Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive89

Another one to keep an eye on

Resolved

User:TheDeciderDecides is "new", but he sure seems to know alot about certain editors, and the goings on in recent and past disputes. No specific violations that I'm aware of, except maybe an unwarranted warning issued. This comment also suggests the user is on the path to WP:POINT abuse, and general disruption. I smell the sock of a banned user, which one I'm not sure. But it could be one of several editors from the Conspiracy Theory disputes, or possibly FAAFA. - Crockspot 01:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much precedent of this user being a sock at this time; unless we can concretely allege so, we should try to assume good faith. Like in the AfD comment, he could simply be a (somewhat) experienced IP. Sr13 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Influential blogger Andrew Sullivan's recent post bringing new light to Michelle Malkin's own 2002 article Just Wondering parroting 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists talking points alleging that Flight 93 was shot down and questioning the Bush administration in general is a major source of embarrasment for her supporters and some conservative Wikipedians who appear to be on a jihad to exclude this documented info and harrass users like me. The editor in question's inflammatory edit summary ' RV POV garbage " was a clear WP NPA violation as well, and I warned him as WP demands. I predict an orchestrated campaign from these well organized editors to exclude this documented, factual info and drive off editors who seek to stop the suppression of interesting, relevent and pertinent aspect of Malkin's 'journalistic' career that they see as a definate black mark. Please keep an eye on them. TheDeciderDecides 07:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off with the threats of "consequences" and the unwarranted warnings and reversions on my and Jinx's talk pages. We don't have to tolerate your crap in our user spaces. For the record, you are not welcome on my talk page, and anything you post there will be reverted. Got it? If you think you have a case against me to make me face "consequences", take your shot. - Crockspot 00:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"rv POV garbage" is in reference to material, not you, thus it is not a personal attack. Jinxmchue 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Decider, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Wikipedia does not exist to expose The Truth™. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to those editing the Malkin article who have used the article not to describe her career and positions, but in a blatant attempt to 'prove' her positions with dozens of links to her original material and other right wing blogs that support her. TheDeciderDecides 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

TheDeciderDecides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-admitted sock account.[1] In my considered opinion, s/he is trolling Talk:Michelle Malkin. I say this because s/he keeps ignoring explanations of Wikipedia policy in an apparent quest to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to discredit Malkin. Cheers, CWC 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 12:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

basic question

I guess I should know this, but I don't and can't find the answer right off in the literature: am I allowed to change a close that I made? WP:DRV strongly implies this ("courteously invite the admin to take a second look") but doesn't outright say it; and after all a closed AfD does say "Please do not modify", and per WP:OWN I'd think a closed AfD belongs to the community, not to the closing admin anymore. So which is it? Herostratus 14:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Have you had a second look and come to a different conclusion to your original one? Yes, changing one's decision is allowed. I strongly recommend that you append a further rationale explaining your reasoning in detail. Show your working, so that other editors can understand. Discussing things with the administrator who made the closure decision is a review option that is not precluded by the request not to modify the discussion. Uncle G 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• You still own your decision, so as Uncle G says you can change it. The reason for the exhortation to go chat with the admin is that it might save several editor-days of discussion on DRV if a conclusion can be reached locally. This is particularly the case if there has been some simple error made. Splash - tk 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Doppelgangers

Please indefinitely block my two doppelgangers User:Salskan and User:Salascan, which I just created. Salaskan 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Grandmasterka 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mull_of_Kintyre_test

Is this article true? It sounds like nonsense, but it's referenced.

I just looked up "Mull of Kintyre" test, and it appears to be true! [2] SirFozzie 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a well known test, though the BBFC have previously called their involvement in it an urban myth. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) We need better references. I tagged the article {{db-nonsense}} and deleted the so called reference, which was actually a porn spamlink. --Edokter (Talk) 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag, as even without references, it is patently not patent nonsense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Compare the U.S. equivalent utilized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, discussed in The Brethren and here. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, not porn perse (I only glanced), but still commercial spam. --Edokter (Talk) 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that was not a reliable reference, but I've found that other one to put in :) SirFozzie 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You deleted two references not one. The other was a newspaper which I've restored. -- JLaTondre 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Funny idea. Should probably be a redirect to an article on British broadcasting standards, though. The concept is only informally known as this, and that mainly by insiders. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As the person who mentioned this, if you like I'll sort out the redirect/merge <==correct term? tomrrrow 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)~

I must say it is quite well known, not just by industry insiders. How much of the origins or the like are true I don't know, but the concept and the idea that this is what they use as a guideline (true or not) has been around for a long time and is well known. Ben W Bell talk 07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And this is what is wrong with the rush to judgment on deletion that we sometimes see in the project. Just because one small group of people never heard of something is not a reason to delete it - we should err on the side of "keep". Deletion is not a way to create a good encyclopedia. Tvoz |talk 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Silly comment. Lots if us have heard of it, if it had been AfDed then it would likely have been either kept or merged and redirected, unlikely we'd lose good info. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Qasaqsuyu (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Weird edits to country infoboxes by a rather new user, including copy-and-pasting articles over redirects and moving infoboxes to article-specific templates like {{Infobox Afghanistan}}, which I've been trying to revert. Can some helpful WikiGnome go over this user's edits, check for any weird edits I've missed, and delete the unnecessary templates? Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All of Category:Template:Infobox Country and Template:Infobox Corsica would be a place to start. MER-C 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm on it. Shouldn't take too long. J Milburn 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. Infoboxes and categories are gone, and I left them a message on their talk page. The rest are editorial issues. Took longer than I expected... J Milburn 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

request for image discussion close

Resolved

At Image talk:LaToyaJackson.jpg. All details are already on that page. Uninvolved admin needed. ··coelacan 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Clear case of replaceable fair use. WjBscribe 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor

We have a categorization dispute at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Dynamic IP currently editing as 88.104.33.124 (talk · contribs), but also 88.104.53.2 (talk · contribs), 88.104.81.176 (talk · contribs) 88.104.44.134 (talk · contribs), and maybe Albireo223  (talk · contribs) is removing cats and now recategorizing shedloads of articles. Attempts at reaching consensus were made at the project talk page, but now the user has taken the matter into his own hands, and ignores requests to stop and reach consensus. Advice please. Mr Stephen 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, he was editing from 88.104.34.14 last night where I made numerous requests for him to stop. Pit-yacker 00:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Editor is also removing Category:People from Greater Manchester saying that the traditional county of Lancashire should be used in some cases. For the record (if you dont know) "traditional counties" are very controversial a large number of editors consider attempts to push "traditional counties" as an attempt at pushing a political agenda (For an example see the talk archives of Template:Infobox UK place which ditched traditional counties that had previously been added to the templates predecessor. Pit-yacker 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I know about the traditional counties row, can't you have categories for both if appropriate, so you can add both to an article? -N 08:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a slightly different issue to that. The issue largely surrounds the naming of categories surrounding Oldham. In the early hours of 27 May the user in question decategorised serveral tens of articles relating to the "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" saying that they shouldnt be in the category Oldham - the fact that categories such as Oldham have also held articles relating to the Metropolitan borough is a conevention that has held for some time. The said user ignored repeated requests by myself to stop and discuss what was a fairly controversial change. Later on 27 May/early hours of 28 May the user created a spate of categories for "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" for places in the borough but not in the town of Oldham, and proceeded to move the articles into these categoires despite a large number of editors having serious issues about the new categories. Again the user was requested by other editors to stop these requests were again ignored.

Fianlly as part of these changes categorisation of "People from Greater Manchester" was removed as a parent category of the "People from <town>" categories in Oldham on the basis that "category includes people from lancashire so cannot be subcat of greater manchester" Pit-yacker 13:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

autoreplaceable fair use tag is acting up

I just noticed that many of the images in Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 18 May 2007 were uploaded on 23 May. I don't have the beginning of a clue how to fix this. In case they are deleted before they can be checked, an example is Image:Rios-Montt.jpg ··coelacan 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See the code for the template [3]. At the bottom, it puts the images in the category for today's date MINUS 5 DAYS. I'm not really sure what the person who wrote that was thinking. In any case, I cannot fix it as it is protected. -N 08:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This template as well [4]. Bizarre. Apparently the template authors thought this was a good idea. I think someone should fix this and then have a word with those template writers. Also, why do we even have multiple templates for this? -N 08:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

the dates are a work around to do with the different length of time an image need be left before it can be deleted. The reason there are multiple templates is there are various different ways the template can end up on an image.Geni 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a less confusing workaround? We have two styles of RFU categories. There's Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 18 May 2007 and Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 18 May 2007. If I understand things, the "to be decided after" category is placed by {{Replaceable fair use}} and that tag is supposed to wait 7 days. The "images as of" category is placed by {{Replaceable fair use 2}} and the multiple "Autoreplaceable fair use" tags, and these tags are supposed to wait 2 days. The "images as of" category is annotated to be deleted after 7 days, and 7 minus 5 gives the 2 days result. So I think I understand the workaround.

But if the "images as of" category is only placed by tags that wait 2 days, then why not just annotate the category to be deleted after 2 days, and set the tags to drop the correct date instead of minus 5? ··coelacan 18:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pipsy the mouse

User:Pipsy the mouse (talk (check history)|contribs) has engaged in a pattern of bizarre behaviour over the last week or so. It started with the removal (first by a bot) of fair-use images that were wrongly used, from the userpage. The user has repeatedly reverted the images back, despite warnings and explanations. The user has also engaged in unhelpful edits to various articles (and reverting useful edits as "vandalism"), and seems to think they can block people. The user has also uploaded at least one fair-use image exclusively for their userpage and has uploaded two Ogg files of copyrighted game music (actually renamed Mp3s) with length well in excess of fair-use, which are not used anywhere. Today, the user has created fake userpages, redirecting their userpages to one, "blocking" the other for some reason. What can be done about this?--Drat (Talk) 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved fake userpages back. Looking into it. Sandstein 09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that the page move thing is sorted, perhaps a stern admin warning before any blocks are issued. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)t

Rbj blocked

I have indef blocked User:Rbj per this. He has not edited logged in since then but has been using IPs to continue to harass Orangemarlin. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How unfortunate. I had some hope this editor might be redeemable but using anon IPs to insult and vandalize other users seems to be pretty over the line. This user has exhausted community patience. JoshuaZ 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Rbj took the news that he was near banning, and instead of using it as an opportunity, he decided to abandon the account and get even. It would appear he's chosen to be irrecoverable. The block makes sense. Prepare for a few more weeks of IP whacking, though. ··coelacan 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing Rbj's unblock request, in which he claims it was not he that committed the alleged IP harrassing. To evaluate these claims, could someone please post some diffs of Rbj's prior harrassments and the new IP harrassments for comparison? Thanks, Sandstein 05:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I need them also. I'll run checkuser if I get them. Fred Bauder 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a couple: this bit of incivility, calling other editors' work "dog-shit", saying "you guys think your own shit don't stink", threatening meatpuppetry, and characterizing another editors' arguments as "bullshit". These are all completely over-the-top and just a sample of what the community had to put up with; his comments to Odd Nature/151. are clear harrassment. There was broad support a full indef ban after several discussions here: [5] and here: [6] If he's unblocked I and a number of his other targets will restart that discussion to secure an indef ban. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had no previous experience with this editor, but it appears clear that he has been highly incivil and disruptive in the past, as per the diffs provided. Now, though, I am reviewing a block based on recent harrassment as an IP. Can someone provide diffs for that, please? Sandstein 06:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that these comments were characteristically similar. Take these IPs for checkuser: 70.108.92.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 68.100.207.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also, I suggest establishing contact with Killerchihuahua before making any move. ··coelacan 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left them a note on their talk page. In case the checkuser is inconclusive, it would help to hear why the blocking admin assumes this IP trolling originates with Rbj, apart from the fact that its target is a user Rbj has apparently previously attacked. Sandstein 09:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I haven't had coffee yet - I will do what I can. Pls be patient. Also mentioning there was no opposition to an indef in this thread unless you count my hesitation in indef blocking without giving him one last chance. EVula took that as sufficient doubt about indef blocking, and reversed his indef of the editor. I state now for the record I personally think he should have been indef'd some time ago, and regret even mentioning a Last Chance, as this editor has been nothing but hateful and disruptive. If your look at the diffs provided in the earlier thread, and the posts on his talk page [[7]], you will see the statement that "i have little respect for the authenticity of Orange's religious sense of offense. <snip> this "offense" he takes here is a pretext." Basically, Rbj edited OM's post on an article talk page in a manner calculated to be a swipe at OM's religious beliefs. He then said he didn't believe OM was actually offended, and made it a case for further attacks on OM, more or less weirdly saying OM was only pretending to be Jewish, so he could pretend to be offended, as some kind of setup for Rbj - completely ignoring that multiple editors were expressing horror at the edit Rbj had made, and an anti-semitic edit is offensive on its own, whether or not the target is a practicing Jew of whatever level of othodoxy. "i have little respect for the authenticity of Orange's religious sense of offense"[8]. He characterized the outrage at his actions "phony" several times[9][10] and showed no appreciation for how unacceptable his actions were. I can dig out more diffs, but most of it is linked in the this thread previous ANI thread, which links an earlier thread, as well as his talk page at the place linked above. Any brief perusal of his contribs will show multiple nasty personal attacks within a few clicks. He's shown no remorse, no intent to even consider being more civil, and I have no idea why anyone would consider unblocking this highly disruptive, anti-semitic, hostile and accusatory troll. But hey, if you decide to unblock I'm not worried. I disagree, strongly, but I'm not worried about much further damage to the project or its volunteers. I'll just keep blocking the IPs when they make their hateful posts, which make the same kinds of attacks Rbj has made against OM, and eventually even the DC area will run out of IPs Rbj can use to continue his hateful harassment of this editor. According to cu, he's always edited from a range of IPs, so cu cannot confirm - but tellingly, cannot clear. A formal cu was not run, feel free to do but you'll get a "likely" or an "unable to deterimine" and not a postive yea or nay. Who else would be making identical attacks to the ones Rbj made, from multiple IPs? this isn't rocket science. Calling OM a fake jew, a POV pusher, and a liar is Rbj right down the line. I will go for coffee now and return once my brain is working: if I've been unclear or more diffs are desired, or there are any questions, I will be happy to address them. Apologies for the pre-coffee disorganized nature of this response. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a girl... I'll blame it on the coffee. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My deepest apologies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not the first person to make that mistake, and sadly, probably not the last... I've been dealing with it for, oh, about nine years now (damn "a" at the end of my name!). Don't worry about it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone keeps calling me "he" too - do you think we should switch unames for a week, see how that works out? (This is a joke, for those of you who worry about such things) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the block - it's long overdue. Guettarda 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As suggested checkuser, does not produce useful results. I might support hearing an appeal of his indefinite ban in order to consider an alternative remedy (I favor frequent short blocks rather than indefinite bans for his sort of behavior) but will not unblock him at this time. Fred Bauder 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been enjoying my holiday weekend, so I'm embarrassed that I didn't offer more information. I was attacked by several anonymous editor whom I believe are sockpuppets of RBJ. Here and here, I was attacked by User:70.108.92.189. This was an attack by User:68.100.207.219. And finally, another attack by User:80.213.213.126. Much of what was written fits into Rbj's anti-Semitic rants, rude and profane language, and other activities. Block him forever. Orangemarlin 14:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll refrain from reviewing Rbj's still-open unblock request in favour of an admin with some experience with his user. Lacking that, I can't fairly determine whether it is sufficiently probable that Rbj is behind the IP attacks that have triggered the contested block. Sandstein 15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They might be meatpuppets rather than Rbj editing anonymously, but Rbj must have had something to do with this, probably making a complaint in a chatroom or forum or something like that. (I tried to google for it, but it's difficult: I keep turning up Wikipedia mirrors but don't want to exclude "Wikipedia" since it may well be mentioned in the thread.) Anyway, I think Rbj has had his share of chances and then some, and we don't need to give him any more. Mangojuice^talk 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What about excluding "en.wikipedia.org" instead? That might work to take out some of the mirrors, but not exclude a passing reference. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Support the block. Considering his 19(!) previous blocks, Guettarda is right, this was long overdue. FeloniousMonk 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

19, eh? I don't recall seeng anything indicating that Wikipedia needs to undertake massive reclamation projects regarding disruptive editors (as seems to have been the case here). The time for an indef passed about 10 blocks ago. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

for your convenience:

Rbj, in his unblock request, points to an edit he made while evading a previous block: 71.161.209.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP resolves to Verizon in Reston, VA. The IP I noticed, 70.108.92.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), resolves to Verzon in Reston, VA. The posts made by 70.108.92.189 consist of ten attacks on OM, which include:

• 22:56, 15 May 2007 Replacing page with "What a loser you are"
• 23:00, 15 May 2007 "Orangemarlin is a sockpuppet of a Wikipedia administrator who pretends to know much more than he actually knows."
• 10:39, 20 May 2007 Warning. "If you deal with Orangemarlin and his aliases, you're dealing with a liar, a jerk and an imposter."

The edits are all on the dates 15 May 2007, 19 May 2007, and 20 May 2007. 15 May 2007 was when Rbj was blocked and unblocked by EVula, and Rbj was informed he would be indef blocked if he made another personal attack.

68.100.207.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) resolves to COX in Atlanta. Starting on 13 May 2007 a series of attacks were placed on OM's talk page, including three, on 19 May 2007, to the section User:Wendyow) - where 70.108.92.189 also made several posts. The posts were:

• 68.100.207.219: 13:57, 19 May 2007 "No, people hate you. They think they hate Jews, but they actually hate you. I don't hate you. I pity you and the Jews who are the victim of your intolerant arrogant overbearing attitude. Your actions elicit a reaction in others who wrongly think you are representative of Jews. That's sad. (P) My question is why do you pretend to be something you are not on your user page?"
• 68.100.207.219: 16:11, 19 May 2007 "Ad hominem attacks are your trademark. Stick to name calling. It's quite amusing because no matter how long you keep up the charade, you can't fool yourself."
• 68.100.207.219: 17:08, 19 May 2007 "Why don't you just admit you're an imposter?"

19:57, 19 May 2007 Firsfon of Rochester stated that he's blocked 68.100.207.219 for one week.

• 70.108.92.189: 10:38, 20 May 2007 "This has nothing to do with a Jewish cabal or anti-semitism. It has to do with Orangemarlin being a jerk, an imposter and a sockpuppet."
• 70.108.92.189: 10:39, 20 May 2007 "Warning. If you deal with Orangemarlin and his aliases, you're dealing with a liar, a jerk and an imposter."
• 70.108.92.189: 10:42, 20 May 2007 "You're fighting a losing battle. This guy is a raging fanatic who oppresses all viewpoints other than his own. No rational persone questions whether Jesus lived or not. Rather, such talk is just an attempt to diminish the spiritual beliefs of others. His motive is simple and obvious. The dude you are fighting is so devoid of any spiritual life and empty inside that he feels the need to attack others to better convince himself of his own righteousness."

15:55, 20 May 2007 Firsfon of Rochester protected OM's talk page. Looks to me as though it was the same person in the DC area on the 19th, and in Atlanta on the 20th. Compare the insults to those Rbj himself made:

• 01:33, 26 April 2007 tell the other editors to stop misrepresenting me. tell them to stop lying.
• 15:49, 2 May 2007 "except for abusive admins and naked POV pushers, i am not too worried about my reputation here." ... " i have little respect for the authenticity of Orange's religious sense of offense. indeed, he makes it pretty clear that he is not. this "offense" he takes here is a pretext. it's as phony as the myriad statements of "fact" he makes (which are just his opinion) and insists on giving the status of fact. he can take refuge in his Mercedes driven by his chaffeur (if that really is the case). in fact, i would expect anyone alledgedly trained in a hard science to have a bit more critical thinking. "
• 21:46, 2 May 2007 "... i have some serious disrespect for Orange ... he is just one of a bunch of POV-pushing editors that will stoop to any level of misrepresentation to obscure the fact that they want their heavily biased anti-ID POV (which he admits to freely) represented in the article. this is a phony little pretext that i regret offering to this bunch of POV-pushers."

He also states he's going to appeal to Jimbo: " if it were indefinite, i guess i'd have to bug Jimbo again" + " Jimbo has reversed the action of the admin (the count is 3 to 0 now)" this on his previous block, for 24 hours - this would be the one by JoshuaZ, before the indef EVula made and undid.

Hope this helps. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion concern

Would it be possible to implement the ability for regular users to view the history and past revisions of articles even after they are deleted? I've been frustrated lately at editors for nominating articles like this one for deletion due to a lack of sources, because by deleting them, all that is being done is preventing editors from being able to add reliable sources and improve the article, while destroying editors hard work. If it were possible to view old revisions of the articles, I wouldn't be so against the deletion, because this way, editors would still be able to look over the article's content, make improvements, and eventually recreate it, without just having to start from scratch, when the quality of the content wasn't in question to begin with.--Azer Red Si? 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• If all users could see deleted articles, then what would be the point of deleting them? The point of deletion is to hide things, because deletion is literally just flagging revisions to hide them, and undeletion is unflagging them, making them visible again. Plus, those lucky two dozen or so people with oversight would have a lot more work to do: if copyvios were still visible, they might as well have never been deleted, and this would neutralize the deletions of all the tens of thousands of unfree images and articles admins have deleted over the years. All attack pages, too, would need to be oversighted, to assuage libel concerns. To put it simply, letting everybody see deleted articles soundly defeats the purpose of deletion. If you must see things, the Google cache is quite available, and there are admins who will email you copies. Picaroon (Talk) 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There was also a lengthy discussion here as well. Sr13 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Replied on the deletion discussion. What you describe is more like userfying, the article gets restored in user space to be worked on (and it has to be worked on, not just indefinite free web hosting), that way the issues of the AFD can be addressed and potentially moved back to mainspace. Clearly the outcome of the AFD will determine how easy it is going to be to address the issues the AFD raises. --pgk 07:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I note that at the aforelinked AFD discussion Azer Red states that the "majority of [Wikipedia's] articles are made up mostly of OR" and uses that to argue that our Wikipedia:No original research policy should not apply. I also note that sources were requested for this article over 3 months ago, contrary to the assertions that editors have "not had the chance to try" to find sources. It appears that Azer Red's lack of agreement with our fundamental content policies and name-calling of other editors is the actual problem here, not deletion.

  Always work from, and cite, sources. Encyclopaedia content must be verifiable and free from original research. This is not an issue for the administrators' noticeboard. Uncle G 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Deletionist" is a derogatory name. There's a whole category of editors who call themselves "deletionists", but you're right, I agree that I shouldn't be lumping all of the people who support these deletions into the same category. Also, I didn't say that the no OR policy shouldn't apply, but I said that if it does apply, it should apply in full, not just in random cases like this. I personally think that OR alone shouldn't be enough to allow for an article to be deleted, but I don't understand why those who do think so don't enforce the policy consistantly. --Azer Red Si? 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Could it be made so that admins can choose whether or not to allow the history of deleted articles to be viewed by regular users? I understand concerns about seeing past revisions of copyvio stuff, so if admins could choose whether or not to leave the history, this could solve that problem while still solving the problem of editors' work being lost.--Azer Red Si? 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe WP:USERFY does everything you want. ··coelacan 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory Blockage Template

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me is one of the finest anti-vandalism Admins active today, but I must comment that the account blockage template used on User talk:82.7.200.10 is perhaps amusing, but is inappropriate in tone. Admins should not be mocking vandals -- they should try to educate them, and encourage them to return to the Wikipedia fold post-block as positive contributors. BTW, I am not permitted to leave messages on User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, so I decided to comment here. WikiBully 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a little humor is a good time. The template doesn't bother me.--Alabamaboy 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Of much greater interest to me is why you're not permitted to user CSCWEM's talk page, to be perfectly honest... the template is fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiBully can't edit that page yet because the account was just registered two days ago, and CSCWEM's talk is semiprotected. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alrighty. I thought there may have been some sort of history between the two editors, which would suggest that this might be a bad faith post. If we dismiss my paranoid ramblings as just example that I shouldn't go off my meds (*twitch*), my opinion that the template was fine still stands. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is zero history. That's why I made sure to say that User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me is a great editor, though I think the blockage template is unwisely provocative. WikiBully 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It harks back to a few years ago when block messages were frequently of that nature. Viridae^Talk 14:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I had a wikistalker that wouldn't hesitate to publicly praise me, yet still harass me. However, we're going off on a major tangent that is largely my fault, so I'm gonna just drop it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

<shrug> You know, I'm aware that it doesn't matter much, and it's a bogus argument but... about that template... ILIKEIT. Philippe 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see how that template might be annoying to the person receiving it, but I can also see how it wouldn't be, so I guess I'd have to hear it from one or more of them. It is a little odd, at first glance, to act like we're rewarding people for vandalism...but then, if they thought not editing Wikipedia was such a relief, they could just not do it in the first place. Instead, it may have the effect of instilling in people a sense that Wikipedia is a fun place and rewarding community to be a part of, so it might be a handy reforming tool. Anyway, speculation. I think the template is harmless, even sort of cute, but you don't have to agree with the cute part if you don't want to. --Masamage ♫ 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey

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

---

Folks, I have blocked Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to prevent further disruption to the project. It is clear from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 that (a) pretty much everyone but Merkey thinks he's a problem and (b) Merkey thinks that's because everyone but him is wrong about that. Points suuch as his claim on the RfC that being a financial contributor to the Foundation gives him special rights, and his ludicrous (now deleted) Wikipedia:Right to Edit make it perfectly plain that anything which conflicts with his belief in his inalienable right to do what he wants, is necessarily wrong. And he will pursue that agenda everywhere he can find an audience - I have rarely seen more blatant forum shopping. So: I have blocked him for the purpose of containing his disruption to a single locus, his talk page, where we can talk to him or ignore him as we each see fit, until such time as he chooses to stop the nonsense. Please don't protect his Talk unless he makes a real nbuisance of himself with {{unblock}}. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I have to support this, even with the massive shitstorm this could potentially unleash, because it's the right thing to do. He. just. Does. Not. Get. It. He's drifted more and more off the plot with each and every edit he's made. SirFozzie 12:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I state no position on other matters. But I endorse the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Right to Edit. Had it come to MFD, there would have almost certainly been a unanimous chorus of opinions to delete from all experienced Wikipedia editors, with much discussion of why it was wrong. We can do without the additional drain on everyone's time that that would involve. The issues that the editor clearly wanted to raise therein have are already been raised by xem at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 and can be (and are being) discussed by the community there. Uncle G 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Right to Edit was one of funniest things I've read for a long time - please, someone, send it over to Uncyclopedia - but Wikipedia is not solely designed for humour, lamentably. Merkey's edits have become so far divorced from the reality of what you can and cannot do that I don't think we've been left with any option other than ridding ourselves of the disruption he causes. Moreschi ^Talk 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree the block is necessary to prevent his continued disruption. A corollary is that anyone who has come to Wikipedia to fight with him should be shown the door. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• As one of the original proponents that he be unblocked, I agree that he should probably be blocked indefinitely again. He deserved the chance he was given, but he was disruptive. I understand that there are other users who have been bothering him; that doesn't excuse his actions and attitude in conflicts. Ral315 » 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• He was given a second chance to be a constructive Wikipedian and has spent almost all his time arguing (badly) rather than actually improving Wikipedia. I support this block and strongly advise against any third chances - it's not worth it. --Tango 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse this block and commend Guy for having the common sense to see that Merkey's presence was much more of a hindrance than a benefit. His comments showed that he had no interest in following policy and was using every possible opportunity for rather incoherent soapboxing. Blocking him again is no loss to the project. --YFB ¿ 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I didn't get a chance to see Wikipedia:Right to Edit. Could someone please undelete it and send it to BJAODN? *** Crotalus *** 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That would just be asking for trouble ... I strongly advise against that. --BigDT 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think such trolling should be glorified by BJAODN, though perhaps Uncyclopedia might be interested? Moreschi ^Talk 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Uncyclopedia does not use a GFDL-compatible license. Copy from Wikipedia cannot be copied there. At any rate, I don't think anything good can come from restoring this page anywhere ... we don't need a "poke fun at a blocked user's idea" forum. --BigDT 16:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Given what Jeffrey has written on his talk page about possible off-wiki actions and his previous agreements with the foundation, perhaps we should just protect his talk page and let him deal with the foundation by private communication from here on out. There is nothing else us mere wiki-mortals can do here. NoSeptember 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protected. Yall can clean up anything you think should not be there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, reading his comments on his talk, I'd say this block was absolutely justified, beyond question. My word. He can talk to the Foundation privately if he so wishes, but until told otherwise, we really don't need him wasting our time here. A couple of real gems: "18 year olds who live in their mom's basement and who are taking a free ride off my money and chat room trolls who talk about inappropriate topics don't tell me when I am right or wrong. In fact, no such concept exists on this site", followed by "community == trolls", and "Never mind, I saw the Noticeboard and the comments from all the trolls and strong arm groups. This block violates just about every assurance from the Foundation. It also interferes with my investments".

Up with this we must not put. For obvious reasons. Moreschi ^Talk 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think we can handle this without actively taking the piss. Merkey is wrong, the problem is that he does not believe it. We need to find a strategy to get him down off the Reichstag so we can let him edit. I don't think anybody here believes he is evil or a troll, just... odd. And that oddness creates a problem. The trouble is, nobody else I can find to talk to about him has the faintest idea how to de-escalate this either. And yes, I have asked Jimmy. Consensus appears to be that we should be nice to him (fine) but not let him bring his battles here (also fine). All suggestions gratefully received. And I think we should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to trolling of Merkey, here or on his Talk as and when we unprotect it. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• While I dont have any solutions myself but I do think that (a) we should unlock his talk page and (b) change the block from indefinite to 24 hours, SqueakBox 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not averse to an expiring block, but 24 hours is way too short. A lot of time has been wasted. Maybe the best thing is just to walk away and come back when he's calmed down - he's in email contact with the foundation guys, we'll know soon enough when he's likely to be productive. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW I would recommend a fixed block so he knows when he is going to be unblocked (and I speak from an experience (of being blocked) you dont have). It would be nice to see the talk page unlocked so I and others can leave a message there given he isnt being disruptive there from what I can see, SqueakBox 20:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ther,e now you've proved me wrong. I said cooling off blocks don't work - but with you actually they do, don't they? I remember I blocked you a while back, you handled it with remarkable equanimity. The problem with Merkey, though, is that he is much less self-aware than you are. I think you are commendably aware of your own biases and enthusiasms, and I think that you fundamentally accept things about which Merkey is still in denial. Included among these is the fact that editing Wikipedia is just a hobby, and if the power went out the world would continue to turn. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We're probably seeing differently, cuz I see quite a lot of disruption. I can't see any rationale for an unblock. Since being debanned, he has not contributed productively in the slightest, just bounced back and forth between edit wars, ANI, and RFC. Second chances are great, but why a third? Moreschi ^Talk 20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Has Jeffrey opened any threads at rfc (no) or AN/I? I get the impression Guy wants to see Jeffrey contribute constructively and to that extent I am willing to support Guy's actions, SqueakBox 20:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what I mean. In a very short space of time he's been the subject of an RFC and plenty of threads at ANI (always a bad sign). We'd all like to see Merkey contribute productively but is this really likely third time around, and does he want to contribute productively anyway (productively meaning playing by the rules, our rules)? Moreschi ^Talk 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Guy -- thanks. The only thing I find more vexing than vandals are editors who come to promote personal agendas. No mere vandal can waste contributors' time on that sort of scale. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Look closely at User:Poindexter Propellerhead's contribution history, created 24 May, with two and only two interests: 1) hundreds of reverts against vandalism, and 2) !voting and commenting against Jeffrey Merkey.[11] Nothing else.Proabivouac 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Look more closely, and you'll find some significant edits. When I'm doing a hundred vandalism reverts a day, I know it's easy for them to get lost in the noise. Also lost in the noise are actions I took against other bad editors, as when I reverted one (now indef blocked) calling their edit "hate speech." I don't single out any editor who has a huge POV axe to grind, and is willing to revert war to get their way. They're all the same to me. I kind of expected this, though, having seen how everyone who ever complained about Merkey's editing was labelled as a bad faith cabal member -- Lulu, Hipocrite, Tom, etc. Think what you will, but I'm going to keep putting in a thousand worthwhile edits a week, and I'm going to keep on complaining when people come here to try and force a POV on the world. Whether Merkey is editing or blocked won't change that a bit. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations

I recommend the block be changed to a month for a cooling off period and his talk page be unprotected for him to continue his work. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Cooling-off blocks don't work. He's blocked to stop the drama, when we are confident he won't cause more drama we can unblock him. I have no real opinion on protection of his talk page. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cooling-off blocks have worked in the past for many Wikipedians. You stand corrected. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Many? Which ones? And this is his second time to be banned...for the same exact reason. Are you saying that there is a realistic chance of him to suddenly change his mind? We might give second chances, but that's pretty much it. The policy is assume good faith, not assume blind faith. —Kurykh 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of editors who have been blocked for various reasons. The blocks were a good cooling-off period. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't work. What in the world do you want him to do? Put something in writing? Make some sort of oath? For some people it takes a little longer for them to understand the rules when no guidance has been given. How much help has he been given? Please provide him with the policies he should read up on and understand. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to wait for people to grow up. He has been provided with x number of lists of policies he should read up with, and has refuted them all with his dismissive attitude. If he really wants to start editing constructively (and can prove that he can, will, and remain so), then he can e-mail an administrator, ArbCom member, or Jimbo, and maybe have his block overturned. It's indefinite, not infinite. The indefinite block is essentially telling him that we will not accept him back unless he accepts our terms of editing. But right now, he's only disrupting the encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia's existence is more important than keeping trollish editors in the fold. —Kurykh 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide him with the specific, most helpful policies for him to read to be productive here. Lets move forward on this. Lets start somewhere. Please be specific with your terms. What are your terms? Wikipedia has a tradition of an open-arm acceptance. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy. For him to unconditionally contribute positively to the encyclopedia and the community, without demands or assertions of nonexistent rights and/or benefits. This is a term that you, me, and every editor in good standing accepts, and the only social condition imposed by Wikipedia and the collective community. —Kurykh 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are right on the fact that Wikipedia has a tradition of an open-arm acceptance, but it does not require it to accept those who seek its exploitation and/or destruction. —Kurykh 21:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that it? I recommend for you to transfer that to his talk page and put it in bold and tell him to read it over and over again until he understands it thoroughly. And for him to understand what lessons he has learned. Moving forward, he must understand that this is his last chance. He must also understand even if he is correct in a content dispute he must go by consensus and can request for comment on an article and try other avenues. Tigers are welcomed here but they must not growl. Understanding is the key. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

JzG already posted something similar to the above there. However, I still assert that the indefinite block should remain in place. —Kurykh 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's not as if this is only Merkey's second block. It's his second indefinite block. Before he earned his first "indefinite" block, he had already been blocked numerous times for shorter periods because of the same sort of behavior. In fact, he had been blocked under a score of sockpuppet accounts back two years ago when he first began active disruption. I know that editors and admins who weren't watching the first rounds of bad behavior want to assume this is a passing mood; but from what I can see, confrontational trolling and unsubstantiated vehement personal beliefs is Merkey's entire life history, both on and off Wikipedia.

Frankly, even Merkey's allegedly polite request to be unblocked contained exactly the same kind of arrogance his subsequent edits showed: First claiming that he has more money than other editors; then claiming (certainly falsely, as well as irrelevant) that he has contributed some huge money to Wikimedia; and finally advancing the fanciful claim that he has "an IQ of 190" as alleged evidence he should have greater rights (btw. if you know how IQ is defined, you know that fewer than 20 people in the USA are at that +6 sigmas). Please, please, please don't give him an Nth chance to make us go through this ordeal again, with a certainty of the same outcome. LotLE×talk 21:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Given that this user's very first block was indefinite, I would support changing to a one-month block unless there is a much clearer indication of the nature of the problem in the RfC. This user clearly currently has a beef with the community and is very angry; I wouldn't take into consideration anything the user is saying in the present angry state; the whole point of a block is to enable a cooling down period to get past anger and allow calm to set in before making decisions. For a first block, I would allow time for a cooling-down period -- a month is plenty for this -- and then give the user an opportunity to decide, calmly, to either play by the rules or not play. I wouldn't block for longer than is necessary for this. I wouldn't indefinitely block as a first block. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing this support in light of user's history of blocks and other trouble when editing under prior user names. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looking back over the block logs, it's not exactly the second time. Three of his IP addresses had a 24-hour, a 1 month, an indefinite and one other unspecified (temporary) block. His other accounts, Gadugi and Waya Sohoni, had a 1-hour, an 8-hour, three 24-hour, a 14-day, and four indefinite blocks. Other accounts which were almost certainly his (Asgaya Gigigei, Sint Holo and PeyoteMan) were also blocked indefinitely, which gives him grand total of 9 temporary and 10 indefinite blocks (counting the two already mentioned).

• • Regarding LotLE's comment that this user has been blocked before: Could you post links to evidence of this? This makes a big difference. The present block log shows only two blocks, one on May 2 resulting in an unblocking after a few hours, and one today, suggesting a medium-duration block has never been tried. If the reality is that this user has had a long history of past blocks under sockpuppet accounts, would it be possible to post evidence of this here and/or under the RfC? I would agree that if this is true my previous responses would be off the mark. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree this issue has been satisfactorily addressed per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2#Is this guy a sockpuppet of a previously banned user? Best, --Shirahadasha 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with LotLE...enough is enough.--MONGO 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree with you completely. MONGO has rewarded an editor who was hounding Mr. Merkey with a barnstar. What is going on here?[12][13] Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sock, get your drawer in order, before coming after mine. I have hounded no one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I've given this some thought and propose the following as a "strategy" of sorts:

• Leave the block indefinite for the time being. If we impose a time-specific block and then allow him back with his attitude unchanged, we'll just go through exactly the same palaver in a month or so's time and end up having this debate for a third time.
• If Mr. Merkey emails an admin expressing a fundamental change in his attitude regarding the assumption of bad faith, caballery, conspiracy theories etc. and avowing an intention to adhere rigidly to Wikipedia policies as written (rather than his own interpretation), he could be unblocked. If that were to happen it should probably be on a zero-tolerance probation basis, i.e. one personal attack, edit war, unwarranted content removal etc. and he's reblocked.
• In the mean time, he should be allowed to use a section of his talk page as a sandbox for article editing, conditional on the page being re-protected at the first sign of soapboxing. If he makes reasonable edit proposals at his talk page, they can be enacted at the articles themselves, or proposed for further discussion at the relevant talk page with Jeff allowed to take part in the discussion by proxy. I wouldn't be averse to acting as an intermediary there if that was acceptable to Mr. Merkey.
• I would also suggest that, if they haven't been already, obvious Merkey-baiting accounts such as Al Petrofsky are blocked indef on sight. We do at least owe Jeff the same level of protection from trolling as anyone other editor. That said, we don't need anyone making "troll-watch lists" and Mr. Merkey should be prohibited from making any accusations of trolling whatsoever - established editors should be able to identify troll SPAs without much difficulty, so if a couple of neutral parties are prepared to keep an eyeball out, Jeff should have no need to resort to finger-pointing and personal attacks.
• There should be (at least while these conditions are in effect) a moratorium on RfC, AN(/I), CSN, ArbCom etc. proposals/threads relating to Mr. Merkey. These only seem to serve as troll magnets or venues for argument, so they might as well be eschewed since while he's blocked and only editing his talk page under probation conditions, Jeff can't really do anything that might warrant recourse to any of these processes anyway.

Comments/suggestions welcome. --YFB ¿ 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Why was Jeff's talk page protected? That strikes me as counter-productive. Chick Bowen 01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now where this is discussed above. Well, it doesn't strike me as a big deal either way, but I'll leave it. Chick Bowen 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page should be unprotected because it was done without any justification. Lack of response by administrators is compelling. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 05:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The justification above was that he was using it to pretty much asail the Foundation for not letting him edit. He has the ability to email the Foundation; so he can ask to have his page unlocked if he agrees to not use the talk page for that purpose. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

He just got blocked. I would be pisted too. The reason to block his talk page is still unjustified. I request his talk page be unblocked right away. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Its unblocked now, SqueakBox 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sophisticated anti-Merkey attack machine

At least three obvious (obvious when you actually look at contribs) anti-Merkey SPA's participated in the RfC's.

• User:Kebron is the most obvious. Interests include Groklaw, SCO, Cherokees, and threads against Jeffrey Merkey. Only in the past few days do we see an attempt at camouflage with a number of innocuous but trivial Canada-related edits.[14].
• User:Nyet is another. See how he blithely pretends not to know what is going on here,[15] but earlier wrote this,[16] which Jimbo called trolling.[17] Even the username Nyet intersects with Merkey, recalling a memorable moment in the now-infamous GNAA call (which happened sometime last year - I'm not certain when.)
• User:Poindexter Propellerhead as referenced above.
  

Make no mistake, this is a coordinated - and sophisticated - attack machine. Merkey's not getting away with anything, his problems are all out in the open, but these guys (as Merkey says, you can find them over here) are playing Wikipedia like a cheap flute.
Poindexter and Kebron's userboxes, Poindexter's mission statement, and the vast number of camouflage edits speak to the wikisavvy and determination behind this effort to game and exploit the community's assumption of good faith.
No wonder he's paranoid: people are out to get him. He's done a horrible job of distinguishing good-faith editors with good-faith requests for improvement from the trolls which plague him, but then so have we, for these are still among us, participating in this thread.
If protecting Merkey from being stalked, harassed and trolled is to be more than an empty statement of intent, the assumption of good faith for users we've never seen before may have to be a little less forthcoming in Merkey-related threads than it usually (and rightly) is.Proabivouac 03:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we really need to relax assumptions of good faith at all. There is almost certain to be something up when a new user jumps straight into a user conduct dispute. Whether or not the something justifies blocking varies, but I can't imagine a situation in which someone who truly is new could go straight to railing against another user for their actions. -Amarkov moo! 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about all three of those users and was somewhat surprised not to have seen any of them blocked already (particularly Kebron, who is blatant). Al Petrofsky is still blockless, too, despite obviously being here only to spam dispute pages with his accounts of Merkey's past conflicts. "Relaxing AGF" might be putting it too strongly, but there's certainly room for a bit of background checking of those who get involved with Merkey issues seemingly out of the blue. --YFB ¿ 03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave Al a block last night, but based on an email conversation with him, I decided to unblock. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote part of one recent SCO post (the remainder is too vile for this noticeboard):

"PWNED!…How come your named account is indef blocked and my SPA account is stall active? Check out user:CatchFork…"[18]Proabivouac 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sickened to realize that my endorsement of the substantial complaints laid forth in the RfC played a part in this hate-filled fellow's orgasm of sadism.Proabivouac 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Does an 'Anti-Merkey' cabal exist?

The duration of the block is ludicrous. This is totally unacceptable. I recommend to Guy to stop playing with the buttons. Here is a link I find interesting to read.[19] Come to your own conclusions what is really happening here. Was it coordinated? The above new evidence provided makes everything a bit more clear. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• And I recommend to you to read the discussions. Indefinite <> permanent, it means until things have calmed down. I am actively engaging with Mr. Merkey by email, in pursuit of a resolution. There is no point setting an arbitrary expiry date, that would be nonsensical under the circumstances, but I will unblock when I think the time is right, and that judgement is completely dependent on the conversations I am having with Merkey and others right now. If you are hearing a subliminal and not wholly complimentary message underneath that, congratulations on your perspicacity. "Playing with the tools" my arse. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus

There is no consensus for the controversial block. Therefore, the resolution is an unblock. One administrator cannnot overide consensus. The community has spoken on this. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Merkey has posted a request to be unblocked, and the discussion on the unblock request is on ANI. SirFozzie 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete the RfC pages?

Would there be any objection if we deleted the RfC page relating to Merkey and its talkpage? The initiating party, User:Hipocrite, has said at User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Bye, that he wants nothing further to do with the matter; several of the threads were poisoned by the above-mentioned attack accounts; Merkey's own comments were, to say the least, unhelpful to himself or to the project; and nothing useful was resolved. I suggest that deleting the pages would be a good step for everyone. Newyorkbrad 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to deletion, so long as it doesn't mean that we end up arguing over the extent of Merkey's unhelpfulness at a later date. Archival with an appropriate closing note (much like what you've posted here) might be a more transparent way of bringing an end to the debate, but I don't consider deletion OTT. The RfC quickly got mired in pointless squabbling and personal attacks, so it's hardly going to be very useful to anyone in future. --YFB ¿ 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We can blank it, but deletion would be a bad idea, I think. There are issues there which remain unaddressed. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Merkey poster claims passed RfA, threatens bio

The individual behind User:CatchFork claims to have another account which has recently passed RfA, and declares his intent to use this position to harass Merkey:[20] See also this response:[21]
This SCO noticeboard has proven to be a font of frank admissions. The very strongest action is warranted: a logged checkuser involving all the anti-Merkey socks, and if necessary a comparison of User:CatchFork to recent successful RfA candidates.
We also have a threat to attack Merkey's bio: "I think the first thing I'll do is offer to edit your personal bio article under good faith to reflect this last hilarious meltdown and your completely ridiculous history with wikipedia."
As if this all weren't enough, there is the claim that this is being decided on IRC:"Your name is mud there and the admins are circulating reports of your actions on IRC."Proabivouac 07:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that liberal use of checkuser would be an excellent idea. I recall an allegation that the poster who is claiming to have an admin here was identified with an account (now indef blocked) that was blatantly trolling Merkey, and I would not be AT ALL surprised to find out that he's been half a dozen or more other such accounts. We need to clear the air around here, and checkuser is the surest way to do it. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a self request.Proabivouac 08:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means, checkuser me too! I had been wondering what your problem was with my fighting vandalism, but when I read the links you posted I realized that you must be taking me for that poster who said that he'd been doing the same. He also said that he was using IPs he got from his university, so I'd like someone to verify that I'm on private, unproxied DSL connection. The only way to stop the finger-pointing is to weed out the actual bad apples, so let's get it done. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"I had been wondering what your problem was with my fighting vandalism, but when I read the links you posted I realized that you must be taking me for that poster who said that he'd been doing the same."

Please. I have no problem with you fighting vandalism, except that per contribs and context it's obviously camouflage. Come back to me after a month of this and I might apologize. As of now, to put it quite plainly, I think your claim to have been lurking all this time and contributing thousands of useful edits, but just now opening an account, to be a lie. Your actions are designed to deceive the community's standard diagnostics of good-faith editors vs. attack SPAs, and your posts here aim to exploit the community's assumption of good faith.Proabivouac 08:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that you feel that way, but those posts go a long way towards creating an air of paranoia, so I can understand why you do. And I don't mind waiting a month for my apology. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Has Poindexter Propellerhead broken any WP policies by arguing on a RfC and here? That's all his Merkey related activity so far (and hopefully it will stop here as the Merkey is blocked indefinitely). Please note that even if Poindexter Propellerhead came here because of Merkey, he is doing useful work. This way we may have acquired another productive user. Now when (hopefully) Mekey vanished from our radar screens, Poindexter Propellerhead has an opportunity to do only the anti-vandal job he says he likes. Maybe even start editing the articles? Let's assume good will here. -Friendly Neighbour 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am compelled to observe, Friendly Neighbor, that your very first contributions to Wikipedia were related to Mr. Merkey.[22] I do not presume to judge anything else you've done here, as I've not surveyed the whole of your contributions, but from that fact alone, the appearance of a vigorous and longstanding conspiracy - and I use this term advisedly - against Mr. Merkey becomes stronger and stronger at every turn.Proabivouac 09:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted a long reply on your Talk page because this section has been archived just after your edit. A short abstract goes here: you did not get the point. I wrote the above exactly because my account is an example that coming here because of Merkey may lead to productive work. And Merkey tends to create "enemies" on every article he edits so one needs any WP:CABAL to explain why so many users are interested in his future here. Let's stop the witch hunt, especially as the real anti-Merkey trolls (yes, I admit that such do exist) usually stop editing WP when Merkey is not an issue here. -Friendly Neighbour 10:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So, in short, anti-Merkey attack-only accounts are potentially valuable future contributors who should be encouraged to stay.Proabivouac 10:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, be reasonable. I explicitly wrote about users who are doing useful work. One purpose personal attack accounts are not useful by definition. -Friendly Neighbour 10:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So you came here to begin with to attack Merkey, and your most recent actions were to endorse the RfC against him, right alongside none other than myself, [23] and now to post here in support of an attack SPA. I don't know what happened between then and now; I suppose I'll have to check.Proabivouac 10:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not to attack. Rather because I was worried by what he was doing to this open source project (and some other too but this is irrelevant here). I never attacked him, unless by "attack" you mean comments on RfCs or reporting his sockpuppets after he was banned. If you want, please dig to find one personal attack or revert war by me against any of his many accounts. You will not find one. And if you want to continue thi discussion, please take it off WP:AN as it does not belong here. I started a thread on your Talk page. Please reply there if you wish. -Friendly Neighbour 10:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever else happens, I will personally raise an arbcom case against any of those listed above who pursues any kind of harassment against Merkey on Wikipedia. And I have every reason to believe it will be accepted. I strongly advocate a zero-tolerance approach to trolling of Merkey, who handles trolling even worse than I do (which is saying something). If these individuals identified above are serious about contributing to the encylopaedia then that's fine, but leave Jeff Merkey alone. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom should not even be needed. Any account not used to advance the project should be blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True and correct. I'm simply afraid that reporting a Merkey sock (if one appears) will now lead to accusations of Merkey trolling. I never trolled him, unless you count commenting on RfCs or reporting some of his multiple socks on ANI (I'm talking of spring 2006) as trolling. I may sit quietly seeing Wikipedia rules broken (being afraid to speak up) but it is not what should happen here according to our own rules. -Friendly Neighbour 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A report made in good faith, without hyperbole, calmly and with cited diffs, does not constitute trolling. Provided that you are then content to let others make the final call. Like I said above, as long as you are seen to be here to build the encyclopaedia, you should be fine. Just be sure that any personal antipathy you may harbour to any particular editor is not evident in your reports, should such reports become necessary. Thank you for asking for clarification, are we on the same page now? Guy (Help!) 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We've been for a long time. My "Merkey anger" melted long time ago. Now, I find it simply sad that he cannot grow up. If we could find a way for him to edit here without disrupting the project, I would not mind. However, the recent experiment was not a good portent for his future on Wikipedia. -Friendly Neighbour 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is here to fail to scatter magic pixie dust over the situation! Poindexter, people look askance at you because you're clearly an experienced Wikipedian who's magically reappeared out of nowhere in a controversy, so people are obviously going to wonder who the hell you are. CatchFork is trolling us, well done. Everyone else, please STOP trying to poke Jeff with sticks. You will not advance discussion in any way - David Gerard 15:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Guy above. I started investigating and collecting information for a dispute resolution case, but was accused of making an "enemy list" of people "whose only offense is disagreeing with me", by an administrator no less. So I stopped. There are a lot more accounts like those mentioned above, including sleepers registered a long time ago with a handful of edits that magically became active when Jeff was unblocked and follow him around. I'm saddened that more admins aren't aware of this, are unwilling to get involved, and actively prevent efforts to address it or prepare dispute resolution cases. --Duk 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'd suggest that Jeff does have a tendency to be involved in conflict. He's famous and controversial, and there are lots of people across the net who are really upset at him for various reasons. (Note that I'm not addressing here whether that's justified or not - only saying that they are sincere.) As such, some are popping up now that it's an issue because they're quite sincere about it. Again, I suggest the best thing to do is to leave it - Jeff will likely stay blocked while the problems persist, and RFCs etc aren't going to help matters for anyone - David Gerard 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. However, it's these difficult cases where we need to work harder to create a fair atmosphere, no matter which editor happens to be a target. In fact, the more unpopular an editor is, the more we have to be careful that prejudices don't interfere. The easy path is just to let these hoards of angry people post never ending ad homineums, personal attacks and links to unrelated off-site attacks. I've seen a few people with the simple minded and very wrong attitude that protecting Jeff from outrageous attacks equates to supporting his misbehavior, or being "for" him and "against" everyone else. Just because an admin blocks trolls pestering Jeff, or any other editor for that matter, does not mean that that admin is "Jeff's pittbull". --Duk 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed in general with Duk. I would keep in mind that there is a good possibility exists that the user at the top of this section who is blocked for trolling is just trying to make more work for us, and that there is no substance to the threat. Considering the amount of eyes this has generated, I'm fairly sure that any subtle vandalism will be caught. SirFozzie 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  To clarify my earlier statements, they were general comments and not specific to the Anti-Merky RFA claim (thanks noting, SirFozzie). --Duk 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Paul W. Bryant Museum

Resolved

Paul W. Bryant Museum is up for AfD. Someone removed the AfD template from the page and I then edited to make substantive improvements in hope of saving the article. Is it possible to re-add the AfD template without losing the changes I made and without messing up the pending AfD page? I don't want to foul things up. Thanks! JodyB _talk 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just add another AFD template at the top and it'll be fine. Luigi30 (Taλk) 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71

See User talk:DavidYork71 and this. This user has been banned for about a month and would now like a second (more like final I guess) chance to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. User:Matt57 has suggested a one month probation (I'm not sure that that means...), and has additionally stated that David York says he won't use sockpuppets again. I was inclined to (and did) deny his unblock request but I'm open to suggestions. Thoughts? -- John Reaves (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We caught a DavidYork sock yesterday. If he's trying to get unblocked, he's not going about it the right way. Riana ⁂ 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that...this is probably a waste of time then. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Posted on his talk page...

I put this for people's info on his talk page...

Admins other editors considering this request may be interested in the following:

• Check user-confirmed socks of DavidYork71
• Suspected socks with compelling contributions evidence.
• DavidYork71’s apparent sudden acceptance of WP:SOCK after dozens of socks over months, is interesting, given the Sockpuppet action (even over the last 24hours):
  • This and another from two weeks ago and this one were simply for trolling and wiki-stalking purposes.
  • This one was in the last 24hours.
• Unanimous community patience ban (ie, not just a blocked) for continued abuse.

--Merbabu 04:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:John Reaves, my first suggestion is to sign your posts. (Grinning wickedly!). This user was banned after a discussion at the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. See [24]. According to Wikipedia:Banning policy community bans can be appealed to the arbitration committee. I think the continued sock puppetry makes this a non-starter. Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt know as well that this sock puppetry was still continuing rampantly. I agree, the user should at the least not sock puppet for a good amount of time before an appeal can be made. I'll talk him to him more and maybe we'll reappeal later. Thanks for your attention, John and others. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with everyone. As proven repeatedly by Checkuser, David York has engaged in sockpuppetry and block/ban evasion since before he was first blocked right up until at least as recently as yesterday. For no period of the ban has he actually accepted or respected the ban. Moreover, the edits he has made while banned have been disruptive and abusive and it has wasted an incredible amount of time of numerous admins and editors who have had to clean up and chase after him. As I said on his talk page, I don't think any admin will or should give consideration to his appeal until such time as the sockpuppetry and block evasion has stopped and a reasonable period of time has elapsed where David has honoured the ban and not tried to edit under any account or IP. David needs to understand that he is not merely blocked but community banned and that he has bridges to mend with the community before his request can even be entertained and until that happens, his appeal should be rejected and his ban endorsed. Sarah 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on edits like this, I have protected his talk page again until the 5th. If anyone wants to extend that or take other actions, I have no objection. Metros 01:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I did not know about these editing behaviors of DavidYork and that he would ever edit war with an admin over a Swastika. This is definitely trolling and we're better off without users like him. If he does this while he's already on an indef block, there's no way he'll ever proabbly be reallowed here. I doubt his sock puppets will stop then, he's definitely going to continue that behavior. I will not reappeal his case again, he's on his own. I will join in the hunt to stop his sock puppets wherever I can. Thanks.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you've just said, Matt, but you should also understand that David isn't just indefinitely blocked, he's community banned for exhausting the community's patience. An indefinite block and a ban are two different things. Also, this isn't the first time he's edit warred with an admin over swastika images. He was doing the exact same thing on Jimbo's talk page the other night. Sarah 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, I didnt know there was a difference between a block and a community ban. I agree this kind of editor deserves the strongest ban/block possible. He just praised Hitler in email to me, which obviously didnt sit well with me. These are the kind of editors against whom the swiftest action should be taken. I'm glad he's out of here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the community ban. I became even more convinced once I realized he made a sockpuppet entitled User:What Holocaust2. This draws the past what is acceptable in my opinion. This name inplies Holocaust denial, and that, in my opinion is just antisemitic and unacceptable.--Sefringle 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Carswell conflit of interest

Lately, Douglas Carswell (talk · contribs) has been editing Douglas Carswell. The edits aren't obviously inappropriate, but I'm not sure that they're encyclopedia-grade either. They've been told about the autobiography guidelines on their talk page; they haven't responded. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just removed some completely unverified hyperbole.--Isotope23 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Posted at WP:COIN. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is a British member of Parliament. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not very fun TfD/image license request

Resolved

So, I'm still without AWB. Who would like to remove an image licensing template that's transcluded several hundred times? After the template is removed, I'm sure the images will need a new license or be rendered suitable for speedy deletion, in which case, they should be deleted. The TfD nom is here, if anyone's feeling adventurous. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Finished, who needs AWB to do that kind of work :) — Moe ε 03:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New XFF project

I've started up Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs. The use is for dealing with ISPs that use only a few IPs but serve thousands of people. The idea is to list the ISP IPs as trusted, which makes the XFF client IP they send count as the user's IP address, allowing for more fine tuned blocks. However not all ISPs may send good/trusted headers, so the point of the page is to have checkusers look over what kind of data it sends to decide whether to list it as trusted or not. Voice-of-All 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer

This administrator seems to be making statements that contradict current wikipedia policy on Talk:Accelerated Christian Education.--Jorfer 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Diffs, please. If you're wishing to convince people you're right, you'll need to illustrate the particular behavior you disagree with, in the event that someone disagrees with your assessment and sees nothing wrong. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've read the discussion. Rspeer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appears to be right on the money. Further comment on the talk page. Uncle G 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious contributions

I have my doubts over the legitimacy of the contributions made by Special:Contributions/Belazzur, as he/she is repeatedly cut and pasting page moves, after being warned several times and labelling articles with {{Article probation}}, when quite clearly there is no need to. For example Belazzur inserted the {{Article probation}} template to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, when to the best of my knowledge there was no disruptive editing going on. The fact that the editor has only been making edits for one day does not help the fact either. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages BOLDly guidelined

Though it clearly already met the WP:POLICY definition of a guideline, I have someone rules-lawyering with me that WP:MERGE wasn't official policy because it didn't have policy or guideline tags.

I believe that it won't be controversial or inappropriate to simply acknowledge its community consensus status and promote it to officially labeled guideline, so I have boldly done so. In the spirit of "BOLD ends where others object loudly", I'm floating it here for feedback, though that probably should go to Wikipedia talk:Merging and moving pages as well. Georgewilliamherbert 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, from reading your comments at User talk:Apostrophe#Undiscussed merges it is not xem who is rules lawyering, but you. You appear to be insisting that all mergers be discussed first, because it is "proper procedure". Proper procedure is that one can boldly perform a merger without discussion — just as WP:MERGE tells you outright, in fact. (A point made on that page that I see Apostrophe has already pointed you to.) Apostrophe's bold merger of a whole load of individual articles on minor characters into List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean is not only wholly in accordance with WP:FICT, it is even in accordance with the "proper procedure" in the "rules" that you keep trying to bash xem over the head with. That you are abusing the vandalism rollback tool to edit war over this (see edit history of Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean)), and have threatened to abuse your other administrator tools to get your own way in an editing dispute, is even worse. Please stop rules lawyering and abusing your tools. Uncle G 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I rolled him back once by accident; I've undone the rest as any user can. Please don't turn a molehill into a mountain. Additionally, while a bold merge (or bold anything, in general) is fine per policy, WP:MERGE rather explicitly says "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, are not sure where or how to merge, or believe it might be controversial, you should propose it on the affected pages." Anyone undoing it and asking you to put it up for comment constitutes controversy, much less an admin. Reverting that without then following the WP:MERGE procedure as listed is disruption. I'm not the only person who's reverted his merges; there's obvious controversy. Failing to discuss it at this point is inappropriate. I would ask on ANI rather than block myself, but it's clearly blockable if he keeps it up (more than that, he's at 3RR on all of them...) Georgewilliamherbert 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You abused the vandalism rollback tool in an edit war more than once: diff diff diff. And your logic is circular. The only reason that you have stated this merger to be controversial is that you object to it; the only reason that you have stated (several times) for your objection is that it didn't follow "proper process", and the only reason that you give for it not having followed "proper process" is that you claim that it is controversial. You have built a circular chain of logic and are beating an editor over the head with administrator tools for no reason. The editor was not being disruptive. It is you causing the problem here, by needlessly making an editor jump through hoops and then wikilawyering over the definitions of policies and guidelines in order to attempt to justify your requirements for jumping through those hoops. And yes, according to the edit history of the article linked to above and of Dauntless (Pirates of the Caribbean), you are the only person to have reverted the mergers. Uncle G 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • See thread on AN/I about editor (and admin) behavior; I am not the only one to have reverted one of the merges, I don't recall the other rollbacks (though the record is what it is), and this is all besides the point for the policy discussion here. Georgewilliamherbert 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Latecomer support for Jeffrey. Sorry, folks, he's absolutely right. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Concur with Uncle G - Let's not turn a molehill into a bureaucracy. Yes, controversial merging should be discussed, but no, following WP:FICT is not controversial. To quote, if your only argument is that something was out of process, you don't have an argument. >Radiant< 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • For the interested parties - WP:MERGE has acquired quite a lot of cruft and creep since I first wrote it, so I'm simplifying and copyediting it. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Resolved

 – Be careful what you wish for... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Itham keeps removing a well known fact from the page, despite lot of reverts. Please, someone do something.... --Jollyroger 10:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, I did something. I removed the poorly sourced speculative fancruft you insist on adding. Don't edit war about crap. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Review of editor spamming article with irrelevant example

Mindys12345 is obsessed with repeatedly adding Fatso the Fat-Ass Wombat Fatso the Fat-Arsed Wombat to the article "mascot". He adds both a picture and a see also bullet for this irrelevant piece of social commentary against commercialization. It is really not relevant in the grand scheme of things. If Mindy were writing sourced, full explanations of parody mascots as a trend, then such an addition might be warranted.

But considering no specific characters are highlighted in the see also section, and there is no discussion of the character and the larger trend (if indeed it is one), it's simply flaunting a limited happening that wasn't covered in the mainstream media outside of Australia.

Opinions? -- Zanimum 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert once and then walk away. If it's unworthy, lots of people will do this, and the user will eventually give up, or get blocked for WP:3RR. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's already happened multiple times. Every time, I not only reverted, but added a bit of relevant extra information.

Ramdrake deleted the image, Evb-wiki brought it back because he feels that there's enough room for everybody. Are Wikipedia articles supposed to be littered with images? Hit bull, win streak deleted the image as "inappropriate", Evb-wiki fired back that "your view of what's appropriat is not a valid reason to remove content". This clearly interprets Hit bull's comments as meaning PG-rated content, when he likely meant not appropriate for an article with so few other examples and so little context for the character's prescence.

There's now suggestion that the article is US-centric, which it isn't: the headless mascot appears to be the lion of SG Kronau-Östringen (Germany), the bug is from Canada, meaning only Clutch and the Pets.com puppet are American. Frankly, the whole concept of non-cartoon mascots is completely ignored, which is much worse. -- Zanimum 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

I have unblocked jvm. This may prove to be the stupidest thing I ever did. I hope not. Posting from my blackberry so no proper sig, JzG

I hope it turns out to not be the stupidest thing you ever did. At this point though it is really up to Jeff.--Isotope23 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's better to have tried and failed in such circumstances then not to have tried. Hope JVM takes your conversations to heart, Guy :) SirFozzie 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

I am publicly soliciting, the unbiased and honest opinion of the esteemed members of the community in this case. Some of the ArbCom members seem bent on closing the case prematurely. Please take time to view the on-wiki evidence that was produced by me – [25], and the rest of the pages as well.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision

Please take time to comment on the pages, your opinion would help avoid a grave and serious miscarriage of justice. Sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems the best thing to do in this case is discuss your issues on the arbitration talk pages, if the arbs wish to comment, they will do. Sorry, but bringing it here seems like your canvassing to get admins desysopped. I strongly disagree of your ascertaion that there's a grave and serious miscarriage of justice about to happen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kindly review WP:CANVASS. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I just get the impression over the past 2 days that you are determined to see Ramas arrow desysopped, and the only way to do that is on the arbitration pages - on AN, you were leading people to your evidence and therefore your personal view on the matter - that's why I see it as canvassing, and it's certainy not unbiased with your active role in the case. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Our actions should determine our future and nothing else. As for your canvassing allegations, I must remind you to review WP:CANVASS again, this is a neutral venue and the community can comment in an unbiased manner. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I respectfully disagree that this isn't canvassing (if this was an RfA or AfD then I'm sure you would see it as canvassing), I'll let others comment instead. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Rama's Arrow (who's on the other side of the case) also seems to be claiming the case is being closed prematurely (correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks clear from the discussion here), I don't see Nick's post as out-of-line. - Merzbow 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure none of you will like me for saying this, but I can understand the Arbitrators' rationale. As far as I can see, it was either a case of banning the lot of you or letting you all off the hook. I also rather think this is meant to be regarded as final warning.

And this silly nationalist bickering is a waste of time. Find some adorable ladies and fight over them instead, much more worthwhile. And do it off-wiki. Moreschi ^Talk 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC) And don't propose motions congratulating yourself in ArbCom workshops, either, it doesn't come across well.

I'm all for desysopping RA.--D-Boy 20:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow blocked Anwar saadat, three days ago, for no reason at all, citing edit-warring as a reason, when there was no edit-war. Rama's Arrow also reverted Anwar on the pages on which he alleged that Anwar was edit-warring. The community ought to take a serious view of this. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Username blacklist

I just saw a user blocekd with something like this, so it made me think that it wasn't on it: Can an admin add on wh3els, on whe3ls, and on wh33ls to the username blacklist? --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of legitimate usernames that could be created with wheels in the name... I'd say no. alphachimp 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But matching the string "on wh33ls"? -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's possible. The there's nothing against that in the username policy. We should be really careful about what we add. alphachimp 04:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But if people are getting blocked for it... --Masamage ♫ 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

People will be getting blocked for names intended to imitate a known vandal, other names containing wheels etc. which aren't rather transparent attempts to troll won't be. --pgk 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The list should only be used for names which should always be blocked, not even for names which are usually blocked. If there's a chance of a legitimate name containing the text it shouldn't be on the list. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But "on wheels" is in the blacklist. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I point out that if we are talking about the same bot/blacklist (HighInBC's bot) then being blocked is up to the admin who deals with the report anyway. Viridae^Talk 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Enumerating badness" doesn't work. The blacklist can never account for every contingency, and we should not fall over ourselves trying. >Radiant< 12:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Mediawiki black list. Not HighinBC's. On wheels is in the mediawiki blacklist. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird category

Allo. I'll admit it, I don't know where to go for this, so I'm just sticking it here. I stumbled on a category that doesn't seem to belong as a category. (But, can you put 'speedy' tags on categories?) Anyways, take a look and see for yourself: Category:How_to_tell_if_a_person_using_one_and_what_to_do Bladestorm 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It links to club drug and contains material that someone pasted to the bottom of that article rather than trying to incorporate it into the article in an organized way. Apparently someone was confused about the difference between an article and a category. Michael Hardy 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Vista Governor's School

Can another admin please keep an eye on Mountain Vista Governor's School and its AFD. A bunch of school kids have been trying to include some silly nonsense, and even some attacks, in the article. A number of users have vandalized user pages of those who recommended delete at the AFD. I've blocked a bunch them and several IPs, and I would semi-protect the article if it weren't currently at AFD. Anyways...I won't be around for a bit, so an extra set of admin eyes over the next day or so would be helpful. Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

206.131.72.0/22

I have blocked this range for one hour. It's registered to "St. Anthony School District" in Minneapolis, MN. Several page blanks and typical "students talking to each other" incidents prompted me to place the block. Each edit appeared to be coming from a different IP address, so it's either many students or a load-sharing masquerading router. In any case this prevented me from issuing warnings while being certain they were being received. --Chris (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

bugzilla:9213: even a static IP might not receive a warning. --ais523 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal/Comments

User:200.8.148.31, who appears to be relatively new to Wikipedia, created this page when trying to comment on a merge proposal sitting on the pages of Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal. Could an administrator transfer the comment to Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal and delete Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal/Comments if appropriate? Dr. Submillimeter 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ☺ 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Thank you. Dr. Submillimeter 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing vandal logs from hacked account

A while back, User:Eternal Pink had his account hacked by a friend from college, User:Darkhero17. Pink has been around for a while and I know him pretty well as a very helpful contributor to WP:SM. Darkhero has also been in and out, and I'm confident that they really are different people; they behave differently, spell different words wrong, have different skill-levels with regard to using WP, etc.

Apparently what happened was that Darkhero watched Pink log in and memorized his password. After his own account was blocked, he used Pink's to create new accounts with which to vandalize, as seen here. All of those accounts followed Darkhero's behavioral patterns, not Pink's. He was imitating the "Dust King" vandal that caused us WP:SM so much trouble, as well as trying to frame Pink for misbehavior.

Darkhero has confessed his involvement ([26]), and Pink has changed his password, so I'm satisfied that most of the problem is dealt with. However, Pink is unhappy about the vandal account creation that still shows up in his permanent logs.

Since Pink's account was compromised, is there any way to remove those records and give him a clean slate? Who do we talk to about that? --Masamage ♫ 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is really difficult to go about expunging block logs. It is a developer's job, and also his prerogative.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case it's not block logs but user creations logs. I suppose those are probably equally difficult. How would Masamage or Eternal Pink go about putting this request to a developer? ··coelacan 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the question, yeah. --Masamage ♫ 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It can only be done by someone with direct access to the database, in this case, developers. Developers have been quite unwilling in the past to modify or remove logs, because they form a historical record, but you can try contacting one at #wikimedia-tech. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, given that he was stupid enough to let someone else find out his password, I'm not sure he should have those logs removed from his account. Neil (►) 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If your account is compromised, that's your problem. I wouldn't expect much sympathy from the devs. --Tango 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Logs are there to show what an account did, that account did those things. People are responsible for their account. ^(H) 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

he was looking over my shoulder and I didnt see him until its to late so it wasnt stupidity ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't see him" is an excuse that doesn't usually work. By all means you can ask the devs, but given that you got your account back fine, and no real harm was done, I would suggest they will agree with me - just leave it be and find something better to do. Neil (►) 15:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point or not, going around calling people stupid is bizarre and totally out of line. --Masamage ♫ 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Describing an act as stupid doesn't necessarily equate to calling someone stupid. Neil (►) 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but that's not what happened here. Saying that "he was stupid enough to let someone else find out his password" isn't describing the act as stupid. --OnoremDil 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Frankly, given that HE was stupid enough to let someone else find out his password, I'm not sure he should have those logs removed from his account." the fact you said he referring to me means you where calling me stupid ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagry that "no real harm was done" If people who dont know what happened see the logs they will think im a evil sock puppeteer ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they will see that you failed to properly secure your account, which they should. My user creation log looks wacko, but its just because I volunteer on the unblock-en-l list signing up accounts for people behind school and isp blocks. Just tell people who wonder whats up and no one will care. -M^ask? 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

From my side, I can add a note in every created account stating they were created while your account was compromised. Not much, but at least if someone thinks you were abusing sockpuppets, it would prevent them from doing so. -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that sounds like a great idea to me. --Masamage ♫ 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Me two that would automatically people who read it straight thanks ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 10:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to do somthing to add thoes notes?? to the accounts? ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?

Resolved

 – YA RLY! EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Skrenpp66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be Pschemp. From this [27] I strongly doubt it. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lulz. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request declined. Riana ⁂ 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NO WAI! hbdragon88 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Usernameblacklist

I have some regex's I think would be nice for the username blacklist. Could anyone interested take a look over at MediaWiki_talk:Usernameblacklist and offer your comments? Thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn, sockpuppets and vote stacking

The revelation about Runcorn is quite shocking, but perhaps our best response would be to become less reliant on counting "votes". The object of all discussions are to arrive at the best decisions. If several people take part in a discussion and they do not add a convincing argument for their position, it should not matter if the argument was made five times by one person or one time each by five people. It is still an unconvincing argument. However it is possible to sway opinion by piling on comments to make it look like an overwhelming show of community support. Certainly, in this respect Runcorn's behavior is appalling and cannot be justified. But exposing sock-puppets is just a partial solution. I call on closers of all discussions to focus on the arguments of the debate, weighing all points, examining policy and current practice and using judgment to come to the best possible decision. If you arrive at the best decision, and can explain how and why you reached it, the decision will be accepted. This is the best defense against sock-puppets. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You've made a very good point, but this is an issue for the community at large, not just admins, so I guess it would be better being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump. Neil (►) 08:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I losing the plot?

Just need someone else to look at this because I think I'm losing it. User:Angelbo reported User:24.192.99.116 to AP:AIV. I removed the report as a final warning hadn't been issued. Now looking at history of the supposed vandalised article, I can see any contribs from the IP, and when I look at his/her contributions there are no edits. It's early I need more coffee but what am I missing? Ta ^Khukri 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suppose that their edits were deleted, as they contained personal information. WarpstarRider 07:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At least one of the editors who left warnings certainly thought [28] they were reverting edits made by this IP. Perhaps the edits in question were deleted ... ? (and I will ditto the coffee order) --Kralizec! (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I noticed. Though for someone to remove the pinfo in the history, and then not dish out a stern warning seemed a bit odd that's all. ^Khukri 11:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was a block given to the anon. [29] WarpstarRider 11:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK that would make sense with him being on WP:OVERSIGHT. Cheers anyway ^Khukri 11:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletable signatures proposal

Since I'm canvasing for opinions, and trying to avoid the bad kind of canvasing, I'm mentioning Wikipedia:Deletable signatures proposal here. Anybody care to comment? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you present this proposal in good faith when you are in violation of it yourself? --Chris (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems a tad ridiculous, given that you are not in compliance. alphachimp 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose he's only in violation of one of those conditions, whereas the proposal says sigs should be deleted when they use two or three or more. Still, jeez. Mangojuice^talk 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Two principles of online life: (a) Don't be too annoying. (b) Don't be too easily annoyed. This proposal manages to simultaneously violate both. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting top anon edits at the request of the associated user to hide the IP

Resolved

A user has contacted me to request that an edit that they accidentally made as an anon be deleted, to remove the IP from the history. The user/anon combination is top on the page, so the deletion wouldn't be a GFDL violation. Would this be a reasonable interpretation of WP:CSD#G7 or WP:IAR, or would people object to such a deletion being done? --ais523 11:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me as long as they learn to log in after one error. CMummert · talk 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This has happened to me. Sometimes the software is having a bad day and will inadvertently log an editor out without his or her realizing it. It once happened to me while I was at work, before I was an admin, while I was editing a contentious page with a lot of trolling, and it was a matter of some urgency to me to get the edit deleted before the trolls could locate my workplace. Requests of this nature should be accommodated instantly. Newyorkbrad 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(after EC)I have not infrequently made anon edits without meaning to. as my basic ID info is public, and I even have a link from my most common IP to my user page, I don't care (except to login and and sign talk comments properly) but if someone does care, I see no reason why such a request shouldn't be accommodated. I hope the edit will be repeated logged in. For many people an IP doesn't actually reveal anything useful, but for many others it will give a clear pointer to identity. DES ^(talk) 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the deletion immediately after CMummert's comment. --ais523 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a good idea, but i personally don't care about my IP being revealed. I publicly state that most constructive edits form user talk:70.88.111.65 are me at school. And I'll log in to properly sign a talk comment. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

bot for repairing links?

Does anyone know if there is a bot that can repair links and redirects or does this always have to be done manually? thank you for your help. Gryffindor 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What sort of repair? Bots are good at some things, not at others. CMummert · talk 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a bot that does repair for double redirects, but none for broken redirects. Broken are repaired manually. Links like disambiguation links, I don't believe there is a bot for sorting that out, editors have to make sure links are pointing to the right article. Not sure what other kind of link repair there could be. — Moe ε 18:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So if an article was moved to a new name, and there are hundreds of articles where the link needs to be changed, it has to be done manually in each article? Gryffindor 08:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, unfortuantly. If there was a bot that targeted recent page moves and corrected the target the link, that would be great, but I think that bot would need it's own complaints department when it chooses the wrong location. :) — Moe ε 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up

Im in the process of cleaning up our fair use images, After I cleaned out our Orphaned Fair Use images (~25,000). I now moving to Images without fair use rationales. I estimate that at least ~15,000-20,000 more images. I hope you admins have your delete button handy. (there are currently 4523 tagged images.) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. ^(H) 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: 5,131 images Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether to love you or hate you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: 6,328 images Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

and now 7,219 Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything to clear up the fair use abuse, please...damn rap articles! Moreschi ^Talk 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

rap = retards attempting poetry. And this is an admirable effort by βcmd to GFDLify Wikipedia. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bertie Ahern

Hi all! I'm wondering if some of you vandalism reverters might be so kind as to place the Bertie Ahern article on your watchlist. The article is consistently barraged with silly edits and it's becoming hard to discern what edits are good and what edits are bad (it's a heavily edited article). I just semi-protected the article for three days, so no immediate worries, but I'm sure it'll pick back up as soon as the protection expires. Thanks in advance fellows! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 14:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Added. That's a singularly unflattering picture of Our Man Bertie, isn't it? yeek! - Alison ☺ 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• He's on today's front page, making him an easy target. Corvus cornix 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BertieAhern crop.jpg

It's on the main page, but it isn't protected.--70.129.201.181 17:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Its protection is cascaded from 12 different sources. It's not explicitly protected itself, but it still can't be edited anyway because it's on the main page and inherits protection from it. So there's nothing to worry about. --ais523 17:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to click on "edit this page" and then you'll see that you can't edit it. I reported that eariler too (way back when some comet was being seen) because I saw the "edit this page" and thought it was still unprotected. hbdragon88 02:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

This arbitration case has closed and the decision published at the link above. Zer0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Images posted with typos in the name

How can I do image page moves when I post an image with typos in the name. The following images have been posted incorrectly:

Image:2070530 333 North Michigan, 360 North Michigan and 35 East Wacker.JPG -> Image:20070530 333 North Michigan, 360 North Michigan and 35 East Wacker.JPG

Image:20070530 Dubeffet - Monument with Standing Beast.JPG -> Image:20070530 Dubuffet - Monument with Standing Beast.JPG

Image:20070530 Dubeffet - Monument with Standing Beast (1).JPG -> Image:20070530 Dubuffet - Monument with Standing Beast (1).JPG

Each only has a page or two that links to it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

images can't be moved so only option would be reuploading and listing for deleteion.Geni 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with a possible problem on an film article

Hello I am new to wikipedia and need help. I have added a new film title Abby Singer (film) and I am working on the title and article. In the past we have had problems on other sites with a few of the crew and filmmakers trying to remove credits and use vandalism against the film. I want to make sure that does not happen. The film has been through a lot of legal problems and we have now fix and dealt with all of the problems. But I feel that this film article is not safe from vandalism. What can I do and can some one help. Wembly Hall Theatre Company 00:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the article, as it was a violation of WP:COI. I have also blocked this user as it appears to be a role account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are, with few exceptions, available for everyone to edit. Other users will, I am certain, create and maintain an article for this film as they have for many others. The deletion today does not preclude the article being recreated by editors who do not have a conflict of interest in the subject. CMummert · talk 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Issue with 204.38.103.10

An admin should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.38.103.10. There's a bunch of vandalism - most is reverted, but the changes at 'Girl Power' are at least still alive.

Post a notice at WP:AIV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Exloring levels creation bk.jpg

Resolved

The book in question is discussed in the Sylvia Browne#Books, business, and church article, so using the image there serves two purposes.

1. It illustrates the book being discussed in part of the article
2. It also illustrates the author and subject of the article, Sylvia Browne

The fair use rationale is outlined on the talk page of the image: Image talk:Exloring levels creation bk.jpg

Jossi disagrees that fair use applies here. Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at this situation, and if I'm wrong please explain why. (I can accept being wrong I just need to know why I'm wrong to prevent repeating the same mistake). Anynobody 01:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to the talk page or discuss it directly with Jossi.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Or better, add a {{fairusereview}} to the image page so that Wikipedians in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use can comment on your rationale for inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you add the fair use review template instead of tagging for deletion if you are interested in what the community thinks Jossi? Anynobody 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not Jossi's job if he/she does not want to retain it. {{fairusereview}} if for those that want to retain it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Ryulong, Anynobody 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Permission to create

I would like permission to create a page called "WikiClan", it is a group of people who help make pages better, but the hedquarters are currently residing in an user page. I would like to create its own page. Would you please create it so I can set it up to the correct standards? Badgerstripe 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve, exactly?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "Wikiclan" sounds a lot like a Wikiproject. Coincidentally, why should you be editing if you don't want to improve the encyclopedia. That would seem a tad silly. alphachimp 03:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the "WikiClan" on User:Fred Fredburger: Lord of Horror, it will probably never survive. This group is a fan club for Warriors or something, I dunno, but it's not Wikipedia appropriate. Metros 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You require someone to display 35 userboxes on their userpage to join? Eeek, yeah, lets nip this in the bud right now. -M^ask? 05:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fred Fredburger: Lord of Horror alphachimp 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn and sockpuppets banned

After an investigation involving several CheckUsers, myself included, it has been determined based on new, firmer technical evidence, as well as the editing patterns, including similar article interests, reverting to each other, and double voting, that Newport, Poetlister, R613vlu, Brownlee, Londoneye, and Taxwoman, all previous sockpuppetry suspects from 2005, are all the same user, and, further, that the operator of these accounts is also the operator of the newer accounts new accounts including Simul8, Osidge, Holdenhurst, and the admin account Runcorn. On the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee, Runcorn has been desysopped by a steward, and all of the accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Dmcdevit·t 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Aye. Mackensen (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked. Pretty shocking when you think about it. This seems as bad as the Wonderfool/Robdurbar incident some time ago. I do know that Poetlister's still active at Wikiquote as q:User:Poetlister. This is certainly one thing I didn't expect to read on Wikipedia today. I assume User:RachelBrown is still active, am I wrong?? But, whatever way you look at it, it is shocking. --SunStar Net ^talk 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• ...wow. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Bravo! ➥the Epopt 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No Poetlister and I had email communications, and she has provided me important information about the issue and they indeed proved she is not a sock. I now need a trustworthy admin that I can forward the evidence to. Who wants it? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Send it to the arbcom list or an arbitrator, but I highly doubt this. Dmcdevit·t 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but this needs to be confidential, which arbitrator is the most trustworthy and responsive? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They're all a bunch of faithless losers, when you look at it that way. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I respect the ArbCom, so no intention to insult the institution. Anyways, from past experience you seem to be a good arbitrator, Gordon, so I will send it to you. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Email sent to jpgordon. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The above-mentioned e-mail has been received by the Committee. However, I'm afraid that it didn't actually cast any further light on the matter (merely a denial). If there is evidence to bring to our attention, we would most certainly like to see it. James F. (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just curious: How did this mass sockpuppetry come to light in the first place? Checkuser, yes, but obviously there must have been some suspicion involved to get to that point. What were the sockpuppets doing that set off peoples' alarms? This is one of the most severe cases I've ever seen — and it makes me wonder just how many other admin sockpuppets might be lurking somewhere out there, just waiting to strike... *** Crotalus *** 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Various people have been tracking them for a while. Finally someone looked at just the right thing - David Gerard 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  This page offers a fair amount of evidence. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  We e-mailed arbcom with 8 pages of evidence after this AFD, but there was obviously much more to it, people had suspected sockpuppetry for ages, but Runcorn's name hadn't come up (as far as I know) until that AFD just kind of made it obvious what was going on, if you could read between the lines. --W.marsh 05:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed, I first encountered it there, discovered an administrator behind it, and contacted ArbCom, who were already looking at similar issues. Dmcdevit·t 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite true. This was brought to my attention by someone else (I'll leave it to them whether they want their name mentioned or not), but after looking into it, it was pretty clear that the accounts were socks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't these sockpuppets of RachelBrown or is she unrelated? --MichaelLinnear 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a user subpage on Zodriac or something about the Poetlister alleged socks. Some admin deleted it a year ago when Zodriac (sp?) got banned. Basically it lined out all the evidence that acquited poetlister. Basically, she and the others are real life friends. I mean they include their pictures. I am sure they can include pictures holding up signs of things to prove they are not socks, just friends. There's a difference between people of similar interests and friends and people who are the same person. Just ask them to provide pictures of themselves holding up signs or something and it'll be proven they are different people. SakotGrimshine 00:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If they are real life friends and they are voting together...how is that not meatpuppetry? IrishGuy ^talk 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the accusation was sock puppetry, not meat puppetry. SakotGrimshine 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's rather easy to circumvent. Just get a bunch of random friends to hold up signs for you - they don't have to know why. Snap some pics. Job done! - Alison ☺ 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since most of the blocked accounts had uploaded pictures of themselves, you'd have to get all of the same people back together again, maybe not so simple. --MichaelLinnear 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone actually bothers to take a picture with a sign, to get back an editor account with no powers--not an admin account--instead of just changing your IP and making a new account, then this is likely a legit person. If that's not enough, ask them all not just holding a sign, but doing it in a bikini--which you couldn't easily get a bunch of friends to do. I'm also not sure that everyone who is at their computer a lot has a whole bunch of real life friends. If they are socks, then their photos would be taken from somewhere else and we should find the source... magazines, etc. SakotGrimshine 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um not really. I know just about anybody who could convince a bunch of friends, which these images clearer are, to do that. The facts are though that every one of those accounts used the same "wording" and "phrasing" in their edit summaries and most importantly in their CfD/AfD !votes. On a recent CfD I participated in, I noticed that most of these users IDENTICALLY misunderstood a certain user's reasoning and responded to it in identical confusion. These are not meatpuppets. Bulldog123 06:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also.... Has this been finished yet, checkuser being able to read USER AGENT? So checkuser can see what people's browser and OS are? I'm doubtful they all match for every account. I'm sure some of them use Mac's, Windowx XP vs. Vista, etc. SakotGrimshine 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't prove anything either. I really do have several systems which use different OS's, and it's trivial to spoof useragent headers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest immediate unblock and exoneration of Rachel Brown, Poetlister, and Taxwoman, absurd sock accusation that amounts to Witchhunt. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If useing a different browser makes you different people me and user:User:Genisock2 are different people. Something that doesn't appear to be the case.Geni 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on, they all have pictures of themselves, socks don't have human faces. Have some common sense. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How you know they are pictures of them?Geni 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I WP:AGF and assume most Wikipedians are honest, plus my email communications with one of the blocked user. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your "important information proving they are not socks" turned out to be nothing more than a rant and unfounded accusations. Dmcdevit·t 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um. No. This was the result of extensive investigation and conferring between several CheckUsers. Obviously, I'm not going to give technical details because there is no pressing need to reveal personal information, and there is certainly no good reason to make it easier for future sockpuppets to evade detection by knowing our methods. However, all of the things that are crossing your minds now crossed ours as well, as ArbCom discussed the matter, and the technical information explains it all well. Dmcdevit·t 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying those women, many of which are on the list of the top prettiest Wikipedians, are really actually a man? SakotGrimshine 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So it would seem. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi, since you bring up WP:AGF, you could assume that the checkusers and ArbCom have acted in good faith and performed a diligent investigation before labeling these accounts sockpuppets. But instead you've described their actions as a "witch-hunt", "absurd", lacking "common sense", etc. I don't bring this up to be hard on you, but it's not the first time you've defended an ArbCom/checkuser-identified abusive sockmaster on flimsy grounds ([30]). How about extending some of that good faith to the checkusers and ArbCom? MastCell ^Talk 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, I have only defended a couple users alleged to be sockpuppets. But you only focused on these to comment on me. If you look at my records, you can see I've edited tons of contentious politics-related articles and I've confronted innumerable vandals/trolls, you think I would actually defend bad users? However, I also believe the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and I looked at some of the accused "sockpuppets"' contributions, I could find no compelling evidence, so I think they are not. Frankly, for years I might be one of editors who are especially "law and order" in regarding to disruption. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of images, what do we do with the images like Image:Taxwoman1.jpg and so on? Since these are all sockpuppets of an editor who at times identified as a male, can we really assume they have any rights to these pictures that were uploaded? --W.marsh 05:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I think we can assume that these were not simply images taken from google but friend's of the sockpuppeteer, maybe old girlfriends. It's crafty sockpuppetry. Bulldog123 06:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• About the pictures, has anyone noticed how perfectly formated all the userpages were? Each had precisely one picture and one link to contributions. Look:

[31], [32], [33], [34] This reeks of someone's attempt to look like 6 or 7 different people by taking photos of their friends and uploading them. In addition, this "unblock Poetlister" mentality was already carried out by many other banned users, probably friends, such as User:Zordrac. It's a trap and I think User:Wooyi might be falling for it.. Bulldog123 06:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Having absorbed what I could of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport, and noticed the userpage pattern I was about to ask why User:Runcorn was suspected (besides CU) until I saw this, in which it is quite obvious that there is one and only one person behind the relevant keeps. Most or all of the socks are blockable based on public evidence alone.

My hat is off to Dmcdevit and all else who contributed to uprooting this ongoing abuse.Proabivouac 08:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was clear on that, and quite a bit more. But I certainly salute Dmcdevit and all of the other checkusers too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My hat is off to Seraphimblade, Bulldog123, Dmcdevit, and all others who contributed to uprooting this ongoing abuse.Proabivouac 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that one other entry in Runcorn's block log was a bit of an "aha!" moment as well. Good work. WarpstarRider 11:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay here is the whole Zodrac evidence page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Zordrac/Poetlister It got deleted 21:36, 7 January 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Zordrac/Poetlister" (attack page). But admins can view it. I recommend you copy and paste it into show preview for easier viewing. It includes many pictures of Taxwoman dressed as a ... to put it midly... a dancer, although the userpage says she is an accountant. There's a bunch of good evidence there and also more related IPs. SakotGrimshine 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...as a non-admin, how is it that you know the contents of a deleted page? Your first edit was 29 December 2006 and you didn't return again until 17 January 2007. Meanwhile, this page was deleted on 7 January 2007. IrishGuy ^talk 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen them as well. They have been mirrored elsewhere. hbdragon88 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• All of the socks were UK-based and had generic occupation claims (accountant, chemist, mathematician, etc.) For me one of the most compelling argument for calculated sockpuppetry - as opposed to the meat puppet theory - was that none of these accounts ever talked to eachother on-Wikipedia, not even one word. They never even voted "per" eachother in discussions, the first one always made an argument then the others voted "per" someone else who made about the same argument. If I found someone who agreed with me 90% of the time in 100+ discussions, I'd be pretty intrigued and probably talk to them, although even 90% is a pretty far-fetched number. If I found someone who agreed with me 100% of the time - I'd think I had multiple personality disorder and check myself in to the clinic down the road. But here are 5+ people who literally always agreed with eachother, and they never said anything to eachother? The more I looked into this the more obvious it became. --W.marsh 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I just noticed most of them are named after cities in the UK: Runcorn, Osidge, Newport, Holdenhurst, Londoneye. Its almost as if they looked at a map and chose a sockpuppet based on that. Bulldog123 16:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This seems to be the extent of their talking to each other [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] SakotGrimshine 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Basically all those "communications" are attempts to cover up mistakes they made when editing articles that another username started. And the greetings are just dead giveaways. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/May_2007#Connecting_Newport_and_R613vlu. It refers to three of the diffs of them communicating. Bulldog123 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Your first diff is not a user talk page edit. Pay closer attention to what the name of the page was at the time. That's two accounts, now determined to be the same person, making the same argument on an article talk page. Uncle G 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting... but the last 4 seem to be 2 related incidents, 1 of them just being a "welcome!" / "thanks for the welcome!" exchange. So the exchange between Newport and R613 was the closest thing to them conversing... and I think this was addressed in the SSP? --W.marsh 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It was. Link is right above you. Also, there are a few links to pages where they "faked consensus" such as in a Mediation Cabal. After reading that, it just became so very obvious these users are in perfect synchrony with eachother. Bulldog123 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• That page was edited by Taxwoman. It was in part based upon arguments supplied by another editor who turned out to be a mass sockpuppeteer. And Zordrac later turned out to be a sockpuppet account, too. Be aware of this when reading what is written there. Uncle G 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's a significant amount of fallout to this mess. Fortunately, one of the people who dealt with this has already caught what was my most immediate concern when I read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport. However, there are other concerns. Checking Special:Contributions/Taxwoman has led to User:Taxwoman/articles, at least one (so far) of which I believe to be original research (see Snake play (AfD discussion)).

I'm surprised, given what W.marsh wrote above, that Interesdom (talk · contribs) does not appear to have been included in the list of accounts sent to the CheckUsers, given this edit where xe makes the same AFD argument as all of the other now-identified sockpuppet accounts, which would appear to qualify xem at least for investigation on the grounds stated above. Of course, Interesdom could simply be a second real person who has simply adopted the common view of a single external group, given that xe is also User:Interesdom on the same wiki as "Taxwoman", and, like "Taxwoman" and "Balzac" (whose account here is BalzacLFS (talk · contribs)), a sysop and a checkuser on that wiki.

On the other hand, they could be sockpuppet accounts on that wiki, too. Interesdom shows exactly the same pattern of editing Master (BDSM) as Taxwoman does with Snake play. Xe created the article on the other wiki and then copied it to Wikipedia citing the other wiki as the source, exactly as "Taxwoman" did, even down to the use of {{Wipipedia}}, with Snake play. So we have two points of editing similarity, and I think enough evidence to at least ask for a yea or nay from the CheckUsers. Uncle G 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Interesdom (talk · contribs) sure fits the profile we've seen. I think wp-en's checkusers should look into this and see if they can't tie him to the sockpuppets. On an odd note, he seems to use a joke lifted from my userpage on his userpage. I'm not sure what this means exactly, but it was added around the time I let it be known publically that the Wipipedia sockpuppets were being investigated. To clear up why he wasn't expected, when Seraphimblade and I started digging into this, the main thing we used to find connections was looking at accounts who voted in both the deletion discussions and RFAs with Runcorn. The only RFA Interestdom seems to have commented in was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michaelas10, which was indeed a textbook example of the sockpuppetry. --W.marsh 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that Interesdom matches at least the outlines of the known sock pattern: generic British user page, Wipipedia AfD "keep" contributions, etc. Checkuser attention would be warranted here. Sandstein 05:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Two of the sock-puppets voted in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Runcorn. More troubling, though, is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Newport, where Runcorn successfully parried a checkuser case against several of xyr own sock-puppets. And the editor requesting the checkuser, Jujugoe (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) who appears to have actually been right on many of the particulars, ended up being blocked. (I don't see how Tyrenius could have known, though.) Uncle G 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It seemed a clear-cut case. I've unblocked the account in case the user wants to use his new-found credibility for more detective work. Tyrenius 04:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, Jujugoe seems to have been a sockpuppet of someone or other. I'm not familiar with Antidote (talk · contribs). But it's interesting that someone was onto Runcorn's sockpuppetting over 6 months ago, I think that's the earliest I've seen. It's strange that no one really mentioned Runcorn publically, as far as I can tell, until this very AN thread... was it just because they didn't want to name an admin, or if they just didn't notice the connection. --W.marsh 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, the "sockpuppet of User:Antidote" thing seems to be a common theme in Runcorn's blocking log (next to all of the open proxy stuff). I wish I was more familiar with that situation; anyone have any info? WarpstarRider 05:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Some time ago, on the Georg Cantor article, User:Newport, User:Brownlee, and User:Runcorn, including the user who is apparently now User:Simul8 were edit warring with a bunch of anons. Myself and User:PMAnderson later joined in. Here's a history log [40]. When I reverted to versions that apparently didn't suit their POV, Runcorn flat out banned me as a sockpuppet of "Antidote" without any explanation. I had to get an unblocking admin to conduct a checkuser to exonerate me. In the middle of an edit war, which I now learn was actually just him and a bunch of sockpuppets, he pulls this stunt. He didn't leave a message of explanation or anything. Nor an apology after the unblocking. It makes all the more sense now. So to answer your question, I think Runcorn uses the "blocked as sockpuppet of Antidote" excuse as a cover to ban people/IPs that edit-war with his sockpuppets. Since nobody knows who that was, he could get away with it at least temporarily. His talk page has comments all over it of complaints of blocks. Crazy this went on as long as it did. --Tellerman(^Chat)
          • One wonders how many Wikipedia editors walked away from the project forever after being arbitrarily blocked by Runcorn over things like this. I fear that people like Tellerman are in the minority, and most editors would have just given up rather than go through all the work required for exoneration. Runcorn has brought shame to us all with his self-serving deceit. --Kralizec! (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • There's been other administrators desysoped for sock puppet abuse. I think the real question is, why has no one noticed the banning of editors they're in a content dispute with by runcorn or other administrators until a big scandal breaks out? SakotGrimshine 07:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I notice that all 6 of the editors currently listed as sockpupppets of Antidote were blocked by Runcorn and that 5 of them had edits to a list-of-Jewish-something-or-other not long before they were blocked. For example, ...And_Beyond!'s last edit was to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_12#Jewish_mathematicians,as was Boscovic's 4th last edit. Cardamon 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Antidote was confirmed to have used sock-puppets at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Antidote and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/...And Beyond!. However, several of Runcorn's "sockpuppet of Antidote" blocks are on neither of these lists. See 141.211.217.48 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), for example, who was indefinitely blocked for 1 article reversion and a talk page conversation asking for sources. Uncle G 09:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: I assisted in the May sockpuppet investigation. I endorse the conclusion and the bans. Durova^Charge! 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Another fascinating Runcorn habit was reversing hard-blocks of open proxies, changing them into soft-blocks. When asked about it, he simply ignored the question. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Collective Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award - copy into user space as appropriate.

I've already given this Personal User Award to Seraphimblade individually, since that was mainly the person I worked with during my phase of involvement, but this particular complex investigation needed good work from many editors. So if you know someone else who went above and beyond the call in this case, or if you put forth the effort yourself, copy and paste the award with my heartfelt thanks. Durova^Charge! 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Poetlister has retained her sysop rights so far at Wikiquote. She(?) defended herself from the sockpuppet charges here, and WQ editors seem inclined to let her continue as a sysop. She was blocked briefly on WQ but quickly unblocked. She's also defending herself in more florid terms at Wikipedia Review, where she is also a sysop. I don't have any problems with her continuing at WQ, and my opinion is that any attempt to force her off that wiki would bring a strong pushback from other WQ editors. Her record there has apparently been very good. Full disclosure: I once had a mild disagreement with Poetlister over the Rosemary Tonks article. Casey Abell 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that her adminship on WQ should be retained. We don't issue cross-wiki bans unless a person has done disruption on multiple wikis. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the Wikipedia Review thread they made. Poetlister claims there is no evidence against her or something ridiculous like that. Some of the repliers are following with conspiracy theories. Pretty funny. Bulldog123 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reading Wikipedia Review it quickly becomes clear that they see conspiracies everywhere, and usually it's Jewish people behind those conspiracies. Runcorn's big thing was pointing out that people were Jewish. So... I don't really know what the entire mission was here, I'm not sure I want to know, but it's not hard to imagine the general sort of thing that was going on. People still supporting Runcorn/Poetlister might want to realize what they're supporting here. --W.marsh 12:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only mention I've ever gotten at Wikipedia Review was by Poetlister her(?)self. She criticized me over the Rosemary Tonks article. By WR standards the criticism was extremely mild and reasonable. Which sort of disappointed me. Anyway, I've posted at Wikiquote that I think Poetlister can safely continue as a sysop there as long as other editors keep their eyes open. But it's their wiki and they'll cry if they want to, cry if they want to, cry if they want to. You would cry, too, if a sockpuppet happened to you. If this counts as "supporting Runcorn/Poetlister" then I'll just have to realize what I'm supporting here. Casey Abell 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn Votestacking

• Please comment on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31#Sockpuppet_cleanup. Runcorn has done a lot of double-voting on deletion debates, and it may be desirable to overturn these. >Radiant< 15:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the socks were often used to stack RfA nominations. While of course it would be unfair to desysop anyone who passed even if they wouldn't have without the socks supporting, I do believe we should ask a crat to reexamine any close ones that failed in which the socks opposed, or invite the candidate to run again immediately if it's possible the sock votes sunk it. (As a point of interest, one that was heavily stacked was Ryulong 3, voting 5 times to oppose. If the sock opposes are discounted from that one, the support on it is actually about 71%.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Which is still low. Wait, Sean Black was promoted on that number, so it's not that low. hbdragon88 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• It turns out that at least one, Jreferee's RfA, would have been at 75% if the sock votes were discounted (they voted six times to oppose in that one!) I've posted on the bureaucrats' noticeboard to let them know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New at this

I'm a new admin and am just starting to deal with disruptive editors. Would somebody please review my actions regarding User:Horhay Sanchez? It's mostly his talk page; he kept doing weird things to the warnings he'd been given, even after I warned him to stop. I've fully-protected the page for 24 hours. Is that right? --Masamage ♫ 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He was a vandal-only account. Ryulong extended it to an indef block which is pretty standard when the account is brand new and has vandalism only edits. Feel free to extend the page protection. He was clearly just trolling. IrishGuy ^talk 03:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm~, okay. I guess one learns to be less lenient after a while just by necessity. (I've seen three unblock requests today that blamed a friend for hacking the account to vandalize with. Amazing.) Anyway, thank you for the reply! --Masamage ♫ 04:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

IPs and user accounts are different animals. We tend to be more lenient with IPs just because it could be several users using the same IP and you don't want to punish those who didn't commit the vandalism. User accounts are different since only one person is usually using a single account. And blocking the account only blocks that account. Something to keep in mind. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: personally I don't indef block vandal only accounts first off, I gove them 1 24 hour block - after that if their behaviour doesn't improve they are indef blocked. I'd like to think some people improve though. Viridae^Talk 13:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with Viridae. I block for 12-24 the first time through, and only indef them if they're really blatant/abusive. Other admins who deal with vandalism/blocking probably are less lenient than me. *shrug* It's little harm done if they get that one last chance to shoot themselves in the foot. -- nae'blis 15:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in the United States

Something in List of tallest buildings in the United States is messing up the templates at the bottom and I am at a loss figuring out what it is. Help please.--Jorfer 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template limits. YOu are transcluding too much onto the page. Upon investigation, your use of {{convert}} is the problem. Eliminating this template will solve your issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats not the problem. I narrowed the problem down to something wrong in the paragraph that begins with: "Prior to". Something, maybe a new template edit may have had an impact on it. The convert template primarly, but Chris above already figured that out :). — Moe ε 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the first template and hit preview; sure enough, I was able to get one of the {{cite}} tags to show up. The list needs some severe pruning. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The list doesn't need pruning, it just needs to use less templates. Why a 13K template is used to generate 10 characters of text is the mystery. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The map seems problematic as well--it's not displaying properly. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. {{convert}} may not be the problem, but it is definitely a problem. Templates that use intricate parser functions shouldn't be transcluded onto a page 100 times. Unfortunately, substing the template doesn't fix the problem, because {{convert}} itself uses multiple templates. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image fixed, I think. Don't worry, I'll get the other convert templates fixed now. We don't need to subst the cite web or the other template though. — Moe ε 21:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is still messed up for me (OS X Firefox 2.0.0.4, if it matters), but your substing of the convert template worked--I wonder why it didn't work when I substed it? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*Shurgs shoulders* Unknown answer :) But as long as the template isn't used 100 times is all that matters. Could you tell me the problem with the Image? I don't have FireFox, so I can't see whats wrong. But I can start fixing it when I know whats up.. — Moe ε 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the text is in the wrong place: New York City buildings are listed over eastern Wyoming, Chicago appears over San Francisco, and the west coast buildings are way off to the left. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I know what the problem was, could you tell me if I fixed it? — Moe ε 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's working now. Thanks! However, I have to say I am dubious about its value. It's difficult to read the text against the state borders, and anyone who needs to know where Atlanta, Houston, etc. are can simply consult the appropriate articles... --Akhilleus (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing when I was trying to place the template in a more appropriate place in the article. Then I looked at the "Whatlinkshere" page for the template and saw that it only links to one article. I'm thinking of putting it up on TFD. BTW, thanks for telling me NYC was in Eastern Wyoming, it gave me a chuckle for some reason :) — Moe ε 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth having a bot go around and subst: {{convert}} everywhere, to avoid issues like this? ^demonBot2 can make use of Special:Expandtemplates, so it can fully subst it without leaving residue. ^demon 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't your straight kind of subst. This template uses some intricate features and substing them causes an overload of unwanted syntax in the article. I think this kind of thing has to be done manually. It also doesn't have to be subst'ed on every page. Only on the ones that have it repeated a hundred times. — Moe ε 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, which is why I mentioned that I can use ExpandTemplates. It bypasses all that mucky syntax and gives you your full output from the template. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Really?? Hmm.. I would be content if your bot did that work. Still, I wouldn't use it on articles that only have in transcluded once or twice, more along the lines of 20 or more times. If you could get your bot to do that, that would be great :) — Moe ε 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, this would be an excellent task for a bot to complete. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that {{convert}} makes things convenient, but couldn't someone just go and use a freakin' calculator and just write out the values?? That would pretty much solve all the problems for this page. howcheng {chat} 01:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So true, thats what I thought the template was to be used for at first, to figure out the conversions, but I guess it's so that users don't even have to strain :) — Moe ε 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the conversion value between feet and meters is going to change any time soon, so it's probably best just to calculate them once and be done with it rather than every single time the page is rendered. --Cyde Weys 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this vandalism??????

I submitted a request for third opinion after reading the "Resolving Disputes" page. This issue is really involving me and another editor if you look at the volume of talk page entries. Somebody else blanked out the entire request! They say it involves more than 2 editors even though it really doesn't.

Isn't this vandalism? I don't want to get this person into trouble but this is bad behavior.

So what I'm doing now is submitting a request for mediation.Pipermantolisopa 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah it's not vandalism - see there's you, Tvoz and Jersyko discussing - that's 3 people. --WikiSlasher 07:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The request for mediation was submitted a long time before I removed the third opinion request and before Pipermantolisopa submitted this note here. I think there's probably a 1/10,000 chance of this actually being mediated, as this is an issue squarely covered by existing policies and guidelines. · jersyko talk 13:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia's environment is poison

There are a lot of mean people on Wikipedia. I had a disagreement about not deleting a citation in a politician's article and the other person started getting nasty. Then I put a request for third opinion, but that got blanked out. I put a request for mediation but my tag on that other person's talk page got blanked out. I may stay but I am beginning to think that Wikipedia has a poisonous sub-culture so I think I will probably leave for good. Of course, that means that people with political agendas win and make Wikipedia a biased source for political articles, just people who want to fight stay here.

It's not only political articles. Another article I was fixing had all kinds of nasty language like testicles and name calling.Pipermantolisopa 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't leave for good. Wikipedia can be a frustrating place to navigate especially when you are new. I will try to help you out through your problems. Lets take things step by step. Please provide information about what kind of problem you are experiencing and who or what is causing it. Second, nasty language often finds its way on to articles because anybody can edit them. If an article has nasty stuff its just vandalism from immature anonymous users and should not be taken to mean that Wikipedia is poisonous. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what any of us can do about it. If we start blocking these editors that you say make the environment poisonous, then we're making it more poisonous. --Deskana (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite. It is all of our responsibilities to help maintain civility. Without civility this project is doomed. Anyone creating a poisonous environment with incivil comments should be blocked on the spot. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You've most certainly missed the point of what I was implying, Sam. Look over the user's contributions and you may see what I meant. --Deskana (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, It is 1:30 in the morning here and I'm too sleepy to see what you are implying. Perhaps you could just say it? I'll take a look tomorrow and perhaps it will be clear. It did seem to me to be a general comment and not about specific incidents. Goodnight. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew banned from all WMF IRC

A brief note/heads-up that, after recent events, I've decided that User:Matthew's conduct with relation to IRC is inappropriate and falls outside of the bounds long set by the communities there, and common sense, too. I have thus taken the decision to permanently exclude Matthew from all of my domain (see m:IRC Group Contacts) until such time as I am convinced that he will no longer seek actively to undermine the Foundation and our projects.

Obviously, it is a matter for this community, and not the IRC ones, to say if these events should have an impact here, and so I hereby absent myself from any and all such discussion, to avoid damaging accusations of a conflict of interest or lack of an open mind.

Yours,

James F. (talk) (Wikimedia IRC Group Contact) 11:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but in all fairness, "recent events" does not cover it for me. A more detailed rationale would be highly appreciated. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I expect it's because I have "access" to #wikipedia-en-admins. Matthew 12:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that the decision to ban Matthew from all WMF IRC channels is up for discussion or debate (it is James' decision, not that of the community), but I believe James is about to post a clarification here. Daniel 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to have a detailed rationale or a clarification? Why? IRC is not Wikipedia is not IRC. James F doesn't have to explain a thing here (or there, frankly). It's just going to clutter this board up, for no relevant purpose. Neil (►) 12:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No you don't HAVE to. i said "higly appreciated". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant that it's irrelevant to this board. The heads up was a courtesy, but this is not the venue for a big detailed dissection of just whatever it was Matthew did or did not do. There's nothing here that requires administrator intervention. Neil (►) 12:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew can do something on IRC we don't know about and get banned from the channels. Four administrators can coordinate a block on IRC and there's a debate as to whether they get access to one channel. How patently absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's absurd about terminating access for someone who has violated the terms of service? Perfectly normal. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you were blocked by one person, not an IRC channel. ^(H) 13:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep it up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see the evidence someday, but that won't happen. Gotta protect the disruptive elements at all costs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason they unblocked you again - it was to protect the disruptive elements! Thanks, Jeff :o) Guy (Help!) 14:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• yawn* --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, stop the ridiculous griping already, Jeff. It's getting really old. --Cyde Weys 15:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

An explanation of the reason for this action is not required here in order for the action to be effective on IRC. It would be nice if there were some means for appeal or reconsideration if an IRC user disagreed with the decision of one chan-op, but I assume that there is some informal means by which these things are discussed and reevaluated from time to time if necessary.

I think one reason that James F. was asked for a more detailed explanation of what happened was his comment that "it is a matter for this [Wikipedia] community ... to say if these events should have an impact here." Obviously if anyone wants the community to evaluate whether the behavior on IRC should affect his status on-wiki, then we would need to know at least in general terms what happened. However, unless there is a strong feeling that there is a problem requiring an on-wiki discussion and solution, it would probably be best to drop the matter. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rbj unblocked to file an appeal

Rbj (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected) has been unblocked to file an appeal. His editing, by agreement, is limited to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, case pages should the appeal be accepted, and his user and talk pages. Fred Bauder 12:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Teke is now Keegan

To follow up from last week's post, I have successfully usurped my own name to become me. Courtesy heads up, have a nice day. Keegan^talk 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete the BJAODN Pages and put in an Archive, Please

It is my belief that many BJAODN can be attributed; even in cases where they aren't attributable to pre-BJAODN edits, they should be attributable to those who posted them on BJAODN. So what's the issue? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the person who posted them on BJAODN is creating a copy of the original author; attributing it to the copier would be like me downloading an MP3 and then saying that I'm the author. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor who originally posted this is blocked right now... you can visit their talkpage for more hilarity regarding complete misunderstanding of the GFDL.--Isotope23 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a "they". I am a "he". Furthermore, if there is a misunderstanding, it is in understanding where fair use ends and copyvio begins, and I have no idea which portions of BJAODN are transformative works, which portions are copyvios, and which portions are the editors' own works. 68.36.214.143 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Rickyrab | Talk 04:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Request re: BJAODN deletion

I am requesting the edit histories of the deleted subpages of BJAODN, as well as the deleted subpages themselves. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times will you be told no before you stop? As you were not the sole editor, you have no right to the content. Period. It cannot be recreated because it violates the GFDL. Period. You are really bordering on trolling at this point. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. If it was possible to release them to you under the terms of the GFDL, then they wouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Hesperian 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone already blocked him for it. Kinda mean to block someone for requesting something. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not when they have been trolling to get the information. He only started actually giving a polite request when I told him to be civil. Beforehand he was asking rather rudely. I think he knew the consequences of what he was doing. — Moe ε 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not until after I got blocked for doing it, Moe. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

About the block. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked without a final warning

I am seeing that some users are being blocked without even receiving a final warning. Users SHOULD get at least one final warning before having an administrator block the user. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples, please? I am of the opinion that there are some cases where a final warning isn't necessary. (Repeated creation of attack pages, for example.) -- Merope 20:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What, the final warnings are necessary so they can get in a little bit more vandalism before being blocked, is that it? --Cyde Weys 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But of course, Cyde. We've already had Wikipedia:Right to Edit, why not Wikipedia:Right to Vandalize? I'll do that after I've written up Wikipedia:Don't block Giano. Seriously, if a user's first edit is userpage vandalism, or a nasty personal attack on user's talk, they should be blocked straight away. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Moreschi ^Talk 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Sometimes it is painfully obvious when an account is going to be used for vandalism-only. I've got several accounts in my block history that only got a few edits (some that only had one). Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; we don't need to warn a user a specific number of times before blocking them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Right... IMO it is pretty easy to tell if someone is here just to troll or vandalize and a block is preventative. They can always request an unblock if they want to.--Isotope23 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To be entirely honest, anyone who would come around after a final warning is much better off without those first edits in his account history, so the problems caused by this are not too severe. And there are plenty of vandals accounts that make patently clear from edit #1 that they are here in bad faith. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've even blocked without any warning. The block (one week) has been entended to indef by the first reviewing admin, and that indef block has been supported by a second reviewing admin. Vandalism, user harassment (= one week) and sockpuppeting (= indef). It all depends on what happened, what the user has done. Normally, I give three warnings and then a 24 hour block, but it just depends. I don't see a reason to give a vandal-only account with a bad username like User:Imessedupyourpage any warning before blocking. Fram 20:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DIGNITY deletions

I was about to close the Shawn Hornbeck DRV, but I got edit conflicted by Skreit. The ultimate conclusions would have been the same, in case anyone was wondering. However, I wanted to add this to my closure, and now that a closure has already happened, I still wanted to say it, and I think this is the best place to do it.

A significant portion of the community continues to feel excluded by the current method of arriving at BLP-related deletions, which I can summarize as (1) delete, (2) someone DRVs it, (3) a full-length debate there takes place, in which many people comment on whether or not the deletion is right, and many other people comment only on whether or not this was properly following deletion process, et cetera. Which, by the way, is what people are normally supposed to do at DRV. The issues with this are (1) a lot of unhappiness over not following a sensible process, (2) a debate which is only halfway on topic, and (3) a debate that is harder to find than an AfD.

I don't think we should let the bitching about process screw up the end result, but process is important. These debates should be happening at AfD, and they should be brought there by those making the deletions.

My personal opinion is that admins should follow the following process in WP:BLP/WP:DIGNITY cases that are otherwise neutrally written with sources:

1. Replace the article with an AfD tag and protect it.
2. In the AfD debate, include enough summary about the topic that debate can happen; consider including references from the article as well.
3. Add a note to alert readers that the article has been removed during the debate, and to let admins know not to speedy G7 or A3. Maybe we can make a template for this.

This differs from the current way of doing things in two ways: (1) you are proactively assuming or understanding you will be challenged and show that you are open to community input by starting a debate. (2) The debate will focus on the topic, not on your decision, like it should. The three rules above are sensible: Rule 1 makes people aware of the existence of the debate. Rule 2 is necessary so that the debate can effectively be open to the whole community, not just admins. Since in these cases it's always a debate on the topic, we don't always need the Wikipedia article to learn what we need to about the topic to have a debate. Rule 3 is necessary to make it clear that this is a process. Mangojuice^talk 05:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The DRV closure did not reflect policy, consensus, or strength of argument. Shame on the person who closed it, shame on you for saying the conclusion would be the same. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is off-topic. I didn't close the debate. Bitch to Skreit if you want. Mangojuice^talk 05:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's entirely on-topic - we're talking about BLP deletions, one was endorsed that absolutely shouldn't have been per the policy, and I'm bringing it here. Hearing that you'd actually endorse this monstrosity only makes the situation that much worse. So now i'll go to bed, read the pile-on and a bunch more inane comments about my ability to read and understand, probably three suggestions to fork, and probably a couple more nasty e-mails, and nothing will come of it. As usual. Because once again, disruption wins. And shame on you for standing for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a very good idea, certainly a lot better than what's happening now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To respond to this, it's irrelevant if the closing adminsitrators don't understand the polciy. You can throw a bunch of new processes at it as much as we want - if the administrators don't understand what the hell they're doing, it doesn't matter what the process is if they still read "sourced, neutral" as "unsourced, negative." It's not the process's problem anymore, it's the people. Want to fix the problem? Deal with them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't get that "sourced, neutral" is no longer good enough, specifically in cases where all sources are negative or focus on titillating trivialities. In these cases, we do not have the ability to write an actual biography, so what we get is an out-of-context snapshot of a random point in someone's life which happened to intersect with $RANDOM_MEDIA_OUTLET for 15 minutes or so. FCYTravis 07:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't get t Travis. You haven't, and continue not to. Read the policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll say again that no new process can fix the conflict. It is necessary to have the whole article available to have a proper debate on AfD - not just knowing the topic. It is established procedure on Wikipedia that controversial deletions belong there. There is no reason for changing that except to try to fool us into believing that you're actually giving our views a hearing. The way, the truth, and the light 05:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My response – [41]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a Biographies of living persons problem with an article, the last thing you want to do is pop a protection on the current version. Stub it down first. If the result is nothing, delete the article. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Application of BLP of late has been an absolute farce, and cries of censorship are not unfounded. I recently removed the incredibly vague assertation from WP:NOT that BLP was all about doing no harm. It's not, it's about unsourced controversies and libel, it's about the events of the Seigenthaler embarrassment. It's not a vague "Oh! Think of the Children" shouts that some of the users above have been giving. We are here as an encyclopedia first, for our readers first. An editor actually thought that removing the victims names from the Michael_J._Devlin article was actually a good thing for the encyclopedia, I absolutely disagree, it was a joke. Do no harm? We are harming our readership and stature as an encyclopedia when we arbitrarily remove pertinent names and facts because of hypothetical "But what about the children? Think about the children!" posturing. The amount of information we have on Shawn Hornbeck on Wikipedia can easily be expanded in a encyclopedia fashion, and would improve Wikipedia. The article does not have to reside at either Shawn Hornbeck or Michael J. Devlin, but that we should remove information for the possible privacy benefit of a very public victim over the goal of an encyclopedia is an utterly risible.

Oh, and we need to stop this spate of WP:SHITESSAYSINTHEPROJECTSPACE such as WP:COATRACK and WP:DIGNITY. This do no harm crap is patronising and naive, information can always be used for harm. - hahnchen 13:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a terrible proposal. I don't know about all the details - but BLP is creating a poisonous atmosphere, and I suspect unnecessarily. While some hyperbole gets flung around, this is mostly because it's unclear what's going on, and the impression many people are getting is that things are rapidly changing, and in ways that would go against consensus and common sense, and for the most part people are being forced to guess at what's going on. I'll say that I do perceive that BLP is being expanded, whether deliberately or not. What is, or isn't, appropriate under BLP needs to be clear, and there needs to be some "standard procedure" for contesting BLP deletions that is sensitive to the problems with debating problematic BLPs, but also doesn't create the hostile atmosphere we've been seeing around these deletions. I don't know that every BLP speedy needs to listed or talked about, but there does need to be a way of discussing some articles, and what solutions are appropriate. While some editors may feel the fears of editors who worry that articles like this guy's (I wouldn't read it, FYI) will be speedied and salted soon are simply rediculous and don't need to be addressed, they're definitely wrong on the second point. These kind of fears aren't restricted solely to Jeff, they are widespread and they do need to be addressed. To leave them unaddressed will only continue to damage the trust, respect and goodwill between editors, and poison the working environment. WilyD 15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hornbeck/Ownby were my deletions and a week later I am not at all sure whether I would handle them the same way again (a matter I have to consider, as there are other similar articles that need to be looked at for the same reasons I was concerned about there) or how I feel about redirects as the outcome. I urge that editors interested in these topics read my comments (yes, they are much too long, but deal with it) in the DRV (see log for May 28, at the top but particular under the heading "Further comments and introspection by the deleting administrator"), where I discuss some these issues and discuss and try to respond to all of the arguments that had been presented to that point in opposition to deletion (and by proxy to deletion to a great many other articles).

I agree that a lot of the opposition to these deletions was based on good-faith contributors to these articles waking up and the articles weren't there any more without having had an opportunity to advocate for their retention in some form. I certainly would have consider it appropriate to handle these in a more nuanced way if there were a procedure for doing so (other than a full-fledged AfD which may draw little or no attention at any given time and tends to require that the most problematic material remain in the article for another 5 days so it can be evaluated in context).

Those who believe we need to retain every one of this type of article (sex crime victims, mocking attack memes, etc.) just because they meet some threshold of Google hits are clearly on the short end of consensus by this point and ought to accept that. On the other hand, some of these editors have made some legitimate points, some about substance, some about process, and I am concerned that the two camps are still not always engaging the full range of each other's arguments. Newyorkbrad 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So I decided based on the feedback I've gotten so far that this idea is worth trying out. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach. Unfortunately, Tony Sidaway chose to close it, but I reverted that. I hope he doesn't choose to do that again, because I'm going off-wiki for a while. Mangojuice^talk 20:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN (2)

On this page awhile ago a bad-faith troll nominated these pages for BJAODN restoration. Though I think he was justly blocked, but this proposal is not that bad, so I think as a non-troll editor myself, I would like to again nominate these pages for BJADON. Regards.

• Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy
• Briefsism
• The Cult of Briefsism
• The Church of Briefsism
• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels
• Template:WoW

---Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoring WoW's Long Term Abuse page is a bad idea. For one, it's not funny, and two, it's the vandal's HALL OF FAME. I am strongly opposed to undeleting the others as well, as they're vandalism. Plain and simple. We don't glorify vandalism. Sean William @ 16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We also don't allow these ridiculous pages from existing as articles in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I once heard that Willy on Wheels expressed remorse to Jimbo, correct me if I'm wrong. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And therefore deserves a hall of fame? Read WP:DENY; perhaps that will explain why such requests are distasteful. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY is not a policy, instead it is an essay. Also, many admins I interacted expressed their distaste of DENY, since it hampers their ability to catch vandal socks. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins can always reference the deleted pages -- and do. If I were a vandal, I'd love to see my list of abusive sockpuppets growing and growing; if you can't show off what an asshole you're being, why bother being an asshole? And perhaps more to the point -- it works; see Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition#Results.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What is there to know about WoW? Serial vandalous page moves -> block. The LTA pages can be useful for more subtle long term vandalism, but not this. Removing the fame pages has reduced the copycat vandalism considerably. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this undeletion request is coming from the same guy who thought that the "This user is suicidal" userbox was a good idea, so take his suggestions with a grain of salt. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. I've been an editor here who have confronted hundreds of vandal/trolls, because I often edit contentious politics-related articles, and it is impossible for me to be soft on disruption, keep that in mind. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack? Hardly. All I did was bring up something that you previously lobbied for that shed light on your overall views. --Cyde Weys 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You try to use only one instance to portray me as a irrational inclusionist, but you forget about my longtime vandal-fighting efforts and the fact that myself nominated many pages for deletion. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you would know full well that these pages need to stay deleted. Sean William @ 18:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, inclusionist doesn't have anything to do with it. I tend to apply that term to article space only. No, if anything, I was just shooting for "irrational". Still relevant though. --Cyde Weys 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We can do without the ad hominem arguments, Guy, thank you very much. Those who are seasoned here will take the necessary measures. But I agree with Guy above: there is no compelling reason to undelete those pages. —Kurykh 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It was Cyde, not Guy (who is JzG). Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry to Guy and thanks to Wooyi for pointing it out. Fixed. —Kurykh 18:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We evaluate a suggestion or proposition on its content, not on the identity of he who contributes it. We ought surely not to discount an argument simply because he who advances the argument has in the past demonstrated poor judgment in advancing a separate argument (to be clear, I don't think Wooyi's position on the suicide userbox to have been in any way problematic), and unless you mean to suggest that Wooyi's contributions have been so disruptive/inane/arbitrary as to render anything he says worthy of cursory disregard (which would suggest a ban to be in order; I can't imagine that even one editor would think that appropriate), you really don't serve anyone well to comment on contributor rather than contribution (you might make an argument that where an editor advances several arguments that you think to be fatuous, you might do well to devote less time to reviewing his submissions and to pass over them in the absence of anything plainly compelling, but that would be a decision for you as an individual to take and not one to suggest that the community make). Joe 18:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it's controversial to suggest that an editor's contributions shouldn't be examined in a vacuum. --Cyde Weys 20:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless one is admonishing or commenting on that editor (if, for instance, you were to say, Wooyi, stop trolling—which would, IMHO, be wrong to say if not incivil but which would nevertheless be constructive in intent, I guess (see JzG infra)—it is, at least to my mind, controversial and inconsistent with the collaborative nature of the project. There are plenty of editors whom one might regard as problematic who have made sound contributions (and not just in mainspace), and we should stick to evaluating contributions (again, even if you're inclined to consider a user's history when determining whether to read his comments/consider his thinking, you really shouldn't make that inclination clear to the community, for various reasons). Joe 22:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Any request for the content or undeletion of any of the briefsism articles may be regarded as trolling. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I made this request in good faith and natural curiosity, and anyone who have interacted with me know I'm not a troll. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• As one of the administrators who has deleted several of the Briefsism repetitions, I personally am unwilling to place them in BJAODN for the simple reason that it would be feeding the trolls. There is a long list of repeat articles and undeletion requests from vandalism-only accounts. Delete, block, and ignore is the correct approach here. Putting these things into BJAODN will only result in the vandals moving onto the next idea in order to get that into BJAODN too, and BJAODN thus turning into the vandals' own gallery. On many occasions, editors have expressed the view that content created with the deliberate intention of getting into BJAODN should not be put there.

  For comparison, such classics as Rolypology Theory (AfD discussion) were not employed in campaigns of disruption. Uncle G 02:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Besides, there is no reason why one should make a briefsism article here on Wikipedia when there is a BJAODN site that one can make up one's own BJAODN directly on without bothering to make one in a Wikipedia article. Not that I actually know what a briefsism article is, anyhow. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den seems... borked

Resolved

 – Seems to be sorted out now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den - take a look at the other languages. It's not in the source that I can see. Uh... Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Likely the other language links have been vandalized. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Or the "br" html code was mistakenly recognized as Brazilian language link by MediaWiki. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's something to do with the br: interwiki link on {{sup}}. Oldelpaso 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

br: is the Breton language which is spoken in the northwestern tip of France. Brazilians generally speak Portuguese. — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be sorted now. Oldelpaso 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a <includeonly> section. Anything outside that does not affect articles, so this shouldn't happen again if more links are added by a human or bot. Some pages using this template might still have the erroneous links until a null edit or real edit is made to the pages themselves. — CharlotteWebb 19:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-presumed violations

There are close to 1600 images tagged with this template. This template was to be used only for legacy images and definitely not for images uploaded after 1 January 2006. But there are 730 images with that template which were uploaded after 1 January and are hence in violation of wikipedia's image policies. These images must be properly tagged or deleted. So I boldly came up with a solution that would make things easy for the uploaders as well as administrators. I will use Aksibot to tag all these images with Template:GFDL-presumed-vio. The template will add images to Category:GFDL-presumed images uploaded after 1 January 2006. I will also warn the uploaders with Template:GFDL presumed warning. The images in the cat which still do not comply with our image tagging policy will be deleted by me 1 week after tagging the images. 1 week is ample time for uploaders to find a source and tag the image properly. I have left similar messages at WP:IFD and WP:FU. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work. ^(H) 20:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the cutoff date set to 1/1/06 only on 1/30/07? Isn't this a bit ex post facto? Image:Metroliner-interior.jpg was tagged on 7 April 2006 as gfdl-presumed, and now suddenly it is no longer valid because the cutoff date was set to 1 January 2006 on 30 January 2007? hbdragon88 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The true cutoff should be 17:06, 17 October 2005 but when I put the notice on I just wanted to knock out the obvious cases.Geni 22:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than Monday Night Football, what happened on that date? --BigDT 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's when the upload page stopped mentioning the GFDL as the license for own-work images. --Carnildo 05:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC needs admin approval

I'm told that an RfC that I opened on myself yesterday needs admin approval or else it will be deleted tomorrow. I understand that opening an RfC on yourself doesn't require a second endorsement or certifier, but I didn't know admin approval was still necessary. Would an uninvolved admin please review the RfC, approve it if appropriate, and move it to the "approved" section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct? If not approved, please let me know why and what the appropriate next step is. Thank you in advance. CLA 04:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Change in "Attacking" Policy

In my own opinion, I feel that our policy regarding offenders of the "attacking" policy is a bit too lenient and is often disregarded following appropriate action taken by Wikipedia admins. Please note that you do not exactly know where the attacks originated and how far they could go. Even though incidents like these rarely do take place, it is certainly a likely possibility. I propose a punishment of, for a first offense, a permanent ban from editing Wikipedia and that comment be either kept or reported to law enforcement depending on the severity of the threat. Please take this into consideration. This punishment may be harsh but is necessary in our pursuit to rid Wikipedia of vandals and misuse! Please comment on my talk page ASAP when you have reached an opinion, have a question, etc. Redsox04 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't punish. We prevent. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I should follow this up by stating that a) we already block people who personal attack others, at the administrators discretion up to indefinitely. b) Not to mention there's really no way for anyone to actually track you down and cary through on their personal attacks, and law enforcement really can't do much about it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to this, we never (in a perfect world, I know, but we get close) block to punish someone. We only block to prevent damage. If a good faith belief is held they wont continue to harm the wiki, no block should be imposed. -M^ask? 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a user should never be blocked for a single edit, unless this edit is part of a problematic pattern of edits. In addition, an idef-block for a first-time offence seems to be too long, and that blocks should always be designed to be preventative, not punative. Od Mishehu 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read all of your views on my proposal and still believe that my punishment is fair considering the subject that we are dealing with. As far as turning over any threats to law enforcement, that may have been a bit misconstrued. I am not talking about small threats but threats of committing or conspiring to commit a crime and threats of that nature. Although nothing to this level has ever happened before here at Wikipedia, it is always better to be proactive. As far as smaller threats go, it is better to keep such users away from Wikipedia so that the "enviornment" will be more comfortable for the other users. Law Enforcement does have the capability to track down an IP address. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to post them on my user talk page. Redsox04 20:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If a warning will get the user to stop his/her disruptive behavior, and in stead of warning you issue a block - then you took a major step against the user which you didn't need to. Similarly, if you start with a long-rnage block in stead of a short-range block, then the same is true. In Wikipedia, 1 day is standard for starters, but in cases of major, blatant problems it may be good to start with longer - but, in my opinion, no longer than 1 week. If a user continues after several blocks - then is the time to try an indef block. Od Mishehu 10:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ways of handling BLP issues

Seems that some of us think that bad biographies should be gone, even if we are happy to talk about the subject afterwards. Others think that if a subject is notable at any level we should not even think about removing it until every possible process has been exhausted. Of course, the best solution probably lies somewhere in between (though on the conservatiove side, this being something with real potential to harm and all).

I would like to suggest that we start to try to defuse the shitstorms.

One way of doing this would be a parallel to {{delrev}} during deletion debates; leave the history but don't show the content during the debate. Another way would be to move content out of mainspace during deletion debates. Or we could nuke them and have a debate with the article gone, focusing on the subject in isolation from previous versions of the article. Whatever, I woudl suggest that the editor or admin identifying the issue or deleting the article be requested to take it straight to DRV, with a rationale for deletion, and a clear expectation that we don't go batshit simply because someone raised the problem, because anyone who has fielded OTRS emails knows that what is on Wikipedia is a seriously big deal for the subject, and we have to take it seriously.

Where there is a deletion or other radical removal of content, it woudl be good to have a series of options for progress rather than simply hysterical cries of "notable! undelete!" or "crap! delete!", since these binary choices, while they will satisfy a greater or lesser proportion of the community, do not represent a properly nuanced approach.

What we need is an approach which reconciles the not-irreconcilable: concern for the potential to harm, and the aim to document that which is genuinely significant according to our goals of verifiability, neutrality and not being arseholes. That demands that fans of the subject respect concerns over harm, and that those who are vehemently opposed to harm respect the desire to document that which people believe to be culturally significant. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible proposal. At the moment we seem to have two camps, one intent on deleting forever any article which could conceivably have a BLP/ethics issue and the other intent on fighting those deletions with whatever argument falls to hand. What we need is sensible deletions of irretrievably poor/harmful articles accompanied by a proper, at least half-detailed rationale and the door left open to reasonable debate by experienced editors and where possible, just a removal of offending content without deleting the article itself.

I quite like the idea of moving the article from mainspace during deletion debates; to take that one step further, might it be possible to make such pages not-publicly-viewable except by registered accounts (analogous to semi-protection, but preventing viewing as well as editing)? In cases that aren't clear cut, it's pretty difficult to have a reasonable discussion when only administrators can actually see the article/history. At least, that's my viewpoint as a mopless but nonetheless reasonably experienced editor.

Kudos to Guy for pointing out the need for a half-way (or one-third-way, or something) house on this, and a step back from the drama. On the Night Gyr AN/I thread, someone mentioned "a 500 word op-ed on what's wrong with Wikipedia". If we want to avoid negative press commentary, we would do well to keep our BLP debates (which seem to be a point of fundamental disagreement about Wikipedia's responsibilities, not limited to just one or two editors) calm and mature, avoiding knee-jerk responses on both sides. Any takers? --YFB ¿ 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's being proposed here. We've never before had a special mechanism for possible BLP violations, and I don't think it's a good idea now. The root of the current problem is that one side is adamantly sure that certain articles are, or ought to be considered, BLP violations, and the other side doesn't. How would that go away with your proposal? I think rather you would just be adding another process without changing the fundamental issue. The way, the truth, and the light 23:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem does need a solution, though. BLP is an important consideration, and is something we should take very seriously. However, while we certainly should delete unsourced or poorly-sourced attack articles on sight, well-sourced articles that happen to cover something bad in a person's life aren't nearly so clear-cut. While I certainly agree that we shouldn't generally have biographies of marginally-notable people (whether it covers something negative or not), well-sourced articles which one wishes to be deleted should be taken through the standard deletion processes, or editorial judgment should be exercised to merge or move the content into an article about an event rather than a pseudo-biography which really only covers a small fraction of a person's life, and a redirect left in place. Unilaterally hittng admin buttons in contentious circumstances tends to be a pretty bad idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this contradicts anything I said. Adding another process is unnecessary, will be contentious, and will not resolve anything. Indeed, the unilateral use of admin tools is the problem (from our perspective), and it's doubtful this would change things given who's proposing it. The way, the truth, and the light 23:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We do have a special mechanism for WP:BLP violations. It's called WP:BLP. The entire policy makes it abundantly clear that biographies of living individuals are different and Keeping crap hanging around while we talk about it is a terrible idea. Obdurate refusal to recognise that is probably the single largest part of the current problem. Guy (Help!) 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to avoid binary choices take the article to afd.Geni 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to diffuse the shitstorms, let people get involved without just doing things you know aren't supported by policy. This isn't a hard concept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of which fixes the problem of leaving defamatory shit on the site while we gaze at our navels for a week, but thank you for putting yourself firmly in one camp and rejecting event he possibility of a nuanced solution, now we will know to ignore you in favour of people who are going to think rather than pretend the problem lies with someone else. Perhaps now we can have some input form people who have seen emails from subjects, and who remember the Siegenthaler incident? Rather than ostriches? Guy (Help!) 06:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seen emails on the subject (remeber I was on helpdesk-I at one point). You stub them and move on or stub and list at afd unless they qualify for something at WP:CSD.Geni 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Does not work in the class of article whihc is causing most trouble right now, which is WP:COATRACK articles, or tabloid articles masquerading as biographies, per Jimbo's change to WP:NOT. As Mencken said, to every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong. I'm looking for something more nuanced and flexible. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then please explain exactly how they are causeing trouble. And haveing people scream at otrs people is not of itself trouble.Geni 03:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

They are causing trouble by masquerading as biographies when in fact they are either collections of news stories about a single event or, in some cases, blatant attacks on one or more parties to an event. Having people scream is indeed a problem, especially since some of them have lawyers. Something which causes a complaint is usually excised from the article - or the article removed - and then we check the sources, because that is the polite and humane thing to do. When we check the sources and rewrite in impeccably neutral language, and they come back a third, fourth, fifth time, we can show them that we have taken their complaint seriously and double-checked our facts, which is the legally prudent and humane thing to do. Less damage is done by temporarily not having something the subject hates, than by keeping it and having them negotiate the worst bits out line by line. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, here's another idea: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographical.

• Article name
• Issue identified
• Interim solution (stub, delete, blank, move to projectt space out of Google range etc.)
• Proposed solutions (delete, merge, rewrite, refocus on event not individual)

Same aim: nuanced discussion rather than "keep on principle For Great Justice" / "delete on principle Do No Harm". Guy (Help!) 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand why this is hard. Stub them, remove anything unreferenced or remotely controversial, and send it to AFD. What is so complicated about that? It only fails when one of the "I know best so shut up" admins decides the absolutely best and most sensisble thing to do is to delete it using whatever rationale they feel like and then swear at people on DRV for wanting to dioscuss it rationally. Neil (►) 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically this is a symptom of the larger issue (which is that our original deletion system is broken, and/or at least does not scale). Since currently organizational friction levels are getting out of hand, I think we need to start thinking about a redesign of key systems on en.wikipedia. And we do this with small teams per system (design by committee doesn't work). --Kim Bruning 13:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A committee is an animal with four back legs. Moreschi ^Talk 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A good number of articles (I think the one about the lady who sued wendy's over the finger is a good example) would do well to simply be retitled and refocused, rather than deleted, but I've never seen the people who want deletion want to allow it to stick around long enough to be improved. Could we try to stick to AfDing these articles unless they contain blatant libel, so that there's time to improve the content instead of vicious fights over already deleted material? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes that is good, other times the names need removing, other times they need merging, other times again they simply need gone. That is why I am looking for a more nuanced way fo dealing with these things that allows for a quick fix for the problem, for damage limitation, and then a measured debate about how best to fix it. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Charges of racism in AfD

User:Migospia is repeatedly making charges of racism in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangeline AfD. Statements like "I suggest we find some non rascist and people who don't hate me in here", and "Right let's just keep all the other white couples from soap opera although Wiki is not a soap guide. I am just saying a couple of people voting already hate me and oe is racist, and as well how can you vote to delete this and not be racist". Even after being warned that her comments were out of line she continues. She continues to cry racism on her talk page. DarkAudit 06:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-incidently, I made a similar report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Migospia and racism. Might be worth keeping discussion centralized at one location. Rockpocket 08:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yours is a more comprehensive description of the situation, which was apparently well-established before I ever got involved, so we'll shift the discussion to AN/I. DarkAudit 08:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-stop Infobox experiments

Anon user 88.112.222.56 continues to experiment on NHL player pages, despite warnings & calls for these experiments to stop. GoodDay 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Very low level, please take to WP:AIV if it starts again after the current warnings. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

False license declaration

J.puckett (talk · contribs · count) uploaded Image:HabboUKGuestRoom.PNG and tagged with {{PD-self}}, but I have seen that image elsewhere and I know that he did not create it. It's almost exactly identical to Image:HabboAUGuestRoom.png. –Sebi ~ 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) My apologies if this is not in the correct place.

I would be suspicious. The user blanked his/her userpage ([42]) but in this diff, one of the images that a bot left it was Image:SoraSafe.jpg, and now Image:SoraSafe.PNG exists. There's also this bizarre edit [43] that tried to put an unrelated image (at least I think it is unrelated - it is an entirely different name!) - and the image was uploaded by this user as well. The only thing I can think of is possible vanity, because this user appears to have added their own Habbo (or at least added their own creation to Image:HabboUKGuestRoom.PNG - see Image:SoraSafe.PNG). I can't seem to find any of this user's uploads on Google, so they could well be public domain - but some are possibly unencyclopedic. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the image. It is obviously not in the public domain.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the TOS for Habbo Hotel [44] makes it clear that derivative works (such as screenshots) can never be free content, let alone public domain. Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)