the bar on the level of knowledge (and therefore pool of potential abusers) required to do it. MBisanz ^talk 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec with ec)Well, now that we're all adding our two cents: mine are that this is a completely reasonable and supportable policy which does not run contrary to the spirit of anything Wikimedia has put forward, and that the foundation would have little problem with it. In fact, I will absolutely vote yes if it comes up to a vote. The only problem is that the larger Wikipedia gets, the harder it gets to change common sense proposals. I recently was part of a major policy change on commons, and I was absolutely shocked how easy it was compared to here, where even the most innocuous change (this doesn't necessarily apply) is not possible without a great brouhaha. I do believe this would catch more bad guys than hurt good guys: the checkusers know how to do their job after all. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much what Thatcher says above, it's a false sense of security. Running for RFA? Know you'll be checkusered? then modify your editing behaviour and you'll pass everyone being happy you aren't an evil sockmaster, once in you can enact your plan of world domination. Do the checkusering quietly isn't an option, since you'll have to reveal as soon as you discover such a case, then it's apparent that it happens and easily avoidable. Can't see anything real to gain and plenty of headaches to be had. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how this sits with all the drama surrounding the revealing of use of TOR nodes by an admin candidate a while back. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one wiki that requires a CU for all admin candidates although I cannot right now remember which, or if it is only for successful ones (prior to appointment) or for candidates at the start. I therefore am not sure it violates WMF policy. Nevertheless I oppose this idea. CU is not magic pixie dust, it IS foolable, it is better for determining malfeasance than for showing innocence, and we will get too many false positives (and associated dramah) along with a false sense of security. Generally not a good idea in my view. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this idea. If someone wants to spend months and months of their time adding such good content that they're considered for and attain adminship - all just to say "ha ha, gotcha!" two months later, then Wikipedia wins. We end up with months and months of good content and the only price is a soap opera every once in a while (which, let's be honest, is actually a nice breakup to the monotony). Thanks, Archtransit! (Now go away) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that last sentence of yours made me laugh out loud. Thanks Wknight94 for your clarity and perspective. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, yes. I also disagree with mandatory c/u for RFA hopefuls. False sense of security, easily gameable, currently against existing policy, privacy compromise is unwarranted, and the whole assumption of "guilt" thing - Alison ^❤ 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And there's nothing to stop you socking after you gain adminship, after all... ~ Riana ⁂ 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Side question to the above

Archtransit wasn't (unless I missed something) using open proxies. But admins can edit via them, even if the IPs for proxies are blocked? Is that correct? Wouldn't this just allow someone to go totally open proxy for usage once they got adminship, and then build up another account for an RFA via their normal connection afterwards? Isn't there a simple way to stop anyone from editing via blocked IPs? Lawrence § t/e 20:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Imperfection inherent in the system - I imagine it would involve turning off IP-block exemption at some level. This is the huge problem with issues like this - you get to a point where you can't trust anyone at all, for the sake of a few nutters :/ ~ Riana ⁂ 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) If the open proxy IP is hard-blocked, even admins cannot edit through them. They would have to unblock the IP first. If the open proxy IP is soft-blocked, then anyone can login and edit through them. I don't know if that answered your question... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, admins can edit through hard-blocked IPs due to the ipblock-exempt flag. I'd rather like to be able to turn that off, actually, because it's useless for me to have it and it would be a security risk if my account were compromised (which seems unlikely, but better to be safe...), but the current software setup causes ipblock-exempt and adminship to go together or not at all. --ais523 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha, I did not know that. (Never tried). I struck out my lies above. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question would be why bother? What does two admin accounts get you that one doesn't? Sure you can be a pain in the arse with one right until it gets desysoped and there aren't many ways to badly screw things up (and many/most? probably haven't thought of them) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I kinda agree, nothing to be lost except trust (and in some people's cases, pride). ~ Riana ⁂ 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I just thought of this after poking around the archives to see similar cases of desyoppings. Why does any user even need the ability to edit through a blocked IP? What does it benefit Wikipedia? Lawrence § t/e 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it's the likelihood that you're editing through a blocked school/college/etc IP? And basically trying to maximise an admin's usefulness as far as possible? ~ Riana ⁂ 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, I guess, but it just seems to be a bit of an odd pass to use blocked IPs. If they're behind an improperly blocked IP they can always ask for it to be unblocked, or do it themselves. Why would/should admins be able to edit from an otherwise properly blocked IP address? Lawrence § t/e 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

True, the only time I've used ipblock-exempt is when I forget to switch Google Web Accelerator off on other machines. GDonato (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it didn't used to be the case, but when we had massive autoblock problems with AOL IPs it got turned on. I also know that some admins used to edit from school/college/uni which had long term abuse problems, you used to see them unblock work for an hour or two and then reblock, I guess this just removes that need. Hopefully admins have the trust of the community to not abuse it, or maybe there is a case to be made for differentiating between blocked ips and blocked open proxies at the software level. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins were made exempt from IP blocks within the last year or so; when I first joined it was indeed a problem. Thatcher 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've found it quite useful. My school's periodically blocked due to hordes of vandals, and I'll edit from there. It actually annoys aforementioned vandals when they see me editing and they can't, so it's good for two things. It's not really doing much, and we can (mostly) trust admins to be able to edit while on a blocked IP. Solution looking for a problem? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is no particular technical barrier to having an admin edit from proxies and then bring up a new account through a normal ISP, but there are no technical barriers to a lot of anti-community type behavior that one could imagine. Hopefully only the most dedicated miscreants will make the effort to run up multiple admin accounts, and there will be very few of them. Thatcher 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  That's a fair statement of wikipedia overall, we try to be open and let many participate. We could put in many more measures to stop people doing all sorts and there is a cost involved with implementing them, either in terms of greater workload on the rest of the community, or in terms of driving good contributors away. It's why I wonder why vandals can seem so proud of their efforts, we more or less leave the doors and windows wide open, it's not some great challenge to get in and do some "damage". --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone on Wikipedia Review claimed to have multiple admin accounts wiht the full knowledge of a CheckUser, but I always considered that claim to be bollocks. I'm sure there are one or two baddies with sysop bits, but as soon as they break cover they will be on a one-way trip to ArbCom and if they never do, then the laugh is on us :-) Guy (Help!) 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Last heads-up

WP:ANI#Need to reopen Archtransit's sock cases and other actions

Archived here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit's short career as a sysop included killing sock reports and possibly, swaying other matters too. See ANI post. Being fixed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Crossref for future:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archtransit
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Archtransit
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dereks1x
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about the accounts unblocked by Archtransit

Will these be reblocked? Example. That particular one hasn't edited since, but appears to be unblocked. Enigma ^msg! 10:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Improper RfC

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland.

The conversation died on 15 February, I guess we can archive this now? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it might not have been archtransit

It's like this....you take off the shelf router from Linksys, Netgear, etc and put it on your DSL or cable modem it will keep the WAN IP (the IP that the checkuser uncovers) on the router and the router issues non-routable, non-broadcastable LAN IP addresses to the computers and other devices on the network, but from any computer if you edit wikipedia or anything it appears to the world that it's all coming from a single "real" WAN IP address. It's also certainly possible that there is/was someone on archtransit's network who was wikistalking him and making accounts and edits just to push his buttons. This is a little long winded but it's technically possible and cannot be ruled out. thoughts? ideas? Bstone (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also possible that the real Archtransit was kidnapped and some assumed his identity in order to disrupt Wikipedia. John Reaves 05:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that is true, then why was Archtransit unblocking these wiki-stalkers? And if they somehow gained access to his account, then it was still a compromised admin account. MBisanz ^talk 05:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on if he was behind the socks or not, but just providing a theoretical technical alternative. Bstone (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The simplest answer is always the best. Which is easier to believe: A grand conspiracy by another person who just HAPPENS to be on the same WAN as Archtransit and is looking to discredit him, or Archtransit is an old, well practiced troll(likely Dereks1x) who did a real good job of maintaining a persona until he became an admin, and when Jehochman started to request checkusers on his socks (not knowing they were Archtransit's socks) he got panicky and sloppy and finally got busted. I'm going with the second story until a simpler one comes along... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, your right that is a theoretical alternative. But you'd think that if his account was compromised or being harassed, he'd of contacted Ryan or Riana via email or registered another account from another location and posted a "ZOMG my account is compromised" message. MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just briefly, looking over my e-mail correspondence with AT, there is no doubt in my mind (and indeed, there wasn't at the time either, but I never thought it was this bad) that he was up to something cagey. His responses to my questions ranged from secretive and minimal to utterly bizarre. Occam applies. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To remind of points raised earlier, it wasn't just the technical evidence that was at play. Examples of non technical evidence cited include removing or disabling autoblock (which is a significant anti-sock measure) on some user blocks, but not others... where the users this was done to are precisely those who edit from the same area, with the same technical "fingerprints", and who are evidenced as socks already. It includes having wiki-logs that show one specific IP used to edit by by Archtransit, then by Lethte, then by Archtransit again, an extremely unlikely event to be genuine in the circumstances. And so on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The excuses are quite silly. See this Uncyclopedia article for an example of how this argument is going. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation by non-checkusers on what the checkuser evidence was is not at all helpful and likely to lead you down the garden path. Regarding this particular attempt to explain away the findings, the pattern of IP usage by these editors can not be explained by having multiple users on a single router or firewall. Thatcher 06:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to edit on Wikipedia, turning on WPA2 or (WPA if the hardware cannot support AES) on your home Wi-Fi router should be mandatory. Otherwise, the router is basically a localized open proxy and should be blocked until the owner emails the blocking admin that he has locked down the router. If any admins like to wardrive, they should try to log the IPs of open Wi-Fi routers and WEP-"protected" routers (this protection is only good for a minute before it is cracked) and have them blocked as open proxies. If they are leaving it open to accomodate a Nintendo DS, then they need to choose between that or Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is kinda no-brainer stuff. All domestic wi-fi networks should be locked down with WPA and not WEP, otherwise wardrivers will just abuse your network. I'd kind draw the line at admins going around, sniffing wifi networks and hardblocking every café they encounter, though - Alison ^❤ 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Road trip! Can I borrow the checkuser RV? Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several orders of magnitude different risk between an open proxy that can be used by anybody on the Internet versus a Wi-Fi router that can be used by anybody within a few hundred meters. A billion versus a hundred, perhaps. Wardriving requires determination and isn't particularly comfortable. Open proxies are available from one's own desktop, while sitting in one's most comfortable chair. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One exception should be made to APs that do not assign any private IP addresses, but assign public IPs. Since no NAT is involved, we can just block the specific offending IP address. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you were not aware...

WMF has started receiving death threats in respect of the Muhammad images. As ever, this issue calls for weapons-grade tact: if, like me, you can't do tact, don't go near it, and we should be willing to consider rapid topic bans and blocking for any editor who inflames the situation. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tact, what the fuck is that, some sort of tang? Let those of us who are anonymous handle it, maybe? El_C 11:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How's that for tang? El_C 12:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we put Muhammad, Depictions of Muhammad, etc on article probation? MER-C 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We all think its an excellent idea because we have no idea what article probation means! El_C 12:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It means it's somebody else's problem! Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm someone else! El_C 12:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a cigar. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always found this remedy very entertaining, so I appreciate its being used again as I need a laugh today. It means that all admins are empowered to do exactly what they were always empowered to do, and everyone is warned off doing everything they were always warned off doing. It is used by the arbitration committee when it cannot think of an actual remedy, but they are certain that one must surely be applied. The fun bit is that people then go on to think that this will make some actual difference, particularly to new editors to the page who will no doubt go and read the committee's promulgations prior to hitting the edit button for the first time. Splash - tk 13:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. It means that everybody does what they should do anyway and - the important bit - if they insist on doing something else, we stop them there and then rather than gazing at our collective navels for a month first. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with probation in this case- it does encourage admins to step in earlier over the articles concerned perhaps, also I would say it discourages editors on the articles from acting daft to an extent, where things could get heated such as the Scientology articles it has encouraged people not to slag each other off I believe, to an extent. Merkinsmum 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, we should be watching articles? I'm amazed. I thought my job was to argue with people from Eastern Europe! Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes! El_C 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true that it might in theory cut out the shall we/shan't we in favour of "we shall", but although that's a nice theory, I'm not sure it's really ever made a dramatic difference when specified as a remedy. But I suppose it cannot hurt to try, as long as we don't accidentally think that mentally applying probation to it takes all the inflammation away just like that. Splash - tk 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is really important to keep from inflaming the situation where you can. Please consider protections, kind warnings and blanking of trolling, baiting and inflammatory posts rather than being quick on the block button. WilyD 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that content-focused action (i.e. protection) is probably better for both PR and drama coefficient here. But we also need to make sure that the "not censored" evangelists don't make matters worse; it is important to display sensitivity towards the concerns expressed, as several people have done very well during this dispute. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend everyone have a quick look at the mailing list, where Jimbo is laying down the law about how we think about the matter quite effectively, along the lines Guy suggests above. He correctly says that we have to find some moderation here. An interesting suggestion has been proposed that involves clickable drop-down images. Relata refero (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been around much nor have I been following the debate but has anyone suggested putting them in one of those windowshade (hide/show) boxes we love (it seems they are at the bottom of every other article)? Keeps the images there but shows sensitivity towards 1/6th of the Earth's population. spryde | talk 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What about spinning them off into a separate article, Images of Mohammed, with a warning link on the main page? Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and does not do disclaimers. We need to stay strong to maintain free speech. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article Depictions of Muhammad already exists, to discuss - depictions of Muhammad. But the sort of thought around is that removing them from Muhammad where they're of clear (although somewhat debated) encyclopaedic value is still problematic under the goals of uncensored & unbiased encyclopaedia. WilyD 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it was jut a suggestion, I didn't even notice that the Depictions article was already discussed above.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've favored hiding controversial images in some manner like that for years. I've never really understood why some of us feel we should insist on automatic presentation of the images. They should be available but hidden in such a manner that a person can choose whether or not to view them. Everyking (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1/6 the world's population is not seriously offended by these images. Many Muslims don't even have a prohibition against images of Muhammad, and of the ones who do, most are not so extremist so as to demand censorship for their benefit. We're dealing with a much smaller number of people than 1 billion. Don't be so quick to assume that all Muslims are crazy radicals. --Cyde Weys 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Does anyone really believe that after we hide the images on Muhammad, they won't demand the same of "Depictions of Muhammad" and any other page which has an image of Muhammad (at first count some twenty articles, perhaps more)? We should not support censorship in any way, and hiding the images by default is a (weak) form of censorship; a preferring of the demands of one religious group over the neutral, open, free speech basics of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally have not seen much at the Commons about the images, but I did notice we are getting messages on unrelated boards about these images. I and another user dealt with it on the image copyright help board today. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The demands will never stop. So what's so hard about putting a warning in at the top as discussed and used in the Bahá'u'lláh article? (If that link fails, the Bahai founder dude). Then just make a shadow article called Muhammed (no images) or the like, and don't transclude the offending images. Then Wikipedia is neither censored nor offending for those faithful who wish to view the information sans-images. Bob's yer uncle. Franamax (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that Franamax. I know in MSIE there is a feature to turn off images, if thats a universal feature that can be enabled via hyperlink (or emmulated), that could work. MBisanz ^talk 09:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But turn-off-images is a bad solution. There's two factors here: one is that WP is not censored and the articles draw on all available sources; the other is that people of the Muslim faith also use Wikipedia to seek out information about Muhammed and some subset of them will be offended by images portraying Muhammed. What I am suggesting is a shadow page where those two images just don't show up, and that's the only difference. We get our thing, the believers get a page to view that has images on it, just not images offensive to the viewers. It can't be that hard to construct. Franamax (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not hard at all: here's the Fmax-Muhammed, which points to the Fmax-Muhammed (no images). Did I miss something (other than being sloppy)? Of course, if someone wants to contribute to en:wiki, they have to buy in to the whole scene. And this doesn't open a big door, perhaps Howard Hughes would want the same treatment. Franamax (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are edits to one page automatically made to the other page as well? Fram (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a transclusion so I imagine so, try in my test pages, or wait for five and check live, I'm being WP:BOLD :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franamax (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Damn that SineBot :) Franamax (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes made to the live database. Revert at will! Franamax (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Personally, I would prefer not to change anything under pressure of petitions or other religious demands, but if consensus is that some compromise is better than no change at all, then this is so far the best solution IMO. (you did miss one image though, Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg). Fram (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we haven't changed anything at all, have we? All that's changed is that I've created my first mainspace article and made some minor edits to another. I'm firmly on the in-your-face side except when it's easy to make an accomodation. Oh hey, thanks for leaving me to noinclude the additional image you spotted! Let me handle the neo-nazis gathering in the street! :) Franamax (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, and there was me playing around with the Image blacklist when <noinclude> tags would work just as well!! Happy‑melon 10:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the intense edit/revert activity on the main article since I made the changes, lets just put the whole thing down to "noble gesture". It was worth a try, and it may all be gone when I wake up tomorrow :) Franamax (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort at dealing with this, and no offense, but this is a god-awful idea. WP:CENSOR is not a guideline or a suggestion; it is policy. This is an end-around of official policy to stem what is largely a movement of vandals and off-wiki petitioning, and would set a terrible precedent if allowed to remain. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fork with no images, and AFD

Muhammad (no images); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad (no images). Lawrence § t/e 14:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to come here and add the link - I can understand that the article was created with good intentions but it's a terrible idea and will not provide any solution - the problem has never been where the images are placed, it's that they exist on this site at all. In addition, where do we stop? a G-D article? Penis article with no pictures? Maybe a F**k article? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted with Franamax's assent. We'll find a workable solution yet. Resolute 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I've been asked to let it run its course. Resolute 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, a strong mandate coming out of the AfD is invaluable - let it run its course. WilyD 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is just a hornet's nest, so I deleted it again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It was an OBVIOUS Snow close. Jmlk17 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Nothing good was going to come out of that. The AfD doesn't need to extend the drama for five days. Black Kite 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical solution?

Wikipedia does have numerous images that some may find offensive, naturally, and there will always be people that will want them removed for whatever reason. Either because it offends their religious sensibilities, or becuase they don't want to see pictures of genetalia, etc. Personally, I very strongly oppose any kind of opt-in solution that forces such images hidden unless the reader chooses to view them. However, what about the other way around? Could a preferences option be created that would allow a user, at their own discretion, auto-hide images that are flagged as potentially offensive? Something along the lines of MediaWiki:Bad image list. I don't want my encyclopedia censored, but if other individuals do, then give them the option. Resolute 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, that was actually the kind of opt-out solution I had in mind, from the Muhammed article, you had the choice to click to an alternate which was a tranclusion which specifically excluded things. As a transclusion, it was amenable to full page-protection, thus fully controlled from the master page. I'm not sure everyone who !voted there looked at the page source, but I certainly wasn't trying to create a fork. The same thing applies to Bahá'u'lláh, it's great that there's a warning that there are images of the person there, but that really just amounts to a warning to stay away (for the faithful). We need to come up with a way to make our NPOV and complete information available to all people. There's no need to fork anything. Slippery slope be damned, what's wrong with some selective creativity? And come to that, if we can have a redirect from Pneis to Penis, why not have a transclude to Penis (no images)? What are we taking away from those who want to see images of prophets or penises? They can always choose to not click on the alternate link. Franamax (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem being that content forking is greatly opposed, as we've seen in that AfD. What I was hoping for was a preferences option that would allow individual users to decide if they want to hide images that fall into an objectionable category without forking the article. Unfortunately, as WilyD notes below, this does not seem to be possible yet, though it is mentioned specifically on Wikipedia:Options to not see an image as something that could be written by someone who understands MediaWiki. Resolute 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See, I don't understand where the "fork" part comes in, when actually it was a "mask". It's already there <includeonly>, <onlyinclude>, nothing was being split, nothing would diverge in future. It's just a selective view, kind of like those show/hide boxes. What is so awful about that? Franamax (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Known technical solutions are discussed at Wikipedia:Options to not see an image, but they only work on a page by page basis or more coarsely, nobody seems to know how to do specific images. WilyD 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has seen a lot of innocent sounding censorship I am deeply opposed to this. LGBT people have seen vast swaths of their culture and history vanish under the concept of think of the children. If a website had the world "gay" anywhere on it - gone! Once we start sledding down this slippery slope what other images and articles will be rated XXX? I'm a bit offended by seeing opposite sex couples being affectionate shouldn't all those images be hidden until I click? I appreciate the concerns but I caution against any quick tech fixes for culture wars. Benjiboi 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what would be considered "potentially offensive" is a really important thing to figure out before we enable something like this in preferences. But, and I could be misunderstanding this, it sounds like one would have to change their preferences to not see the images. That is, anyone who did not perform this specific action would see all images in all articles. Natalie (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia caves in to these ridiculous threats then I'm off. Standing up for free speech means just that, you can't say 'wikipedia is not censored' and then start censoring it at the first challenge. What do you do when they want all depictions of people removed? There is not a technical solution to this. The images must stay on a point of principle. This is not a muslim encyclopedia. It is not bound by sharia law. You can put the images on my user page if you like. It's under my real name. They're offended? So what. This is not Dhimmipedia. Nick mallory (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I developed a new technical solution. Please read Talk:Muhammad/images#new_compromise if you want to find out how it works.--Raphael1 12:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And as stated, I'll nominate it for del (using TFD) as soon as it's moved to mainspace - under no circumstances can such a template be used. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ

I was given a warning by this editor that I feel was unwarranted.

I referred to one of his edits as being racially motivated.

I would like a non-western editor to review the edits I made and give an opinion as to whether his automatic reversion of my contribution, without discussion, could or could not be explained as racially motivated.

I am aware that using such a word can be inflammatory, but I feel that in this instance it was accurate.

I would also like to point out that he has labeled me as abusive and disruptive. I take offense to that. Zaq1qaz (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You called this edit was removing "racially biased POV". I think it speaks for itself. Making bold changes is fine; however, when you are reverted and asked to discuss it on the talk page you should probably do so instead of claiming other editors are biased. Name-calling isn't nice. --Haemo (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I call this edit [12] biased.

I also object to big .jpg's placed on my talk page without discussion, warning, or any recourse. The Warning was placed with the comment that it was my last warning. Can anyone put a picture of a stop sign on any page and say "you've been warned, the next time I'll block you" or words to that effect? There's no recourse, no notification or board postings about that?

I think this editor's refusal to discuss the reversion he made speaks volumes about him. He never discussed his reversion, his reasons for his reversion on any talk page. I tried to discuss the matter with him on HIS talk page and he ignored it while making snide posts on MY talk page.Zaq1qaz (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Object all you want. This is the way things work. He doesn't have to respond to you. You can remove the warning if you want. Everyone is allowed to post warning templates. His next step would be to post to WP:AIV and if an admin decided that it was appropriate, you would be blocked. If you want to complain that his edit was biased, give him a warning as well. Then you can move to WP:AIV. An admin will decide what to do. From your talk page, you seem to be having a discussion about it now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As an admin, I vehemently disagree with Ricky's proposed solution. Instead of escalating the dispute in this way, the better course of action is to DE-escalate by using the article talk page and working out your differences there. If that doesn't work, there are almost a dozen options availible to find outside help to resolve the dispute, all can be found at Dispute resolution. Don't be eager to take revenge or escalate to the point of sanctions. Instead, de-escalate by attempting to work civily, even with those you disagree with, and attempt to reach common ground on the article talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is true that I have warned Zaq1qaz, based on this edit summary [13] that I feel is very unsuitable and violates both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It wasn't the first time the user attacked other users in his edit summaries.[14] As for his accusation that my edit was "racially motivated", I invite everyone to have a look at the edit I reverted [15]. I doubt anyone can find anything even remotely "racially motivated" in reverting it, all I found was a lot of WP:OR, WP:WEASEL and WP:POV. JdeJ (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User JdeJ continues to refuse to discuss the contributions I have made to the article. Is there some Wikipedia (WP:WEASEL?) policy that addresses an editor who deletes without discussion something that at least two other editors feel is on point?

Also, isn't the deletion of statements contrary to ANYONE's viewpoint, against WP:POV? Why is HIS POV the correct one?Zaq1qaz (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no point of view is preferred to a contested one. If an addition to an article is contested, standard practice is to leave it out of the article until consensus is reached to re-add it to the article via productive talk-page discussion. The conservative approach is that any contested additions remain OUT of the article until and unless consensus exists to put them back in. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't refused to discuss anything. On the contrary, I've pointed out many times already that you should source your claims. It's true that I'm not very interested in a long discussion without any sources, for the simple reason that neither you nor I can claim any authority, but I'll gladly discuss any source provided. The problem with your edits have been that you have introduced very controversial views, in direct conflict with many other Wikipedia articles and with the established view. In itself, that is no problem. It becomes a problem once you're neither able to provide any reason for them nor can back them up with any sources. You have been asked to do so by other contributors as well, but to date your record is to introduce very controversial changes without sourcing them, attacking me when I revert them and then start a long discussion about why it's wrong to revert you but still without any sources to show that you're right. As you're new to Wikipedia, I guess it's just because you're not familiar with the procedures. This isn't any typical discussion forum, we put some value on sources and verifiable facts, not discussions about each other. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do I get in trouble for calling you a liar?

I have posts on my Talk page, on your Talk page, and on the Europe Talk page, all attempting to discuss this matter. The only person NOT talking about the subject, is you. You disseminate and deflect the attempts to WEASEL posts. Discuss the subject, look at my references. Let's resolve your problems with the material and this issue.Zaq1qaz (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do I get in trouble for calling you a liar? I don't see why you would. You've been attacking other users for no reason before so one more time is hardly going to make any difference. The truth is that you've posted an enormous mass of completely irrelevant thoughts of your own. You've been asked to source your theories about continents. Instead, you've written why you think they are correct. Sorry to say so, but your personal opinions are of very little relevance here ,just like mine. You should provide links to articles by authorities supporting your view, and you haven’t done that. What you’ve done is to write long texts complaining about Western culture, how western culture is moribund, why the “blue-eyed European” is a genetic accident and other weird ideas with absolutely no relevance to the question of how continents are defined. I’m being honest with you know, no matter how much I try to assume good faith can I find any connection between the things you write and the things you want to prove. You still seem to threat this like a discussion forum where name-calling and long and irrelevant essays about what you think is what matters. My suggestion to you is to focus on the topic, write much shorter texts and start sourcing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JdeJ (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE sourced my contributions. I do not want to re-submit my changes only to see you arbitrarily delete them just because you don't like them. DAYS ago, I provided a reference that was acceptable to at least one other editor who took the time to actually READ and DISCUSS the issue---NOT you.

"Thus the concept of remote peoples possibly more advanced than themselves has always been present to Europeans, and Europe (like the individual countries within Europe) has always been classified as one in a list of sibling regions, at best by its own efforts temporarily primus inter pares. Inseparable from the Europeans' comparative viewpoint has been the sense that their own achievements were without final validity, being always subject to overshadowing by known or unknown civilisations outside Europe. This constant relativisation, especially vis-á-vis the East where through most of history the real rivalry lay, produced a social space loaded with competitive instability, in strong contrast to the paternally centred Chinese world space."

It was within this geographic-conceptual schema, under the major headings of 'Asia' and 'Orient, East', that the European idea of China took shape. Long before there was more than one or two sentences' worth of knowledge (even fabulous) about China itself, the genus into which new information would be fitted was ready prepared in the European mind."

From

Andrew L. March:

The Myth of Asia

(New York: Preager, 1974), 23-43, 61-67

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/mythofasia.html

Any time you want to stop being snide and assuming bad faith, I am willing to discuss this. So far, it's been all closed-mindedness on your part. The other editors I have discussed this with do not agree with you. So I have to wonder, who exactly is the problem here?Zaq1qaz (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If that quote in any way proves that Europe isn't a continenet, I'm afraid I fail to see it. Would you care to highlight where it says, or even implies, that Europe isn't a continent? And who are these other editors who agree with you that Europe isn't a continent? I haven't seen the, contribute to the disussion at Europe.JdeJ (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks in totally trivial WP:ITN appearance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is Wikileaks still on the front page? It's a totally trivial news story which shouldn't have got there at all. Given its total lack of importance and significance (compare it with the other candidates). Take a look at the discussions on the candidate page - Wikipedia:ITN/C#Wikileaks. Apparently, it was added due to "consensus" on the WP:ITN/C page - Template talk:In_the_news#Wikilinks, but that page shows that no, this is not a worthy candidate. Please can an admin right this. - hahnchen 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please bring this up on the appropriate page, which this is not. Wikipedia:ITN/C#Wikileaks. Lawrence § t/e 20:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It was obvious that this was the correct venue. Given that the story had been opposed on the correct venue and nothing had been done about it. It was poor form to archive this so early, although the story has now been removed. - hahnchen 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the fundamental issues of the discussion are still unresolved (an issue I will make no comment on), and that the archiving was, in your opinion, inappropriate, then you should probably go ahead, be bold and remove {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}.

On the other hand, you may wish to open a new thread, either on this Noticeboard, or through an alternative medium of discussion. Either way, if there is benefit to be had from further discussion, then an archive banner should, by no means, stand in said discussions' way. Regards, AGK (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the wikileaks article was hit pretty badly by a banned editor (about as banned as they get). Anyone who's editing, please consider carefully before reverting my edits. Banned editors do not have a right to edit WP, especially not that one - Alison ^❤ 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Multipole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks a bit odd as well, if you're checking. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 Unrelated - Alison ^❤ 00:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mass-spamming by User:John Carter and User:Betacommandbot

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

No administrator action is required or forthcoming in this content dispute. Avruch ^T 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group, with three signed-up active members, have taken it up themselves to use Betacommandbot to spam thousands of articles (3096, beta says [16]) with their large banner on the talk page, where it is always placed above all other project tags, including GA & FA ones (eg Talk:Paul the Apostle). A good percentage of these articles have nothing to do with religion in any sense (eg Regeneration (Doctor Who), and for those that do this banner will be a useless and unwelcome addition to the vast majority, which are mostly already tagged by more specific projects. In the hour since the spree began, I am far from the only person to object at both the Project [17] and at Beta's talk page (where protesters are referred to John Carter, in the usual 5 minutes before beta delets them): [18], [19] (multiple comments each diff). Is there any way this spam can be reversed? Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I watched it go by on my watchlist (Otto von Bismarck and Benjamin Disraeli). I don't see how either article would fall within their mandate, and I'd love to know what criteria were used. Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's easy - Disraeli is in Category:Converts from Judaism to Anglicanism and Bismark in Category:Anti-Catholicism! Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I too noticed this. Celestial spheres? This is entirely too indiscriminate. Deor (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Talk:Aliens Act 1905 was where I noticed it, the link is very loose in my opinion. (Oh and your edit is fine Johnbod). Woody (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've tried to contact Betacommand on IRC. Some of the articles tagged are really irrelevant, unless I've missed something - Steve McQueen?! I haven't blocked the bot, because it's stopped, but this doesn't look completely helpful. Black Kite 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve is in Category:Converts to Christianity. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Illustrates the point, then. The templates should really only be on articles where the subject is the main, or a major, focus. Black Kite 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• (third ec) Considering the effort several of us put into cleaning up talk pages of FAs when {{articlehistory}} was added, it would be nice if people tagging talk pages would look for {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and add their tags within the banner shell. Not doing so is just rude. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't convention that they go under articlehistory as well. Woody (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's where I put them, but that may fall under preference of regular article editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandbot does thousands of useful edit...blah..blah..important function...blah..blah.....sanction...blah..blah.....can't sanction..need a sub-page to discuss this......blah..blah..no action needed...drastic action again. Well I think that covers all of the conversation - anyone else for a ride on the merry-go-around ? Sure it plays the same old tunes but we love them. (Note: I wouldn't want people to think I'm making light of the problem highlighted here - just a general sense of frustration at constantly seeing those issues come around and around and around). --Fredrick day (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If Betacommand would revert the false edits, there wouldn't be much of a problem, but he/she hasn't in this case and didn't either in the past.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a BetaCommandBot issue. Black Kite 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick look here [20] and here [21] will show why this was being done. I have tried to discuss this with John Carter here [22]. There is a definite problem here that needs to be addressed and a consensus reached as soon as possible. MarnetteD | Talk 20:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I very much question the almost judgemental failure to AGF of the originator of this thread. I believe that the two articles mentioned above included in the category Category:Interfaith topics or one of its subcategories. Specifically, Bismark was involved in Anti-Catholicism, and is actually categorized on that basis. Disraeli was a religious convert. The categories for converts and religious discrimination are basically the reason the group was initially created. It is unfortunate that the banner hadn't been adjusted earlier to include parameters for the group, but I take some time for me to learn things. The initial reason for the formation of the group was a rather heated discussion regarding Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity, and one since banned editor's efforts to even delete articles on the basis of mention of the matter, because the conversion didn't meet certain regular guidelines. Unfortunately, the group he converted to doesn't keep records of baptisms, so the definite proof being sought was absent. Unfortunately, as we all know, there are often heated discussions regarding conversions and persecutions, and it is often the case that articles dealing with these matters provoke high emotion. The purpose of this group, even more than the other religion groups, is to gather together individuals so that the content regarding these matters can be rationally discussed. Granted, it isn't necessarily the case that each and every article will ever rise to the level of heat regarding Dylan, but such unfortunate misrepresentations or overrepresentations are far from uncommon in such subjects, often even, perhaps unknowingly, making inaccurate judgemental statements regarding one or the other "sides". I also note that the originator of this thread first contacted me regarding the Doctor Who article, seemingly one of the few he is directly involved in, which was placed by someone else in the Category:Reincarnation, as was already explained to him, and that category falls as a subcat of Category:Interfaith topics. And, as stated, that was already explained to him. I am in the process of going through the articles to see which if any do not belong either within the scope of the group, or in the categories in which they were placed, again, as was already explained to the originator of this thread. If the categories and banners are irrelevant, then I will try to ensure that they are placed in more appropriate categories or have the faulty categories, and banner, removed outright. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I imagine any concerns about my good faith will have been dispelled by this reply. What exactly are the three of you in the group hoping to do with the thousands of articles you have now taken under your wing, which go way beyond the parameters you mention. How on earth are even going to be able to assess "if the categories and banners are irrelevant", and did you actually look at what was in Category:Interfaith topics and the other 100-odd categories at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Bot tagging request before ordering the spamming? You have tagged the whole of Category:Crusades, Category:Ancient Roman Christianity and dozens of other specialised categories you will be able to do nothing about. Plus it has been done in a very overbearing way. With a very few exception, the whole lot should be reverted. Btw, you are confusing me with someone else, if you look at your talk page, and just below. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can point out to me a specific policy or guideline which agrees with you, I will be more than willing to do so. However, the only policy or guideline which I know of which might be relevant is WP:OWN, which would say that the banner could be placed there. Can you point out a contrary one? John Carter (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, there seems to be a clear Wikipedia:Consensus here and elsewhere that, a) your edits were done inappropriately by forcing themselves above GA & FA banners as well as those of more involved projects and b) the scope of the categories marked for tagging goes well beyond what is reasonable for such an excercise. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As can easily be seen I did not start this thread and it looks as though everyone here has come here independently. The inclusion of the page Louis Auguste Blanqui in this bots work shows the pitfall of the mass inclusion of categories in the request to the bot noted above. I have suggested that this projects banners need to be done by a human and not a bot. Even then some pages inclusion in the project will need to have a consensus of editors to verify the inclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the idea, just that the categories could've been a little more carefully selected. Some of the more borderline ones probably needed to be done by hand. Black Kite 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are we blaming the bot as per usual? Betacommand was asked to do a seemingly reasonable request through the proper channels. Admittedly some of them should not have been tagged, but John Carter is reviewing the edits so what is the problem now? Woody (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Betacommand could have declined that request, couldn't he? I agree that the bot isn't the main issue here, tho. --Conti|✉ 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the cats and they looked ok, John carter is a trusted user, I am not that familiar with WP:RELIGION. But every thing looked ok, so I went ahead and tagged them. the same thing that I have done countless times before. β^_command 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(multi ec) The bot request that lead to this situation may be found at: Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Bot tagging request. The request includes several categories that are not appropriate for the tag, as they are not within the scope of religious studies. (For example, Category:Anti-Defamation League and Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms.) The inclusion of apostate and convert categories also seems seriously questionable. Religious affiliation does not indicate that that an article is within the scope of religious studies. I often defend BetacommandBot and its operator regarding fair-use tagging. However, Betacommand's assertion that it's essentially not his problem in this instance is very disturbing. He undertook the actions and he is responsible for the actions he takes. Responding to a request is not an excuse to disclaim responsibility. For example, if an admin makes a bad block for edit warring based on an incorrect 3RR report, the reporting user isn't blamed for the bad block, the block admin is blamed for the bad block. Regardless of John Carter's request, Betacommand is responsible for the edits he made and should be responsible for cleaning up any mess made by those edits. Vassyana (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to JohnBod regarding the mistake. Actually, I specifically made sure that the most borderline ones weren't included at all. I should also note that I am separately trying to combine the extant religion banners into no more than, hopefully, five or six separate banners, one for Christianity and all related projects, one for Judaism, one for religious texts, and as many others as possible in the main Religion banner. Unfortunately, it is often the case that articles are relevant to several religions. Martin Luther is currently tagged for 6 religion projects, Bible 9. However, even there, it would be useful knowing which subprojects want assessments on the articles, and placing the banners in advance, so that it becomes easier to know which terms to add, I think makes a bit of sense. And, as stated, I am going through these articles by hand to place the banner in the shell templates, if such is required, and assess them. It might take a week or so to go through them all. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

One, Two, Three, Four, Boone (by that I mean, don't sweat, it's an honest mistake that happened because of the instructions it was given - when I asked for UK road articles to me mass tagged, I had to be careful not to get Edinburgh Castle tagged, but some wayward tags happened anyway) Will ^(talk) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(usual BCB-thread ecs)Perhaps people could see this through the lens of WP:AGF - if someone, in good faith, asks BC to run his bot to add something to talk pages of articles in good faith, then BC has no reason in good faith to not do so. That there is a problem that others have with this is fine, but please point me to anyone here who was not acting in good faith. Central tenet of the 'pedia: AGF until proven otherwise; and remember the miles of rope we extend to the various POV-pushing, nasty-minded sockpuppeting trolls and compare that to the mere millimetres we give to BC and BCB. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. It was a good faith request made to the Bot request page, Betacommand acted in good faith here. If I knew the first thing about bots I would have done the same and I am sure that can be said about most people commenting here. Woody (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I perfectly believe both users acted in good faith. However, good faith does not preclude poor or contentious decisions. Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a poor decision. He probably compiled a list in AWB and gave it to BCB, and guessing the magnitude of WP:RELIGION, I don't think he checked too closely. Will ^(talk) 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As Vassyana, above. Everyone acted in good faith, yes, right up until the point where βcommand responded to requests to stop with an imperious, "Go talk to the guy who asked me to do it." The run should have been stopped immediately, and β should have investigated the accusations of improper tagging. The ability to make hundreds of thousands of edits to the Encyclopedia in a machine-assisted way is granted with the assumption that the controller of the bot will exercise due restraint with it, especially given the difficulties and overhead inherent in mass-reversion. β may have exercised due restraint here in accepting the request, but the poor decision, in this case, lies in continuing to perform the edits even after multiple people raised concerns about their applicability. As such, he has fallen short of the standard I'd expect for bot operators. Jouster  (whisper) 20:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot made a total of four edits after the issue was brought up. I re-directed questions to the person who is best to answer them, I am not part of WP:RELIGION and john is a better person to ask. β^_command 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, then. I still take issue with the tone of your dismissal of complaints about the bot's actions, but I humbly withdraw—again, with my apologies—my statements as they relate to your actions, not merely your words. Jouster  (whisper) 00:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, don't beat Beta up about it. He trusted John to think he'd checked the list thoroughly. WP:UKRD is a small project and it has 1429 articles. RELIGION, like BIOG and LGBT, is bound to be very big. People don't have time to check through a list of 20,000 articles in great detail. Just fix the mistakes, and let's all move on, shall we? Will ^(talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that no one seems to question what is probably the primary problem here, which is the unfortunately huge problem of miscategorization or failure to adjust categorization over time. One of the few ways we have available to indicate that articles might be miscategorized is this means. I have just noted the rather inclusive(?) nature of the extant Category:Antisemitism, which doesn't seem to allow for differences between communist antisemitism and Christian or other antisemitism, and have requested the creation of a new, more defined, subcategory by the Judaism WikiProject. Unfortunately, as stated before, and in this case by Kirll Lokshin regarding the various subcats of military history, one of the only ways to find out when articles are miscategorized or poorly categorized is to see what they logically link to. As it stands, Category:Jerusalem is still a distant subcat of Category:Religious texts, which strikes me as seemingly nonsensical. The lack of attention that categorization has received is probably one of the biggest problems we have, and, even if by making errors such as some of those here, this may be the only way to get people to address those existing errors, or failures to adjust categorization as new categorization is developed. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth should Category:Antisemitism have to "allow for differences between communist antisemitism and Christian or other antisemitism" just for your benefit! Categorization is more important, and usually given far more thought, than project banner tagging. You should look at the category trees before you ask them to be tagged. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as the primary problem. There had been a discussion about the role of WP:RELIGION shortly after it was first created, and there was a general sense that it was a useful forum for cooperative efforts and discussing particular issues but that focused expertise was needed in each individual religion to evaluate articles and the individual religion WikiProjects could supply that. Obviously any WikiProject, even one with a small number of members, is welcome to tag and evaluate articles. However, strongly suggest seeking consensus before asking a bot operator to place ones own project's tag at the top. --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the past year, after a rocky start where the WikiProject presented itself as a hierarchical umbrella project over all religion WikiProjects to general disagreement, the project regrouped and had been quietly making contributions to the encyclopedia and gaining in use, trust, and members. I've used it myself for a number of issues of potential interest to members of multiple religions. Efforts that tend to convey an impression to the rest of the community that one is in charge and bypass seeking the community's processes for approval do not lead to trust, and this latest incident is very much a setback for the WikiProject's efforts to be a useful and valued forum and collaboration platform. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Loathe though I am to keep flogging the horse, the majority of Beta's ill-deserved flak for this would have been avoided if he were to move tasks such as this to User:BetacommandBot II or similar. Surely it can't be that difficult... Happy‑melon 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, who could resist to blame something else on Betacommand. Global warming? Also Betacommand. *sigh* Whether the tagging would have been done by another bot account or not the accident would still have occured, and Betacommand would still have been blamed. Lay off of him, for crying out loud. — Coren ^(talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Global warming is CLEARLY the fault of the massive anti piracy campaigns of recent years. everyone knows that. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, Beta deserves none of it; he was just unfortunate enough to be the first bot operator to see the request with enough time to act on it. I'm just saying that it might be in his own interest to split the accounts, since he must be quite legitimately sick and tired of everything BetacommandBot does being automatically slated just because of its work on non-free images. Full marks to him for putting up with it - I just wonder why he doesn't make it easier for himself. Happy‑melon 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that the above statements by Shirahadasha are necessarily accurate about how the project first "presented" itself, I wasn't here at the time. However, I should note that the responsibility for the tagging was entirely my own. It should also be noted, again, that the tagging wasn't for the religion project per se, but rather the interfaith work group. And, regarding individual editors questions, there are and always will be questions regarding any group's even existence. Actually, I do not see at all how placement of a banner is and I quote an attempt to "bypass seeking the community's processes for approval". It is by definition impossible to know what the "community" specifically relevant to any article is. I have just since I started assessing the articles recently tagged, and I have been assessing them for all the projects which have already tagged them as well, found a few articles which really weren't relevant to the interfaith group, but were clearly relevant to other projects, including Hinduism and other religions, which hadn't yet tagged them. In fact, in several cases, no project had tagged these articles, religious or otherwise, even when they clearly dealt with religious subjects. Was I similarly bypassing processes for approval by tagging those articles for the appropriate projects? John Carter (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't tagging the articles, it was placing the tag on top (even on top of FA tags). But I also realize that you may not have had any input into where the tag was placed on a talk page, and this may have been a programming issue. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I recall, when Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion was formed, it was not going to tag articles already tagged by more specific "daughter" projects. Its scope was to be general religious topics and more specific religious issues that lacked a dedicated wikiproject. Did this change? Gimmetrow 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does the bot approval process come into play. I continue to take exception with the fact that BetacommandBot is permited to work outside of the standard approval process. Am I totally in left field? Is this not a new function for the bot? A user makes a request for a bot to make thousdands of edits without any clear indication that there is any concensus for the edits and a bot operator decides that it sounds like a good idea and goes ahead and does it while totally ignoring WP:BAG It would appear that the functional policy regarding BetacommandBot is that it is permitted to do anything its owner decides to do and that it is not accountable to anyone. To quote one of the requirements from Wikipedia:Bot policy performs only tasks for which there is consensus Where was the consensus for this request? But since Betacommand is always right, and since he has alrealy labeled me as a troll, feel free to disregard what I have written. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dbiel, wikiproject tagging is a very standard procedure, Ive been doing it for a long time, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot#WikiProject for my "recent" WP approval (April 2007), and my original approval [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot#BetacommandBot New task Bot operators dont need approval for each individual tagging run. Please check your facts before making wrong statements. β^_command 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

βis right that bot operators approved for wikiproject tagging do not need approval for each individual tagging run. Although, above, I question whether this particular tagging was appropriate, β may not have known the history. Gimmetrow 05:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And that approved policy is to place additional new banners at the top of the page above any existing banner? And silly me, I thought that new entries were to be placed as the bottom of the section they pertain to, or in the case of the more complex pages like Talk:Paul the Apostle would be nested in the appropriate subsection, but of course that would require extensive bot programming. So lets just do it fast and wrong and make someone else clean it up. But the fact is the bot was approved to DO the task, but how it was to be done was never discussed. Well so be it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sick of the talk page template spamming. Who is this really helping, besides the members of the ineffectual WikiProjects who want to feel important? If you can use extant categories to find articles that "fall within the scope of" your project, there's no need to spam up the talk pages with more trash. --Cyde Weys 04:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Block User:John Carter

Uh, calmly discuss problem in this section

Really, whether it was a poorly thought out decision or not - there is no reason to attack the editors and call them arrogant, pugnacious, or whatever else. I don't think there is a need for administrator intervention in this case, its essentially a content dispute about categorization (mostly focused on the position of the category on the talkpage...Hah!). Here's a thought: Assume that everyone involved has the same general goal of improving the encyclopedia, and work from there. Avruch ^T 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As it's a content dispute not needing admin intervention, why not have calm discussion take place on the project talk page? Lara❤Love 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Tea and Biscuits in the lobby. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Avruch ^T 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.