Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

Spammy articles that slipped through RC

While doing some work for veropedia, I made some analysis of all the articles on wikipedia as of oct 17 or so. This report at User:Eagle 101/potential crap 2 contains all articles that have 0 wikilinks and at least 1 external link. Qutie a few of these are showing up as spam for companies and other poor quality articles. There are about 5,000 articles that fit those criteria. Enjoy! Discussion and questions can go below as usual :). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you tagged them as meeting the {{CA}} criteria? Guy (Help!) 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cute... I'm wondering how many of these become red-links ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, first one I clicked was Rambo apple. Seems to be a type of apple. Are you asking for help cleaning up this list? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the list of ones starting with M to a page in my userspace to look at. The first few that haven't already become redlinks (or AfD'd) are OK or just need cleanup, but I'm sure lots won't be. Pinball22 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironic, monitoring potential spam and at the same time including an external link to a site we have an article about, so an internal link would have more than sufficed :-) Fram 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a veropedia article? I thought that got deleted... —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, was pretty strongly kept last week. Pinball22 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Personally I don't think its quite ready for a wikipedia page, but thats just me :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick cleaning them up is always an option! If its a legit article, wikilink it and perhaps find a few references! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• For those looking to cherry pick the list for the crapola of crapola, I posted a sort here with those at the top of the list being the most likely in need of deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you : ) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a problem if non-administrators (like myself) tried to clean up, reference, and de-linkfarm some of the articles on that list which might be salvageable? -- ArglebargleIV 01:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I just now noticed Eagle 101's invitation above to go forth and clean up. -- ArglebargleIV 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked through five of these and from the looks of it I guess more than half are delete-worthy. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 02:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've sectioned out the list 25 pages per section, hopefully that helps admins and others who are going through the page to make use of it. (User:Eagle 101/potential crap 2). Perhaps mark sections that you have gone through, or whatever :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you both consider it reasonable to delete from the lists the occasional ones that turn out not to be crap.01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I guess I'm a little puzzled; in my usual inverted way I started at the bottom of the list, and the second one up (Mussel Rock) has a dozen or so wikilinks, four non-list type inbound links, and two external links, and hasn't been edited since October; yet the list says els: 1 sents: 0. Did I miss part of the discussion here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New, admittedly still small, group who might be of use

The new Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility has created a new group of Accessibility advocates at Wikipedia:Accessibility advocates. I promise not to overuse the "a" word any further here. Anyway, part of what some of us have indicated we would be willing to do, if requested, is maybe serve as some form of mentor/"adopter"/advocate for individuals who are either returning to wikipedia from being banned and/or those who might be told to get some sort of help of that type were they to wish to continue as editors. Right now, the only two of us who have agreed to doing so are me and User:L'Aquatique. Like I said, we're new. Anyway, if any of you think it would be a good idea to ever have one of us involved in such instances, I wanted to let you know that we could try to maybe work in at least a few such instances. -- John Carter (talk)

Am I correct to apprehend that the mentorship/adoption/advocacy is in its character essentially unconnected to the general purposes of the accessibility WP? (Although that question sounds, for some reason, derisive and accusatory, I don't mean it to; individuals willing to mentor, adopt, or even advocate for other users toward the amelioration of certain problems and ultimately toward the improvement of the project and the 'pedia are, IMHO, always to be welcomed, and they surely need not be constituted under the auspices of any particular group, and so I ask only to ensure that I'm not missing any particular connection between the specific purposes of the accessibility WP and the nature of the mentorship/adoption/advocacy to be performed). -- Joe (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But the term usually has a different meaning , universal accessibility, and I assumed you meant those who were interested in reformatting articles so they could be read by screen readers, etc. DGG (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beverly's Passions

All of Beverly's Passions (talk · contribs)'s history is the creation of hoax articles about TV shows whidh do not really exist. Including their User page. Is it okay to let them keep a hoax about a nonexistent TV show on their User page, or should I MfD it? Corvus cornix (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Violation of WP:BLP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And for good measure I deleted all the other articles they created for the same reason, along with User:Witcha's page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Corvus cornix (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Inactive users?

Do we have a category or anything with "Inactive users" in. Some people have only edited once or twice, and others haven't edited in over a ear. Surely these inactive user accounts should be deleted. We have over 5 million users, yet only 5,000 users edit most of the time! What happens to these inactive users? Davnel03 09:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, we can't delete accounts. Viridae^Talk 10:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This sound more like a proposal than something an Admin should deal with. You might find a more useful response over at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals). -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We used to have Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active, but that category was deleted after a discussion found on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#October 12. (The term "discussion" is used rather loosely in this case) - auburnpilot talk 03:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Invalid RfC

I have spent some time looking through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 and the history of its contributors. None of them have provided any evidence of recent attempts to resolve the supposed dispute, and most of them are actually rehashing past disputes including the Ecyclopedia Dramatica arbitration. It is very hard to see this RfC as anything other than an attempt to see off an opponent in a dispute. I suspect it should be deleted as not properly certified (as in: the supposed attempts to resolve the dispute are not evident) or perhaps simply archived. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I cannot help in the deletion aspect as I'm not an admin, but I agree that the RfC shows lack of evidence against MONGO (who I know to be a long-term contributor). Maybe it would be an idea to ask the certifier(s) to provide evidence via diffs, in order to make this request valid - that might work. Qst 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion because it could be used as evidence in the future (including by MONGO) but given what the page looks like right now and the lack of recent DR archiving sounds right. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The "{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}" section of an RfC could use a small improvement: for each signature, a diff that shows a genuine recent attempt by the signer to discuss and resolve the issue. Untruthful signatures appear to be common now. Weregerbil (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Squeakbox's comments: See Wikipedia's not a crystal ball. This RFC can only used in the "here and now". Not for anything that may or may not hapen in the future. ;) That funky visitor from the Vorlon Home World !talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And some believe the problem is in the "here and now," whether that problem truly exists or not (and I'm not getting in that argument). Squeakbox is merely seeing a secondary benefit to keeping. —Kurykh 23:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" part of WP:NOT is only in reference to articles. It has absolutely nothing to do with pages in the Wikipedia project space. Natalie (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User: SoxBot

Earlier today, there was a misunderstanding with {{Archivebox}}. User:Soxred93, the operator of SoxBot, saw it on WP:SUBST#Templates that should be substituted, because the previous version of the template did need it, but not anymore. This led to 300-400 talk pages having the template substituted, before the bot was blocked. I reverted most of the edits, and Soxred93 indicated he understood there was a misunderstanding. I am not sure if his bot has been unblocked though, so if an admin could check? Thanks. -- Reaper X 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think most, if not all of the edits have been reverted. It was unblocked three hours ago. log. Woodym555 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC/U MfD

Since it is a major part of dispute resolution, I'm noting here the nomination of the RfC/U page for deletion by User:Sceptre. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (2nd nomination). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would've done this myself but I had to go after nominating. Funny how there's two Wills in this section. Now to wait for Wimt and WMC ;) Will ^(talk) 22:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention WJBscribe (talk · contribs) :) an interesting discussion... I might pop over and take a look. Anthøny 13:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Extending a block

Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been atrociously rude on Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues, to the point that I've had to refactor it to remove the more offensive text in response to OTRS ticket 2007111410017735 - Callmebc is currently blocked for a month, I am wondering if this individual can edit Wikipedia at all without violating policy. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, based on my past experience with him. [1][2][3][4] He's had plenty of clues provided, opportunities to change, and still been blocked multiple times over the last six months.[5] He's here to push a political agenda, and he'll pester and troll anybody who tries to stop that. Please indef block. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you ask for the input of User:Caribbean H.Q., who issued the original block and who might have also reviewed the edits made by Callmebc that you have been refactoring - obviously they would need to be made party to the same info. Seeing that it is a 1 month block I don't think we need rush into a decision. For the record, I have no opinion on whether the block should be extended or not - I would await the comments of the blocking admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive110#User:Callmebc is likely relevant here, as the discussion was centered around a potential block/topic ban for Callmebc. I don't believe anything came of the discussion, however. - auburnpilot talk 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc has repeatedly demonstrated that his contributions will be to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was indefinitely blocked (see block log by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in May of this year, but was unblocked by Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) 11 days later, under the promise that he will not re-offend. Since then, he has been blocked a grant total of 7 times, for a range of reasons, including WP:3RR violations, WP:POINT editing, incivility, Personal Attacks, harassment... the list goes on. Callmebc has shown again and again that he cannot contribute to Wikipedia in a positive and constructive fashion, and I propose an indefinite block on his/her account in order to prevent further disruption. Anthøny 13:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. This user has nothing positive to contribute here. GlassCobra 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who believes this user has something positive to offer the encyclopedia is invited to peruse the whatlinkshere search for his username. I was going to recite particulars of his interaction with the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard back in April about the Killian documents, where he wound up launching an Arbcom case about the outrageous fact that he was blocked for 72 hours. (Arbcom, for some reason, declined to take the case). But having looked at the last ANI posting about him I realize it wouldn't be adding any information people don't already know about his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, user blocked indef. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone want to protect User talk:Callmebc? He insists on attacking the author of an article. (SEWilco (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Dragon Ball Z

Continued from this discussion; I would like for a sysop to revert only the content on the protected article, which is currently violating WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:FAN, and WP:MOS-AM#Content, back to this revision. Everything's a mess, it's categorized in places where it should not be (eg, Comedy, Supernatural, Shows on Toonami, etc.), references were removed, and I could go on about the original research and fan bunk. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you do not own the DBZ article, nor does DBZROCKS despite all of your attempts to do so. Consensus is both against the merger you're trying to push and against wiping everything from the article. Aside from the two of you the rest of us want to repair the problems with the article, not delete everything into non-existence. Your actions hve been nothing but disruptive during the entire atempted discussion on the matter which you have simply chosen to ignore.Xyex (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The page will need to be reverted because references were removed and it's categorized redundantly, as well there is too much garbage on the current page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated by several people, that does not dictate erassure of the article's entire contents. The majority of the issues would have already been corrected a while ago had you not insisted on trying to own the page and keep it in it's nearly non-existent state. There are at least ten of us who have been trying to fix the issues with the article but you have systematicly ignored all of us and persisted with reverting to your wiped article. Wwhich creating in the first place could be classified as vandalism because you wiped nearly everything including solid and sourced information.Xyex (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read the diff; I merely deleted the unsourced crap and undid the overcategorization, and had the reference re-included. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What you did was remove pretty much everything in the article, without discussion, and without any effort put in first to source it. Which certainly can be considered vandalism. No one is denying that the article needs work but removal of nearly all information is counter-productive to improvement and is disruptive, espeically when you and DBZROCKS constantly revert everyone else's reverts back to the original article. Your first change conformed to WP:BOLD but then you proceeded to ignore WP:BRD which goes hand in hand with WP:BOLD and which is what lead to the current situation.Xyex (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry states, Sesshomaru, you do not have any consensus to do as you have been doing. There are multiple people who do not think you are right in how you are removing content from the article, and I had been wondering myself why you would remove that information. This is edit warring, and until you all decide what you think should be done with the article, it remains locked from editting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, see m:The wrong version.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this.. For the unsourced information, take three days to properly cite it. Anything that cannot be cited in any shape or form may be deleted. For contents within episodes, the episode name and the time (i.e. 3:40 for 3 minutes and 40 seconds) should be used. Technically any non-obvious information that is not sourced may be removed, and the burden of proof is on the party that wishes to keep the information. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the episodes themselves cannot be used as sources. Secondary sources only. Quatloo (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF "It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information"

WP:WHEN "When a source may not be needed : [...] *Plot of the subject of the article - If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.".

Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I meant. WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR, which are both policy, trump anything in WP:WAF, which is mere guideline. An article should have secondary sources, or it should not exist. An article should primarily rely on secondary nontrivial sources and not primary sources. The use of primary sources should be minimal. No argument can be made without secondary sources. This means any claim or comparison to other episodes cannot be done without a secondary source. If "citing" an episode is done without secondary sources (which may be the intent here) to build the article, it's completely irrrelvant, the article has to go. Quatloo (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing an episode can be done without a secondary source. Any form of analysis or interpretation of the primary source must obviously come from secondary sources, but "descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source", which correspond to the mere episode plot summaries we want to use in the DB articles, are perfectly allowed by the policy.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In simple cases, yes. But when the majority of an article is constructed this way, no. Quatloo (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles containing only plot summaries require to be improved with other sections this time using secondary sources, yes, but in any case the use of primary sources is never forbidden. If you suggest that long plot summaries cannot exist without secondary sources, that's not written anywhere in the policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (direct quote from policy) If the purpose of the article is to contain these plot summaries, then yes, I am suggesting that is forbidden. If the majority of an article is plot summaries unsourced to third party material, that is the subject of it, and the article should go. You are correct only in that the limited use of primary sources is not forbidden -- excessive reliance on them is. Quatloo (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Quatloo, you appear to be making a dangerously sweeping statement here. If you are thinking only about television episodes (for example, episode 4 of the first season of The Golddiggers) that is one issue. However if you mean that as an absolute rule, I not only strongly disagree but strongly encourage you to spend some time considering why you might be wrong. I can cite quite a few article subjects where our best strategy would be to ignore whatever secondary sources one can find & simply work from primary sources. (One class of examples would be a number of Emperors of Ethiopia.) I would need to know exactly what you have in mind before I -- & I assume anyone else -- discuss this further with you. -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli closed

The above-linked arbitration case has been closed. Stefanomencarelli is banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody's using us to store their dirty picture collection

User:Esskater11/Dirty images Somebody's using us as a server for naughty pics, and inviting others to add them --Orange Mike 07:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Several of those images have been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons more than two years ago in some cases. Image:Aktfoto-2.jpg, Image:Orgasm.jpg, and Image:Keeani Lei 3.jpg are all examples of images that are free and whatnot. The only thing is that Wikipedia is not censored, and if someone needs to use such an image in an article in any language. He hasn't uploaded any of those images and he is merely suggesting that if someone finds an image that is not on his page, then they can add it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they're all duly licensed... I'm a fierce defender of WP:CENSOR myself, so I won't complain. Somebody had brought the question up on a help page, so I thought this was the venue to bring it to. --Orange Mike 08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any disruption to the encyclopedia stemming from this page's existence. It is rather bizarre, using Wikipedia to store your porn, but as Ryulong points out, we aren't censored. If desired, a MfD discussion could be filed (under WP:NOT#BLOG, File Storage areas), but otherwise the best course of action is to let it be. Anthøny 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reasonable use of User-space at all. The point of uploading pictures is to contribute to the encylopedia. This use violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Also, the items on Commons mentioned above are only linked to User pages on en.wikipedia. The point of Commons is to provide storage space for re-use of images in articles, not on user pages. I agree with WP:NOT#CENSOR, but insisting that things like this contribute substantively to article content is a completely different matter from tolerance via WP:NOT#CENSOR. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of those images are of clear encyclopedic value. If they are all free images, I see no harm in having them here. Has anybody discussed the images with the user? Jeffpw (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ceyockey. I don't see much need for a page of someone's favorite dirty photographs off the Commons. Awhile back I became dismayed by the proliferation of amateur camera phone cock shots and self-promotional porn pics that were proliferating on the body part articles. In an attempt to "raise the bar" I asked a model friend of mine if I could photograph his body for Wikipedia, which gave rise to User:DavidShankBone/BodyParts (several photos have been removed for reasons as they relate to my other work on Wikipedia). Something like that contrasts with what seems like a "Wikifilth" blog on a User page (several of my photos are found on that blog). I'm extremely against censorship on Wikipedia, but I think User sub pages should have a purpose that advances either a person's work on Wikipedia, showcases their work or advances the Project in some way. I have no problem with people making political views or other things known on their User page since I think it aids us in understanding their perspective and edits. But not a gallery of "I like T&A and here's some dirty photos." I also think that some of those photos on that page have no encyclopedic value and should be deleted if they are not being employed on one of the projects. --David Shankbone 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike. As long as all the images are properly licensed (which they actually may not be, some of them have logos for other sites), then I see nothing wrong with it. GlassCobra 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

another one? Eh generaly not a problem athough a fair number of such pics tend to turn out to be copyvios.Geni (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup just deleted one from commons.Geni 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Geni's approach is the best one to take about this: if the images are copyvios, remove them. If this leaves enough open-source pr0n to raise a concern... well, as long as the user's collection is not disruptive, I don't see that it's worth the effort to remove this page from userspace. And seeing how it's simply a collection of image links, without any commentary, I don't find it disruptive -- although I'm underwhelmed at the kinds of "dirty pictures" this fellow has found on commons. (Two girls hugging each other is a "dirty picture"? IMHO, they look silly, not erotic.) He'd be better off subscribing to something like the venerable usenet group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica -- or whatever replaced it nowadays. -- llywrch (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking IPs

Resolved

Hey all. I accidentally broke IP unblocking in rev:27450; unblocking an IP address by address rather than by block id will always fail. This has been corrected in rev:27594; however, it may be some time before this is synched up (hopefully not too long). Until then, please be aware that you will have to unblock IP addresses by visiting Special:Ipblocklist, searching for the IP to unblock, and following the unblock link from there. The unblock links in block logs will not work. I hope that this will not cause too much inconvenience. If there are questions (or if you just want to give me a good bitching-out :D), don't hesitate to contact me by e-mail or my talk page. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We all make mistakes :) thanks for the notification, anyway! Anthøny 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim Starling just merged in the needed changes, so this should no longer be a problem. Sorry again! AmiDaniel (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings

I have blocked Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The block note is on the user talk. Just posting here as a courtesy. Regards, Mercury 08:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At Privatemusings's talk page I cut my standard offer in half: if the editor does productive work at another WikiProject such as Commons I'd discuss unblocking in three months rather than six months. Durova^Charge! 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You blocked him for sockpuppetry (false he is now on a single account) and "an inability to properly source biographies of living persons". Forgive me for assuming good faith, but PM has been actively involved in talk page discussion as to why the sources he is using are not reliable, and has asked for input from people experienced in the policy at WT:RS. He has been polite throughout in the face of a whole heap of reverts without discussion, and has gone out of his way to seek input from the other people involved. Tell me again... why have you blocked him???????? Viridae^Talk 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion with reasons here: [6] I hope that helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems very bizarre. The sockpuppetry is old news. Suggest unblock. Catchpole (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. PM emailed me asking for help because Durova had declined to post a note here when answering the unblock request. I was half way through writing my own when I saw Mercury's come up on my watchlist. That doesn't make things any clearer at all... Viridae^Talk 09:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed part of the talk page conversation, Viridae. I by no means declined to do so. Two factors operated: the editor's stated desire for minimal drama made an e-mail to ArbCom advisable, and it seemed unlikely that any unblock discussion would succeed while Privatemusings had an unfactored f-bomb on his talk page. As I explicitly stated there at the talk page, I would have opened this thread pretty soon myself, regardless. Durova^Charge! 10:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An unfactored f-bomb? What does this mean in English? Catchpole (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An four letter epithet for sexual activity. Or I should say, unrefactored. It's late. G'night. Durova^Charge! 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will assume good faith and ignore what I took to be Durova initially declining the post here. Regardless of that, why exactly is he blocked? Viridae^Talk 10:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I think that some of us were a bit shocked upon reviewing the sock puppetry in this user's recent past. Playing characters with funny voices[7] is not what Wikipedia is about. Perhaps the consensus on the previous AN/I thread wasn't unanimous after all. Since then, PM has not stayed away from controversial topics, and instead has kept stirring the pot on a BLP-sensitive article. I'm sure PM doesn't want this nth review of his blocks to be a source of dusruption and I suggest we let the ArbCom handle the appeal this time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should it come to arbcom? He was blocked for sockpuppetry in which he is no longer engaging and politely engaging other editors on the matter of sources for that article? He has been nothing if not patient, having faced a whole crapload of reverts without communication, and fairly terse responses to his good faith attempts to get to the bottom of the situation on the talk page. And yet it is he that is blocked. Viridae^Talk 10:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is this much difficulty in reaching a decision about these succession of blocks (and getting to the bottom of those matters you speak of) then perhaps that indicates that this would be best settled more conclusively at arbitration. --bainer (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave him blocked and take it to Arbitration. That's the route for administrative actions that are disputed in good faith. Thatcher131 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher here. We've now fairly exhausted all angles of community discussion regarding this Administrator action - the ArbCom now need to have a look at this one. Anthøny 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that PM is a net-negative for the project. He's either unwilling or unable to recognize the disruption and drama his actions have caused. Agree with Thatcher and others that he should remain blocked pending ArbCom review. Chaz ^Beckett 13:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the block. However, I agree with Anthøny's point. There have been numerous, non-binding discussion about Privatemusings. Disruption, drama, perhaps not enough to block, but enough to draw too many resources away from other matters. The matter needs some finality as it has taken up too much time from too many editors. ArbCom review seems the only way to get some closure on this issue. -- Jreferee t/c 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• So... Privatemusings is indefinitely blocked for non-legitimate "use of an alternate account", despite no allegation that I'm aware of that he is editing under any other account currently, and doubt about his "ability to reliably source"? Why can't people just come out and say, 'blocked for doing things I disagree with and am annoyed about'? It'd be refreshingly candid. Argumentum ad infinitum can be disruptive to the point that a block is needed. However, as usual, this goes directly from, 'novel theory of an excuse to block which has no history or established consensus' (we certainly don't block every newbie through the door who doesn't know how to include reliable sources... in fact, we never do it) to 'indefinite block'. It seems intended more as an effort to 'get rid of' the user rather than any sort of effort at correction. It wasn't, 'your position on reliable sources is wrong IMO and your continued arguing of this point is becoming disruptive'. It wasn't, 'ok the disruption has gone on long enough so I am going to issue a short block and may issue longer ones if the problem continues'. That's what policy and IMO common sense suggest. Instead, this was, 'that's annoying, so let's indef block him'... again. This is the third indef block for completely novel reasons on this guy in something over a week. That is ALSO disruptive. Indeed, IMO far moreso than someone who merely dares to hold a disputed opinion. If you think that disagreeing with someone about the reliable sources policy is blockable then warn them... give time for people to discuss whether they agree it is blockable. If they do and the person continues anyway then place a short block. If that is upheld and they continue... longer blocks. That's what policy says. We only place indefinite blocks when people have failed to respond to reasonable efforts to get them to change. Not, 'any time we think up a new theory of what is blockable'. --CBD 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not block folks because I disagree with them, I block folks, to prevent disruption. In this case I have blocked for disruption. The account is clearly here to disrupt the project. Assume good faith please. Mercury 16:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But you were in an editing dispute with him at Giovanni di Stefano. I've never heard of an indef block simply for citing sources deemed unreliable, and probably whatever is in the YouTube video could be reliably sourced to something else. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion here, to include the rationale below, and on the talk of PM, then comment. Respectfully, Mercury 20:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mercury was in an editing dispute; his edits to Giovanni di Stefano were on biographies of living people and external links issues and not on the editorial content of the page. These are maintenance issues and this is not a content dispute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad! I confused User:Mercury with User:Mervyn when looking at the article history. It's still an odd block. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Tis ok, no harm. :) Mercury 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In view of how past discussions of Privatemusings have gone, I suggest leaving him blocked, closing the discussion here, and taking any concerns to arbcom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We are at the time of year where arbcom are pretty much non-functional. Got any other suggestions?Geni 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Further rationale from the blocking admin

This part of the sock policy referencing good hand bad hand accounts would appear to preclude usage of an alternate account for the purposes of disruption on on site drama. Regardless of whether or not the primary account is not editing is of no consequence. If the primary account has stopped editing, then the editor has given up that account that was used for more useful work in favor of disruption. This is not good either.

In any event, this editor is very clearly disruptive to the site and needs to not be a net loss. We are here to build the encyclopedia and it would appear that PM is not here for that goal. If the above logic does not help, I have also used what I believe to be common sense for this issue. I hope this helps to clear things up a little. Best regards, Mercury 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree. Giovanni di Stefano is not an article we need aggressively edited by people who freely admit they know little or nothign of the basis for the disputes. If you're going to edit war it's probably best not to pick an arbitrator to argue with, or an article that is under active scrutiny by WP:OFFICE, Jimbo, Mike Godwin, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. Privatemusings' edits to that article were irresponsible, and he showed a complete lack of sensitivity to increasingly direct comments from Fred about the incredibly complex nature of this dispute. Having been involved in it in the past I would recommend the use of a ten foot pole for this one; this looks like a case of fools rushing in, and possibly endangering the entire project as a result. Contentious articles need careful handling, and when the subject is litigious that is redoubled. As Tom says above, appeals should got o ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At the present time there is no evidence of involvement by Mike Godwin. Fred's comments are mostly showing a lack of understanding of how 230 years results in a significant drift in legal practice and UK libel law. If the project is at risk it means the foundation has done something stupid and we are going have issues sooner rather than latter whatever.Geni 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That word "scrutiny" is the one you're after there :-) It's probably also rather unwise (to say nothing of rude) to assume that Fred has not taken the trouble, in the months this dispute has been running, to check out the likely legal position. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of months to understand 2 legal systems (the football club is in scotland)? Tricky. The problem is that isn't consistent with the basic terminology errors (there are very few attorneys in the UK) and clear not getting of UK libel law ("Cleverly implying" is a really really bad idea). Fred's understanding of UK law is less than impressive. He studied US law so it is to be expected that he is going to have a hard time adapting.Geni 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you a UK lawyer, Geni? Fred appears to have a better understanding of aspects of British law than me, and once a lawyer always a lawyer. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No but if you wish to claim that fred's understanding is anything special why the mistakes?Geni 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We really are getting off the topic. :) Mercury 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The element here that is on topic is that WP:BLP is a policy best applied conservatively. At best, Privatemusings had shown a consistent inability to recognize that. I think this is an editor who may get better in that regard and that's why I've offered generous terms for revisiting this block in just three months. The interests of the project take precedence at some point, and too much volunteer time was going into management of this situation. Everyone here on both sides of the issue who acted in good faith has my thanks. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Conservatively" is not the way I would describe the general historic aplication of BLP.Geni 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For "couple of months" read "since May", at the very least, and Fred has been in extended correspondence with legal counsel. Advice to all: don't go near that article unless you genuinely are a legal expert in English, Scottish, Italian and US law, and have double-checked your sources, and then checked them some more. And talk to Fred first. DAMHIKIJKOK? Guy (Help!) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. The Stefano article is one that needs huge sensitivity given the BLP concerns expressed both on and off site by the subject of the article. Some mistakes have been made in the past, some good faith editors have probably made the dispute worse, but that was a while back, and really there is no excuse to continue on with the controversy given what we all know now. There is a task force trying to find a sensitive solution to this issue and if editors want to be a part of that they should email Fred or Jinmbo. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What, pray tell, do we all know now? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much let the block stand or open an arbitration request, unless you think the middle ground of a three month review is an adequate compromise. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the blocked editors points here, I'd personally like to see any diffs whatsoever supporting the allegation that User:Privatemusings edits have been "disruptive" if that's indeed the rationale behind the block. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't take it upon myself to supply diffs for another administrator's block, but Privatemusings specifically asks for my input.[8] So I'll provide something brief. I full protected the Giovanni di Stefano article yesterday because it had been a locus of BLP concerns. Although I'm no expert in any legal system, common sense tells me to treat BLP issues conservatively. And if that isn't generally the way to handle things in some editors' views, a biography of a controversial legal professional is probably not the place to experiment with the outer limits of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. This was a normal and routine protection, yet Privatemusings tried to get the protection lifted repeatedly and implied on the article talk page that I didn't know what I was doing - before asking me anything about the decision.[9][10][11] One might suppose that Privatemusings would be more circumspect, particularly in light of the caution Fred Bauder delivered at WT:RS at about the same time: Privatemusings was approaching the level of disruption that merits an indefinite block, in Fred's opinion.[12] Then, having been blocked for BLP and sourcing issues, and the block already having been declined by another member of the arbitration committee, this editor renews the problem with a post that SlimVirgin steps in to refactor. I won't post those diffs here per WP:BEANS but they're in today's user talk history. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He simply thought you stated reason for protecting the article ("BLP edit warring") was inaccurate. That's not really disruptive. Privatemusing seems to believe, although this information keeps getting removed from his talk page[13][14], even in redacted form, that otherwise easily sourcable information is being forbidden from the article. I understand this editor keeps picking controversal areas of the wikipedia to edit, but he has a point. We don't have a separate policy called WP:Biographies of living lawyers, which makes clear not to mess with any "biography of a controversial legal professional" though maybe we should. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings asked for a quick presentation and that's what I've given. Based on the discussions so far, consensus for unblocking isn't likely to form. Several editors have weighed in here with the opinion that arbitration could be a good solution. Kendrick7, would you like to see how this discussion shapes up after this has had some more time? Durova^Charge! 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One man's troll is another man's idealist, and you'll find both editing in the same place. Our project thrives on idealism to a point, though obviously there's a point after which it becomes harmful, so I would hope a way could be found to convince Privatemusings to limit himself to not going over that ledge. There's no hurry in finding that way, of course. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How would the community react to a proposal to unblock Privatemusings based on assurances that he would (1) edit from a single account, and (2) refrain from editing BLP's. I believe this would address both of the reasons for a block that are perceived as currently germane. If a consensus to an unblock on those terms cannot be reached, they I will consider a request for a limited unblock to allow him to file an arbitration request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the history, I do not think I can support this proposal. Historically, I have supported and even authored such proposals. But not in this editors case. That is to say, I do not support an unblock at all. Mercury 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither would I. He gave an assurance in the past to edit only from one account, and broke it. His gossip page, his excessively polite goading of Essjay, his constant stirring up of drama, show that he is not, and never was, here for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia. If he wants to appeal to ArbCom, he can email them. ElinorD (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, it appears that consensus to unblock does not exist. Unless that should change, I invite this user to send me an e-mail as an Arbitration Committee Clerk, and I will forward it to the arbitrators for their consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

His gossip page? So you are saying he's also User:Petesmiles? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, huh? Mercury 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

K, yes he is. I don't think this is a secret anymore as PM has recently acknowledged he is Petesmiles. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, he pointed that out just now on his talk page. It wasn't cleat that account was blocked per [15]. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I would not support the unblocking of this user. He has caused too much controversy, used too many accounts, and continues to insist he sees nothing controversial in his edits, which suggests the same behavior will continue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given this editor's conduct since the block I don't think I could support anything more lenient than a review after three months' service to another wikiproject. I'm having second thoughts about that offer and might withdraw it if problems continue. The obvious solutions here are to pursue that offer or to arbitrate, since consensus to unblock isn't likely to materialize. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin and Durova. I tried talking some sense into him on his talk page and I got no better results than when I tried talking to Jon Awbrey - they both will not accept that the opinons of others must be taken into account. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This was all discussed a few days ago. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive326#I.27ve_blocked_User:Privatemusings. And incidentally, that discussion was closed far too quickly, in my view. It was very obvious that he was blocked, not because he was technically but innocently in violation of some rule, but because he had a long history of stirring up trouble. But as soon as he asked to have his other accounts blocked, and Privatemusings unblocked, it was done without any waiting to see if there was any consensus, and the noticeboard was archived as "Drama ended with amicable resolutions on both sides". See also Fred Bauder's protest. ElinorD (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he edited for a long time at WP:BADLINKS, then he tried to apply those ideals to an actual article and ended up in an edit war, plain and simple. The conflict at the British lawyers article, who doesn't want the world to know he is a [redacted], is again a reflection of the same sort of idealism. That people just label this as "stirring up trouble" is disconcerting. Admittedly, the editor should take a breathe now and again betwixt his quixotic quests. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC) say that three times fast!

Somebody asked me to comment here, because I'm a bit of a buddy of PM, and I've come to his defense before. First off- I don't believe he has ever abused sockpuppets. Given that he was so open about his identities-- informing multiple different admins, I truly haven't seen any evidence that he guilty of sockpuppet abuse. At worse, he was confused about sockpuppet rules and ulimately corrected. But when you openly TELL multiple admins, even ones who disagree with your POV, what your other account is-- I don't think you can really be guilty of sockpuppet abuse per se. I genuinely don't believe the sockpuppet usage was any kind of bad faith.

And PM has had helped out at the encyclopedia-- he was a valuable contributor to the badsites discussion, helped mediate, and did get some things accomplished.

But, that said-- I can't in good conscious call the block to be overturned. This pushing too hard on the BLP issue, the incivility to Durova, assumption of bad faith, being a tad too aggressive at the Giovanni article, when great sensitivity was required. The blocking admin doesn't seem to have any conceivable ax to grind whatsoever, and although I do think PM was generally acting in good faith, he seemed to have stumbled across a few too many lines in too short a period.

The best I can say is that-- I do think PM is a basically good-faith editor who's doesn't seem like he's trying to break strict guidelines, but sometimes has trouble with gray ones. Trying blocks shorter than three months/indef might bring substantial results-- if you gave him a week to think it over and then let him come back with a promise to stay away from BLPs, you might yet be able to salvage him. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alec. Given the lack of diffs to show behavior rising to the level of disruption, I'd allow this user back in a week, which should be a sensible timeout to consider his goals here on the encyclopedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Risky. I don't see any evidence this user is willing to come back constructively. I don't think I can support this either. Mercury 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that when I say "maybe reduce it to a week"-- somebody would have a very serious conversation with him and lay down some firm groundrules on what exactly it is he isn't going to do in the future. I wouldn't suggest saying "let's just make a week and call it good"-- that might just lead to future problems. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any diffs to suggest he hasn't been editing constructively, by which I mean, he hasn't, AFAICT, been editing in a way which violates wikipedia's guidelines. I'll gladly change my position, but give me something, anything. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: I don't think Privatemusings directed the profanity at me. I simply thought it would be wiser for him to refactor that statement before a noticeboard thread opened, since that's the kind of thing that tends to sway opinions against an editor and it's understandable that someone would use an epithet momentarily out of frustration. I'm very glad he did strikethrough the statement, although the whole issue got delayed enough, with enough apparent doubt about whether I was really acting in good faith, that I now regret stepping forward at that juncture. Durova^Charge! 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't turn into a self-righteous WP:DICK after being blocked is getting paid to be here. In fact, the degree to which someone turns into a self-righteous WP:DICK is directly proportional the block's absurdity multiplied by its length. To point Privatemusings behavior after being indefinitely blocked as justification for the block ignores this reality. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just not true. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am one step away from withdrawing my three month review offer. Suggest you set a better example, Kendrick, or pursue the ArbCom/Foundation options. This is counterproductive. Durova^Charge! 10:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked why?

Still have not got to the bottom of why he was blocked. Firstly sockpuppetry in which he was NOT engaging since the ani thread before and secondly for an inability to properly source a BLP... He had made multiple attempts to understand why people thought his sources were nto good enough, which seems reasobale when the guardian is ussually regarded as a reliable source. So tell me again, why is he blocked? Viridae^Talk 10:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see all the issues surrounding. You have my reason... and others have added to that reason. Consensus here is to leave blocked, and if you must, request arbitration. Regards, Mercury 10:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block reason is half false and half questionable. I would like one that actually stands up to and kind of review. Viridae^Talk 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It did. Assume good faith please. If need be, pursue arbitration. Mercury 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Viridae, you might have missed all the diffs provided demonstrating the good faith of the block here. Actually, that's probably because such diffs have been repeatedly requested and not been forthcoming. But somehow, in my best of WP:AGF attempt, I too will attempt to magically "see all the issues surrounding" the block. Nothing yet, but I'll keep you posted! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Conditional unblock

I have unblocked so that PM can request arbitration. PM is not permitted to edit anywhere else than arbitration pages. Mercury 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot closed

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 12:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

George Cross Recipients

Resolved

Please could admins note that the George Cross is a highly notable award for gallantry, and that its recipients are also highly notable? And, bearing that in mind, could admins please avoid speedying stubs about its recipients, especially when an editor (NOT the original author) has removed the speedy tag with an explanation given in the edit summary? Thank you for your consideration. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• The entire island of Malta has a George Cross :-) But yes, it's an assertion of notability and no mistake. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? We have an article on the island of Malta! DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples, please? These can be undeleted if this is indeed a problem. Chick Bowen 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Douglas Merriman. The deleting admin has refused to recreate. Another editor (neither the original creator or myself) is now working on a new version in their sandbox. There have been some misunderstandings of policy and who did what along the way. Hopefully the situatioon is now sorting itself out. Just rather disapointing to have such bizarre ideas of non-notability floating around among admins, and I personally am rather upset at wrongfully being accused of a breach of wikipolicy for removing the speedy tag. Heigh-ho, just another day at the office! DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The original article was Arthur Douglas Merriman. It was deleted by a different admin because of a lack of context, which it indeed suffered from. Duncan is rightly a bit peeved because he was accused of maliciously removing the tag. It wasn't malicious because he was perfectly entitled to remove it, not being the author of the page. The article has now been recreated with a reference and a bit more context. Kerfuffle over. ;) Woodym555 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted as lacking context (true: it said that Arthur Merriman had a George Cross - a context-free factoid). Re-creating with some information would have been rather more effective, I think - see WP:HOLE. The sooner we get WP:WIZARD in place the sooner we can wave goodbye to problems like this. There is a small concern that the creator might be simply creating substubs from www.link-ex.net/wiki_en which is not a reliable source, so I left a note. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You would notice him in a hole because he has a George Cross pinned to his chest ;) Yes it was the stubbiest of stubs which needed a hook, but I still don't think it should have been deleted, simply tagged. Woodym555 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and I'd not have deleted it, but there is at least some burden on the creator to do more than "X won the George Cross, here's a link to my website" which is what we had here. It was speedied as A1, not A7, and it did indeed lack context. See the discussion of Eric Moussambani in WP:HOLE - there is some sense in the humour, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedied articles

Is there anyway to see a list of speedied articles? I ask because without such alist, it is impossible to review if the speedy process is being used appropriately. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No such list exists, for reasons such as this. —Kurykh 23:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Struck out my inaccurate comment. —Kurykh 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is the deletion log but that's not going to tell you much more than the name of the page and the reason for its deletion if you're not an admin. Metros (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So realistically, only admins are in a position to see if admins are using speedy appropriately? DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but trust me, with 1,400+ admins on here, I severely doubt there willl ever be some super-secret plot to speedy delete articles inappropriately. Metros (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't for one moment think there is any kind of plot, rather I suspect that speedy is sometimes misused by people making poor judgments about notability, or unfamiliar with the possibility of tagging stubs with appropriate templates, or averse to talking to editors, or looking at edit histories. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And if that occurs, the articles can be brought to deletion review. Metros (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone knows that they've been deleted that is, and assuming the original author 1) knows about deletion review, and 2) hasn't become so dispirited and demoralized that he or she can't be bothered, and 3) they haven't thrown a hissy fit and been blocked for venting their frustration. There is no way for us to know how many potentially worthwhile articles have been lost by improper speedying, it is a "closed system" - only admins can delete, and only admins can see what they have deleted, and apart from the original author of a speedied article, no-one else is ever likely to know what happened. In short, there is a massive and I believe fatal lack of transparency to the speedy process. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Woodym555 (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If the person is notable, can't we just that someone else would come along looking to make that article at some point eventually? At some point along the way, someone will notice an issue. And yes, only admins can see the deleted content, but once again, admins are not plotting and if it was a truly notable article, an admin in the DRV would raise that objection. Metros (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As with any process controlled by humans inevitably there will be errors, but based on my experience the tendency is not in the direction that DuncanHill implies. For every article that is unjustly deleted there are many more pieces of absolute crap that are given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to stay. I don't think allowing deleted articles to remain in plain view is wise, among other reasons because many of them are plainly defamatory towards living persons. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be very nice if non-administrators could view the text of "ordinary" deleted articles and a smaller classof administrators (than is currently allowed) could view the text of "extraordinary" deletions, such as is required by copyright or libel laws, or by moral, legal or ethical standards. (This blog post is a rather interesting take on the issue.) --Iamunknown 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Iamunknown makes a good point - and I think there is some truth in what Raymond says - perhaps a line could be drawn between speedies for BLP violations, and speedies for other reasons (eg alleged non-notability or "lack of context")? For every notable article speedied, an admin ISN'T speedying a pile of crap somewhere else! DuncanHill (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific objection to something you've seen? If something is truly notable, it will be created again, and I've always thought the great majority of admins have very good judgement. I don't see why there is a need to add another layer of bureaucracy to a system that works well. Letting everyone see deleted articles and having partial admins have both been brought up plenty of times before. Grandmasterka 01:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For a specific example - see my thread above about GC recipients. For more examples - I am not able to tell you, because I am not allowed to know! DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think it's important to hide the content of deleted items. Much of the time articles are deleted because they are obviously libelous, copyright infringements and/or a number of other things that shouldn't really see the light of day. In any other case most admins are usually willing to restore to user space on request. At the worst-case scenario you can always contact OTRS with a request to review the deleted file. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that I'm merely redundant to other comments above... I'll go away now. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a different reason for wanting to see deleted articles (other than libelous, copyvio, etc.). It is so that I can use them as a training tool to help learn what should be deleted and what is okay. I know the policies in the abstract but it takes experience to develop judgment as to which articles fit which policies. Glancing through deleted articles would be a useful experience to build judgment. (Conversely, I've seen some articles on New pages patrol which were accepted by other patrollers and I cannot understand why. I wish that patrollers would explain why they did NOT mark a New page as deletable.) Sbowers3 (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedies are commonly misused by many many administrators. You don't need to see the deleted texts to know it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's easy enough to contact another admin and tell them to check out an article if you have any concerns. Remember that admins have to pass RFA though, and they're unlikely to do that unless they know what thery're doing and how to do it properly--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix - the point is we CAN'T contact another admin - because we have no way of knowing what admins are doing. We have no way of helping them improve. We have no way of spotting a bad egg. We have no way to know if they are doing a good, bad, or indefferent job on speedies. All we have is "admins must be good otherwise they wouldn't be admins" which is, if you will excuse my French, utter bollocks. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, I checked your deleted contributions, there are quite a few and deleted by several different people. I think you are doing something wrong, at least some of the time. That is, I think you are not making the case for these articles. I disregard the MySpace blogger, but some of the rest might have potential if you ran them through WP:WIZARD or something. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy - my deleted contributions? What deleted contributions? I am not aware of any of my contributions being deleted. Are you perhaps a) lying or b) incompetent? You expect me to assume good faith when you write utter nonsense like that? Where are these deleted contributions of mine that you claim to have looked at? DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, administrators can see a link on your user page hidden to non-administrators, which lists all your deleted contributions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So what of my contributions have been deleted? I am not aware of ANY being deleted - I certainly have never been told of any being deleted, and have not noticed any disappearing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick run through your last 100 and all of them have been disambiguation and stub sorting of other editors' articles. Didn't see anything you created that has been deleted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn right nothing of mine has been deleted - so can someone make Guy stop lying? Or is that asking too much of admins? DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Deleted contributions" doesn't just mean articles that you originally started. It includes all articles to which you contributed and that were later deleted. As an example, someone created Carlton Jakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about a week ago. Another editor flagged it as a non-notable biography under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A7. You later disambiguated a link, changing Georgia to Georgia (U.S. state). Finally, the article was speedily deleted. Your disambiguation edits show up as deleted edits, even though the article wasn't one you started. By the way, if you want to look at any admin's deletion, protection, or block logs, go to their contributions page and click "Logs". As an example, Elkman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) gives logs that explain what I'm doing. Basically, Guy isn't lying here; he just didn't give you a full explanation. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So he's criticicising me for dabbing pages which were subsequently deleted? OK - as it now seems to be policy, I won't dab or fix wikilinks again. I won't bother editing, if Guy's attitude is tolerated. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume Guy just misread them. Please don't take this personally and please don't stop editing. I think the issue over GC recipients has been resolved as much as it can. One admin didn't look into it that much. The problem of who watches the watchmen will always be around. Admins in this category will be happy to tell you what was in a certain article if you feel it shouldn't have been deleted. Woodym555 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't assume good faith as long as people like Guy talk utter bollocks and make entirely unjustified attacks on my edits and get away with it. If Guy can't read he shouldn't be here. As I can no longer assume good faith of the admin team (though there are many splendid individuals on it), I do not believe it is possible for me to continue making constructive contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proxy posting for banned and blocked users operating through Tor nodes

As an example of this problem, Krimpet (talk · contribs) has been restoring disruptive posts[16], of banned editors operating through Tor nodes [17] [18]Krimpet seems to reject the idea that banned and blocked users aren't allowed to post.[19] [20]

I'd like to clarify how disruptive posts emanating from Tor nodes should be handled. I'd also like to know whether an editor is allowed to restore such posts after they have been removed by another editor. It seems like removing such posts to deny recognition is the policy a good idea, and that when an editor takes that action, it should not be reverted. Comments and advice? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One, which banned user is this alleged to be? Two, since when is Wikipedia:Deny recognition policy? Picaroon (t) 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The banned user appears to be (No need to name them) or a meat puppet, but there's absolutely no way to ever know for sure because they are posting through a Tor node. We sort of have to make a best guess by the message that they are sending. Are we now going to say that banned users can do whatever they like as long as they use Tor nodes? That seems rather unwise. Additionally, I have received email correspondence that strongly suggests involvement of (No need to name them). - Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You said the same thing with 24.19.33.82 (talk · contribs)... Daniel 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you proof that the user is somebody else? If so, please share the information because there was a massive disruption and Arbcom is still investigating the incident, as far as I know. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has taken the close-to-unprecedented step to investigate your own and Durova's actions and judgement in that incident via private email without opening a case, but welcoming evidence from everyone. Any information I or others have provided to ArbCom via their private mailing list is exactly that - private. It just needs to be noted that your assertions of "this is clearly MyWikiBiz" is currently not as persuasive as it could be. Daniel 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I requested the investigation myself.  ;-) Check your email, Daniel. I've sent you new evidence and CC'ed Arbcom. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I requested the investigation also. And if you're not aware, Daniel, I was harassed via e-mail by a person who claimed to be that same IP. Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this more than I do. Durova^Charge! 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I was writing a reply to your post on my talk page. I would have gladly discussed this there; why did you bring this to AN/I before I got a chance to respond, other than to cause more ridiculous drama?

Removing a critical comment as "a post from a Tor node" is not policy - we don't even have a clear position on blocking Tor nodes right now. I specifically stated, multiple times, that I restored the comment because obscuring and removing discussion just feeds the trolls and gives them more nonsense to speculate on. The proper thing to do would be to let the comment stand on its own, perhaps rebut it, or just have people ignore it. Transparency is sorely needed here - it's a very effective weapon against disruption of every stripe, yet many prominent editors are taking the opposite approach. --krimpet⟲ 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I brought it here because this isn't really a disagreement between you and me. It seems to be a lack of clarity about how to handle disruptive editors using Tor nodes. I am hoping that others can provide clarity. I think letting banned users post through Tor nodes is a very, very bad idea and am hoping that the community consensus will confirm that. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of "Krimpet proxy posting for banned and blocked users operating through Tor nodes," directly accusing me of impropriety, seems to suggest that you intended me to be the primary topic of this discussion. --krimpet⟲ 03:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted 2x) Actually, Krimpet, your second restoration stated in the edit summary that you thought the blanking had been an artifact of an edit conflict - although I had specifically mentioned TOR nodes in the body of my post. That should have been quite clear, and at that point taking the matter to talk pages would have been a good idea. I haven't looked through the entire history yet, but it appears your first restoration got reverted by a different administrator. Bold-revert-discuss would have been a good idea. ArbCom has expressed who's who clauses in many decisions: when it's difficult or impossible to determine specific identities, remedies can be fashioned in ways that make identification unnecessary. Blanking those posts looked like a WP:DUCK application of WP:BLOCK. If you disagree, please discuss your reasons. Durova^Charge! 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My initial restoration of the comment was reverted by you as you added another comment, without mentioning that you were removing the comment again. This is why I restored it, assuming good faith that this removal was not intentional. --krimpet⟲ 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In that diff you cite the text of my post includes the statement Incidentally, TOR nodes keep posting cricitisms of my actions to this thread. It's become a rather good honeypot for that purpose. I'll double check, but I think the restoration you did after that was the second one. If it's an honest misunderstanding I'll certainly be glad to work things out. Hope you can see how the confusion arose. Durova^Charge! 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was the second restoration. Here's the first one 13 minutes earlier.[21] Now that I double check, I did reblank it myself.[22] Durova^Charge! 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to cast blame. I'd like to come to a consensus about how to handle these situations so we have no more reverting when an editor deletes a post of a banned user operating through a Tor node. If we can agree, then going forward we will have smooth sailing. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Every time I see someone citing WP:DUCK I can't help but think of Monty Python's take on the proper approach to witch hunting. Yes, someone may indeed weigh as much as a duck... but burning them for it is far more disruptive than just ignoring them would ever have been. Block accounts and IPs for what they do. Blank messages only if they contain information that should be private. The 'banned user' hunts just create big unruly mobs making a mess of things with torches and pitchforks... and that's not even counting what happens when you get it wrong. --CBD 11:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

please dont discrimate chinese because of some bad users. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.111.94.195 (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Errm, once again, Jehochman has a rather distorted idea of Wikipedia policy! There is no rationale for reverting the non-disruptive contributions of blocked (as oposed to banned) users, nor for reverting the contributions of users editing through Tor nodes. From Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks:

"An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block."

From Wikipedia:Open proxies:

"Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time to deal with editing abuse. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked."

Even if these two policies specifically said that such edits could be reverted (as in the case of bans), which they don't outside of the imagination of two or three admions, Krimpet would have been quite within her justifiable use of administrative discretion in not reverting them for the benefit of discussion on the encyclopedia. This is a farcical thread which seems only designed to draw attention away from the controversy surrounding one of its contributors. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we no longer blocking Tor nodes on sight? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes, under Wikipedia:Open proxies. There is even a bot available to do it, should the Community wish that. However, we do not revert non-disruptive edits made through these nodes before they are blocked. Disruptive edits may, of course, be reverted under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing wherever they come from! Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned users posting through Tor nodes

Back to business. We are talking about what to do when a banned user posts through a Tor node. Obviously checkuser cannot determine whether it's a banned user or not because Tor nodes anonymize the source. Hence, we must look at the content of the post. When a post appears from a Tor node that looks like the same message being pushed by a banned user, can that message be removed? I say yes because we obviously don't want to give banned users a free pass to post whatever they like through Tor nodes. Any other comments? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove the post; block the ip. In general, any post can be removed. Posts by banned users should be removed, and may not be restored. Nobody has to enforce a ban, but nobody gets to prevent enforcement either. I don't know to what extent checkuser tells us anything about Tor users. Tor or not, it never infallibly identifies the editor. A somewhat seperate issue, Tor nodes are blocked on sight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So if an edit summary indicates the removal of a banned user's post, that post should not be restored without some sort of clarification or discussion with the editor who performs the removal in good faith. Right? If an editor restores posts of a purportedly banned user without any agreement that it's not a banned user, then the editor is effectively proxying for a banned user. Does that view reflect the consensus? - Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just make it clear what's happening. The issue of Tor nodes is a red herring in this argument; if I were banned, "rv banned user Jpgordon" (for example) should be a sufficient note to other editors not to restore the edit without discussion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This should not be a license for admins to revert edits which they don't like. If there is evidence of disruption, of course those edits should be reverted: if there is no evidence of disruption, administrators would be better spending their time helping out at WP:AIV, CAT:CSD or many other pages where there really is disruption, rather than trying to fit the post to the troll. Physchim62 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Physchim62, you restored a post by banned user Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs) to your talk page. [23] Earthenwareboat (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock in the sequence of Earthenboat (talk · contribs) and Earthboat (talk · contribs). Those are known socks of Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs), who is banned. You might want to remove that post. Jpgordon is the one who seems to have tagged Earthboat. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In my case, Durova simply started blocking and after realizing that she did not have the right banned user, she went with another one, also wrong. Since I am not in any trouble with WP; I am not using a TOR anything, why does she or anyone have a right to block me, take away my posts and hurt innocent people around me? Songgarden, Deutschland. 11-19-07 217.81.37.228 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• For God's sake, people! They are laughing their asses of at us! Here we are arguing whether it's OK to remove trolling form a Tor node if we are not entirely sure it's a banned user, and we have a policy that says using Tor is verboten - anyone who wants to contribute to the debate can do so using their Wikipedia account, it's free to register and if they are blocked or banned then they can... do the other thing. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

About the newpages "patrolled" feature

When I patrol a new page on Special:Newpages, after I click "Mark this page as patrolled", I see a screen that gives me a link to return to Special:Newpages. I would also like to have a link to the page I just marked as patrolled, in order to save me the trouble of hitting the "back" button if I wish to read or edit the article. I imagine this feature would not be too hard to add because it exists in a similar form whenever you login. Please forward this request to the techies who can discuss whether it's a good idea. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I will post this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), which is the correct page for these requests. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is a fast-track process for COPYVIO allegations possible?

I ask because there is a reasonably good quality article on a notable person, Stanislav Petrov, being copyright violation blanked despite the fact that it does not share words (with the exception of quotes (also quoted in other sources)), phrasing, or overall structure with the article being cited by the editor concerned. John Nevard (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the template again. There is no copyright violation. Keegan^talk 06:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

long term edit warring

Through happenstance, I ended up making some edits to Cuba today, where I had the misfortune of running across "El Jigue", 208.65.188.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been maintaining a long-term ownership of the article. My initial edit [24], which corrected the formatting of a reference and removed an enormous quote in the ref tag itself, was described by El Jigue as a "pro-Castro POV". I guess Fidel Castro really likes short references notes. The user has proceeded to revert every single edit I've made to Cuba, no matter how minor or neutral, including reinserting vandalism. A perusal of the user's talk page and the Cuba talk page indicates that this person has harrassed many good editors away from Cuba and related topics, I assume by making immediate and blatant aspersions to their motives. I have warned the editor repeatedly and, I think, nicely, but have been ignored, culminating in a final warning about civility, assuming good faith, and article ownership. The response was a charming accusation that I am "purging" "anti-Castro" editors and a similar accusation on the article talk page.

A perusal of his history shows that I am not the first person he has arbitrarily set himself against. El Jigue has made what I assume are positive contributions to the article, but his behavior has been unpleasant, to say the least. He has removed other editors talk page posts because he thought they introduced a "alternate POV", accused other editors of censorship, and generally refused to assume good faith of any one.

He has been blocked a few times for the same issues I'm bringing up here. He was also blocked for a time, for the same issues, from Spanish Wikipedia, although the EsWiki admin I spoke to said he did not return after the block. I feel like a long vacation may be in order, but as I am obviously involved, my blocking would be inappropriate. At the very least, there is a dire need of more people paying attention to this user and the articles he edits regularly. Natalie (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing this up took a little longer than I though, so I'm going to bed. I've notified the user in question of this discussion. Natalie (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just reading this and the talk pages show that this user is not here to contribute in any positive way, as was his block at the Spanish Wikipedia. Unless someone says different, it might be best to consider him banned from this Wikipedia, and as such I have blocked the IP for 3 months, as he's been using it for nearly two years at the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that works for me. Just for the record, today I looked at 205.240.227.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an old IP of El Jigue's. Considering that extensive block log, I'm not opposed to considering this a ban. Natalie (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A permanent ban will work nicely. Be on alert though, El Jigue has numerous IP addresses to edit and post from; he won't go away easily. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:66.215.28.84

This IP (contribs - talk) and a couple others (1 - talk | 2 - talk) on the same network have been used to add misinformation to or otherwise vandalise countless game articles over the last year; the earliest examples I have seen date back to August 2006. The pattern of vandalism suggests it is the same person in each case. The most constant behaviour I've seen is modifying articles to either state that a game was not/will not be released outside of Japan, or simply removing information about non-Japan releases. A relative handful of the edits have been legit (or at least seemingly so). This person has also strangely but non-maliciously reworded talk page messages on several occasions (with the rare straight removal of text). Every time the user was blocked, they came back to start the same trouble shortly after the block expired. The last time the IP was banned for six months. Again it started within a day of the block expiring. I have pleaded with this person to stop on two of the talk pages, to no avail. They have never replied or explained their action. I think it is time to contact the ISP as although this person has shown no true malicious intent, they have wasted the times of many editors for over a year now, and no amount of blocking short of a permanent one will stop them. The IP has changed a couple times, so it can't be completely static. It is possible that another user could inherit the block, although the current IP has been causing trouble as far back as December.--Drat (Talk) 10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User: 67.86.124.43

67.86.124.43 (talk · contribs) has been posting anime titles on several Cartoon Network articles. Even though anime have been shown on several of Cartoon Network's feeds, those he adds on the lists are anime shows that are not shown. He doesn't even provide reliable sources on why he lists them. In particular, he lists anime shows on Cartoon Network Philippines, even though in truth, only Pokémon, Mirmo!, and Zoids: Genesis are the only ones currently shown there. Several anime have been shown there since 2000, but those he added (such as One Piece and Full Metal Alchemist were never among them. With him posting possible misinformation (he has been warned before), what do you think is the best way to do with this anon? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Protecting some pages

Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has stated his intent to keep vandalising these until we realise he was right all along and go to him in craven supplication. Or something. I've semiprotected, which should slow the rate of vandalism, and will watchlist and monitor them. Anyone else who feels like reviewing them and seeing if they give undue weight to Awbrey's obsessive interest in the work of Charles Peirce please feel free to have a look in.

• Ampheck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boolean domain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boolean-valued function (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Comprehension_(logic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Continuous predicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Descriptive science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hypostatic abstraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Inquiry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logic of relatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logic of Relatives (1870) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logic of Relatives (1883) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logical graph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Logical matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Minimal negation operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Multigrade operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Normative science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parametric operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pragmatic maxim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relation composition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relation construction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relation reduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relative term (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Semeiotic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sign relation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sign relational complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sole sufficient operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tacit extension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Triadic relation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Guy (Help!) 11:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the folks at WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Logic, and WikiProject Philosophy might be interested in these articles and in a better position than the average admin to know if the articles suffer from undue weight. I suggest you post to their talk pages. GRBerry (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I put it on the philosophy project to-do, will have a look at the other projects when I get a minute (or anyone else who feels motivated, feel free). Guy (Help!) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

beginner sql tutorial dot com should not have been un-blacklisted!!

I'm distressed to see that this site somehow got off the blacklist or onto the whitelist when it still appears to be dangerous, as indicated by http://beginner-sql-tutorial.com. I think Wikipedia needs to review its policies and procedures for dealing more carefully with potentially malicious sites. For example, any site that uses obfuscated Javascript should be viewed with suspicion, and certainly it should not be whitelisted if it fails to pass a simple automated check by Exploit Prevention Labs or an equivalent facility. There was some previous discussion about this particular site, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive319#User_202.62.80.3_-_apparent_extreme_hazard, and it's hard to understand how whoever made the decision to allow these links to be reintroduced could have failed to take reasonable precautions. Again, I would strongly advise that you review your practices. This kind of abuse could give Wikipedia a real black eye, and deservedly so. - JCLately (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not being used anywhere, and it's still blacklisted. [25] ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's because I'm quick :) --Isotope23 ^talk 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's not on the whitelist; it was removed from the blacklist after a request for removal was posted and it was confirmed that the IFrame exploit had been resolved. I didn't remove the site from the blacklist (or contact meta about removal there) until I personally confirmed this fact. It appears the exploit is back now, and the site has again been removed from articles and added back to the blacklist (and I contacted a meta admin to have it added there for global blacklisting). At this point, I think as a "repeat offender", it should stay blacklisted, even if the exploit is resolved again, until the site owner details how they are dealing with this situation such that it will not happen again. Clearly their last attempt to resolve this was not successful. That said, well I realize that that users may want to direct their anger here if they are led out to a site that maliciously attacks their computer, but Wikipedia isn't responsible for 3rd party content at external sites and this sort of malicious scripting is only going to increase. All we can do is due dilligence to try and stop feeding out to these sites, and I think in this specific situation that was done.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, the site owner has apparently rectified the situation again, though I'm still a bit cautious about removing this from the blacklist sans some sort of assurance of a more permanent solution to the problem. Anyone who wants to participate in the discussion is welcome. It might be worth having a conversation on a guideline or best practices for dealing with external linking to sites that are compromised with malicious scripting.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for page protection

An editor which has used several sockpuppets (User:Bone18 and User:Billy660 and User:Billybob690), and uses multiple ips of 86.156. and 86.153. series is constantly adding anti-India, biased, unsourced material to:

• Indophobia,
• Anti-Pakistani sentiment,
• Jammu and Kashmir and
• Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

I am tired of constantly reverting his/her edits. Need advise. --Lokantha (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist closed

This arbitration case has now closed, and the decision may be found at the link above. Martinphi and ScienceApologist are subect to an editing restriction for one year, and ScienceApologist is limited to one account. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This was an atrocious decision. We've just given a green light to all manner of bullshit merchants. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure. I'm about to suggest that Martinphi be restricted from articles in relation to Morgellons on the basis of this finding, since his tireless advocacy and endless repetition is completely overwhelming the debate there. SA should be fine as long as he keeps it civil. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I dissagree with Raymond. While I generally agree with SA and his POV, he irritates me. Nothing in this says one can't responsibly and civily remove unsourced crap from the encyclopedia. All it says is be nice, and not to remove stuff with appropriate sources (regardless of how you feel about it). SA is very much his own worst enemy in far to many instances I've come across. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, what in the world are you talking about? I have no idea what Morgellons are. It sounds as if you are accusing me of disrupting the page by sock puppet, and if you keep it up, I'll report you for personal attacks. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he's confusing you with User:Levine2112, who does engage in tireless advocacy and endless repetition. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm, I see. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, remote viewing. Mixing up my pseudoscience pushers there. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks, on the Admin noticeboard no less. Nice. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Guy was commenting on his perception of your editing habits. NPA does not regard whether you feel insulted. Keegan^talk 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarify: insults, not feelings of being insulted. Guy was saying you push pseudoscience in your contributions. Keegan^talk 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

abuse of power by administrators Secret and Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Hello this is the editor formerly known as user:Rafff18 before I was indefinitly blocked by user:Secret(note: I am not asking you to unblock me but to look into the actions of the above mentioned administrators). The block was a result of a small edit war me and a friend of mine got into with User:Bmg916 and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson because they kept deleting agreed apron and sourced information on the page of the Montreal Screwjob. Instead of going through wp:dr like I wanted secret blocked me indefinitely for several false reasons that I detail on my talk page along with that of secrets and user:Chris G.

latter while I was appealing the block User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson one of the people that I originally was in the dispute with ,did a blatant violation of WP:ACM by deleted the information from my talk page and then blocked me from using it. Please inform these administrators that these actions are unacceptable and further use of theme could result in theme losing there rank thank you.

• And what was your previous account? It's blindingly obvious that Rafff18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not a new editor. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • He shouldn't have to reveal his IP address per WP:PRIVACY. Otherwise, I'm not aware we're doing indef blocks for 3RR now? I don't understand from the talk page what made Secret change mind to extend the 24 block to an indef block before the 24hrs even expired. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Rafff would not stop using sockpuppets and meatpuppets (his friend, according to him continued) to repeatedly insert the same exact information into an article whose sources failed WP:RS and WP:V. Not to mention, the "source" was one person's POV about another's behavior (Bret Hart). If the sources were valid, the information would have been more appropriate for the aforementioned Bret Hart article. The "source" mentions nothing of the Montreal Screwjob, the article in question. However, the blocked user was trying to insert this as a supposed reason for the screwjob taking place, when as mentioned before, the "source" says nothing of the screwjob, and therefore, even if the source was reliable, using it to allude to the fact Hart's supposed behavior led to the screwjob, is nothing more than an assumption. The information they wanted to insert was never agreed upon at any time. It was only this editor who was blocked who wanted it repeatedly inserted. After this user was blocked for 3RR, I reverted their edits no longer based on the actual edits, but because solely because they were using block evading IP addresses, which as we all know, is not allowed. If the user had waited for the 24 hour block to expire instead of abusing sock puppet and meat puppet accounts, they probably wouldn't be indefinitely blocked, and I would have gladly recommended putting the information in the Bret Hart article instead, with a reliable source. Some random website saying they have an interview with some person doesn't mean they necessarily actually conducted said interview. Sorry if the response was long winded. Regards, Bmg916^Speak 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He seems to stand accused of meatpuppetry, and sockpuppetry. I have to insist that just because a lot of editors show up and agree with each other regarding a Featured Article, that's really slim evidence of meatpuppetry -- that occurs on every front page article. No one bothered to file a sock case prior to the indef block. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I figured much of that out. But the guy has made less than 50 edits so an indef seems like WP:BITE. -- Kendrick7^talk —Preceding comment was added at 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was blatantly obvious it was either sock puppetry or meat puppetry. They were re-inserting the exact same information down to the punctuation, and it started as soon as Rafff was blocked for 3RR. After each sock was blocked, another different IP would come along and once again re-insert the same exact paragraph down to the punctuation. Rafff claims it was his friend and not him doing most of this, so I am going to assume good faith and believe it was his friend. However, this would still be meat puppetry if I'm not mistaken. Bmg916^Speak 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you consider it a WP:BITE. However, just to play devil's advocate, he has admitted to editing for over two years anonymously, and refused to admit to use of sock puppets and denied that his friend was acting as a meat puppet when he clearly was. He also has clear knowledge of policy in my opinion to bring up WP:ACM. Bmg916^Speak 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree he screwed up. But, can we at least agree the guy had lousy luck of joining the wrestling wikiproject in late October[26], which two weeks later on 9 November (see Talk:Montreal Screwjob) got a WP:Featured article, and then may have bent, broken, or not understood our rules under the resultant feverish excitement of such an occurrence. I can't forsee the stars aligning just that way again. By the way, I would have another look at the source, [27] does actually mention the screwjob, just not by that name, unless there's another "Montreal incident with Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels" we don't have an article on. Beats me if it is reliable, it has a byline and everything; of course I never thought I'd use "reliable sources" and "pro-wrestling" in the same sentence. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, I must've missed the article mentioning the screwjob before. I honestly still don't see it as being reliable however, as we can't verify that they are actually summarizing this supposed interview correctly and without twisting words and context, etc. As much as I would really like to assume good faith here, and I really hate not to, but I unfortunately believe that this user would go right back to insisting this be put in the article, as he inserted in the information about a year ago as an anonymous user, and because of his insistence on inserting it with sock and meat puppets. Bmg916^Speak 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation for Background check on Editors Being Promoted to Admin

A few months ago an editor put up a link in a Tibetan Buddhist page that is an Englishman's cult claiming to be a prophet (Terton) dismissed by Tibetan Lamas, which basically has wrong information whereby a photo is wrongly captioned. This misinformation page is still up, against Wiki rules. He has given me so many warnings and claimed to know virtually nothing of TB(Tibetan Buddhism) and abusively called it an inner faith squabbling. I claimed then and now that he is a member of the said cult whose former members have claimed great abuses by the cult leader, the former English truck driver! He has since added a badge of interest in TB on his page as well as claiming to be a Freemason. When he gave another harassing warning again today I decided to check his activity on Wiki. To my surprise it appeared that this user is highly controversial and his interest in TB is not new. He has been accused of being the same person as a now banned editor who was double nicking one of whose names was a TB guardian deity by separate people who individually came to the same conclusion.

So I propose in order to promote people to admin status, that:

1) A history of their activity be googled in the format of:

XXXX site:wikipedia.org

2) Controversial editors be listed on an invisible admin 'To Watch Board' as many are pursuing various organizational agendas.

I hope an admin who agrees with me takes this recommendation up with the relevant procedures.

I will continue to observe the activities of the particular abusive editor as shown by the archives for ever, whose writing and behavioral style I have familiarized so that even a new nickname would be pointless. I also think that others, including admins, editors and even users take up this practice and break their silence when they encounter 'persistent' vicious behavior protested by unrelated victims as shown in googled Wiki archives.

I also hope one of the admins can reverse the many warnings he has given me as a protest to his misinformation page which contains a wrongly captioned photo (important for TB practitioners' use) and thereby is against the rules. Both the linking to erroneous information and the warnings based on its maintainability are illegal. The editor concerned is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GlassFET

Try the "XXXX site:wikipedia.org" on anyone before making them an admin and make it a procedural necessity, please. I hope for the future of Wiki the procedure I suggested is considered. Thank you all, --Thegone 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What does being an admin have to do with this? I' notifying User:GlassFET os this discussion. JodyB _talk 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done. JodyB _talk 21:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What article, what information is in or out that you don't like, what is the search you are requesting? you can always check a user's contributions, and should when participating in a discussion at WP:RFA. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty curious about that too, as I'm not an admin, and if anybody nominated me, they must have neglected to tell me about it. GlassFET 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, Thegone keeps vandalizing article by removing links, sometimes substituting his own links for links being used as references. The links he has been substituting lately have been to an old offsite copy of the same Wikipedia article. GlassFET 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of his removal of what I believe are perfectly valid and approprate links: [28], [29],

He's also been spamming some Buddhist forums: [30].

GlassFET 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And, and for the record, it's not the first time he's posted an "incomprehensible essay" complaining about me on WP:AN/I, where in August he was advised of the proper way to handle a content dispute. GlassFET 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Thegone: 1- The article as linked by GlassFET has a wrong captioned photo as well as being incomplete to mention the third incarnation. The error in the photo captions, first one is the title not the person's name and the second photo is bearing the name of the person in the first photo, should be enough to remove the link and reverse his many warnings to me based on it. The site is a disguised front for the abusive 'Aro' cult whose other undisguised sites GlassFET links openly in different sections. http://www.nyingma.com/artman/publish/dudjom_yangsis.shtml This is false information and its linking and warnings based on its removal are ILLEGAL, period. The links to both persons official sites can verify this as I posted on a previous occasion. I merely changed the link to another which was a portal to many articles on the subjects without any error. He removed them.

2- The main point of my post above was the two specific recommendations for procedural changes to Wiki considerations of admins, as I can easily see people like GlassFET slowly working their way up into that position. This should not be diverted nor ignored and I wish to make i) the archive background check and ii) an invisible 'controversial editors watch board' for admins To be taken up. To see a case in point and how unrelated victims have come to the same conclusions regarding an editor conducting illegal activities click here and do go back at least 6 or 7 pages: http://www.google.com/search?q=GlassFET+site%3Awikipedia.org

I share the point by various users/editors' claims, not knowing of each other, that GlassFET is the banned editor as well as guilty of other misconducts.

This should prove the point for both my recommendations as suggested points of order, which is the main point of my post here, not GlassFET's illegal activities in the erroneous link or his warnings based on that to me. Please adopt both suggestions for safeguarding Wiki's future mainly under attack by 'organized' misconduct by various quarters. Thank you. --Thegone 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are simply barking up the wrong tree. Try reading about how to handle a content dispute. This is not it. I'm happy to discuss your concerns, but I won't accept your claims without any proof. You simply appear to be ranting. GlassFET 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your illegal activities are proved above despite your childish attempt at discrediting anyone as the archives show. I once again emphasize the 2 recommendations to be taken up as organized abuse will only increase in future and not just from pathetic little cults and low level lodges. --Thegone 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats and personal attacks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As messy as that was, just as a technicality that's not a legal threat is it? A legal threat is a statement that one is going to sue, not an accusation that someone has done something illegal (otherwise we would be blocking people over fair use discussions all the time). Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, an indefinite block without warning is way too harsh, and doing so over a good faith if bizarre attempt to seek redress from administrators smacks of WP:BITE. As much garbage as we get on this page we should not punish people for bringing a complaint here, even a flimsy one. See a recent example here of an editor blocked for daring to tangle with administrators. Wikidemo (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think blocking for a legal threat is a little excessive, but this user does perhaps need a shove in the direction of dispute resolution. Natalie (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no immediate threat. I'll unblock Thegone (talk · contribs). — Sebastian 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that may have been too rash. I only checked Thegone's talk page now and saw that this user has already been warned with a final warning for vandalism. However, all vandalism warnichs come from GlassFET. Given that the two have an issue with each other, this may not hold water. If anyone who investigated this matter further re-blocks Thegone for a clear policy violation then I won't object. — Sebastian 02:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Tezza1 is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use" dispute

There is an ongoing debate (or, should I say, dispute) about whether Image:Arrivavoyager.png and Image:Arrivasupervoyager.png are usable under WP:NFCC. (See also here, here, here and here, as well as the histories of the two image files, especially the first one. It really requires an administrator to make a ruling quickly, before it escalates. Thanks, RFBailey (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another reference: [31] --RFBailey (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)