Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 29 December 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Aggressive comments and reverts from shifting IP user

In the last few weeks, some on my posts have been reverted with comments using unwarranted language ("stop vandalism" and implicit accusations of deceit) on the part of a couple of IP editors, all of them based at RIPE Network Coordination Centre, RIPE, P.O. Box 10096, Amsterdam. Two of these IPs are 84.139.199.8 and 84.139.198.95. There may be more; this is difficult for me to track. The coincidence seems to great to me; it is probably one editor hiding behind distinct but related IPs so as to make his edits more difficult to track (while he tracks mine; he seems to have some sort of German agenda, but the articles are unrelated).

When will a line be crossed? Can the user be convinced to adopt a consistent username? May I request that a search be done so that it can be ascertained whether this is somebody with a username who does not want his edits tracked even to his Misplaced Pages identity? Feketekave (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one: 84.139.235.50. Enjoy. Feketekave (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the behaviour. If you truly believe that the IP is the sockpuppet of an established user, you can visit WP:RFCU and follow the directions there. Else, provide warnings for uncivil behaviour and report to WP:AIV as necessary. Cheers. // roux   20:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

These IPs all have between one and three edits each, all related to the topic; diffs seem unnecessary. Here are two more IPs that are presumably the same: 84.139.243.190, 84.139.241.103. The first IP posted on the topic, the second one answered to me; neither intervention seemed wrong to me at the time (though the edits were arguably slanted), but they may be relevant.

The user seems knowledgeable of some Misplaced Pages-related language, though possibly not of Misplaced Pages's actual rules. It seems clear to me that he has spent some time here, but I cannot myself tell which established user he is likely to be. How should I proceed?

Also - if his IP keeps shifting, how can I leave him a warning? Feketekave (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some other IPs that are almost certainly the same: 84.139.245.108, 84.139.205.82, 84.139.199.195. The ones that I mentioned first were the ones I felt had made uncivil remarks (to say the least). These just make this individual's agenda clearer. Feketekave (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP will only shift when it is asked to. Try whichever IP you think they last edited from. — neuro 21:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Should I make a search request for a sockpuppet, then, or can I do that only when I have a (justifiable) suspicion of which established user he or she is? Feketekave (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. I just left a warning at User:84.139.199.8. Is this fine? How can I tell whether it has been received? Feketekave (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note: These IP addresses are not "based at RIPE". RIPE is the Regional Internet Registry that assigned the 84.136.0.0 - 84.191.255.255 IP address range to Deutsche Telekom. -- The Anome (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Throwing stones in the glashouse. Feketekave called it "racialist" to add a category "French people of German descent" ] for someone, who was born in Berlin as a German citizen and reverted even sourced content ] by calling it a "Nazi fake"]. His last addition to Ilya Ehrenburg was a "translation" from German WP, but instead of naming the head of the soviet Secret Police (Viktor Semyonovich Abakumov), he described him as "frontline soldier", which is an euphemism, to say the least.

P.S. I don't use shifting IP's in bad faith, it works like that, I don't know why. I don't contribute a lot to the English WP, that's why I use IP's. I can't see any "aggressive comments" yet, it wasn't my intention. 84.139.209.53 (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

About every single remark made by the anonymous user above is inexact. (On the issue of Ehrenburg, they are outright lies against me.) Mind you, his overall line is quite outside of the mainstream in the German wikipedia. Would he care to state the username he uses in de.wikipedia.org, if he is indeed a regular contributor there? Feketekave (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. From wikipedia.de: "Im letzten Kriegsjahr erhielt Ehrenburg kritische Briefe von Frontsoldaten, die ihm vorhielten, er habe sich gewandelt und trete nun plötzlich für Mildtätigkeit gegenüber den Deutschen ein." - This means "In the last year of the war, Ehrenburg received critical letters from front soldiers, stating, that he had changed and now suddently stood for softness towards Germans." Grothendieck, as the son of a Russian father (later killed at Auschwitz) is unlikely to have been granted German citizenship automatically at birth; German citizenship is based on descent, not place of birth (jus sanguinis). And so on, and so on. Feketekave (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also: as you can see from his diff above, both of the citations I removed were unsourced at the time, and had already been labelled as such. As for one of them: "Die Forschung ist sich seit langem einig, dass es sich um ein Gerücht der deutschen Propaganda handelt. Und Lew Kopelew hat als Zeitzeuge mittlerweile vielfach bestätigt, dass ein solches Flugblatt Ehrenburgs nie existiert hat und weder sprachlich noch inhaltlich in Ehrenburgs Produktion passe. „Es scheint nur bei den deutschen Truppen bekannt gewesen zu sein und war wohl ein Versuch der Goebbels-Kader, auf diese Art den Widerstandswillen der Wehrmacht zu stärken.“" - "Researchers have long agreed that this is a rumour by German propaganda. And Lev Kopoelev, as a contemporary witness, has stated numerous times that such a pamphlet of Ehrenburg's never existed and would not fit either in language or contact in Ehrenburg's work. "It seems to be known only by German troops and was most likely an attempt of the Goebbels cadres to strengthen the will to resistance on the part of the German army."".

In other words: we are dealing with an anonymous user whose Teutonic agenda would be well outside the mainstream in the German wikipedia, and who attempts to change the English-language[REDACTED] to suit his bias. Feketekave (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You should learn something more about German law of citizenship, your statement is simply wrong. Somebody who calls a long established category "racialist nonsense" shouldn't expect to be treated with kid-gloves. The Ehrenburg problem should be discussed at the proper talk page, you're mixing up the leaflet with truly existing and sourced articles in different newspapers and you reverted the whole part instead if clarifying. 84.139.211.23 (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You should get a username so that you can read other people's warnings. You are obviously thinking of current German law; jus sanguinis was modified very recently - during the Schroeder government. (We were discussing the life of somebody born well before WWII.) I am mixing nothing up, your use of (ill-defined) categories follows your agenda, and you are making blatantly false statements in the Ehrenburg talk page. There, you now claim that "nobody has claimed that Ehrenburg advocated raping German women"; in fact, the diff you have given above contains exactly such a claim. Feketekave (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the diff this IP user linked to above: ]. There, he complained precisely about my having removed an alleged quotation of Ehrenburg's supposedly about raping German women (and about my calling it a "Nazi fake", which is exactly what it seems to be; see above).

The point is not that he is wrong again, but that either (a) his memory of his own claims lasts only a few hours, or (b) he is making deliberately false statements about my and his edits in order to spread confusion.

The point is also not how I or anybody is not being treated with kid gloves by some abstract entity, but what this user's behaviour is towards others. Feketekave (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More to the point: what should be done? If this user does not react to further warnings, can anonymous edits from the range of IPs he uses be blocked? Feketekave (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Emotional Freedom Technique"

Administrative eyes would be welcome at "Emotional Freedom Technique". (See its history page first.) My own eyes are bleary as it's my bedtime. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Removed the OR section again, and left the editor a note. Black Kite 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See this related thread at EAR: Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#Edits rejected as "opinion". – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Paging SA. He'll solve this one. the new editor is clearly a biased proponent, and not any particular scientist, all her edits are to remove qualifiers which erode the positivity of the idea, and to spew caveats against negative results. SPA, topic ban her and be done.ThuranX (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm always helps, eh? In any case, this editor is proposing text which is, while written as personal opinion, a solidly mainstream personal opinion: the EFT is blatantly unscientific and credibly identified as pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC) My bad, read it upside-down, as noted below. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I might've read this wrongly, but isn't the editor trying to add a section claiming not that EFT is unscientific, but the opposite - that a piece of research critical of EFT is unscientific? Black Kite 17:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, maybe I am cross-eyed due to spending most of the day hanging upside down under my railway layout pinning up wiring. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You've read it correctly, Black Kite, which makes Guy a bit off in his little outburst at me. Like I said, the editor adds text discrediting scientific reports discrediting the EFT ideas. Apologies can be sent to me care of my talk page. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh, that wasn't an outburst. But your comment was sarcastic, and I don't think that helps when that editor is actively being discussed on WP:RFAR. But you're free to ignore me, I am a bit sensitive about users who are pushed to the edge and beyond by relentless civil POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: more eyes would be great. Please watchlist, all of you. I've been on the case at this article for awhile, and this is hardly the first proponent of Emotional Freedom Techniques to make an appearance. While you're at it, take a look at the associated article on Thought Field Therapy. MastCell  06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A challenge to this whole series of articles on 'alternative' psychological treatments and similer follderoll, is that most of the editors are spa's on one side of the topic or another (except for a few fringe studies folks such as MastCell) and they really don't understand how[REDACTED] works very well. Some will become full fringe nutters that are impossible to work with, most will not if we educate them about how[REDACTED] works. The talk page of EFT is instructive, a couple of long time users have patiently tried to work with a number of spa's over the last year with moderate success in getting them to either edit to our guidelines and policies or move on and waste time somewhere else (the long soapboxing at the top of the page, goes away by the end). It does not need to be confrontational (though that is sometimes where it ends up). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot-assisted incivility

Last month, STBotI (a bot belonging to ST47) posted a warning on my talk page regarding a non-free image that I'd uploaded without supplying a fair use rationale. The image in question was a Wikimedia project logo (which obviously didn't require a fair use rationale), so I rolled back the bot's edit and thought nothing more of it.

Earlier today (my time), an anonymous editor posted a message on my user page (and that of several other Wikipedians) informing me that my name had been listed on the page User:STBotI/BADUSER and that this was visible via search engines. Curious as to why I'd apparently been publicly labeled a "bad user," I read through STBotI's documentation to no avail.

So I headed over to ST47's talk page, where I found a couple of existing threads on the subject (including someone else's inquiry as to the page's nature). I joined the discussion, and then I noticed that DragonflySixtyseven had moved the page to User:STBotI/LEFT-NOTE-FOR-USER with the summary "as per OTRS". But because the bot's code still directed it to the old page title, the next data dump automatically restored all of the content to that location. DragonflySixtyseven rolled back the edit, and I perceived this as the beginning of a tug of war between human and script (until the latter could be updated with the new title). For this reason (and because the redirect's existence ensured that the page would remain indexed by search engines), I deleted the redirect and protected the page against re-creation. (I noted this on ST47's talk page, indicating that "if anyone feels that these actions were inappropriate for any reason, please feel free to undo them or request that they be undone.") At the time, I didn't realize that DragonflySixtyseven already had blocked the bot (so my steps made no difference).

A short time later, ST47 restored the single deleted data dump (labeling my deletion "vandalism") and merged it into the main history at the original name. He/she then updated the bot and moved the page to User:STBotI/WARNEDUSERS (edit summary: "Happy?"), leaving behind the redirect at User:STBotI/BADUSER (which he/she later explained must be temporarily retained for technical reasons).

In the discussion that followed, Gwen Gale complained about an addendum, referred to by ST47 as "a nice notice on top of the new page in case someone decides to take offense." This "nice notice" was worded as follows:

This page is updated regularly by the bot. It's purpose is really none of your business, but some people are exceedingly nosy and seem to have this innate desire to waste my time. One of them in particular even blocked the bot over this page. Divas.

This page contains a list of every user the bot has warned as part of it's live IMGBot2.pl task, along with the number of times they have been warned, since the last time the page was cleared. Probably a long time ago. When I first wrote the bot I used the terse name BADUSERS for this page, as it was the dump page for the BADUSERS sub, which reported users who had uploaded over 10 bad images to an IRC channel. Unfortunately, due to meddling by the aforementioned exceedingly nosy users, it was moved to this name, which sort of screws up anyone who is trying to actually review the bot's code, since it's got a nice logfile for NFCC10C issues called NFCC10C, a logfile for notag issues called notag, etc, and now the wikipage WARNEDUSERS for the BADUSERS sub. This page is absolutely not intended for human consumption, is in no way guaranteed to be accurate, and is really best ignored - it needs to be on wiki so it is shared between STBotI's various host servers.

ST47 partially reworded the message, but not in a manner that eliminated the incivility. When Gwen noted this and I expressed agreement, ST47 ignored our posts (while replying to someone else's unrelated post) and reverted to the earlier (more uncivil) text.

I don't know how to address this situation. Editing the message would be futile (because it would be reverted during the next data dump), and ST47 has withdrawn from the discussion and evidently restored the worse version out of spite. I honestly don't know why he/she has responded in this manner, and I find it quite disheartening. —David Levy 04:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that I've directed ST47, DragonflySixtyseven and Gwen Gale to this thread via their talk pages. —David Levy 04:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also this on the bot's user page:

Admins: Getting to block a bot is not a trophy you get. If you block this bot, you had better have a good reason.

Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know the editor hasn't been particularly responsive to queries about the page, but it seems like getting him to add {{noindex}} to the page would help? Then his bot could still keep its list and you and the other editors who've angered the bot won't have to worry about a page called 'Bad Users' (or whatever it ends up being called) turning up in web searches for their user names. -- Vary Talk 04:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would help. It was suggested to ST47, whose reply was rather unhelpful. —David Levy 04:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also a threat of violence on the bot's talk page (User_talk:STBotI) - "Oh, and if you say rational instead of rationale, I am going to hit you over the head with a large fish." Exxolon (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to interpret that as facetiousness. —David Levy 04:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Enigma 05:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but there seems to a problem with WP:CIVIL here too. "small-minded fool", "some people are exceedingly nosy and seem to have this innate desire to waste my time.", "Divas.", "aforementioned exceedingly nosy users," are hardly the sort of phrases an admin should be throwing around. I'm also somewhat unhappy with this statement - "Do not revert the bot's edits to your userpages or templates, because the bot will just do it again." - does this mean the bot will revert removal of a warning template from a user's talk? Exxolon (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So, out of curiosity, are ST47 and Betacommand the same people? It sure seems like it... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Enigma 05:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By that, ST47 means that the bot will drop the warning on the user talkpage again if the user just reverts the warning and doesn't fix the image. Which is of course correct. Black Kite 10:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't pretend to understand a thing about what the bot does or for that matter why, but it seems to me that the behavior displayed by the bot owner has been somewhere between stubbornly unhelpful and outrightly uncivil. WP:OWN applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages- even if (s)he owns the bot (s)he doesn't own the pages and this sort of snide remarkery shouldn't remain hosted on our servers. I say remove anything borderline from the bot pages, block the bot if necessary to prevent it overwriting until we can get this sorted out, and surely ST47 has something to say for him/herself? l'aquatique |✡| talk 07:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with L'Aquatique.  Sandstein  09:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, STBotI is an important bot that tags uploaded media with no copyright information for deletion, and also non-free images that have no valid fair-use rationale. It also informs the uploaders what is happening. Black Kite 10:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do important bots follow different policies than unimportant bots? rspεεr (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By "important", I was pointing out that blocking the bot would be a bad idea when the problem isn't directly related to the bot's main tasks, which it appears to be performing mostly correctly. Black Kite 10:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking bots is no big deal. They can catch up later and they don't have feelings to hurt, and the temporary absence of one bot will not harm Misplaced Pages. Blocking a bot is just something you do when it's making undesirable edits. The problem is that ST47 seems to be taking these blocks of his bot personally, and getting angry instead of addressing the problems people bring up. rspεεr (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my point being that the bot's actual main task is not being affected at the moment. I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup to be honest, but yes it would be useful for ST47 to address the issues raised. Black Kite 11:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On top of the incivility, ST47 should disabuse himself of the notion that he can intentionally edit-war using his bot by acting as if it's out of his hands. It is within ST47's power, and his responsibility, to change the bot's code if it is making undesirable edits. rspεεr (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The notice needs to include {{NOINDEX}} - OTRS tickets 2008122610019734 / 2008122710016502 / 2008122710016682 for reasons why. I suspect in the end that some people will never be happy with anything other than uncritical acceptance of any unfree image however tenuous the justification, but the tone of the message on the WARNEDUSERS page hardly helps. I would put money on the anon being the self-same user who created the three OTRS tickets listed above, all of which must be very important and serious complaints because they HAVE LOTS OF CAPITALS and inform us that the BADUSERS page is ILLEGAL. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You see, there were at least two or three points in there that I was actually interested in replying to. Unfortunately, it's just a jumble of text now. Good job.

1. The page was moved. The new page has a brief explanation as to what its purpose is. Far more explanation than a simple logfile should need, but heh. It was called baduser because it was the dump file for a subroutine meant to locate potential bad users. Aptly named "sub checkbaduser". Here is the current text:

   $badusertext="This page is updated regularly by the bot. There used to be an explanation here of why it was moved, but some overly sensitive users have requested that it be taken down.\n\nThis page contains a list of every user the bot has warned as part of it's live IMGBot2.pl task, along with the number of times they have been warned, since the last time the page was cleared. Probably a long time ago. When I first wrote the bot I used the terse name BADUSERS for this page, as it was the dump page for the BADUSERS sub, which reported users who had uploaded over 10 bad images to an IRC channel. Unfortunately, due to meddling by several users, it was moved to this name, which sort of screws up anyone who is trying to actually review the bot's code, since it's got a nice logfile for NFCC10C issues called NFCC10C, a logfile for notag issues called notag, etc, and now the wikipage WARNEDUSERS for the BADUSERS sub. This page is absolutely not intended for human consumption, is in no way guaranteed to be accurate, and is really best ignored - it needs to be on wiki so it is shared between STBotI's various host servers.\n\n";

2. I didn't 'revert' my change when I went from the older message to the newer one, I just hadn't let that change propagate. Now it has, and the bot has been restarted, and the notice will stay.
3. Guy: You must be behind on sleep if you think you can justify deleting this page on legal grounds, especially in its new state. I see no reason to add templates or notices or documentation or pretty colored boxes or flying ponies to what should be a simple log file.
4. If you try to move one of these pages and the bot ignores you, DO NOT block the bot. Let me know, and if you're clever enough to justify moving it, then I will shut down the bot, edit its config, force propagate the changes, and restart the bot.
5. The redirect needs to stay for now. Do not delete the redirect. The IRC portion of the bot running on some faraway server will not function without the redirect. Once everything has been updated, I will delete the redirect. If I have not done so in a week, you may remind me then. It shouldn't take any longer than that.
6. Vary: The page called Bad Users is no longer in use. It is now called Warned Users. This has the benefit of being factually correct, and therefore noindex is really unnecessary.
7. Ed Fitzgerald: What, is asking admins to think before they block such a horrible crime? What is so wrong with sanity?
8. Exxolon: Right. It's a threat because I'm actually going to find every user who misspells rationale and go to their house, break in, bring a tuna, and attack them. It's far more plausible that I didn't actually mean that.
9. Exxolon again: "Do not revert the bot's edits to your userpages or templates, because the bot will just do it again" means that if you revert the bot's removal of fair use images from your userpage, from a template, from a portal, from anywhere else, then the bot will just remove the image again on it's second pass.
10. Rspeer: At the time that I made the note saying that the bot would ignore any change to it's log file, noone had actually made a coherent case as to why. As a matter of fact, the same is true if we substitute 'now' and 'why there's still a problem now that it's at /WARNEDUSERS'. ST47 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut that message short because I was looking for an iridium flare, unfortunately it's a bit too cloudy. I first became aware that someone was complaining when that user vandalized my talk page, the bot's userpage, and the bot's logfile, all in CAPS, while logged out. Obviously a user with an account who had to log out to vandalize. He was blocked for 24 hours, the damage was reverted. When I got there, I believe I reverted one more edit to the logfile from a while ago and then I semied it. I also left a message on the IP's talk page, which I really think was rather nice of myself after he came and acted like such an ass. Anyway, I think I then received an email, let me check. No, maybe not. I heard from someone that there was a rather incoherent OTRS request up from a user who was, their words, not mine, 'mentally unstable'. Around this time the first message on my talk page was left. The user didn't justify their request, didn't ask me to add the template, didn't give any reasons, just pretty much asked what would happen if he added it to the page. The answer to that is "The bot would ignore it, and on the next update it would be removed". Then lots of stuff happened. He msged me at 5PM yesterday, my time, and told me the page would be a problem. I was at a calculus study group, away from my computer, and could not respond. Despite the fact that the page had been up for over a year, Dragonfly6-7 couldn't wait 15 minutes and moved the page at 5:10. Sometime in this period the bot probably reuploaded the log, because it's nowhere near clever enough to see what DF67 did. Less than a half hour later, he blocked the bot. He could have protected the page: the bot is not an admin, and could not have edited through protection, and would have been able to continue to run. People have this innate desire to rack up trophies or something like that by blocking the bot rather than taking the more effective, more sane, less exciting approach. When I got back, I probably shouted at people a bit, had the bot unblocked, then I histmerged the page and moved it to /WARNEDUSERS. This is a perfectly fine title. It is truthful. It is a list of users who the bot warned. The message at the top is more truthful than incivil, for sure. 'Meddling' is entirely accurate: rather than wait for me to reconfigure the bot, people had to try to do it themselves, wound up failing, then blocked the bot. ST47 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally, Guy. The second half of your comment appears to be sarcasm, but you also seem to be using it to support the use of that template. Are you being sarcastic about that as well, or are you actually suggesting that since the user has used enough capital letters, we should add some random template? Also, if you do have some request to make of me, then you really need to support it with the actual tickets that explain your supposed "reasons why", rather than some arbitrary timestamps. Being that I don't have OTRS access, I can't evaluate an argument that is hidden behind a timestamp. ST47 (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"...This has the benefit of being factually correct, and therefore noindex is really unnecessary" - would it hurt to add noindex, though? There's no need for the log of a bot to be publically searchable - as you yourself state, "This page is absolutely not intended for human consumption..." _TalkIslander 12:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No need for it not to be. ST47 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, but in a way you're contradicting yourself there. You can't state one minute that the page isn't for the general populus, but then the next refuse a request to hide it from search engines. Apart from all else, it's a tad stubborn. Adding it would not be at all detrimental to you or your bot, yet you refuse. Why? _TalkIslander 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

@ST47: I'm afraid your comments to me above don't actually address what I said. I did not say the page should be deleted, I said we should add {{NOINDEX}}, I think we should do that with any page where bots make records of usernames - in this case the username is the user's real name, so the fact that one of the first page of Google hits is a page about BADUSERS is a bit of an issue for him, for all of his (IMO) rather hysterical over-reaction to it. I am sure he'd have got the result he was after much more quickly and with less drama if he had left the caps lock off and just asked nicely, since I don't believe that anyone is setting out to e actively evil. But the tone of the message on the WARNEDUSERS page is pretty inflammatory, and I don't think it would hurt to tone it down a bit - do you? Guy (Help!) 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's no longer called BADUSER, it's called WARNEDUSERS, therefore the title is factual (list of users who have been warned) therefore it's no reason to exempt it from the whole searchable openness of knowledge thing. The message has been changed once again. Still waiting on a good reason for noindexing. ST47 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to set things straight here, I appreciate the change to use the editable header text (I assume it uses it direct, but whether it does or whther you copy-paste it periodically probably isn't relevant at this point). You've been given what several users think is a good reason to use NOINDEX, which I see you currently do. Do we still need to have any further debate about that or not? Guy (Help!) 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

We seem to have consensus here that User:STBotI/WARNEDUSERS should not include the objectionable commentary directed at other users, and should include {{NOINDEX}}. I have made these changes and, according to ST47's suggestion above, protected the page to stop the bot from overwriting it. I ask all administrators to only lift that protection once the bot has been reconfigured so as not to undo these changes. Thank you.  Sandstein  13:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I also suggested that you first come up with a good reason why. I've made the changes to the bot to use noindex, and if you have a good reason to, I'll keep it that way. ST47 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the commentary should be neutral, and perhaps transcluded from a protected page that can be tweaked without having to get specific users to make code changes. By neutral I mean something like: "this is a list of all users warned by the bot, being listed here does not imply that there is an issue with the user, this is purely for maintenance purposes." Or something. Some of those usernames are real names. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why, apart from the fact that you do not own that page and appear to be the only user here not to want it noindexed, are our policies regarding civility, personal attacks and, as Guy points out, the biography of living persons. I strongly recommend that you follow Guy's advice with respect to transcluding the commentary.  Sandstein  13:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy: It's just a header for a logfile. It seems neutral to me. Once I finish this post, I'll even get rid of everything except the explanation. And since there will be a nice, neutral, explanation, I don't think we'll need noindex, do you agree? ST47 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree. You still haven't explicitly stated why you refuse to add 'noindex' - it seems to me that you're the only one here against including it, so unfortunatly consensus is against you. I'll just add that I think the transclusion idea is a good one - as you're well aware, you don't own the page, so you shouldn't be the only one able to edit its contents (which, by having the bot overwrite it, you effectively are). _TalkIslander 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All I really want is a reason why we have to take the step of noindexing the page. Now that there's an explanation as to why the page exists and why it should not be used by anyone or anything like that, and that the title isn't inflammatory, anyone who finds it would see "oh look, a bot's log page, nothing interesting here" and move along. No reason to hide it from google. ST47 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, put it this way. If I were warned by your bot, I would be added to that list (quite legitimately). Now, it could be that I was warned for uploading a fair-use image for which I forgot to write a rational - as soon as I got your bot's warning, I'd write one (not the best example, as I never upload fair-use images without rationales, but humour me :P). I wouldn't then want a result for a google of 'Islander' to bring up a page entitled 'WarnedUsers'. Yes, it's not really inflammatory, and yes, it's miles better than 'Badusers', but still, it's a blot in my copybook. You won't find anyone that wants to be labeled a 'bad user', but equally I think you'll find very few that are quite happy being labeled a 'warned user'. Being a 'warned user' implies that you've been a bad user, and warrented a warning. In short, though the new title is much better than 'badusers', it's still not great, however factually accurate it is. _TalkIslander 14:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ST47/WUHead. Feel free to add a comment to the header explaining that. You can also use User:ST47/WUTitle. If you do, then please also move the existing page to the new address so as to preserve history. ST47 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - much appreciated :). _TalkIslander 14:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sand: If we ignore the commentary, and assume that I make it nice and neutral. A list of users who have been warned is in no way uncivil, it's not a personal attack to say "STBotI warned you", and I don't even see where BLP comes into play. If we treat this as a mainspace article and apply that policy, then we really just need it be unbiased and sourced. If it would make you happy, I can add a link to each users' talk page history as a source? ST47 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated with a neutral explanation. ST47 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking care of the worries editors had about how things were worded. I don't think anyone was being nosy or untowards, although from your outlook, in the thick of things trying to run the bot, I understand how the page name seemed utterly straightforward and harmless to you, a scripting artifact and nothing more. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I really would like to keep it not noindexed, and I've put the header and title into a template at User:ST47/WUHead and User:ST47/WUTitle. If you have any suggestions, feel free to update them. ST47 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about calling the dump something like TEMPLATEDUSERS or NOTIFIEDUSERS instead? I see nothing wrong with keeping the page open to SE bots if the pagename along with any header text are wholly neutral. On the Internet, it's so easy for folks to take things wrong at a quick glance. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Either one of those is fine with me. Perhaps we can not make it ALLCAPS? User:STBotI/Notified users? ST47 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for some reason I thought ALLCAPS was how you wanted it, to denote botness or whatever. I always like smallcase better. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important that a bot's logfile be indexed by search engines? DoubleBlue (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the page as it now is, but I think the NOINDEX should stay, as the page is of no use to the general public and would needlessly clutter up search engine results.  Sandstein  14:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's not indexed I see no meaningful worries with the name and header as they are. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for including NOINDEX is simple: some of those are real names, and some others look like blameless users who made trivial errors in NFC rationales. There is no reason why it would ever need to be indexed, so adding NOINDEX makes good sense - it removes an identified problem without apparently creating any further problems of its own. Anyway, all sorted now, thanks. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. No matter what the page's title is, an incorrect inference can be drawn by someone who sees such a list (containing names added due to issues ranging from blatant image vandalism to "a bug in the bot's code," the latter of which resulted in my name's inclusion). The new explanatory message certainly helps to counter such misinterpretations, but I see no reason why a page of this nature should be publicly indexed.

Thanks for calming down and addressing the problem, ST47. —David Levy 16:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that all the operators of these copyright tagging bots always seem so grumpy? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case nobody gave him any time at the start to actually do changes. Something about an anon shouting at him, telling him to put noindex without explaining why. Then other users (including myself from my blackberry) try to put noindex on the page, and one even tried to move it. Of course it is a bot, so none of that worked as the bot was just putting the same text in the same spot every time.... overwriting whatever was there originally. I do think the whole thing could have gone better then this... but *shrug* —— nixeagle 14:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Offensive language and personal attacks by User:AP1929

User:AP1929 is a pro-Ustaše user that has been roaming on Ustaše-related articles ("AP 1929" is an abbreviation of "Ante Pavelić 1929", "1929" being the year the fascist "Ustaše" Croatian ultra-nationalist movement was founded). His IP is 99.250.48.35, which can easily be confirmed. While his constant fascist comments can be tolerated, his description of an established User like Thewanderer as a "communist piece of shit" should not go unrewarded in my opinion. --DIREKTOR 08:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User was topicbanned for six months from these articles by FutPerf. Perhaps it's time to do it again? // roux   08:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it... --DIREKTOR 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

His contribs show him to be essentially a SPA- blocking him would have the same effect as topic banning him, but with the added bonus that it's actually enforceable without a whole bunch of dramaz. l'aquatique |✡| talk 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, topicbanning would hardly be an appropriate response to calling a User a "piece of shit" on his own talkpage. Such action is not really related to any particular topic. --DIREKTOR 22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't made an edit since this thread was posted. If he comes back and is anything but a sweet flower in the spring rain, I'll give him a little vacation, how does that sound? l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that means anything, he edits from time to time only. I doubt he thinks he's been noticed at all, in fact, I think he's under the impression he may do whatever he likes on non-article pages of Misplaced Pages (he's led me to believe that in any case). I'm not pretending to be 100% objective, but in my view he's been asking for a holiday for quite a while now when we add his persistent section-blanking to the equation. --DIREKTOR 12:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible range block (3)?

• First ANI report - 2 week block.
• Second ANI report - 1 month block.

The "truth" is once again being preached from the 168.187.176.xxx range. --Onorem♠Dil 13:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition to spouting nonsense the guy from this IP range is typing in all caps, which makes the nonsense even larger. However, he apparently lives in Kuwait. Isn't that punishment enough? Baseball Bugs 13:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice xenophobia there. Act upon content not location, unless a desire to throw out such comments fills an empty void in your life. Minkythecat (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was beginning to think I had to evade my indefblock at ANI once more just to ask why nobody is calling Baseball Bugs on this utterly stupid and xenophobic comment. Thank you for doing so. Everybody else who read this please be appropriately ashamed that you did not challenge BB's BS for over five hours. 78.34.133.168 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

3 months this time. Doesn't seem to be much (if anything) productive from that range, so rangeblock is better than semi-ing a number of articles, I think. Black Kite 13:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

An anon editor has just nuked the page of WP:Assume good faith can someone revert it as I cant seem to find the revert button on my screen as it is covered over with hacked by china or something along those lines. Corruptcopper (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Allowing position:fixed is a bad idea. Algebraist 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Hacked by "China" seems to be in Canada. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pediapress

I stumbled upon User:Pediapress when a template I was working with was linked to a subpage User:Pediapress/TemplateBlacklist and thought it a rather strange situation. The user is advertising pediapress.com so I thought is was a promotional user and reported it to UAA, and was instructed to report it here. After looking at it closer, the WMF does appear to have a collaboration with this website, but the userpage and its monobok instructions, and the afformentioned subpage, still seem unusual. Maybe some additional eyes can take a look and see if this user, userpage and subpage are all on the up and up, or if any action should be taken. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pediapress/collection.js was deleted as G11, maybe we should notify the foundation though, as they should probably be the ones to inform the company that they are not exempt from policy just because they have an affiliation. — neuro 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, et. al. at WT:DYK

Could some uninvolved admins please step in at WT:DYK? The constant sniping and hostile atmosphere between Ottava and other editors at DYK has driven contributors away and is a detriment to Misplaced Pages. Is Ottava still under mentorship? If so, could the mentors please advise him/her on disengaging? BuddingJournalist 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Diffs, please? Protonk (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Until any are given, here is a stack to look through. No opinion on subject matter. — neuro 18:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to keep up with the DYK issue, but my understanding is that Ottava Rima ended the mentorship a few weeks ago: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats about right, except for the mentorship actually ending here, 5 days before. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Two hours and not one notification that I am put at ANI? And this is some how supposed to quell my claims that people at DYK are not following community standards anymore? >.<!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  I apologize for not informing you. I was merely trying to flag down administrators to calm the waters at WT:DYK, not start a discussion here. BuddingJournalist 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  Here is a good diff to look at. I tell Politizer to get involved with other aspects of the community: Village Pump, GA/FA, MoS, etc, in order to get a greater sense of people's opinions and issues, because DYK has been making some proposals that seem to run counter to how people outside of the rarely viewed WP:DYK talk page feel about various issues. What is the response? "You can go fuck yourself, Ottava Rima". I have a lot of DYKs. I have half of the DYK 5+ hook awards. I know about making complicated DYK, and I defended DYK for a long time at ANI. Now I am being dragged through the mud because I defended Blockquotes as counting as prose, as even MoS and WP:SIZE states it is. Then I am criticized because I stated that translations and simply taking what another wiki says and copying and pasted it into[REDACTED] is not new. What is this world coming to? I stated before that Village Pump or RfC should be used to get wider consensus on an issue and certain members called for me to be banned from DYK because of it. Is this really fair? Is this right? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, looking at this from afar, all of the parties need to disengage here. I've avoided DYK while this furore is going on... Sceptre 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. –Juliancolton 02:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. This is needless drama- everyone needs to put on the big girl panties and walk away. l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Hungupbg - Hasn't improved since last block

The above user is continuing to cause disruption by adding unreliably sourced information to articles. Despite multiple warnings he/she will not listen or communicate. The editor was blocked previously, but this had no effect. Please help. — Realist 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• No improvement and no communication = blocked indef. If they want to communicate via unblock and explain how they are going to improve their editing, then they can. Black Kite 18:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. — Realist 18:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • And now Netherlands2304 (talk · contribs) has picked up Hungupbg's mantle. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert over protection.

Why are admins editing over protection. What I see here is a protection, then a reversion. Should pages be protected in the condition they are found? page history. The protection policy does not call for full protection at user request, but only semi after vandalism. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You can't protect and revert in the same edit. Please note it is the same editor who protected that reverted. --Smashville 19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And it was at user request. NonvocalScream, may I respectfully suggest that you drop this matter? It's over, done with. // roux   19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It was still very much against what we do. We don't protect a user's preferred version of disputed content. As for your suggestion -

A single title was removed from your watchlist:

   * User:Bstone (Talk)

I'm not watching that page anymore. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well umm... the ANI you started had a consensus to leave it alone. The MFD you started and withdrew had a clear consensus to leave it alone. So it's not about protecting the user's preferred version, it's protecting the consensus version. Cheers. // roux   20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your right. I guess I am having a hard time with a message on a userpage that brings a user and the project into disrepute. As if the userpage belongs personally to the user. I guess I had better get over it before I start exhausting the communities patience. I, personally don't have alot of patience for troll like behaviour, but as above, the page no longer appears on my watchlist, and is also protected against my editing. I've already asked for opinions here, and subjected it to MFD. There is not anything else I can do. It saddens me a bit that the page can continue to exist in its form. It is a bad faith page, and one that would sully the project and an editor. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be, mate. This falls into the same category as uncertified RfCs. People can vent, but we are not compelled to host the venting especially if they choose to leave. Bstone's complaint was discussed and consensus was that he had outed himself; I knew his RWI already due to past comments and commentary, he was not exactly working hard to retain anonymity so it's hard to condemn Avi for what looks very much like a simple slip. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with Jehochman

Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been actively advocating for a community ban/block/etc. of me for more than a month. I'm fine with this, but when he takes unilateral actions to stop my attempt to deal with problematic situations:

what am I supposed to do? This was an inappropriate close of the COI report. Similar to User:Pcarbonn whose report was closed by the same user leading indirectly to us having to escalate the condition all the way to arbitration, Jehochman is cutting off process and not letting people comment. His claim that people's "vocations" don't make for conflict-of-interests is false on the face of it. I am accusing this particular user of editing articles which have a direct financial connection to a business that he runs.

Imagine if we had a person who was selling snake oil editing the article. By Jehochman's arugment, we could say that he wouldn't have a conflict-of-interest editing that article because it was his "vocation". We could make the similar argument for nearly anybody.

As such, I submit that this early admin-close was inappropriate for two reasons:

1. It was done by an admin with a stated vendetta against my involvement at Misplaced Pages.
2. It was done inappropriately. The claim that you get out-of-conflict-of-interest-free simply because it is your "vocation" is false on the face of it pursuant to various rulings including Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience which dealt with Eric Lerner's vocational conflict of interest and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion which dealt with Pcarbonn's vocational conflict of interest.

I would ask that an administrator remove the "close" remarks and simply allow discussion to occur. I think the premature closing of this discussion was rude and opposed to our desire to get consensus. Jehochman is not the be-all and end-all of conflict-of-interest discussions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably be best to leave out the vendetta bit and other accusations so the question of how best to handle the COI report can be focused on without all the other drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• SA, the complaint was closed because the editor in question is quite open about his bias and therefore it does not need to be brought to the COI noticeboard. Whether there should be a user RfC or a motion to ArbCom under the terms of the homeopathy arbitration is another matter. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Jim Butler never ever stops his advocacy, and while the direct benefits may be low, they might not be; we can't guess how often he sends people unsure about Acupuncture to the Misplaced Pages article as a 'good introduction to the subject', knowing that his highly biased edits populate the article. I've seen discussions of his NPOV-violating edits to scientific articles before, but note that once again, this has become about SA, not the people who constantly sell bullshit as 'essences of roses' on Misplaced Pages. If WP:COI isn't appropriate, then we need a WP:ADVOCACY reporting system to deal with this sort of behavior. Until then, COI makes more sense than any other location. ThuranX (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, we actually have had people selling snake oil editing the article on snake oil - it's a fringey mess ATM. As for COI, not sure here. I occasionally contribute to general articles involving chemistry (my academic background). I would think twice before editing articles involving my specific area of research - not sure if I could be unbiased when I've reviewed papers by the "other guy" I think are horseshit. That's a grey area. I would never edit any article involving my employer, as that would be a clear COI. So I think this is closer to the grey area than a direct violation of COI, and is probably best described as advocacy.

The closest comparison to Mr. Butler's behavior is probably, I hate to say, Dana Ullman]. I would suggest that Mr. Butler step back from active editing of acupuncture articles and restrict himself to talk pages in light of this. Arbcom has not looked kindly on dedicated advocacy.

As for Jehochman, I urge him not to bring any administrative action against SA at least until the conclusion of the impending arbitration. There's some pretty harsh rhetoric from both sides in the RfAr that makes me question if Jehochman can be impartial here. In any case, it's like dumping gasoline on the fire. Skinwalker (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree re Jehochman. He, like all admins familiar with SA's misconduct, need to bear down harder on SA, not cut him slack because of false equivalencies. That's the right thing to do with chronic problem editors. SA is the bad actor here, not the admins he complains about. There's plenty of evidence to back that up; start with SA's block log, not to mention this. --Jim Butler (t) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys complaining about my edits actually read them? I write for all sides of the argument (e.g. adding a whole "criticisms" section, or updating evidence showing less effect for osteoarthritis, or adding a source re cultural bias in studies). If I put in a "pro" position I source and weight it carefully, engage on talk pages, compromise, etc. IOW, I wear my WP editor hat first. I've been accused of this stuff before, and the evidence never backs it up; e.g. this ANI thread on another disruptive editor, Mccready (whom ScienceApologist closely resembles in his disruption). Thuranx and Skinwalker, this is the first time I've heard of you; if you have issues with my editing, why haven't you discussed it with my via usual channels (talk pages)?

You've got to show better evidence of COI or POV-pushing than merely asserting it exists because I happen to be an acupuncturist. Absent such evidence, all you're doing is violating WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." BTW, I also have a very mainstream M.A. in chemistry from Harvard; be assured that I experience no inner conflict at all from also being an acupuncturist. I just try to be as objective as I can, and skeptical type editors who actually collaborate with me, as a rule, tend to say favorable things about my editing (see my talk page, e.g. here and here). I welcome scrutiny of my edits, but let's see some diffs: otherwise, this all sounds like meritless piling-on to me: pure WP:GAME by ScienceApologist, who has made his mission clear: "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Misplaced Pages rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned.". What more proof of bad faith do you need? He's engaging this jihad with me and with Jehochman as well. --Jim Butler (t) 00:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course, if I edited pseudonymously, this would never come up; but since I edit in good faith with my real identity, and am open about my background, I get slimed. No good deed goes unpunished. What a dysfunctional system. --Jim Butler (t) 01:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know about your Harvard MA. You've prattled on about it in multiple posts. Skinwalker (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind casual observers that I have one foot squarely planted in the mainstream. Look, talk is cheap. I've never interacted with you before, yet you claim to be familiar with my edits. Why do you think that the majority of skeptic type editors who do interact with me think my edits are fine? Answer that. And if you're going to criticize my editing, provide the evidence. Let's see it. Go over to the articles I edit, find my edits and line them up with discussion at the time, and come on over to my talk page and show me how biased I am. --Jim Butler (t) 02:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Q.E.D.. Skinwalker (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought you'd have to offer. --Jim Butler (t) 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Butler has now come to my talk page challenging me to prove my point or drop the matter. This sort of childish behavior does nothing good for my opinion of him, and he further lowered my opinion by playing strawman games and changing the goalposts when I replied. This is the sort of 'civil POV pushing' and system gaming endemic to the pseudoscience editors that SA and others work against. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the exchange, which editors can judge for themselves. ThuranX, when challenged, declined to produce a single diff to back up his accusation. And then, ironically, repeated his proven-baseless accusation. Conduct unbecoming any editor, let alone those purportedly concerned with upholding stuff like science and evidence. News flash: I'm not the bad guy here. I don't think ThuranX is either, just a little overenthusiastic. The problem is SA's outrageous gaming and attacks. --Jim Butler (t) 03:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)No, I called you a crybaby. The fact that I've noticed your behavior over the past months is enough. 'Prove it' challenges, especially when addressing a pattern of behavior are pointless. Had I replied with two or three examples, he's had dissembled, saying that it was out of context, misinterpreted, or an odd mistake, but not admitted. Had I gone for four to six examples, he'd repeat the context challenge, complained about me not paying attention to the behavior of others in those examples, and had I gone for more, he'd have alleged I was secretly stalking him. This entire arc of behavior, as I predicted, was predicated on eliminating opposition, not about actually addressing the matters at hand. We've seen this sort of bullshit game before, and I for one am sick of being expected to jump through the hoops established by the standard handbook of POV Push tactics. The elimination of editors who participate in this shit would make Misplaced Pages far stronger than their persistent behaviors. Further, Butlerss above attacks and insults of me and my conduct in NOT going to his page to engage in a pattern of intimidation tactics, and instead, keeping it here where it's appropriate, need a warning, if not a block. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. actually you don't know that. You're the one making assertions about his behaviour, therefore it is incumbent upon you to provide diffs which prove that behaviour. Trust the rest of us to be smart enough to see if he's shifting the goalposts. Can you provide diffs of the behaviour or not? If you can, then please do. If it's true that he has been behaving in this way, then sanctions are appropriate. // roux   04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion. I've seen enough pseudo-science editors play this game to see it when it's being played, sorry you can't. I'm not going to indulge him, or you, on this little distraction. essentially the game ends with a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' double bind, where either the proof provided is all "wrong", or the proof you provided proves you're out to get the editor in question. It's not worth engaging in, and opting not to play so outrages the pseudoscience types that they react with this' if you're not going to play, you never had anything to show' reaction. It boils down to an infantile defensiveness, in which any attempt to oppose them is met with these games, and as I said before, I'm not playing. ThuranX (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No.. I believe it's generally accepted around here that making accusations without a shred of evidence to back them up tends to indicate a lack of evidence for the accusations. Either way, I don't have a dog in the pseudoscience fight; I'm just seeing you hurl a lot of invective at someone with not a single thing to back it up, as well as a whole bunch of predictions that you also can't back up. Either he did what you're saying or he didn't. If he did, show us where. // roux   07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the COI report closed for a correct reason?

I opened a discussion at WT:COIN: COI report when not promoting oneself? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for recusal

I would like to request, in the future, that User:Jehochman recuse himself from closing threads that I initiate as there is a fairly obvious history of bad blood between that user and myself. The person feelings that will get wrapped up whenever he takes direct administrative actions with regard to me are unavoidable at this point.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's rich. You've already stated your intention to attack editors with whom you're in conflict. So, your pattern is:

• disrupt the hell out of WP
• get sanctioned by an admin
• complain that the sanctioning admin is "in conflict" with you, and demand recusal.

That's cute, if a tad transparent and WP:SOUP-y, but it won't fly. What you should be doing, if you really feel that you're the lone defender of certain science articles, is (a) stop being so grandiose, (b) disengage. What you should not do is state the intention to rampage, and then do so. In good faith, I would recommend that you disengage; however, I must admit that part of me despairs of your ever behaving well on WP, and doesn't mind letting you keep rampaging, because then the community will be forced to act. Sorry, but you've crossed the line long ago into the realm where it's appropriate to call a spade a spade. You have become a seriously disruptive influence on WP, and need to choose between disengaging or forcing others to impose that on you. --Jim Butler (t) 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As some fellow editors may have noticed at RFAR, I've become ScienceApologist's mentor. He made this request at my suggestion. He and Jehochman do have a history, and it's reasonable to at least request recusal. If anyone has an objection that pertains to ScienceApologist's interactions with Jehochman, here would be the place to raise it. Please keep the discussion topical: one's general opinion of any editor (positive or negative) is unrelated to the merits of a recusal request. Durova 05:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova, for highlighting the pertinent issue, and sorry for going off track. I'm interested to know about Jehochman's and SA's past interactions; it will help me understand the RFAR better, as well as the recusal request. Could you explain this background a little? Thanks, and I sincerely wish you and SA the best outcomes with the mentoring relationship. I'm glad he undertook it, and afterward I was frankly surprised to see his gratuitous COI attacks on me. I don't think they're a very good start for a guy ostensibly seeking wiki-rehab. (That's assuming they were meritless. Now, maybe my edits are overly biased, but it would be nice if someone who knows me and has worked with me could explain specifically how.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is going nowhere fast. I suggest that the parties request mediation, or initiate an RfC, or similar. I do not think Jim Butler is evil, but a cursory glance at his contributions does give some weight to the idea that he is writing for advocacy rather than in a truly dispassionate way. This cannot really be resolved by an admin noticeboard discussion, and I don't think that the COI noticeboard is the right place either as I think the dispute is more nuanced than that. So, a dispute exists, impacts neutrality of content so needs to be resolved, involves some people who have personal issues witheach other so probably needs third-party involvement, and is not a simple matter of self-promotion. Let's pick a venue which supports lengthy discussion of details of content and move forward from there, shall we? Guy (Help!) 14:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Move, renames, lost history

I don't know where to post this, but the moves and redirects for the Nazi philosophers article are getting out of control. I don't think there's any ill intent, but this contribution history contains many of the titles and moves. The history is in one place List of Nazi philosophers and the article, with new history, is now in another Nazi Philosophers (at least last I checked) which should probably be Nazi philosophers. Thanks to anyone who wants to help sort this mess out or point me in the right direction. There's also an issue of what the article should be titled and what it should include if anyone wants to weigh in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An old conflict of personalities has been renewed

For several years a small number of editors have been editing a set of rather obscure articles revolving around the history of sects in the Baha'i Faith. Because first hand knowledge of the subject is rather limited it seems there are only a few of us who even bother to edit the content of these small groups articles. I happen to be a member of one of the small groups in question, and User:MARussellPESE belongs to the larger group of the Baha'i Faith. Over the year many edit wars have transpired between me and User:MARussellPESE, and unfortunately we've both been guilty of crossing the line of civility at one time or another. A discussion which has only just begun here which was started by User:MARussellPESE yesterday and my objection to part of his edit has elicited a hostile verbal response which seems entirely un-called for; specifically: "Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)" Not only has his response been insulting and entirely uncalled for, but he has launched an array of edits which are borderline vandalism: , . I don't believe this is the way to start a discussion, and the reaction to my objections seems way over-blown; something common to our discussions. We have a history of posting to each others talk pages, challenging each other in discussions, and reverting each others contributions. The days of constructive criticism between us appears behind us, and I believe he's simply become intolerant of my contributions. If this is attitude at the outset of a discussion, I don't believe we can be productive on the page. I would appreciate any input from this board. _Disarray 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• There's enough bad behavior to go around, it seems. I think the situation requires someone impartial. JuJube (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• I also noticed you didn't go through the trouble of notifying User:MARussellPESE so I did it for you. JuJube (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. Yes, I agree there's been " enough bad behavior to go around", and I believe I acknowledged that in my opening comments. My apologies, but I wasn't aware I was required to notify him; that kind of courtesy wasn't extended to me when he reported an incident against me here last May. That incident, btw, is still unresolved for the issue arose out of him deciding a biography written by one of Mason Remey's believers "was out" based on his own interpretations of WP:SELFPUB. Removing that well sourced biography has effectively sterilized Remey's bio to a large extent, and now MARussell has again gotten out the hatchet and culled reliably sourced information. I'm not looking to agitate anything further, but rather for resolution and progress. I don't believe name calling and threats fall into that category. We have both demonstrated our resolve to hold fast to our positions, but it's a new development for him to act maliciously at the expense of the pages we edit. He has threatened to and carried out egregious deletions of content without discussion based on me "being a jerk"; something which I believe crosses a new line. I really don't know how to even respond to these deletions which effectively blot out the existence of whole sects of believers in our mutual faith. _Disarray 22:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe your only recourse here is WP:RFC. JuJube (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but RFC's have never once elicited voluntary comments from 3rd parties to the discussions on these talk pages. I don't know if it's because the subject isn't commonly familiar to editors of religious pages, or what it is, but RFC tags just don't seem to elicit comments. _Disarray 02:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Um, the courtesy notice is noted in the first paragraph of this page. This isn't the place for content discussions anyway, Jeff.

Please read the whole thread. I opened with a discussion of the failings of a particular source. His response was to question my good faith and add a cheap shot at my religious community. This is a typical pattern of his. Calling that out as being a jerk isn't a personal attack as it's directed at his conduct.

Disarray used to be known as User:Jeffmichaud. Please, take at a look at our respective talk page archives (If you can find his old ones. His username usurpation has certainly cleaned that up.) and block logs to see who's more adept at the personal attacks and edit warring.

I'm not intolerant of Disarray's contributions. I'm intolerant of his contributions that don't meet WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Unfortunately, given the subject that's legion. That's a huge difference, but Disarray's been personalizing these discussions for years. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Archives of every single comment to my talk page from my old user name are available on my current talk page. There are several examples there of MARussell issuing "be civil" warnings to me, so I assumed he was familiar with the concept. I wasn't aware there was a distinction between when calling someone a jerk was and wasn't appropriate. If this is in fact justified by me allegedly "questioning his good faith", then I've apparently misunderstood the concept of "Be Civil" all along. I thought it was a unilateral expectation? I have twice acknowledged here that in the past I've contributed to the class of personalities that exists between us, but MARussell seems to honestly feel that it's been entirely my creation, and that his responses to me, no matter how demoralizing and directly personal are entirely justified?

Aren't we all expected to take ownership of our behavior on talk pages. The record shows that when I've been out of line, I've acknowledged it and tried to do right by the situation. I've more than once apologized for things I've said in heated discussions, haven't I? Yet in all of our exchanges, neither of us has ever crossed the line of making a direct derogatory attack like you have now. Yet instead of acknowledging it was inappropriate and out of line, you're here making excuses for it? And yet you wonder why our discussions always seem to bog down? There seems to be no reasoning with you, as you seem incapable of seeing any other point of view but your own (which is always the correct one). I brought this here because I new that marching forward into discussing the edits you just made there was going to be an enormous waste of time if out of the gate you're defensive and name calling. I'm afraid that this too may have been yet another colossal waste of time. If it's always you're right and I'm wrong, then maybe I shouldn't bother engaging you on the talk pages? _Disarray 02:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101 related protection requests

There is a bunch of requests for protection regarding targets of banned user Bambifan101 (talk · contribs) at WP:RFPP. I personally would decline all of them for not much activity but I am unfamiliar with the user so I'd like some more input. Regards SoWhy 21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101, aka "The Disney Vandal", uses dynamic ip's to attack favourite articles - the ip accounts are quickly stomped upon, but usually not before they are abandoned. If the major targets can be sprotected without too much (preferably no) collateral damage then it would remove a lot of potential damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would grant the requests. The Disney Vandal is persistent, and does a lot of damage with edits that aren't obviously vandalism, making it difficult to get his accounts dealt with quickly through AIV and other more normally useful techniques.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked his /17 range (it's fairly high traffic) for 72 hours. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101 nearly exclusively uses named accounts. Soft-blocking is of no help.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is if the accounts are new. Black Kite 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Meh, forget that - I was having a "softblock"/"semi-protect" senior moment... Black Kite 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Softblocking is anon. only, account creation blocked. This block will prevent him from harassing users anonymously and hopefully stymie his rampant account creation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, "limited help". An editor that has been this dedicated for this long with this many accounts probably has a nice collection of socks pre-knitted. If soft-blocking only permitted confirmed editors, I'd be a lot more optimistic.—Kww(talk) 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I had been reading this as being instead of protection. As an addition to protection, I have no strong objection.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Against; last week another user requested a semi of all of the vandal's user talk pages for the simple reason he wanted to deny him ANY pages to edit and thus bore him (No, seriously, that's what he said). This is no different; the only difference is the namespace and the requesting editor. It's pointless to prot every single article a vandal tends to target because it encourages the vandal to target *new* articles, broadening his scope and making ID'ing more difficult. Besides, there's serious WP:DENY issues here as well (though I'm probably the LAST person who should be speaking of that...). -Jéské Couriano 12:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. AFD closed – iridescent 22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Merging episodes to a List Of is hardly the stuff of ANI, closed Black Kite 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – No action needed

Resolved – no admin action required

Resolved – WP:RFPP is just down the hall, on the right

// roux   01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is getting longer by the minute: I see no harm in collapsing it for the sake of improving the readability of the rest of ANI. TalkIslander 15:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you recall, Betacommand has promised not to undertake a pattern of edits across more than 25 pages, to manually and carefully review each edit he makes, and to be civil. See the community-imposed restrictions that he agreed to in August. When a couple other users and I brought up on his talk page his recent run of 80 or so image removals, the response followed the typical pattern, which I paraphrase here (the link goes to his last edit in the discussion): The restrictions don't matter because I'm following policy. Reminding me of these restrictions is harassment. You can't stop me because I'm following policy. I'm not making automated edits. You can't prove that I'm making automated edits. You're trolling. I dare you to take this to ArbCom. Discussion closed. Despite Beta constantly returning to "they're not automated" and "I'm not breaking policy", these are not the point. The decision was worded so that we would no longer have to take Betacommand at his word that he wasn't using an automated tool, because in the past he has claimed not to be using automated tools when he actually was. This is why the decision just refers to "a pattern of edits". Can I get one of those mythical uninvolved admins to weigh in? rspεεr (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) yet more harassment for enforcing policy. Please note that I never dare you to take this to ArbCom β 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) You said "either block me for enforcing policy, so I can take you to arbcom and make a fool of you..." I guess technically you dared me to block you, but that's semantics. rspεεr (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC) So what's an admin gonna do? Another little 24 hour slap on the wrist? By now, Betacommand should be community banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages. *sigh* - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 04:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC) yet more trolling and personal attacks. sigh β 04:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Aren't these supposed to be escalating blocks? or was that tossed out as too harsh?--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC) One would think so. The silliest part of the agreement is the principle that blocks should be placed by an "uninvolved admin", taken to mean an admin who for some reason has managed to not weigh in on this whole saga before but decides to show up out of nowhere to place the block. These admins tend to be unaware of Betacommand's history and even his previous blocks. So for automated editing, he's been blocked for 72, 24, and 24 hours in that order. For incivility, he's been blocked for 1 week, 31 hours, and 48 hours. For edit warring about NFCC (which he's still doing), he's been blocked for 72, 48, and 31 hours in that order. I hope that the uninvolved admin this time is someone who has paid some attention to this issue, and will look at his block log and figure out which direction "escalating" is supposed to go in. rspεεr (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There have been far too many rounds of this. Betacommand makes controversial edits at high speed, reacts with hostility to any communication about them, and re-interprets or simply ignores restrictions previously agreed to. I endorse blocking until there is a fundamental change to this pattern. Jonathunder (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) But the edits in this situation are 110% within policy. have a problem with that change the policy. these image removals cannot be disputed. β 05:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Your incivility and snottyness can be disputed however and are certainly against policy. Always has been. But hey, you're Betacommand, so carry on... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 05:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Last I checked you are not bound just by normal policies but also the editing restrictions you agreed to. The mob calling for your head last time around was only sated because you agreed to those restrictions. Failing to abide by them and thinking you're above them isn't going to help your case.--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Allstar, could you please tone down your language. We need to be a little bit more neutral than what you have put forth so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Here's the rub: the edits that it looks like Beta's being accused of being automated are completely within WP:NFCC policy - the images that he is removing from pages are lacking fair-use rationales for those pages. This is a non-negotiable aspect (per Foundation resolution), so unlike what he would previously have been blocked for, these image removals have to be done to comply with the Foundation. Should we be punishing him for keeping the Foundation's resolution in line without a doubt? --MASEM 05:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The edits aren't being done within policy because he's violating a restriction set on him for the same reason (overzealous NFCC application). Beta is, in effect, being an image vigilante. NFCC doesn't award people special restriction-violation badges. There are plenty of people willing to do this instead of him. Every editor, even the ArbCom, even Blofeld, is expendable, unfortunately. Sceptre 05:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Expendable? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It's 5:30am. I'm tired. Forgot about the word "replaceable". Sceptre 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) (ec) Doesn't really matter if they're within policy. Among other things, your restrictions include: Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin. There is no notation there about 'unless they're within policy.' It is a brightline limit: you may not make more than 25 repetitive edits without gaining consensus for those specific edits at WP:VPR. No exceptions are listed. Betacommand, by my reading of the situation, narrowly evaded a ban or a total prohibition on repetitive/automated edits by agreeing to certain restrictions. He can't then state that the restrictions don't exist. They do, he agreed to them, he needs to abide by them until he has regained the trust of the community. // roux   05:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Per your same rules I cannot make more than 25 anti-vandalism reverts without going to the VP for consensus. that is ludicrous. I will enforce policy. the edits themselves are not in question you can either stop harassing me or Ill file an arbcom to end this bullshit. Im getting sick of the constant harassment. β 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No-one would complain were you reverting vandalism. The point is, this is the same behaviour you were sanctioned for: overzealous application of the NFCC. Sceptre 05:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC) This is not overzealous, read the NFCC, what Im doing is non-debatable all images must have a rationale. dont like that change the policy dont harass me for enforcing it. β 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Beta, stop saying "harass" like that. It equates the shit Amorrow pulled to "waah, the big boy stole my toys!". Sceptre 05:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Amorrow? That was a bit much, don't you think? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oh, heavens no. I know exactly what kind of shit he pulled. And I really hate it when people accuse others of "harassment" and "stalking" when all that's happened is that the person accused just pointed out something the accuser doesn't like. Sceptre 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) (ecx100000)Yes. Betacommand is not the sole defender of all that is good and right with images on wikipedia. If there are problems other editors will address it. Or he can slow down and address it within his editing restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The restriction is very clear: Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. This would be any pattern, such as edits which follow policy and need to be done, which indeed fall under this restriction. Hence, the edits are blockable. Although I can't bring myself to block an editor for following image policy in such a straightforward and clean way (images without fair use rationales should be deleted), I would ask Betacommand to abide by the restriction, take this thread as a warning and not do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) To be honest, 10c compliance is bot work. And Beta knows it; it was one of his bot's tasks. I think there's an pinch of helping, a pinch of disruption, and a whole jar of stubbornness here. And believe me; I should know. Sceptre 05:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) there are no bots cleaning up images that are partially within 10c. bots only flag them if they completely fail. β 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) May I offer a... ? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC) For the record, I have never been a fan of Betacommand's rudeness or refusal to abide by simple rules of civility, and have been a vocal proponent that such violations cannot be placated by his supposed "value" to the project; and that he should not be given a free pass on such incivility. No one could accuse me of being in his camp. That being said, lay the fuck off of him. Good gawd people. There is nothing that he is currently doing which is disruptive to the project; its like people are following him around just waiting for him cross some magic line "Oh look, between 1:07 and 1:09 he made 12 edits, so he must be stopped NOW!" He's doing nothing at all disruptive; he's not trying to circumvent or alter policy, and his exact actions, if done by any person NOT named Betacommand, wouldn't even be noticed. He doesn't seem to have toned down his rudeness any, but really, when you poke the bear with a stick, he's gonna take a swat at you. Seriously, this is nothing by teh DRAHMAZ for teh DRAHMAZ sake. Let's leave him alone, and lets try NOT following his every move and waiting for him to cross some arbitrary line so we can start a thread titled "ZOMG BANXOR HIM NOW !!1one!!1!"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Except in this case he's apparently been recently blocked for this very kind of behaviour and the images in question have to do with an open RfC.--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) A warning? Have any of those proven fruitful in the past?--Crossmr (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Meh...have blocks? I'm uninvolved, I can't bring myself to hit the block button and subject myself to becoming an "involved party" in this. --Smashville 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Short blocks..no...--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't know if any block will prevent any disruption to the project. Please consider that before anyone use the button. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The pith is, I don't see any disruption in the edits. Perhaps I do see an editor nudging up against an editing restriction in a harmless way to see what would happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The disruption is caused by his continual disrespect of the other members of this project. Yes, his edits are within policy, but they were made in a way that the community said he shouldn't make them. His inability to do that is the same as thumbing his nose at the community.--Crossmr (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't feel disrespected, as a member of this community. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) As a member of this community I do feel disrespected. So there you go.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Out of curiosity, have any of Beta's edits since his December 10th block been automated? I mean seriously, given the amount and time frame...he could've easily used tabs and then saved the pages once he was done. Did he admit to this somewhere?--Toffile (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Betacommand never fully admits to making automated edits, but this is the closest he has come recently. Apparently he doesn't consider it automated if it's written in JavaScript. However, I would not even take that much at face value. In this edit the edit summary ends with "using", as if it were going to be followed by the name of the external program he was using, but he was trying to suppress it. rspεεr (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) That is interesting. I'm not quite sure if it really breaks it though. The automated restriction was originally suggested so that he wouldn't be running a bot, or close to a bot and to be forced to manually review the edits. Doing a search and replace is as easy to do as opening up a text editor and using the built-in functionality. Even if it was a JS replace, it still doesn't appear that it was automated as the particular time window is still well within human ability. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm mincing words, I just don't quite think that it really breaks the spirit of what was being proposed.--Toffile (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I actually have that built into my[REDACTED] user interface if anyone ever bothered to look. β 06:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Sure, he could have been using his monobook.js and then manually reviewing everything it did, like the restriction says. Or he could not have been. The fact that we have no way to tell is why the restriction had a bright line instead, which is "any pattern of edits across 25 or more pages". rspεεr (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) So your section title is at the very least misleading.--Toffile (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Not to say that he wasn't technically violating sanctions (he was as they don't have an expiry time period for the 25), but that the title declares something that you've admitted that there isn't clear evidence for.--Toffile (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) What do you want, a covert screen capture from Betacommand's computer? We could never have any concrete evidence one way or another about whether he's manually reviewing his edits, but the fact that he's using JavaScript (and possibly more) to make the same edit across 80 or so pages passes the duck test to me. rspεεr (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Have you actually every tested my monobook.js? no so please stop ABF and putting your foot in your mouth. β 07:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It doesn't matter. monobook.js isn't the special safe thing that you're allowed to use to edit like a bot. There's a bright line: a pattern of edits across 25 pages, and we don't have to speculate any more about how exactly you made the edits. rspεεr (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I much prefer a Occam's Razor myself. My problem is that you've admitted to not having evidence for an accusation that carries a bit more weight. Beta was basically told never to bots again which is why the restrictions are there. He would be violating both the letter and the spirit of the restrictions. However there is a fairly good chance that he's not running a bot, and isn't breaking the spirit. The former would really deserve a harsher punishment than the latter in my view. Also to be honest, there is a distinction between actually performing automated edits and running into the limit...the restrictions in play don't say it's a criteria for what makes automated edits, only something to prevent them. Now if you think I'm mincing words, fine. I just don't feel like the topic title gives an accurate picture of what actually occurred. Anyway, I can't continue to argue, I need to retire to sleep.--Toffile (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Actually he was told not to make edits which appear bot-like. Which is why he's limited to X edits per minute and he was asked to propose the edits. It doesn't matter whether or not he uses a bot or he uses a script or anything else. The appearance of the edits is what counts, not how he really did them.--Crossmr (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC) As a note, I talked to Beta on IRC the other week, and from what we discussed I established that he believed that he was exempt from his restrictions simply because apparently policies transcend user-level restrictions, which I believe not to be the case. I believe if someone who has the correct authority clarifies this to him, this may be rectified. — neuro 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Proposal The restrictions are not effective to serve a purpose of preventing disruption. I propose the community imposed restriction here be removed. So long as the automated edits are within policy, Betacommand can be trusted to make them. I also propose a strong caution to Betacommand regarding an effort towards civility. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose - I agree with rspeer here: "ideally everyone's edits are within policy". I'm not sure a Giano-like removal works here. Sceptre 05:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the "Giano like removal", is there a link? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The Motion: re SlimVirgin restriction. You know what happened: Giano went on civility parole. People poked him. Big drama with every block. ArbCom restricted it so that only the committee can block him, in very specific and limited cases. Sceptre 06:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) oppose Betacommand's continued inability to respect the other users of the project through his disregard for civility and his agreed upon editing restrictions don't remotely show that he's regained the trust of the community. This thread and his talk page show further evidence of that.--Crossmr (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't think the restrictions are preventing incivility. I don't think they are effective in that way. I do believe that his automated edits will be within policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No, which is only further evidence that he should be sent on a long vacation. We don't reward people for disrespecting the community. They're effective in preventing disruption if he follows him. If he doesn't follow them he should be blocked through an escalating system (Which should if worked out put his next block at about a year) until he either follows them or he's indef blocked or banned. Frankly he should be banned on civility basis alone as absolutely no amount of "strong cautions" have done anything to temper his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose - his reward for refusing to abide by restrictions he agreed to is... no restrictions? I think not. The community showed it does not trust him, as he does not gain consensus before making sweeping edits. Until he regains that trust, the restrictions should stand or be made tighter, or he should be forcibly invited to take a long vacation. At which point he would have to regain the community's trust anyway. // roux   06:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Are you serious? As a reward for ignoring the restriction that he agreed to after he was caught (among many other things) running bots on his own account, you're offering to: Remove the restriction entirely Assert that Betacommand can be trusted to make automated edits Grant a special dispensation to Betacommand to run bots on his own account, which no one else is allowed to do (except for occasional admins where we look the other way) Step down Betacommand's civility probation to a "strong caution" Endorse Betacommand's use of "I was within policy" as a catch-all defense Might as well propose him for adminship while you're at it. rspεεr (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose: They were applied due to disruptive behavior and were agreed on by community census, they shouldn't be removed just because he has decided to break the restrictions. Peachey88 06:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose - This is akin to saying 'Grawp is persistent, so let's lift the community ban since it doesn't work'. — neuro 07:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose, the restrictions would work if administrators actually enforced them (or could, in the case of "uninvolved" administrators). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose He had his chance and just keeps thumbing his nose at everyone else. rootology (C)(T) 14:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Notes Folks, I just don't see where this restriction is going short of Arbitration. It seems to me the restriction itself, is the source of the disruption. I'm only proposing we remove the disruption, the restriction that is. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No..the source of the disruption is betacommand. I don't see the restrictions running around being uncivil to people or making rapid edits..that is like blaming the law because you got caught speeding. "Officer it wasn't me, the sign just said a number that was lower than my speed, I can't help it!"--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that we are trying to block beta because we "feel disrespected". Don't forget, we have a project here. Sometimes we ought to just make progress. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Which has been on-going for years. This isn't a single case of poor treatment of the community. I'm quite aware of the fact that we have a project here. Don't forget that we have a community here and the project runs on that community. Editors who continually disrespect it are not a positive force. Regardless of what they may do.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Please see my userpage essays: specifically, it doesn't matter what a contributor does, that contributor should never be given slack or a "free pass" simply because they do something "valuable" or "correct". Betacommand was placed on these restrictions in lieu of an outright community ban for incivility, using a sockpuppet to evade 3RR, and so forth. The restrictions are not flexible or open to interpretation, further, they may not be circumvented in the name of "policy". —Locke Cole • t • c 10:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) A different proposal I propose to remove the "uninvolved admin" clause from Betacommand's restrictions. Betacommand can be blocked by any admin for incivility or for making a pattern of bot-like edits, subject only to the usual conventions (WP:BLOCK) about admins placing blocks. Admins can be trusted to use their blocking power correctly and responsibly. In the current state of things, Betacommand can blatantly thumb his nose at the restrictions (as he just did in the talk-page thread I linked to) and our hands are tied by the fact that anyone who has paid any attention could be considered "involved". rspεεr (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Why so you can continue to harass and troll me? Im getting sick of the stalking so either stop or I will file arbcom. Im making a solid stand here, if there is any question about whether or not my edits have consensus I will take it to VP. as it stands my edit have consensus so that requirement of the VP is not valid. β 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I am questioning whether your edits have consensus. If you observe the discussion above, it's not so clear. I already asked you, back when I was just addressing you on your talk page, to take it to the VP (and in response you blew up at me and closed the discussion). However, I must point out that the restrictions you agreed to did not depend on anyone questioning you first. rspεεr (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Like I have said, read WP:NFCC the policy that requires rationales for every usage. images without rationales should be deleted and those with at least one rationale should be removed from those pages lacking a rationale. β 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Betacommand, your edits don't have consensus and the editing restriction clearly covers edits which are wholly within policy. You breached the editing restriction. As I hinted above, you might want to take this whole thread as a warning not to do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC) read the policy it states otherwise. β 06:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Your editing restrictions supersede policy.--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No they dont. policy is policy. β 06:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Supersede wasn't the right word, think of it like a venn diagram, maybe this will make things clearer for you your edits are bound both by policy and the editing restrictions placed on you that you said you agreed to.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Support: Any admin should be able to carry out their standard practices when dealing with a user (in this case Betacommand) after the community consensus has been reached and the restrictions finalized. Peachey88 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose I'm sorry. I would rather see a neutral third party confirmation. Beta's been a very contentious editor, and if the Giano situation has taught me anything, it's that getting a third party involved would be much better, as opposed to having things continually blow up and unintentionally cause more disruption.--Toffile (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There are like 6 accounts on[REDACTED] that haven't been involved with betacommand and 4 of them are blocked sock puppets. Should we add a category to various admins userpages that say "Never been involved with betacommand" so that we could try and find one if need be? And would that also mean that once an admin blocks betacommand once, that is it. he now becomes "involved" and can't block him again?--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There are over 1,600 admins on Misplaced Pages. Plenty of them haven't been in long cases of monitoring Betacommand's behavior.--Toffile (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC) How many of those are actually active though, or even regular? Betacommand's issues often draw in large crowds over a period of several days which means most active users (and administrators who should be watching this page) have either contributed to the discussions or read them and therefore been influenced by them. checking a few random ones in the first column alone I'm noticing several who have made only a few dozen edits all year. Finding someone completely uninformed is often pointless because 1) it takes them forever to get the context given the length of this 2)if they don't put that time in, they treat it as a standard X issue and give him a tiny short block.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There's a major difference between reading something and being involved with him. One can read or discuss something without being drawn into a dispute. I'm not suggesting that the administrators be completely uninformed, just that they don't constantly monitor Betacommand and wait for something to block him on. Those sort of unilateral blocks almost never end well for all the parties involved.--Toffile (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There is also a major difference between there being 1600 admins and 1600 pages belonging to admins.. you can see numerous admins who have multiple entries there through archives and other subpages. Actual admin numbers are likely much smaller.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Uh, I based my numbers off of Special:Statistics...which counts accounts with the sysop flag. Not user pages. Even if they aren't all active, it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of admins who don't have intricate histories with Betacommand.--Toffile (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The problem lies with what the restriction says. It doesn't say "intricate history" it simply says "involved" which could be any admin who ever offered a comment on betacommand if one wanted to interpret it that way, and you can imagine some people would.--Crossmr (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC) That sort of lawyering really has never worked in the past from what I've seen. I understand the concern, however I really think that past actions with involved admins and blocking have never worked out for the best.--Toffile (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose I won't deny that bias exists, and that we are infact human. Some will succumb, the uninvolved stipulation was designed as a safeguard. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Blocking policy already has a stipulation about not blocking someone you're currently involved in a dispute with. Does that mean if we have a dispute, you couldn't block me for the rest of our careers on[REDACTED] ever?--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Support I'd buy that. Admins are voted upon, checked up on, etc. Given the widespread nature of this its extremely unreasonable to disallow most of the admin population from dealing with him. I would only recommend that only admins who have not been involved in a content dispute with him in the last few days (which I think is covered in blocking policy) be disallowed from dealing with him.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Comment - I'm in the middle of a conversation with Betacommand right now, which I think may be very helpful to everyone. I would like to ask, politely, that everyone hold off for a little bit, back away from the not-dead-but-certainly-mortally-wounded-horse for a little while. Have a cup of tea, maybe. Please? // roux   06:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Support Betacommand can't be trusted to use automated editing tools in a nonabusive way. That's why he has sanctions on him. It's as simple as that. Jtrainor (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Support, clearly there aren't enough "uninvolved" administrators, and it would be useful to have administrators who are familiar with him making the decisions. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC) More discussion Just wondering, ignoring Betacommand's editing restrictions who here thinks that the edits were outside of policy? --Chris 09:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) What does it matter? He's under restrictions regardless whether his edits abide by some policy of his choice. If I was an admin, I'd give him a week off to think it over. Grace Note (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Per Grace Note, it doesn't matter whether or not his edits were correct, appropriate or not in dispute. The simple fact is that the community placed him under various restrictions for his behavior. Those restrictions are not flexible or open to circumvention. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Nope, the edits didn't break any policies. That was never the point. rspεεr (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Betacommand indef blocked Since the discussion between User:Roux and BC appears to be happening off WP, I have enacted an indef block on BC's account in the meantime. I cannot believe that we are having this discussion again; there is rarely an issue on whether the image compliance deletion notifications are outside of policy, but the manner in which they are conducted and especially the responses made to any query. Now, if BC wants to bring this (and me) to ArbCom to resolve then by all means unblock the account so he may commence proceedings - otherwise please do not vary the sanction until the community comes to some sort of decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I'm sad to say that I now support this. We tried hard to give him chance after chance, yet he's now gone ahead and broken his final set of restrictions. I believe that for right or wrong, Betacommand is a serious time sink to the project and now constitues an overall net negative hence my support for this block. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Arbitration. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC) There need be no abatement of any subsequent discussion here while the Arbs consider whether to take the case, and I have suggested as much in my statement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It can continue here, yes. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I believe it's come to this, yes, especially given the ongoing civility issues and apparent unwillingness to acknowledge his community imposed restrictions. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I echo Ryan's sadness and also endorse this block. I don't really see any use in arbitration -- until Betacommand comes to his senses, there is nothing much that needs to be done right now. Kusma (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse per BC's statement that he has no intention of abiding by editing restrictions . BC has never understood that while yes, his edits are within policy, there has never been a consensus for bot-like removals of images that don't conform to this aspect of policy. If these images actually do belong in the articles, then it is better to spend time solving the pro forma problems with the image description page (writing appropriate rationales) than it is to blindly remove the images from articles. But either way, human judgment is needed. --B (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I even provided a venn diagram above...--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I endorse this. His utter failure to acknowledge his civility issues shows someone who just isn't willing to change.--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Yes Wow....having looked this stuff up I have to agree. Every time someone gives him the slightest bit of critism he accuses them of harrasment. "No harrasment" and "no personal attacks" does not mean "no critism allowed" – in fact I'm sure[REDACTED] would be rather crappy without critism. He also seems to have a rather big ego and viciously harrases those who disagree with him by accusing them of harrasment. Misplaced Pages's worst enemies are those whose vanity has been wounded and they waste far more of the community's time than vandals. I say we show him the door.--Patton123 14:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Given Betacommand's unwillingness in this thread to acknowledge having strayed from the editing restrictions, I likely would have blocked him by now myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse. It's not ideal to have to indef-block someone who admittedly can do a lot of good towards the project. However, the sheer amount of negativity caused by Betacommand and his behaviour is huge, and now definitely outweighs the benefit he brings to the project. Betacommand is unfortunately a net negative to this project. TalkIslander 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The ongoing lack of civility (saying other editors are trolling and so on) also won't do at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse per Islander MikeHobday (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) (outdent) If one editor calls you a jackass, screw em. If two ediotrs call you a jackass, screw em both. If three editors call you a jackass, they can all go to hell. If FIVE of more editors call you this, then its time to be fitted for a saddle. Sorry BC, time to saddle up. --Tom 15:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC) strong objection to off-wiki/IRC this time I reject any approach to discuss this off-wiki. That worked for shit last time based on this very series of threads; it has to be done on-wiki. If any parties aren't happy with that, that is a shame. rootology (C)(T) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't suppose that we can stop BC from commenting there, but any points made/raised there and not mentioned here should form no part of any decision (IMHO). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Of course; he can comment anywhere, but no admin given the huge history here should be unblocking without express consensus on-wiki, and the same with figuring out any editing restrictions. Wasn't there strong consensus last time that his restrictions were compulsory rather than voluntary, anyway? rootology (C)(T) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, they were. He was part of the group that worked out the wording of the existing restrictions, so he cannot claim they were enforced without notification (it should be noted that while he had input he had no veto). While I acted upon reading the threads above, I note that I made this commitment regarding the placement of a final set of restrictions. I regret that BC has found himself unable to comply with them, and is reverting to wiki-lawyering over what is policy rather than the conditions he was forced to accept. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Yep, editors can talk about what they please, where they please, but anything brought up off-wiki should have no sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Discussion Location Out of interests of space and navigation shouldn't all this dissucsion about Betacommand be moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand and contuined there? Peachey88 13:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Heck no. Since when do we have noticeboards for users? Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand was created solely because the thread about him got too long back then. It's not the "Everything about Betacommand goes here"-noticeboard. --Conti|✉ 13:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC) No, this needs more eyeballs, not less, and that's exactly what we'd lose if this got shuffled off to an obscure subpage that only the involved might have on their watchlist. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It may be that it might be copied there for archiving purposes, to keep the subject in one easily referable location, once discussion has ceased on this instance. However, thanks for the link - it may become useful if this does get picked up by ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The best solution would be for Betacommand to hand over his bot code to someone else, and help in a technical way only. Betacommand is bot-savvy and could be very helpful to the bot-development community, but it is entirely obvious that there is a large weight of opinion behind the idea that he should not run the bots himself. It is unfortunate that a lot of this is the result of inevitable kickback about necessary work; it is obvious to me that anybody and especially any bot who polices non-free content policy is perceived as some kind of Antichrist by a certain sector of the Misplaced Pages community and hounded relentlessly as a result. I think this is almost at the level of being a feature of the community, not a bug, so only people capable of handling that kind of crap with equanimity should be doing it. And that, sadly, does not include Betacommand. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I didn't think anyone would try to pull off this kind of argumentation at this time. The issue is not that people are perceiving the supposedly angelic Betacommand as Antichrist because he polices fair use. His bots are extremely buggy and poorly programmed, and he has huge conduct issues: note all the "fuck you"s and other swearing on his talk page in response to civil and correct criticism. Betacommand is not being "hounded". Anyone who ran bots as poorly as him would receive the same amount of criticism. But in Betacommand's and some of his supporters' eyes, any negative feedback on his bots, or even well-meant suggestions, is equivalent to incivility, trolling, vandalism and harassment. Note that Betacommand has also been criticised for poor bot work in regards to such mundane tasks as adding articles to categories, changing the formats of dates and so on. Are these also such types of über-controversial tasks where anyone doing them is perceived as Antichrist? Don't think so. The issue is with Betacommand, not with everyone else. Is he back? (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I have already suggested to BC that I would be happy to run the NFCC#10c compliance bot under my own (or a separate) account. IIRC there isn't an alternative to what that bot does at the moment - STBotI polices complete 10c failure (i.e. no rationale at all) but I don't believe there's anything else picking up other 10c problems. Black Kite 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Proposal the third After looking at this thread, the restrictions given, the case opened at arbcom, and so forth, I propose the following solution: Beta (remaining blocked until this point is resolved) provides a case per the community restrictions on WP:VPR that involves the removal of images from pages that lack non-free rationale using his seemingly-automated manner (some editor will help post for him due to the block). We follow the community sanctions - that is, should there be opposition to the task, there is discussion and so forth. (Yes, this is what should have been done before Beta started what he was doing). Presuming the task is approved at VPR, Beta is unblocked and allowed to continue though I would state that his edits for a day should be monitored and logged briefly by an admin (involved or not) just to make sure that the seemingly-automated edits in mainspace are appropriate per his proposal and do not go beyond that point. (Spot checking is likely appropriate here). This should be done for at least one month. If Beta is using his own programmed tools to do this, this fact should be made exceedingly clear in the edit summaries (even if it is just "removing non-free image without rational, using my automated script"). That is, Beta needs to be upfront that he is using automated tools, even of his own making, for this process to help keep this remedy open. (We're not asking for code, however). A brief summary of this tool should be part of his VPR proposal. Should it be found that Beta is doing other seemingly-automated tasks per community restrictions among these NFC image removals and has not discussed it at VPR even if it is completely within policy, he should be indef blocked until that issue can be resolved. (eg if he starts removing images that do have rationales but may not be complete, that is a different proposal than removing images that lack a rationale completely and thus he should be blocked) The only reason I think this is appropriate is that this is the first time that Beta's found some task that can be actually a long-term one that he can be much more effective using semi-automated tools, and that is very difficult to see as being a contentious issue, as non-free compliance is necessary by the Foundation. As best I can tell, there has yet to be any attempt to use VPR to propose a task prior to undertaking it, so this presents a first good opportunity to do so. --MASEM 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC) oppose While the long term problems with beta and his bots are indeed long term they are by no means his only problem. The incivility, and pointy behaviour about (his outright refusal to acknowledge that he violated the sanctions and that they mean anything) shows someone who has no interest in working in the best interest of the community. The community decides its best interest, not betacommand. There is absolutely no reason the community should be bending over for someone like that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose per Crossmr. Beta has had a second chance, third chance, fourth chance, fifth chance etc. etc. etc. At some point, the community must put their foot down and stop. Though certainly well meant, your proposal is just yet another chance - give it a month or two, and we'll be right back here having exactly the same discussion. Enough is enough. TalkIslander 15:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Beta motions at RFAR I've asked the committee to codify the community restrictions that Beta himself agreed to follow as a full motion of the Arbitration Committee. To codify those restrictions (which again, Beta himself agreed to) as binding with the weight of the Committee as a motion. That would end any nonsense, and any trouble then if it happened would be from Beta not following the restrictions in the future. rootology (C)(T) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – IP blocked Black Kite 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards