Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193

RFPP skipped

Can someone please take a look at WP:RFPP. It appears some requests have been skipped. The Velupillai Prabhakaran certainly needs to be semi'ed, the sooner the better. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

New sock of Fila3466757?

Resolved

 – Blocked. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to put in a full-fledged SPI unless someone else agrees with me on this, but does User:Dexter000 appear to be a sock of User:Fila3466757? The main thing I noticed was that the user's first edits were to use the sandbox to create a colorful signature. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fila3466757/Archive. Matt (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be one and the same. Stub creation, WP:AFD participation, vandalism reversion; and also, his socks technically don't vandalize, so this is possibly telling. <*files an SPI*> --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that Dexter000 has confessed to being a sock of Fila, so all we need now is for the next passing administrator to have the block button set to go. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 15:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Resolved

Could an administrator undelete User:Emperordarius please? Its a sockmaster, and if the deleted edits of the page contains edits by the user it might be of help in further sockpuppet investigations. Thanks. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The two edits to that page do not appear to be relevant to a sockpuppet investigation. Nakon 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus we can view histories anyhow, so no need to be honest. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage/Requests#user:T'Shael

Resolved

 – Taken care of by User:Henrik. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That request seems to have been skipped – it's been standing for 5 days. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 14:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Time now for 2 groups of editors each with their own Admins.

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

Resolved

 – Per my comment at the bottom, this is not an appropriate use of this page, as it does not require any sort of administrator action. The page header confirms this. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This does not seem to be a serious suggestion. If it is then no one seems to think administrator attention is needed. Perhaps another venue? Chillum 15:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Which one of you is claiming the prize for closing this first? Giano (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the time has now come for us to have two distinct classes and groups of editors - those that support and abide by IRC placed Admins, and those who refuse to acknowledge them, but continue to write the project. This IRC problem has gone on for too long. We are repeatedly told it is sorted and monitored, yet, once again, the Arbcom have failed to act, it's time to sort it ourselves before we are overrun with "Boriss" and her likes. I for one am not going to abide by the actions or decisions of any Admin promoted by IRC in future. Giano (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your time would be better spent responding to the specific question at the RFA about what exactly made you oppose the candidate and say they are "naive, uniformed and [have] an appalling record regarding content." Diffs would probably help. Besides, from your comments in Friday's oppose, I think it's clear that it's not just IRC that you have an issue with, but other conduct by this user, so it seems like a red herring to complain about just that. If you have an actual proposal, policy would be the place to go. Otherwise, I don't see what you hope to see here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are good and bad admins/editors in both camps. It is far too arbitrary a position to make such judgements. Under the circumstances, I would oppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had no experiences of FlyingToaster on IRC. I'm still personally happy to support the RfA - I would suggest that you concentrate on your entirely legitimate grievances with the behaviour of individual administrators rather than trying to blame IRC. As LessHeard vanU suggests, I also think that there are good and bad admins in both groups and drawing that line doesn't really get us anywhere. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Er - for those of us who have no idea what you're talking about, Giano, perhaps you (or someone else) could explain what you mean by "any Admin promoted by IRC" - thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to a perceived tendency for the users of the Wikipedia IRC channels to support each others RfAs and hassle opposers. Not sure I agree this is happening to any great extent, but I think that's the problem under review. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so it's just another, "IRC RULEZ DA WORLD" conspiracy theory. I thought that Giano might actually have meant "any Admin promoted by IRC" - which might have been mildly novel and interesting - but obviously not. Thanks, Mazca. For others... does this actually require any admin action, or is it just a essay/comment/strop which should be marked Resolved? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I see no issue here. The candidate of the RfA linked to by Giano clearly uses IRC to socialise with other editors. If this was a case of an IRC cabal pushing through a nomination, I doubt "IRC" would be mentioned so explicitly in the first paragraph of the nomination statement. This thread ought to be archived. AGK 11:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is off site canvasing or meat puppeting going on in a public IRC channel then log the channel and draw attention to it. Without the specifics it is very hard to come to an informed opinion. While it is often tempting to simply form an opinion, I prefer that my opinions are informed. Chillum 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It is ultimately impossible to tell if off-site canvassing has taken place. If it's that much of a concern, then the problem isn't the canvassing, it's the means by which we choose our administrators. --Golbez (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Giano has decided that the issue is not resolved, and has removed the {{resolved}} tag. Shall we gague consensus on whether any admin action is required (or even being requested!) here? Because if it's not, the thread should be closed. I support marking as resolved and/or archiving. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, editors should be forced to choose between being on Wikipedia 'or' IRC (not both). If that's not possible? then IRC should be abolished. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So your suggestion, for Wikipedia administrators, on their noticeboard, is that Internet Relay Chat is shut down? Not 100% constructive, I'd have said. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your two suggestions are identical (assuming by "abolishing" IRC you mean shutting down the Wikipedia IRC channels). If the people on the Wikipedia IRC channels aren't allowed on Wikipedia then they aren't Wikipedia IRC channels, are they? --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not a serious suggestion, since there is no way to divide people into "IRC admins" and "non-IRC admins", there just isn't such a dicotomy. This is just Giano trying to create drama, as usual. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this IRC seems to be more hurtful, then helpful to Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• No Tango you are completely wrong. We have been told that the Arbs have set up a process to monitor IRC too many times. Yet now we have again a completely IRC candidate. So we now by-pass the Arbs's a nd their failures to ensure this does not happen. There will in future be editors who wish to be ruled by a IRC Admins and editors who wish to be ruled by Wikipedia Admins (ie: Wikipedia Admins being those who have proved their value by editing Wikipedia in a worthwile way), one simply declares one's stance and that is that. If such as Flying Toaster are promoted I shall not acknowledge their status, that is all that need to be done - I'm sure a user box or something can be created - even attached to a sig to avoid confusion. One merely selcts one's police force. This has been coming for ages, the Arbs claim to have looked at the problems and failed, now it's just time to ignore them and go it alone. Many of us are sick to death of IRC and its machinations. This way IRC is happy and those writing the project are happy. Giano (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this suggestion is so incredibly unlikely and so completely devoid of basis in reality or even evidence that we can safely ignore it. I think this matter was {{resolved}} before it started. There is no IRC cabal attempting some sort of civil war. Chillum 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Perhaps IRC is harmful. But this is not the place for that debate. This is a noticeboard where one requests administrator action or technical input. I quote from the page header, "For advice on issues that do not require the use of administrative tools, such as content concerns or naming conventions, see the Village Pump." Since the content of this thread seems to be firstly, a rant about an ongoing RfA, with no practical side to it; and secondly, a request that the Wikimedia IRC channels are closed. Neither of these issues requires administrative technical intervention, and so I am going to be bold and close this discussion. There are more appropriate venues for everything contained in this thread, though most of it's just drama-mongering anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Luckykitty89's unblock request

LuckyKitty89 is blocked due to a range block placed by Black Kite (talk · contribs) on 68.220.160.0/19 to prevent Bambifan101 socks. Could somebody more familiar with Bambifan101 take a look at the request? Black Kite is on break and LuckyKitty89 has been waiting for 36+ hours. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked through the history of Luckykitty89 and everything seems to be alright. However, I think an IP block exemption might be more suiting because if we remove the block intended for Bambifan101, then we're sure to get more socks from him. I would keep an eye on Luckykitty89 afterwards to make sure everything checks out. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is precisely the reason I stopped by. Bambifan101 is back, this time as User:Bernard the Brave. He's been blocked, but this has simply gotten to the point of utter ridiculousness. That name set off an alarm bell or two in my head when I saw it on the new user log; "Bernard" as I've discovered is the name of one of the two main characters in The Rescuers. Most of this little freak's IPs resolve back to Bell South. How the heck do we do a formal complaint at this point? I would rather unblock all one thousand-plus MascotGuy socks and elevate him to bureaucrat before we should allow Bambifan101 to make so much as a single keystroke more either to this site or to Simple English. He's driving Simple out of their minds. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Had another thought: WP:DENY has been working well with other chronic vandals as of late. Should we not therefore do the same thing here? He's less than subtle with his choice of usernames and his choice of subject matter. In short, he's craving attention and getting it on a worldwide stage. If it's OK with other admins, I'm going to stop putting the blocked sock template on his future socks and delete the talk page(s). --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If no one disagrees I'm going to open a quick case at WP:SPI to make sure that a checkuser agrees that an IP exemption would be reasonable. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

An important TFD discussion

Notice is hereby given that there is a TFD discussion concerning whether template:R from other capitalisation shall be deleted. Erik9 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Close of RfC at WP:NOT

Hi folks, I'm back. The RfC at WP:NOT needs a neutral admin to close it. It has now gone for more than 30 days. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR advice

I have a brewing situation, and I want to get advice before I get in trouble. I downgrade a fair number of speedy deletions, often to AfD, and once it gets to AfD, I take the position that it's not my call anymore, we have to wait for consensus, even if I learn things at AfD that lead me to believe that, for instance, db-hoax would be appropriate. Occasionally there are editors who will slap the speedy tag back on as soon as they personally believe that the issue is settled, and sometimes they get angry with me for removing it. I'd prefer to deal with this issue in a non "disciplinary" way; maybe if some of you could just state how you think this should be handled, I can learn something, and I can refer the editors to this conversation? We've talked about this at WT:CSD, but the message isn't getting through. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm guilty there. I think that your method of doing things is kind of screwy: sure, I agree with the speedy, but let's remove it for now in case someone else disagrees. It just seems like process wonkery for the sake of process wonkery. It seems every speedy tag I place these days gets removed, usually by someone who would rather let the article slog through afd for a week or longer because of some process quirk that they think is "better" than a speedy. A hoax is a hoax, why let it rot at AFD for a week? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There's one that just went to AfD where you tagged shortly after, and I've asked at WT:CSD#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple X Unlocked; that's not a big deal. But when you were tagging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan Zaidi, the delete votes were split among notability, hoax and promotionalism ... which is a sign that people really haven't made up their minds yet what's going on. Now we've got a little more info, and we're getting close to being able to speedy. If I can speedy as a result of consensus at AfD to speedy, instead of just doing my own thing, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with G4'ing in the future (and apparently, there are already 4 other pages on this guy, so I could really use that G4). - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • For the reasons explained in many places, time and again, not least at Wikipedia:Hoax, Wikipedia talk:Proposed Deletion for a Hoax#Problems with this proposal, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#DYK hoax article?. You cannot, either by yourself or in conjunction with only one other editor, reliably and safely tell that any given article is a hoax, except in the most blatantly obvious cases of juvenile vandalism; and many an article over the past several years challenged for being a hoax has turned out not to be.

    For example: Al (folklore) (AfD discussion) was challenged for being a hoax, and had every appearance of being a random collection of made-up stuff accrued in a dusty corner of Wikipedia over a period of three years by multiple editors, but turned out, upon inspection, to be fully verifiable on every point as it stood. Ensuring that we avoid the wrong outcome in such situations, by employing multiple slices of Swiss cheese, is most definitely not "process wonkery", but a sound process for ensuring that we achieve what is in fact the correct outcome.

    It's a widely-recognized sound process, too. Wikipedia editors didn't invent the Swiss Cheese model (AfD discussion) — although, ironically, some of us thought that that itself was an outright fabrication.

    TenPoundHammer, like all other editors here, you do not know every subject in the world, and your evaluation of verifiability is not enough by itself. Multiple editors, with different areas of expertise, with access to different sources, in multiple timezones, independently double checking one another over a period long enough to allow for proper research, is required for a conclusion to be made safely, so that we can be confident that its outcome is the right one. Stop rushing. There is no rush. We prefer the right outcome over an immediate outcome. Uncle G (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Yeah. Good points all. I just get frustrated so often when things seem to take forever and a day to get done. Some Wikipedia processes seem to move at glacial pace, and some editors seem cautious to the point of paranoia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• I think this has been discussed in various places, at least for hoaxes. The deletion policy says that once a page goes to XfD, it isn't supposed to be speedied. However it is relatively common practice to speedy pages while at XfD if someone determines that a discussion is superfluous (like SNOW closes, this is a risky decision to make) or someone realizes the article fits a speedy criteria. I agree that pursuing this borders on process for process's sake but I am also of the mind that deletions (especially speedies) should follow process quite closely. At least for hoaxes, one solution is to replace {{Hoax}} with something that looks a hell of a lot like {{Copyvio}}--most of the urgency around hoaxes stems from a desire to get them out of mainspace because they actively damage our credibility. I sympathize w/ that desire. I think if the hoax template looked less like every other template and instead offered a clear warning to the reader we could get around this (I like this solution because it is a neat technical fix for what is essentially a social problem, always cool to find those). I'm not the person to mock a template up, though. Anyone got any ideas on what it should look like? Protonk (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • My idea would be to have a template like the existing "hoax" template for things that are disputed by some editors (which says "dubious" instead of "hoax", with a question mark), and a template that says "HOAX WARNING" or something similar (with an exclamation mark), if there is a consensus that the article should be treated as a hoax until a possible verification, or if such a consensus is very likely to emerge in the deletion discussion.  Cs32en  21:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I like this idea. If {{db-hoax}} blanked everything below it, some editors would be tempted to use it on content they disagreed with. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Old edit summary vandalism

Resolved

 – Edits have been oversighted. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to remove old edit summary vandalism from Rapidfire squad (talk · contribs), please? Note that this has been addressed already at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive467#The usual Twinkle vandalism spree and death threat but it looks like the said e-mail got no results. Is it impossible to do? Or simple got forgotten? Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like oversight didn't do anything about it. It's probably too old for a regular admin to delete and selective restore those articles, but I might email oversight again. They can't possibly accept that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be much easier to do now since oversight has access to revision delete. They can just remove the edit summaries. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD Backlog

Resolved

 – CSD is at a manageable size. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit of a backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that could use some sysop attention and fast! Articles like this shouldn't be lasting more than 1 minute. Cheers! John Sloan @ 01:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly reminder - PROD period is now 7 days

I have recently noticed some articles being deleted after being tagged for proposed deletion for less than 7 days. (For those who are unaware, the minimum time required before deletion recently changed from 5 days to 7 days.) This is likely due to some admins not being aware of the change and/or using old scripts to assist their edits. As such, I thought I'd give a friendly reminder here to adjust your habits and/or scripts. Thank you, --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with propagandist users in the areas of pedophilia and child sexual abuse

I really just need some advice on this. I’ve been a Wikipedia editor for almost 3 years now. About a year ago I became involved with several articles that touch on an extremely unpleasant subject, the sexual abuse of children. I was even more horrified to find that there are users who periodically attempted to undermine these articles in an effort to push an agenda; that is, that there is nothing wrong with molesting children.

This is not about censorship. The information these users try to insert is frequently unsourced or uses extremely fringe sources that have been rejected by the mainstream medical community. The vast, world-wide scientific consensus is quite clear to all but the most depraved mind.

It is also not about prejudice. I know of at least 2 users who are admitted pedophiles (not molesters, mind you), but they claim they have never offended, are seeking mental health treatment, and they not only refrain from disrupting articles with POV pushing, but are valuable contributors to other, unrelated articles.

The presence of these POV-pushing users has often tarnished Wikipedia’s reputation. Several high-profile news stories have covered this, and there has been backlash in other communities as well. It pains me to see such a grand project dragged down by such a tiny minority of its user base.

Things have changed over the past year. Almost every one of these propagandists has been blocked permanently. I even have a list of them that I know of, should you require evidence. One user even turned out to be wanted felon who was traced and arrested.

But the problem persists. Getting these users blocked was no easy task, taking weeks or even months of tolerating their disruption and ranting, despite their intentions being blatantly obvious from the start.

Surely their must be a more efficient way to deal with these users. I and many others have grown very weary from having to argue with such irrational people. Is there a better way? Are we going about it wrong?Legitimus (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with a stream of people disrupting the talkpage with identical misunderstandings, it might help to create a FAQ section in the talkpage, like on Talk:Barack Obama. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As unpleasant as the subject matter is it shouldn't be used as a reason not to present both sides of the issue. If the fringe sources are the only sources available then they should be permitted as long as they are reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note: WP:PAW. Tiptoety ^talk 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE comes to mind, Betty. The vast majority of the world considers pedophilia to not only be illegal, but disgusting. Jtrainor (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Disgusting", however, is not an encyclopedic consideration; articles that attract paedophile advocacy are kept clear of such promotion because of the neutral tone of an encyclopedia does not permit such viewpoints - and nor should it the opposite one. The fact that the sexual abuse of minors is illegal and its proponents abhorred by most citizens of most nations might be mentioned in the relevant articles, but it should not effect how we police the editing of same. Oh, and one last thing; the old saw that paedophilia is not in fact illegal, it is a medical/psychological term for a sexual impulse - but acting upon the impulse invariably does break the law. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Disgusting is not an encyclopedic consideration. Periplaneta americana, anyone?

While the actual opinion may not be relevant to how we treat a subject, the fraction of people who agree with that opinion is, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Mr.Z-man 04:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a zero-tolerance policy on this, from Jimbo and Arbcom. Any editor identified as promoting pedophillia on Wikipedia is subject to immediate permanent blocks, no if and or but about it. Admins acting on these issues are required to notify Arbcom on acting, in private, but that's it. Not all that many admins have had to deal with it, which may be the problem here, but if you can point out what article(s) and editor(s) are involved I will review and take appropriate prompt action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you, as I remember it back when the issue was going on a few years back, but could you provide the links to refresh other admins and I? Thanks. —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy is not written down in one place as clearly as it could be, however anyone unclear on what the policy is as enforced in the past and standing now should peruse the following:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and last but not least the Arbcom decision note in the Pedophilia userbox edit war: [6].

If anyone advocates pedophilia on Wikipedia, and administrators become aware of it, they should be permanently blocked and the case and evidence referred straight to Arbcom.

Arbcom (and Jimbo) are the appeal path in that case - not normal unblock requests, ANI discussions, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Legit, if you come across any editor pushing the POV you've described, post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to have that user banned or the IP blocked. We can take action quickly. Kingturtle (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright backlogs

Any sysops with a few moments to spare would be welcomed at Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files. All you need to do is open the oldest dated subcategory, open each image, check that it's orphaned, and if it is, delete it as F5.

There is also some help needed at Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status, Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files and Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files, which are slightly less straightforward to handle. For these, you open the oldest dated subcategory, check that the reason indicated for the image still applies, and delete it if so. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone wants any guidance on these, I'll be happy to help out. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to come post this! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Aitias

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The administrator privileges of Aitias (talk · contribs) are suspended for a period of "time served", i.e. from the date of his return to editing until the close of the case, and are to be restored with the closing of this case. Furthermore, Aitias is admonished for making inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments and is warned to avoid such comments in the future. Aitias is also prohibited from participating at Requests for rollback and its talk page for a period of six months.

For the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to see that a conclusion has been reached.  GARDEN  13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Filename

Resolved

The file name I was trying to upload ("File:Qc211.png") has been blacklisted because it is a very common or uninformative one. All other Quebec Route articles call in their respective signs with the filename format Qcxxx.png. Would it be possible to remove File:Qc211.png from the blacklist in order to complete the sign group? Or are the articles themselves being looked at to accomodate a new filename at a later date? Thank you. Gordalmighty (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any restrictions on that file name, can you be more specific? Nja²⁴⁷ 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Attempted uploading this file again this morning. Wikipedia gives the following message:
  • Unable to proceed

The file name you were trying to upload ("File:Qc211.png") has been blacklisted because it is a very common or uninformative one. Please go back and choose a better file name. When uploading files to Wikipedia, please use a file name that describes the content of the image or media file you're uploading and is sufficiently distinctive that no-one else is likely to pick the same name by accident. Examples of good file names: City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg" KDE Kicker config screenshot.png" 1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg" Polyhedron with no vertex visible from center.png" Examples of bad file names: Image01.png" Joe.jpg" DSC00001.JPG" 30996951316264l.jpg" For more information, please see Wikipedia:Image file names. If you have a good reason for uploading a file with this name, or if you receive this message when attempting to upload a new version of an existing file, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact name of the file you are trying to upload. Thank you.

• • Wiki Commons gives a different message:

Permissions Errors You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason: The name of the file you are uploading begins with PICT, DSC, image, ..., which is a non-descriptive name typically assigned automatically by digital cameras. Please choose a more descriptive name for your file.

That's about as descriptive as I can get with this frustrating file. Thanks. Gordalmighty (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there are a couple of alternatives. You can list the source here and an admin can upload it or you can break with whatever tradition has been for these articles and name it "quebec route 211" or something. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend the latter. The name is, as the blacklist message notes, short and uninformative. --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a task considering all other 300+ routes are already in with this format. The highway articles themselves do not have an image line, so it is also unclear as to how the images are attaching themselves. Any other suggestions? Thanks all. Gordalmighty (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there some technical necessity for that particular naming format, such as an automated template? Otherwise, there's no reason other than unnecessary consistency to not simply use an alternate name. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It must be automated. All other Quebec routes with name Qcxxx.png also have a (jct|state=QC|QC|xxx) format that allows use of the sign with link text attached.

Infobox road
province=QC
type=QC
route=211
map=
length_km=26.2
previous_type=QC
previous_route=210
next_type=QC
next_route=212

With this coding, the sign would normally appear at the top of the infobox, as it does for all other routes. I reloaded one with a different name, but no luck at all in linking. I think 211 got deleted down the road somewhere, but no idea why. Gordalmighty (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I missed something glaringly obvious in this discussion, but is Commons:File:Qc211 Quebec Route 211.png part of the problem or part of the solution? — Athaenara ✉ 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That image should simply be moved to Commons:File:Qc211.png, by a commons admin. There's no need to tweak the titleblacklist just for one image to get through, and it should live at commons anyway. Amalthea 11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone does feel like moving all the images, Template:Infobox road/QC/shield Route would then be changed to the new format. --NE2 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Qc211 Quebec Route 211.png was an effort to get the image back into the system. When I saw that the template did not pick up the format, I recommended it for deletion. However, a move to the proper filename (File:Qc211.png) would allow the image to display correctly. How does one go about requesting this change? Thanks everyone. Gordalmighty (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Gordal, you will keep running into the same problem all the time. The ideal solution is contacting a bot user to mass-move all images to a different format, like "Road Quebec type Qc route 211.png" or something, and then update the template to use that. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be "Quebec Route 211". It's also probably easier to sit here and tell someone else to find a bot than to actually find a bot. --NE2 14:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand most have been uploaded already (List of Quebec provincial highways). Amalthea 14:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a request at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard to get it sorted. Next time, Gordalmighty, you might want to go there right away, or ask a random Commons admin to upload it right away, by e-mailing it to him or uploading it to some free image host. Amalthea 14:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Cool. I'll follow it up from here. Don't want you to lose too much time over this somewhat insignificant glitch. Thanks for all your input, everyone. Gordalmighty (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Admission to sock

Would this be an admission to sockpuppeting? Would be interesting to see the user's edits when he didn't forget to sign out... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? No. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No? He's basically saying "I'm removing this comment I made while signed in because I meant to post it while I was signed out". That doesn't seem like an admission to socking? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just means that he forgot to log out before making the post. Unless he was using both his main account and the IP to try and sway consensus he has not violated WP:SOCK. Tiptoety ^talk 04:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does lead one to wonder what edits have been made while logged out.. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You could check out the Poorman's Checkuser here http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/pmcu/ Livewireo (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Abd and JzG

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use his administrative tools in any situation in which he is involved nor to use them to further his position in a dispute. Abd (talk · contribs) is urged to avoid prolonging disputes by using unproductive methods and advised to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at dispute resolution before escalating to the next stage. Abd is also advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes and to incorporate that feedback.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Moving Are You the Next Big Star to Are You the Next Big Star?

The additional ? is part of the show's title, as shown in this source and should be included in the article name. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have just suggested moving it yourself, but the move is blocked by the page move blacklist because the pattern is apparently used for vandalism. So, an administrator will have to move it, and I'm not an administrator. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Page moved. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I.P. 24.149.222.5

Even though this I.P. address is blocked for 1 year, could someone please ban this I.P. indefinitely? The students at Tomball High School have persistently been using that I.P. to vandalise Wikipedia, and my school principal couldn't help stop the vandalism.--Tomballguy (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Chris

I'd suggest an email to their IT person first, just so they know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP's first edit was only seven months ago, so it is already blocked for nearly twice as long as it has been in use by your school. Why don't we wait and see if it still belongs to your school in twelve months time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally we'll only {{consent block}} on request from school administrator or IT. –xeno ^talk 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Katrina Carlson and User:Ukexpat

At Katrina Carlson's article, which was clearly written by someone with WP:COI, there were two unsourced sections--one of them had her IMDB page as a source, but I was under the impression that those weren't considered reliable by themselves. I removed them because they were unreferenced, as I thought the policy was for BLP articles, and User:Ukexpat left me a warning message for "removal of information without explanation" even though I wrote "unreferenced" in my edit summary. When I told him this, he said that shouuld only count for "controversial" information, and then left me another warning, accusing me of outright vandalism and disruption. Is he right?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a pretty powerful, non-negotiable policy, but it should be applied with some common sense. Jimbo's take on sourcing generally is

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[7]

Now IMDB is of variable reliability; the "top pages" for a film or actor or director may be regarded as reliable in the absence of glaring inaccuracies; the bios, trivia and other "subpages" less so. The difference between "unsourced" and "controversial" should be obvious; unsourced controversial information (i.e. that which might be defamatory) should be removed without question; unsourced non-controversial information should be investigated; sourced controversial information should also be investigated for reliable sources per WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. But I not you haven't yet notified User:Ukexpat of this thread, nor engaged beyond templating his talk page. Perhaps you might discuss this in the light of the above comments. Rodhullandemu 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little heavy handed, but my view is as stated by Rodhullandemu above - the information that was deleted (and reinstated by me) was clearly non-controversial (place of birth etc) and sourced to IMDB. Now, I recognise that IMDB is of limited reliability as a source but it seemed OK to me for these purposes. I think most editors who come into contact with me around here know that I am pretty non-confrontational and bend over backwards to assist other editors, but I am pretty ticked off that this was brought to WP:AN (the first time my actions have been brought up here, I hasten to add) without more in depth prior dicussion with me.  – ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that I don't see any editing going on at Talk:Katrina Carlson. Wouldn't that really be the place to hash this out? @ukexpat, yea - maybe a landing a little hard. @Sandor, I tend to see a fair amount of ukexpat at the help desk, and I'll attest to the editors friendliness, and willingness to work with others. You both seem to be of a reasonable sort, why not just get together on the talk page and find a common middle-ground? Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  21:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what middle ground there is - I don't think the unsourced material that was deleted and that I added back was of a sensitive enough nature that it should be deleted as a BLP violation - date of birth and early education... – ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was kind of hoping to nudge Sandor over to the article talk page where you could explain those very items. To be honest, when I saw a thread with "Ukexpat" in an AN section, I was rather shocked, and thought it might be a mistake. When I initially looked at the contribs., I thought maybe the warning templates might be a bit harsh for a new user - but something about a user with 50 contribs. finding their way to AN had little red flags nagging at me too. I see on the user page that Sandor states that he is not using the account for sockpuppet purposes - which begs the question of what the primary account is. Since he/she is only willing to disclose that information via e-mail to an admin., and identifies with COI/BIO issues, it certainly raises the level of intrigue a tad. Not that there's a problem with having a second account⁽¹⁾, I have one myself for when I'm traveling or accessing WP from public access points. (User:Ched (public) clearly states that however). To summarize: I agree with you 100% Ukexpat, that is perfectly acceptable to retain information that isn't contentious or derogatory in nature and hopefully supply references further down the road. Without drifting into an "inclusionist vs. deletionist" debate, that is my understanding of the spirit of our policies and guidelines. I know that's kind of a rehash of what was said up above, but Rod actually put it in a nutshell very well I think.

• ⁽¹⁾ provided proper policy stated at WP:SOCK#LEGIT is followed. — Ched :  ?  00:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving Are You the Next Big Star to Are You the Next Big Star?

The additional ? is part of the show's title, as shown in this source and should be included in the article name. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have just suggested moving it yourself, but the move is blocked by the page move blacklist because the pattern is apparently used for vandalism. So, an administrator will have to move it, and I'm not an administrator. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Page moved. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I.P. 24.149.222.5

Even though this I.P. address is blocked for 1 year, could someone please ban this I.P. indefinitely? The students at Tomball High School have persistently been using that I.P. to vandalise Wikipedia, and my school principal couldn't help stop the vandalism.--Tomballguy (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Chris

I'd suggest an email to their IT person first, just so they know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP's first edit was only seven months ago, so it is already blocked for nearly twice as long as it has been in use by your school. Why don't we wait and see if it still belongs to your school in twelve months time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally we'll only {{consent block}} on request from school administrator or IT. –xeno ^talk 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Arma virumque cano

Hi. I think that someone needs to look into Arma virumque cano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possibly a Checkuser. They're relatively new, and their only substantive contributions seem to be !voting 'delete' at WP:AFD, because "i dont know all the keep reasons i just know the delete stuff but im learning as i go along. but most nominations are Wikipedia:Assume good faith to me" [8]. They have also supported a couple of RfAs, all with the same statement. They make their contributions very, very fast, and get through an awful lot of AfDs. I think that their conversance with Wikipedia, comments such as this, and their chosen areas of editing, suggest that something's going on.

Thanks, and hope I'm not speaking out of turn! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed speeking out of turn =( .Remember im not a crook ok I dont vote on ones I would keep because i dont know what to sayArma virumque cano (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Your edits are still concerning though, since most new editors don't usually go straight to AFD without touching an article at least once. Most new editors don't usually know about deletion rationales either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The constant repetition of "not a crook" - used about three times as a talkpage edit-summary when deleting warnings - is also worrying. Finally, note that the user is currently involved in this sockpuppetry case, something I've only just twigged! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know all the delete reasons but im learning as i go along. And im not a puppet, i think that person is just paranoid. Notice this edit [9] where the person removed his admission of 'perhaps not' Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<< And, yes, this user knows how to locate and use revision diffs, and still has around 100 edits. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Their first edit was to talk:RFA. A few edits later, they added an indefblocked template to another user's talk page. They have added an editprotected template to a template talk page, plus spam (along the lines of "hallo") to various other talk pages, including template talk pages. They have a large number of edits to AFD pages, some of which are verging on inappropriate ("this is crap and needs to be obliterated"). And I see not one article space edit. I seriously doubt this user is new to Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at today's AfD log, this user appears to procedurally be going through the articles and !voting for deletion, which leads me to figure troll. I must admit suspicious were aroused by a call for deletion on my article citing "Unsourced unreliable bad article" as the rationale. So I could be seen as bias in this matter. Nonetheless, the log seems fairly conclusive that something's up as well as the lack of article space edits. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, they seem to be very expert at advanced syntax correction... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[10] This was not vandalism, this was a legitimate addition per WP:SUBST. That is unacceptable abuse of rollback. Anyways, I had a login a very long time ago which I used mostly with reading but i forgot the login stuff hence this account. Arma virumque cano (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not vandalism, and I never suggested that it was. I suggested that someone who's only been editing here a short time (reading wouldn't teach wiki-syntax) wouldn't know how to do it. Nor would they probably know about WT:RFA, template-talk pages, or be self-aware enough to !vote delete in tens of AfDs. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was refering to the revert by Exploding Boy, who also has alot of other questionable reverts too Arma virumque cano (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of other questionable reverts? Then start a thread below, this section isn't about him, it's about you. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the Diff thing, I followed your example on the top of this thread Arma virumque cano (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan — Athaenara ✉ 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Given the ongoing tendentious edits of this user (going through AfDs and !voting only for "delete"), plus the fact that they are a very obvious sock, though it's not clear of whom, that they are blocked or Checkusered. Any thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that having multiple accounts in itself is absolutely acceptable. A user is permitted to operate a second account (and permitted to use that account where they wish, including AfD), as long as they are not using it to manipulate consensus by arguing more than once, or otherwise violate WP:SOCK. I see no such violations here, and no potential second account named. As such, no violations of the multiple accounts policy seem to have occurred, and therefore no action can (or should) be taken. A user is permitted to only !vote delete at AfD and only contribute to that area; if you take issue with their arguments, talk to them about it. No checkuser would perform it based upon suspicion, as Checkuser is not for fishing. To sum up: either provide evidential diffs of abuse, or leave the issue alone. Cheers, – Toon^(talk) 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well one thing you're not allowed to do with an alternate account is "misleading others". Therefore, any editor who denies being a sockpuppet who is subsequently found by checkuser inquiry to actually be a sockpuppter is guilty of misleading others, and can for that reason be blocked without need for further evidence of misbehavior. Once you lie about being a sockpuppet, you've crossed the line.

As we've seen so often in real life, it's not the wrong-doing that gets you, it's the coverup. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If the user continues along this line, a notice here is appropriate, to provide information to closing administrators on how much weight to give his comments. DGG (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Sinhalaa : unacceptable behaviour

the following edit summary is against WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVL, and warrants an instant block to calm down in my opinion, especially given the sensitivity of the topic: "Tamils, you are now our slaves" . I am not even willing to discuss this summary with the user. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lankan_Civil_War&diff=prev&oldid=290654913 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy jatere (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool-down blocks are prohibited by policy; see WP:CDB. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Left a civility warning. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool-down block hell, in light of the current military/political developments that edit summary deserves an indef. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that, but certainly a week. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree enirely with Looie496. More to the point, "in light of the current military/political developments", everyone should be aware that topics related to this area are likely to be hit by the plague. There's nothing we can do about the external political factors, but we can and should refuse to let Wikipedia be used for war by other means. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user. The comment was no more acceptable than any other blatant and explicit racist claims made about any other ethnic or religious group on Wikipedia. When you say things like that, you are not welcome here and you leave the building without further delay. It violates WP:BATTLE, WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL, and is disruptive. If they can demonstrate an understanding that they screwed up and acknowledge and agree to abide by our policies, then the indef can be reversed, and I have no objection to anyone working with them to educate them, but lacking serious attitude adjustment we don't want them editing articles anymore. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit odd that this account was aware of quite a bit of Wikijargon in his unblock request ("admin", "unblock", etc) when they only had a handful of edits. Needless to say, I support User:Georgewilliamherbert's indef block though, there should be absolutely zero tolerance to this sort of nationalist battleground nonsense here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Undoing unilateral page moves

Resolved

 – I took care of the non-admin stuff & Keith D moved the page back. It wouldn't hurt to have a few neutral eyes on the AfD & article though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This request involves multiple page moves, undoing unilateral improper actions by a new user who thought he could close the AfD he himself started. I might be able to do the necessary myself, but I'm not sure, and I don't want to cause further damage.

As of May 17, we had an article at George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, which had been created in 2005 to accommodate more detail than could comfortably fit in the main Bush bio. You can see that text here.

A new user, ResearcherInFlorida, tagged the article for speedy deletion (while blanking the content). This was declined and the content restored. The user was directed to the AfD procedure. He began an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

Then, however, he decided to implement his personal preferences. His rationale, explained on his talk page less than 15 hours after the AfD was created, was his personal interpretation of the "consensus" at the ongoing AfD. I haven't tried to wade through all the edit summaries and histories to nail down every little detail, but here's what seems to be the highlights: First, he removed a great deal of information, some of which was dubious but much of which was well-sourced and properly encyclopedic. Then he moved the article to George W. Bush alcohol use based on his personal conclusion (per his ES) that "No serious allegation of drug use has been proven against George W. Bush. Title is purely attack speculation and violates BLP." Then he removed more well-sourced material that he disliked (along with editing the AfD section to insert "merge" as the outcome). Then he redirected the page to Early life of George W. Bush, a redirect that was reverted by another editor, although the redirect of the original George W. Bush substance abuse controversy to Early life of George W. Bush remains in place. (I think it's this second redirect of the original title that prevents me from moving the article back over the redirect.)

None of these actions were discussed on the talk page or on WP:RM. This user appears to have no edits to any article talk page except to move it to a new title of his unilateral choosing.

Suggested fix: The most recent proper text, which incorporates the AfD notice but not any of the new user's prior or subsequent unilateral actions, is here. That text should be moved to George W. Bush substance abuse controversy and the AfD moved back to its original title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. The AfD would then proceed in normal fashion. This fix would be without prejudice to any user's right to proceed to improve the article, including through the removal of specific statements that a user thinks violate BLP, and of course other users' rights to disagree and restore the statements. I've directed the new user to WP:BRD to make clear that not all changes need to be preceded by talk page discussion but that, where there's disagreement, it's necessary to discuss the matter to try to work toward consensus. JamesMLane t c 23:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The suggested course of action is the correct one (along with warning the user in question). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already tried to explain the process issues to the new user on his talk page, but I appear not to have gotten through. I'm going to refrain from further attempts because I'm seriously ticked off and probably incapable of observing WP:BITE. JamesMLane t c 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have undone all his changes & fixed the AfD. I will leave the user a stern warning. All that is left to do is for an actual admin to move the page back to its original title. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that ResearcherInFlorida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making a large number of edits to articles related George W. Bush today, including an undiscussed move of George W. Bush military service controversy to George W. Bush National Guard service that I reversed. To be perfectly blunt, I don't disagree with what is surely his basic point - we seem to be tolerating material about Bush that we would not tolerate with regard to Barack Obama - but the way he's undertaking his edits is sure to be disruptive. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right that this user exhibited a pattern, and I'm glad you took care of the military service page move. Nevertheless, I don't agree that there's an anti-Bush bias. ResearcherInFlorida, in defending his position, compared the Bush cocaine allegations with Larry Sinclair's allegations about Obama, but there's clearly no comparison in terms of the substantiality of the support and the extent of the media coverage. The valid Bush-Obama comparison would match the proposition that Bush used cocaine (which he's never denied) with the proposition that Obama was born in Kenya. Of those two, Bush's cocaine use is far more likely to be true, yet we have a whole article on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. JamesMLane t c 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is a bias (which I don't believe), it's not corrected by biased editing in the other direction. This edit clearly shows that the editor is a blatant POV-pusher. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm certainly not defending that. I guess we can move from "is sure to be disruptive" to "is disruptive" now. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Should disambiguation pages be brought to AFD, MFD, or RFD? (or a new venue)

I think there's sufficiently few instances that a new venue need not be created, but I do think we should provide some guidance on where to list disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. Please provide your thoughts here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. –xeno ^talk 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what is WP:MFD. :) On the page for WP:XFD it says that MFD is for anything that doesn't fit the rest of the categories. I've never thought of disambiguations to be redirects, nor articles, so I think MFD would be the best option. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss at the central location, but to address your statement, at the MFD page it says Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside the main namespace (also called the "article namespace"). Perhaps the two pages need to be reconciled. [11] –xeno ^talk 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)#

I've seen them brought to AFD before, and nobody really objected. I'd say either AFD or MFD would be fine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Requesting full protection of Optics

Requesting full protection of this article. As some of the community is already aware, ScienceApologist has been working on a featured article drive for this page by drafting improvements at a sister website. Other editors have edited with him there, so there are GFDL license issues and other details to be worked out. A team of editors are currently working to coordinate the orderly import of this article, and attempts to jump the gun by certain uncollaborative individuals have created drama and setbacks (violating GFDL and leading to AE threads). One has done so repeatedly and is hostile to feedback, so please full protect the page. Posting as ScienceApologist's mentor, Durova^Charge! 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. rootology (C)(T) 21:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this was posted here instead of WP:RFPP?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Because RFPP is for simple situations such as repeat vandalism and edit warring. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Faster action/complex situation? What she said. :) The actual level of warring itself isn't enough (probably) for prot, but the GFDL + AE/RFAR concerns definitely are. By the way, as always any admin can undo me with consensus etc., no need for my permission etc. rootology (C)(T) 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Protecting the article while the discussion takes place is probably a good idea anyway. If the import from WikiSource goes through, any edits to the current article text will be wiped out. --Srleffler (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Motion to sanction ScienceApologist, the user ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently banned from editing Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:BAN#Editing on behalf of banned users, it is not permitted to make edits on behalf of banned users, whether or not such edits are productive, and editors who make such edits are subject to the remedies applicable to the banned user. Is there any reason why I should not immediately block any user "importing" content written by this banned user to one of our articles?  Sandstein  19:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Possiable banning of User:Shedarian

Hello,

I would like to report the following user User:Shedarian, i have been working on a article List of Monster Buster Club episodes and recently got information on the final episodes, sinc ethe user had asked me about them before i left them a message telling them that it be updated soon and that they would be airing in the UK and that how i got th einformation. (i have still to put the source in). However the user then either yesterday or the day before left me a message askign me to record and illegal distrbute the episode to them, i then leave a message askign them to stop or i would report them. They then done it again so i took the advice of helpdesk and ingored them. However they have done it again today so i am now reporting them for possible banning or whatever action you feel appiorate as they are trying to egage in illegal activites. Any other information required i will try provide, however it might not be until friday as i have exam on thursday so i am mostly doign studying.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for the user in question; it looks like they've approached a couple of editors looking for copies of TV shows. If it carries on, a block may be in order. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think this is serious enough an issue to warrant a banning. A short block for trying to use Wikipedia as a file dump/trading site maybe, but a full-on ban? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Agreed; if he becomes active again with this kind of thing, I'll block short-term, but there's been no editing since the warning. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for block review

I would appreciate a review of the block I just made on 209.52.235.234 (talk). Here are some links which you may find helpful:

• History of Olive
• User talk:209.52.235.234#Olive reverts and following sections
• User talk:JamesBWatson#JamesBWatson has been vandalizing posts
• User talk:TravisTX#The Olive vandal and following section

The IP editor has repeatedly inserted "Olive is also depicted on the reverse of the Croatian 20 lipa coin, minted since 1993." into Olive from a number of different IP addresses. The editor was told by several other users that this sort of trivia was inappropriate for the article. In today's round of edit warring, several accusations and personal attacks were leveled at myself and User:JamesBWatson across all three user talk pages. I should have sought an uninvolved admin, but didn't, so I'm willing to take my lumps if I have acted improperly. Thanks —Travis^talk 23:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that I also undid the IP's edits to Olive three times. —Travis^talk 23:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

if he's using a number of ip addresses, what do you think can be accomplished by blocking an individual one? It might have been better to semiprotect the article. In any case, I encourage someone to create a proper article or section for olives as a emblem or symbol. I see no attempt to discuss the issue on the article talk page; I'm not sure everyone would consider it inappropriate content. DGG (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

After a closer inspection of the article revision history, I believe that only this IP is involved. —Travis^talk 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a week is a bit harsh, given that the edits are possibly good faith, and most of the other recent edits by the IP seem to have been constructive. I suppose there's a technical 3RR violation in there, and given the response to being asked nicely by yourself to back off, I'm not really inclined to reach for the unblock button, but I think you could have gone a bit easier, or avoided blocking altogether and just s-protected the article. I'm sure you also realise it would probably have been a better idea to let someone else actually make the block, too. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

After sleeping on it and digesting the above, I have unblocked the IP. Thanks for the sanity check. I'll be busy self-flagellating for the time being. —Travis^talk 12:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Crabb

Could someone please keep an eye on Stephen Crabb? User 82.69.34.244 keeps vandalising it. Despite the fact that he's currently pretty high profile, as one of the British MPs caught up in expenses issues, the article doesn't seem to be on anyone's watchlist. 86.157.136.37 (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article for 2 weeks in light of the BLP violations. Mfield (Oi!) 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating the page Central Asia-Caucasus and Silk Road Studies Program

I am trying to merge the page Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program (which I cannot edit) with one that already exists entitled Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program. Could you please add a redirect tab to direct the former to the later? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleheatherly (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 20:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

202.178.112.21 - open proxy

202.178.112.21 (talk · contribs) is evidently an open proxy unblocked in January - block log says " unblocked "202.178.112.21 (talk)" ‎ (Clearing autoblock of Pisethforever: Only port 5190 is open and inaccessible.)". We are getting vandalism from this address still and I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a shared proxy for one of the main ISPs in Cambodia, and doesn't appear to be open at this time. I would just anonblock it if you think the vandalism's overwhelming. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll take another look at the contributions. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User space redirecting/moved to article space

I'm not sure exactly the best way to unwind this or deal with the user, so I thought this would be the best venue to get some help. User:Trance0175 has redirected their user page to an article, The Beat Live, and has moved their user talk page to the talk page for the article. As a result, the article talk page is now filled with welcome to WP messages, image rationale tags, and speedy deletion messages. I'm assuming there's a CoI problem here, but it seems larger than that. Mlaffs (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved talk page back (supressed redirect), blanked the CNR from the userpage. No comment on the other issues. Thanks for pointing this out. –xeno ^talk 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mlaffs, it's not uncommon that editors accidentally move their talk page along with the article they developed on their userpage. That's where the redirect came from. Amalthea 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that page move in the article history. That's disappointingly suspicious of me ... Mlaffs (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth (ignoring the potential notability issues with the article), the user has uploaded File:Thebeatlivenew.jpg and File:TheBeatID.jpg with two different licenses (both are free but still). Someone should try to explain the difference and make sure the uploader is actually the copyright holder (then it's COI concerns). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find the right forum for a discussion

I don't want to resolve an issue here, I just want advice on where to discuss it so that a definitive resolution can be reached. Let me sketch the issue: The National Institutes of Health have funded a project to form a neuroinformatics database -- we have articles about the project, NeuroLex and Neuroscience Information Framework. Part of their mandate is to link the database together with Wikipedia. After a slightly rocky start because the people involved were not very familiar with Wikipedia, this issue was discussed extensively at WT:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force, and the outcome was that the best approach is to put links to the database into various infoboxes. The people associated with the project, mainly Jgrethe (talk · contribs) and Nifcurator (talk · contribs), have been energetically proceeding with the plan. Now, however, Arcadian (talk · contribs) is objecting that the added links violate WP:EL, and saying that this should have been discussed at WT:EL. I don't think any of us objects to further discussion, but it's not desirable to have to keep discussing this over and over again, and it isn't clear to me that WT:EL is really the right place -- in fact I've never even looked at that page and don't know whether the people who contribute there are reflective of the community. So the question is, where to have a decisive discussion? Looie496 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is an accurate summary. Please see the discussion at User talk:Jgrethe#External links, and see firsthand the links that were added. --Arcadian (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest one of the Village Pumps. Depending on how far along the collaboration is, it might be appropriate to lay out the relevant advantages and concerns at the proposals forum.  Skomorokh  09:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request relating to a block

Getting right to it... EyeSerene blocked user 1027E for a week for numerous reasons; the block was upheld by FisherQueen after a review. Following this, DGG intervened to remove the block by, as admin Hoary points out, clearly understating the issues 1027E was blocked for in the first place. Due to a history of support between DGG, 1027E, and the article 1027E primarily edits (and which DGG subsequently placed under full protection), it looks to me that DGG wasn't the most impartial admin to have stepped in like this. Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this and either uphold or reinstate the block on 1027E if he/she so chooses?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not intervene to remove a block. I commented to the blocking administrator that the length of the block was an over-reaction. I shortened it at the suggestion of the blocking administrator to the length xe suggested. . Ditto about the full protection. Not my idea, though a good one. I distrust both parties objectivity in editing about equally, though one knows more about our practices than the other; I have no intention of judging between them, nor of intervening further, and have asked Hoary to refrain similarly. I would however regard a reblock as inappropriate. The edit war has stopped, and that's the purpose of blocking. I have notified EyeSerene, but he's in a very different time zone. DGG (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for the block extended well beyond edit warring, as EyeSerene's reason for the block fully explained. If you choose not to see that, you choose not to see that. I came here only to ask for an outside opinion.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The ANI thread mentioned by EyeSerene is now archived here. The sock case about 1027E is WP:Sockpuppet investigations/1027E/Archive. There was also User talk:Jpgordon#Errol Sawyer Article, where 1027E was alleging racism by other editors. (Always a winning strategy here on Wikipedia). Article was the subject of a COI complaint in January. Was deleted by WP:Articles for deletion/Errol Sawyer. Userfied as User:1027E/Errol Sawyer by DGG on 27 February. Probably restored to main space on 20 April with DGG's help.

1027E has had some trouble coming up the learning curve w.r.t. Wikipedia policy. Some fairly sharp debate regarding COI occurred in this section of Talk:Christie Brinkley, involving an editor named Efsawyer, who also made charges of racial bias by other editors. We know that Efsawyer claimed on Talk to be the real Errol Sawyer and there has been a suggestion on Talk that 1027E is a relative. I think it is reasonable to assume that 1027E is a COI-affected editor regarding the Errol Sawyer article so we should maintain our usual alertness re any promotional editing. I don't object to DGG's shortening this block to 24 hours but the editor's attitude leaves much to be desired, after getting many months of policy explanation. The problems with this editor are probably not over. I think a topic ban from the article should be considered if this continues. The Errol Sawyer article I think is now in reasonable shape and if 1027E would just leave it alone, it might be fine. We could certainly get along without the constant turmoil on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ed that a topic ban should be considered if necessary--and probably of Mbinebri also. Actually, I think a short block earlier would have been helpful in preventing it getting to the present state-- in a sense it is our general fault as admins that we didn't intervene earlier. I will say that this editor has caused me and others a remarkable amount of trouble--I find it no easier to explain things to the ed. than anyone else here. DGG (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no misgivings about the reduced block and article locking - I think DGG has nailed it when he says that admin intervention should probably have come sooner, but we have to deal with the situation as it is and a week was harsh for a first shot across the bows. I've left a frankly-worded note on 1027's talk page in response to their latest comment (which doesn't appear to be promising much, as far as I can parse it); I believe that unless they start to demonstrate some clue fairly rapidly, a topic-ban should be the minimum response. EyeSerene^talk 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DGG intervened to remove the block by, as admin Hoary points out, clearly understating the issues 1027E was blocked for in the first place. I said that DGG understated the issues and I do not retract this. However, this comment of mine was about a comment of his. I didn't question, and don't question, his shortening of the block. DGG neither acted nor wrote as I would have done, but this fact seems very humdrum and doesn't trouble me at all. I don't at all want to criticize DGG, with whom I'm in considerable agreement. -- Hoary (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral admin needed to close RfC.

Hi folks, The RfC at the top of WP:NOT's talk page is still in need of being closed. Comments have basically stopped and we are past the 30 days by a fair bit. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

COI User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

I was directed here by user:auburnpilot Here: [12]

Hi my name is Christian Hejnal. I have been accused of sock puppetry by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz . [13] I have stated over and over that I am who I say I am and this is the only name I log in under. The Conclusion: "Conclusions I'm not seeing evidence here that proves or is strongly suggestive of a link between Parenttrap and Xtian1313, or evidence that 3RR or other tenets of WP:SOCK were violated by the IP editing if the IP and Xtian1313 are the same user. Please refile if you find further evidence, and present that evidence using diffs specifically. Nathan T 16:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically."

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been a destructive editor and is now editing my article, after he/she accused me. [14] [15] & [16] and has made a point of editing articles that have anything to do with my wife or myself. I suspect this user has a strong COI of interest with anything concerning my wife Jessicka, our band Scarling. and myself.

I have addressed this user several times on his or her talk page in good faith only to be ignored.

• [17]
• [18]

And most recently

• [19]

I myself am not editing these articles, for obvious reasons. All I ask is for this user to allow editors who do not have a conflict of interest with these subjects and can maintain a neutral point of view to edit these articles. I truly believe that User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz is gaming the system in order to discredit any articles having to do with my wife Jessicka, myself (Christian Hejnal), our band Scarling. or our close friends. Again, I do not edit these articles because I know I have a clear COI. I will admit I don't know all the ins and outs of wikipedia but while I've been here I have not been a destructive user. I will happily take this off wiki- via email scarlingmusic@aol.com but this person is ignoring my requests.

Any help would be most appreciated.

Xtian1313 (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just been alerted to the fact that User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz makes these edits from a library a few miles away from my home. I am freaked out. Any assistance or advice on this matter would be beyond appreciated.

Xtian1313 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A few notes. The sockpuppetry investigation was closed by two others, and I think further attempts light on evidence should result in a warning. Second, while I'm seeing a bias, that's not a conflict of interest. He seems to be attempt to remove information he's doesn't consider relevant, while others (right now, namely User:69.238.165.217 at your page) are reverting. That's a content dispute and the solution is for both parties to stop playing on the articles and instead to use the discussion pages. I know he's not responding in anyway productive but if someone else could talk with him, that would be great. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the reason Xtian1313 was accused of being a sock. I'll have my own computer in a few days. Though if I'm in the same area, not sure if it will be a new IP??? I am not a sock. I am a person. I like the work of the people who's articles I edit. I do not know Clint Catalyst. I was not asked to fix these articles, I do it because I want to. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz doesn't try to expand articles, he's too concerned with blanking sections rather then actually doing the research it takes to find references. I am constructive. I add ref links. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz is the reason I have not created an actual account. He's a bully. There I said it. I can't find the page where he threatened to have me blocked because I reverted edits with ref links.

I'd like to keep editing here but I don't want false accusations made about Xtian1313 because I don't want to be outed nor do I want User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz to be breathing down my neck. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

69.238.165.217 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted, if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtian1313/Archive, you will see that User:Nathan and User:Jake Wartenberg chose to ignore it. Our policies allow anyone to begin a report but unless it looks like enough to the right people, it will be ignored. One reasonable concern is not everything that's exists deserves to be here, and asking people to find sources that fit policy is appropriate and removal until they are found is too. As I just told you, for example, attending a wedding isn't worth including. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky be fair. You said the article didn't mention Catalyst and it did. I answered you and showed you the quote and the ref. link. User:Nathan and User:Jake Wartenberg ignored it maybe because I'm not destructive? I explained why I added the wedding section. I just don't want anybody to be blamed for something I am doing. Wikipedia is about being BOLD, right. I'm trying! 69.238.165.217 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you are right, attending a wedding, even as best man, and giving a speech, even if quoted in the LA Times, in my view probably isn't worth including. However, like everything else, we can discuss it. As to your other point, I'm not going to speculate why Nathan and Jake chose not to go further. Most likely simply because they didn't find enough enough evidence. You can ask them if you'd like. There is more than being BOLD here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

please show me where I should discuss the wedding issue and I will.

I don't need to ask Nathan and Jake as long as they know I am a person and not Xtian1313. = O) 69.238.165.217 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Clint_Catalyst#Jessicka_and_Christian_Hejnal_wedding. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#Clerk_team, user:Jake Wartenberg are both user:Nathan trainee clerks --PBS (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So I have now had a stern talking to by all parties involved. I plan on making a screen name with my new IP address, as soon I get one and will make sure everybody knows I was user "69.238.165.217".

I am now taking my thoughts to the discussion page. "I know he's not responding in anyway productive but if someone else could talk with him, that would be great." We can all agree that he has a bias? Is anybody here willing to have a talk with User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz??? If not I'm afraid this kind of thing is going to continue to happen as his approach is not only abrasive but off putting to a lot of users. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Staying on point

Ok, the actual point. There is an allegation from a living person that he is concerned about another editor who, in real-life, may live a few miles away. Does anyone have any actual evidence of this, beyond mere speculation? This is some serious allegation. Can we drop that argument? Second, if opposition to the inclusion of attendance at a wedding is what qualifies someones as having a COI against an individual, put me on that list. However, a conflict of interest means an actual conflict of interest, not merely "you don't seem to like what I'm doing or who I am" and unless someone has some evidence of this, I would like the approval to warn and knock people out for making baseless claims as a pretext to edit war. Anyone have any suggestions, other than probably go to WP:OTRS and write tickets? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky, I do not have any problem with the attendance/ wedding issue being left out of the article in question. It doesn't need to be brought here to confuse the issues at hand. I don't believe you have a COI, perhaps a bias since you have stated you live in LA [20] know who some of the people in question are and find them ridiculous, that's your opinion. You have not been aggressively editing every article that has anything to do with Christian Hejnal like User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has. Anytime this person is confronted they just simply ignore. I believe strongly that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does have a COI. And if he edits miles away from these people's homes and work place, that's scary. Why accuse somebody of being a sock puppet then after they admit who they are the next thing you do once the sock puppet case isn't proven is edit their article? Come on? I'm new but I'm not that new. As far as the other allegation hopefully Xtian1313 can come up with some evidence to support his case. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reengaged this article because i stumbled across this COI allegation here or somewhere else in the past few days. Poked around and found that i'd been accused of being wolfowitz' sockpuppet and/or had a COI by one of the SPAs there (here [21]) without being notified (I hadn't edited the article in about 2 weeks at that point). Am I pissed? You bet. These COI allegations by the SPA's on this article and the other fine flowers in their walled garden have been tossed casually around for over a month now and i ask some admin to tell these folks to put up or shut up: Either come forward with some reliable evidence of an honest-to-goodness conflict of interest or be told that they'll be given a nice, long block the next time the allegation is made.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I edit miles away from these people too, probably. Los Angeles is HUGE. Again, what makes everyone see a COI? Is it just "he's 'destroying' these articles"? And read my comment here again: I wasn't saying the people are ridiculous. I don't know any of them personally. I was saying that your description of a wedding, as is the description of a lot of the actions of these individuals, borders on ridiculous. It's a matter of perspective, and frankly, I'm not seeing how a guy who also is "destroying" John Dunbar so clearly has some vague COI that everyone is claiming. Fine, if you want to claim I have a COI too, go ahead. That makes this fitting. Someone else uninvolved, please offer an opinion. This is getting ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rickey please read this. I do not think you have a COI. You are not User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, right? LA- we aren't talking miles- we are talking blocks there's a difference and you know it. I agree 100% It's a matter of perspective,and I say that this person has a COI with at least the article Christian Hejnal. See below: "Why accuse somebody of being a sock puppet then after they admit who they are the next thing you do once the sock puppet case isn't proven is edit their article?" Why do that? Seriously? That's all I am saying. It sure smells like COI to me and a jerk move to boot.

And why isn't anybody talking to this person. Rather then freak out, throw policy around, threaten a nice long block, couldn't a simple conversation fix this issue???

I'm being ganged up on here and I/m presenting a simple solution. A solution you suggested before all of this garbage. "I know he's not responding in anyway productive but if someone else could talk with him, that would be great. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"

Your words, it's a good plan. Can somebody just do it? 69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The "solution" you're presenting is to remove an editor who has a different perspective than you from an article based on your vague and innapropriate allegation (without a shred of evidence). I promise you this "solution" will not be agreed to, though I understand why the rest of us just giving you what you want would be agreeable to you. Also, these claims that his cohabitation with you (whoever you are) in LA is "scary" is not only absurd, but a personal attack (i can think of view attacks more vile than implying that someone was going to try to stalk you/harm you in real life). IP -- if you make one more unsubstantiated allegation against anyone, I'll kick this up to higher traffic forums.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How am I being vague? Please re-read what I wrote. I am asking that somebody other then Ricky81682 (per his suggestion) "talk" to this editor not "remove" them. Block me, kick me up, just because I don't agree with you? Bali, You are pissed about something that has nothing to do with me or what I'm saying here. (here [22]). All of these different issues are now becoming blurred because the people in the articles in question know each other in real life. Unlike you I don't have the power to threaten to block people when they don't agree with me so I'm doing the best I can to come to a simple solution. Is there such a thing as a neutral third party?

69.238.165.217 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To talk to him about what? You want someone else to tell him not to edit those articles because you think he lives somewhere and that makes you afraid? Because you think he has a conflict but you can not or will not explain it any further than that? We are not going to ask him to tell us who he is and prove he doesn't have a conflict. Otherwise, someone else is always free to talk to him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)'

You are the one who suggested somebody talk to him. I'm not afraid of anybody. That user wouldn't have any idea who I was if I was walking down the street right in front of him. Why wouldn't somebody ask him, do you have a COI with these articles? Do you have any idea why people might think you do? Why is that so out of line? I have explained why "I" think he has a conflict over and over. Nobody is asking you to out this person. This is ridiculous. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Question was asked. His answer was "no" i have no conflict of interest. You've offered no evidence to contradict this. Repeatedly makign unsupported accusations poisons the editing environment and will, ultimately, earn you blocks. So, now, If you "ask" the question again, i'll seek support for sanctions against you. I'd much prefer you'd just drop it, and focus on content. Up to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have a suggestion. It's simple. Why doesn't somebody other then myself, Xtian1313, and Ricky81682 talk to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz??? Will it kill him to lay off these articles until it is proven whether he is editing from a close neighborhood library or has a COI? I got my butt handed to me last night, why won't anybody talk to this user? Rickey is there a admin. that can be neutraland is up for the job? I really think it can be that simple? 69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should he? What has he done wrong? He's removed content, told everyone to read the policies, they've ignored them, edit warred to put it back and accuse him of a COI. Period. Everyone else comes here, nobody else seems to care, and we all move on. He's been notified of these discussion a few times and as he has said, he has no clue what the claim is. I've asked him, he says he doesn't know what's going on, so how about the people making the accusation actually give us something to work with beyond a mere speculation that he lives in the same city as they do? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do read the policies. I ask questions related to the policies. They usually go ignored. Any "edit warring" reverts I have done were strictly in good faith - often because this editor's comments in the edit summary were based on false claims (whether intentionally or not - usually claiming that information is not contained in the cited source when it actually is, or alleging that I was spamming on behalf of the subject), or because an administrator had previously approved for the content in question to be added. S/He makes derogatory comments and personal attacks directed at both other editors of the article, as well as the subject of said article, and has inappropriately outed both myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Clint_Catalyst and Tallulah13 by name (I believe in her case it was either on her Talk page or on Xtian1313's).

Having an opinion is one thing and is of course welcome (Ricky, I'm glad you stepped in to help with the peacock/press release tone much of it had taken on - I didn't even know where to start with that) - however, this user's incredibly rude displays of behavior towards both the subject/related subjects and editors, the types of edits made to the article itself, combined with the fact that it appears this subject posts within blocks of all of the related subjects of the articles s/he is editing, does not seem right or to comply with NPOV standards and is a deterrent to editors who are trying to be helpful - regardless of whether they like or dislike (or haven't formed an opinion of) the subject of the article.

Also, to Bali ultimate, regarding the above - I apologize if my conclusion was indeed incorrect. It just seemed really strange to me that two editors were both making repeated long strings of deletions (of similar natures) with occasional derogatory remarks thrown in. Granny Bebeb (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me straighten you out -- there is nothing strange about wikipedia editors in good standing seeking to enforce basic standards and trying to hold the line against the use of the encyclopedia for promotional/vanity/fan purposes. Nothing could make more sense, in fact. The article was attrociously written, worse-sourced, and guarded by a slew of SPAs. Now. Like i told the IP, do not make any accusations against any of your fellow editors in future without very strong evidence to back it up. Such accusations made without such evidence are poisonous to collegial editing, and could well lead to a curtailment of your editing priviledges if made again in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article had problems, I never denied that. I wasn't attempting to "guard" it against anything except for outright destruction - such as removal of credits which were (are) well-documented by RS-compliant sources under false claims that the subject was not mentioned in the articles, that legitimate news sources were "blogs run by his friends", or that scheduled events were "open mic". There was also an issue with the title and genre of a work being continuously removed despite being clearly in the already cited article. Anything I've recently reinstated that was RS-questionable had been approved by an administrator (and I'm glad the video issue has been since cleared up). If you notice, I've actually thanked editors who helped remove the peacock language (and I'm also glad that I've become more informed of policies in the process). I'm not looking to make the article into a fansite - just informative and definitive of the subject and his works. Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, to everyone, a point of view is not a conflict of interest. If you and disagree, we have different points of view, we don't suddenly have a conflict of interest that lets you claim that I shouldn't be allowed to edit what you are working on. That's patently insane. The editors who have a clear COI shouldn't be the ones claiming that others have them and deciding who should and should not be allowed to edit the articles where they have a clear conflict. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rickey it was your suggestion to have somebody other then you talk to him. Why is that so bad? I am telling you over and over what he has done wrong. He accused somebody of being a sock, the person he accused told him point blank who he was. He came to him in good faith only to be ignored! Xtain1313 is connected to alot of the articles he is editing. Once Xtian1313 was proven not to be a sock, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz then decides to edit his article? Vendetta? COI?

I know I am not saying what you want to hear.69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Xtian1313 editing article he is connected is the definition of COI. People disagreeing with him aren't a concern, he is, but I honestly don't care at all about that. You've made your suggestion. Let's see if anyone else is interested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what the IP seems to be saying. The "he" appears to refer to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz rather than Xtian1313 (who has not edited articles connected to himself). I appreciate your involvement in this debate. Granny Bebeb (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Short response

A holiday is coming, the kids are just about out of school for the summer, and I'm scheduled to go on vacation in a day or so, so you won't hear much from me for a while. But a few things need to be said.

When Xtian1313 says he's been "advised" about where I edit from, and using that "advice" to smear me as a stalker, he's demonstrating his own bad character. But that's the way he's operated steadily. People don't edit the way he likes have mysterious COIs, now I have an unexplained stalker agenda. I sent Ricky81862 an email a few days ago, before Xtian posted his little fantasy, over a matter I didn't want to air publicly; if it's still in his email account, and he can access the headers, it will geolocate back to somewhere that's Nowhere Near LA.

"Granny" is now accusing me of "outing" people. "Outing" refers to exposing people's real life identities. It doesn't mean going to the official Clint Catalyst fan site and discovering that two screen names editing here and claiming to be unaffiliated with Catalyst or each other are actually well known to each other and are active in online promotion of Clint Catalyst, to the point of encouraging others to stack votes to help him win online pols, contests, etc. No real-life identities exposed. Just on-Wikipedia deceptions.

The big bad Wolfowitz will be back after his vacation, untanned, rested, and probably unready. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So both of us being fans equals 'deception'? As I've said, I have never met Catalyst (or Tallulah13 outside the groups, for that matter). Neither one of us told the other to come here. Most people who are fans of someone would want to help them earn votes in a contest such as BigShotLive, which Catalyst himself posted bulletins promoting. I have not made promotional edits to Wikipedia. Regardless of how you define outing, I linked to the incident in the mention. I do not appreciate having my identity brought out like that, and it proved nothing except that you have been researching me. Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am on here from an IP today, I formerly edited under the name Tallulah13, I am on here to say one last thing fro the record...

The big bad wolfowitz is an ass-hat! And I NEVER, EVER claimed to be 'unaffiliated with Catalyst'. I have met him ONCE in my entire life. I am a fan and wanted to be able to help contribute to an article that I was interested in. If having met him ONCE makes me have a COI, so be it. I am no longer editing the Catalyst article or ANYTHING else on Wikipedia. Have a nice life & please leave me out of your discussions from here on out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.114.137 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Equality

The idea has been swirling in my head for a very long time on this, and from a variety of bits of feedback over time, and the massive amounts of commentary on-Wiki the past couple of days that somehow we admins are "above the rules", or somehow held to a differing standard than everyone else, I present an utterly simple proposal:

• Wikipedia:Equality

Feedback on Wikipedia talk:Equality, and thanks. rootology/equality 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

IP 68.4.53.113

User Talk:68.4.53.113 is persistently adding the text of a court case to Saddleback College. The case is in relation to an appeal by a student of the college against a decision by the college. The IP has been warned several times about adding this text. The issue doesn't seem to fit the definitions at WP:AIV and therefore I have brought the situation here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As it is clearly inappropriate material and disruptive editing by an individual using three IP addresses over a period of one month, I have semi-protected the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User account request

Resolved

 – ::I've gone ahead and redlinked the user and user talk pages. Neither had been edited by anyone other then DAFMM. That's as good as it gets. –xeno ^talk 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm making a request on behalf of User:DAFMM. For a while he has maintained an alternative account, User:HandyTips, for reasons expressed on that account's page. He recently set up another alternative account, User:UniversityofOxford, apparently intending to make a switch from editing under User:DAFMM to editing as User:UniversityofOxford. Another user raised the issue of an inappropriate user name, and according to posts on my talkpage, User:DAFMM has decided to stick with User:DAFMM, and has requested the account User:UniversityofOxford be deleted. Since if User:UniversityofOxford did start making edits it would be swiftly blocked as a violation of user name policy, this seems like a reasonable request. But at the moment I'm unsure where else to put this request, as it doesn't seem to fit with any of the existing pages for dealing with user names and pages. Benea (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We can't delete accounts. The owner can, however, just walk away from it. If they tag any user pages with {{db-u1}}, someone will delete them. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 11:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion backlogs

The following categories are getting some major backlogs; any help clearing them out is much appreciated!

• Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source
• Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
• Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files
• Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files
• Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files
• Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old (this one has almost 2,000 files)
• Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons (and the "same name" subcat)

WP:PUF could also use some attention. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I usually felt like I was only one working on those specific backlogs, and, now that I don't have a reliable computer, I've seen many people discussing CSD having backlogs. I guess I really was one of the only people working there, haha. When I get my computer back (therefore, have more time), I'll get back on these. hmwithτ 18:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to do a bit, but there are just way too many files and I just don't have enough time. :( –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

Resolved

 – Backlog gone. AGK 20:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Any admins not busy, please attend to WP:RFPP. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

The WP:UAA board is getting quite backlogged today. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No backlog now. :) Cirt (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page BLP violation

Gabagool has made an unsourced and highly controversial claim concerning a living person, Princess Märtha Louise of Norway, on Talk:Norwegian people [23]. Since I am involved in a dispute with this user, it would be inadvisable to redact the offending portion of Gabagool's comment myself. However, I ask that an uninvolved administrator or other editor remove the WP:BLP violation. Erik9 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG.. well I'll censor myself then: "turned into a wackjob (claiming to be able to talk to horses and angels)" -> "made highly controversial actions, such as claiming to be able to talk to horses and angels". Hope you are pleased with yourself at least, acting like a censoring dictator, trying to make nothing into a big deal. -GabaG (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, the entire unsourced and potentially defamatory claim concerning Princess Märtha Louise is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia; mere removal of the most gratuitously derogatory language is an insufficient remedy. Erik9 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it should be considered at the BLP noticeboard together with the relevant section of the article on her [24] . DGG (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never tried to edit in any way the biography of the person in question. I don't understand the ultimate goal of what you're trying to do here, the original discussion had nothing to do with that at all. But as I see no point in getting involved with anyone in such pity fights I did censor it away anyways. Again, hope you have reached your goal and are very happy now. -GabaG (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I've added a source for the claim [25]; gratuitously derogatory language concerning living people should be avoided in any case. Erik9 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gabagool, our policy on biographical data about living persons is applicable across all of Wikipedia; that means articles, userspace, article talk pages, everywhere. Unsourced and potentially liable or slanderous statements about living people are categorically not allowed. Indeed, negative information about a living person must be even more impeccably sourced than any other information on Wikipedia, due to the project's global reach and the potential for negative and damaging publicity. That is what makes your statements a big deal, whether you see it as 'nothing' or not. It is not 'censorship', it is a recognition that in a venue as public as Wikipedia we have a duty to people to not publish unsourced allegations/opinions about them. //roux   03:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

Resolved

 – Backlog gone. AGK 20:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Any admins not busy, please attend to WP:RFPP. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

The WP:UAA board is getting quite backlogged today. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No backlog now. :) Cirt (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page BLP violation

Gabagool has made an unsourced and highly controversial claim concerning a living person, Princess Märtha Louise of Norway, on Talk:Norwegian people [26]. Since I am involved in a dispute with this user, it would be inadvisable to redact the offending portion of Gabagool's comment myself. However, I ask that an uninvolved administrator or other editor remove the WP:BLP violation. Erik9 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG.. well I'll censor myself then: "turned into a wackjob (claiming to be able to talk to horses and angels)" -> "made highly controversial actions, such as claiming to be able to talk to horses and angels". Hope you are pleased with yourself at least, acting like a censoring dictator, trying to make nothing into a big deal. -GabaG (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, the entire unsourced and potentially defamatory claim concerning Princess Märtha Louise is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia; mere removal of the most gratuitously derogatory language is an insufficient remedy. Erik9 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it should be considered at the BLP noticeboard together with the relevant section of the article on her [27] . DGG (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never tried to edit in any way the biography of the person in question. I don't understand the ultimate goal of what you're trying to do here, the original discussion had nothing to do with that at all. But as I see no point in getting involved with anyone in such pity fights I did censor it away anyways. Again, hope you have reached your goal and are very happy now. -GabaG (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I've added a source for the claim [28]; gratuitously derogatory language concerning living people should be avoided in any case. Erik9 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gabagool, our policy on biographical data about living persons is applicable across all of Wikipedia; that means articles, userspace, article talk pages, everywhere. Unsourced and potentially liable or slanderous statements about living people are categorically not allowed. Indeed, negative information about a living person must be even more impeccably sourced than any other information on Wikipedia, due to the project's global reach and the potential for negative and damaging publicity. That is what makes your statements a big deal, whether you see it as 'nothing' or not. It is not 'censorship', it is a recognition that in a venue as public as Wikipedia we have a duty to people to not publish unsourced allegations/opinions about them. //roux   03:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Need help from someone who is also an admin on Commons

Recently, commons:File:Flag of the African Union.svg was deleted as it includes a copyrighted logo, but it ought to be re-uploaded to en.wiki for fair-use in the two articles that link to it (African Union and Flag of the African Union). I've asked for help on Commons to recover the image and re-upload here, but there is no response yet. Thanks in advance for any help here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you still in need of assistance? I'm a commons admin and I reviewed this... I have saved the last deleted version. An upload here probably should include all the history. Let's take this to my talk to consult and decide how to proceed. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Space Shuttle

Somebody removed this from current events: this edit. I think that was uncivil.--Chuck Marean 07:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Shuttle's not landing today, it was delayed until tomorrow.[29] -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PERM/R

Resolved

Just a quick note, PirateSmackK's request has been standing for an ounce over two days – apparently a longer wait than usual. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Commented there. –xeno^talk 13:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly significant policy change by Arbcom

I'd like to draw attention to a couple of proposed decisions in upcoming Arbcom cases. Taken together, it appears that the standards for considering admins uninvolved appears to be tightening, to a possible unreasonable standard. The primary decisions in question are at Macedonia 2 - Use of administrator tools in a dispute, Involved administrators, and Uninvolved administrators. The combined effect of these proposed statements, along with sentiments expressed in the Scientology case, indicated a trend towards considering any admin who has made a single edited to a topic (not just an article) or come into contact with a user as "involved".

In my opinion, while I recognize the need for avoiding the appearance of bias, this is an unreasonable standard of involvement. Accusations of admins acting out of bias through prior involvement are already rampant; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon (in which it is argued that an admin who issued a warning is now ineligible to enact a block on that user) for a clear example. Tightening the standards of involvement to this level will only increase the wikilawyering that already goes on in these situations. Moreover, in volatile subject areas, such nationalist disputes, which already see little admin attention, this will only serve to reduce the number of active admins by disqualifying them from using their tools. We will also see fewer subject matter experts working in these fields as new admins; we can't expect a new user with expertise to build a wiki-career worthy of adminship without editing their preferred topic.

All in all, I feel that this is a damaging precedent that is in danger of being set. There has to be some room for common sense in considering whether or not an admin is "involved". I invite wider community attention to the issue. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not set policy; neither have the standards of administrative conduct which it imposes for the purpose of considering desysoppings been substantively altered. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#Uninvolved_administrators prescribes standards of involvement for the highly limited purpose of future arbitration enforcement related to a specific heated content dispute, and should not extend its purview into other areas or functions. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#Involved_administrators simply articulates the rather unremarkable proposition that administrative actions which are inappropriate due to involvement in a content dispute do not become appropriate by virtue of the offending administrator immediately posting a request for review. That Mythdon has made a self-serving argument that the issuance of a warning constitutes "involvement" which precludes further administrative action does not imply that the Arbitration Committee, or anyone else with significant influence on Wikipedia, accepts this bizarre principle. The standards of "involvement" for the purpose of determing the propriety of administrative acts have remained relatively constant for some time: sysops may not take action

1. against an editor with whom they are currently involved in a direct content dispute
2. against an editor with whom they have been involved in sufficient past content disputes as to impugn their neutrality
3. with respect to subject matter with which they have sufficient current or past editorial involvement as to call their neutrality into question, and in a manner which is likely affect a content dispute (blocking and protection against simple vandalism, BLP violations, etc. is acceptable) Erik9 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We currently have about 4 or 5 different definitions of "involvement" if you sort through policy and active ArbCom findings. Some of the definitions are directly contradictory. This is a problem, since even under the best of circumstances a great deal of wikilawyering tends to accompany this topic. The definitions should be synchronized. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I boldly edited Wikipedia:Administrators/Misuse of tools section here in light of both this thread and recent events to conform to what appeared to be the general consensus amongst commenting admins and editors as to what constitutes non-involvement. //roux   07:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom sets policy insofar as they choose when to accept cases, admonish editors or desysop admins based on what may or may not be a parochial interpretation of the rules. They don't literally write the policy, but if the committee take an action based on a standard that the community hasn't agreed upon, that action still stands. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The noose is tightening. One more reason to be glad I'm no longer an admin. :-P Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject banner policies

So what is the policy on WikiProject banners when someone tags an article that is within the scope of the project, but others keep removing the banner? I'm asking because I tagged Greek battleship Kilkis with the {{WikiProject Mississippi}} banner, and it's been removed twice now. The battleship used to be the USS Mississippi (BB-23), named after the state of Mississippi, before it was sold to Greece in 1914. I mean, if a project feels an article is within their scope, can people just freely edit war over it and keep it out?? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 09:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The project is presumably about the state of Mississippi, not about other things named Mississippi. I don't see how the article could be improved by knowledge of the state. --NE2 10:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The project is about all things Mississippi, especially a battleship of the United States Navy named after the state before it was sold to another country. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to tag Lake Itasca? --NE2 10:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not. It's not in Mississippi nor does it have anything to do with Mississippi's history. The Mississippi River is of course tagged. As it says in the project banner itself, WikiProject Mississippi (talk), an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of the U.S. State of Mississippi and related subjects in the Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagging the ship for the WikiProject seems a bit of a tenuous connection, IMHO. Should the space shuttle Enterprise be tagged with the Star Trek WikiProject? It's about the same. //roux   10:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And then you, NE2, go and seriously remove it from USS Mississippi (BB-23) too?? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The ships were named for the state, to honor the state.. that is certainly within the project's scope. Anyway, I'm not asking for opinions, I was asking for policy. If there's no policy in regards to this, they should be restored. I just don't see how people haven't had anything to do with a project, can decide something isn't within the project's scope. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The USS Mississippi doesn't have anything to do with Mississippi's history either. It just shares a name. How about Florida Avenue (Washington, D.C.), which was named after the state? Should that be tagged for WikiProject Florida? --NE2 10:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If the project decides for some reason it's within the scope, and barring any policy against it, then by all means they should be able to tag it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"The project" is not an entity that can make decisions; it's simply a group of editors with no more power than others. --NE2 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How does the WikiProject Mississippi plan to improve Greek battleship Kilkis? --Conti|✉ 10:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any project has a "plan" when they first tag an article within their scope. Someone from Mississippi that knows the history of the ship since its transfer to Greece could come across the article, see the tag, know of some awesome sources and images to expand the article and there you go. But that shouldn't even be a question. If the project never touches the article again, it's still within the scope of the project. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone not from Mississippi has just as much of a chance of doing that. --NE2 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So that means you should discount someone that is? That means you should removed the project's tag? I think not. Anyway, back to my question.. where is the policy? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So it's tagging for tagging's sake? You know what, you're right. There really needs to be a policy or guideline to prevent something like this from happening. "Article's talk pages should only be tagged with a WikiProject banner when the subject of the article is directly related to the topic of the WikiProject", or something like that. --Conti|✉ 10:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "tagging for tagging's sake". It's organization. In this case, an article that obviously is related to Mississippi, has been tagged with the project's banner. The project feels the article is within its scope. So who is anyone else that hasn't had anything to do with the project, to decide "no, sorry, not gonna happen"? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the craziest edit-wars I have ever seen. The purpose of the banner is not to stake out territory but to enable organisation. I personally think it is absurd to add the banner, but it is just as pointless to edit-war to get rid of it. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 10:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Enable organization.. exactly. And as it's related to Mississippi, it's tagged. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't get the impression I was agreeing with you. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, just nevermind. I'm not going to get worked up over something so painfully obvious. The ship is named after the state to honor the state, which makes it related and within the project's scope. There's no policy dictating Six degrees of separation. I'm going to bed now. Have a great day everyone. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think the banner should be there, it seems a very vague connection. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but I also tend to agree with what Allstar is trying to achieve and what he says in one of his comments above, that is, all it takes is one editor to find the article through the Wikiproject, have a book or knowledge on the subject of the article, and you've a good chance of taking something from B grade to GA status. I know that in the UK, the Royal Navy have ships such as HMS Montrose which is associated with the town after which it takes its name, and visits are a fairly regular event to strengthen links between the Navy and the locals, so there's a not altogether tenuous connection, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in Montrose kept a history of HMS Montrose, or even some newspaper cuttings about the visits which could provide a source of information for an article. Nick (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good point, but how do you find articles through WikiProject banners? When you see a banner, you already know about the article that uses that banner, after all. Or do you honestly think that someone is going through Category:Low-importance Mississippi articles, looking for articles to improve? --Conti|✉ 19:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Crowfoot vs Bobtail

Hello, The file File:Crowfoot.jpg has been replaced by File:Bobtail.jpg on Commons, but the local en: picture of "Bobtail" (a lizard) is not the one of Commons (a native American). I can't correct the page Buckskin Brigades myself, because the en: picture should be renamed and deleted for that (It would be a good idea to move it to Commons, btw). Could somebody take in charge that transfer-and-delete (I have no admin possibility here) ? Thanks in advance, Micheletb (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Local image moved to Wikimedia Commons, now located at commons:File:2008 Tiliqua rugosa.jpg.
2. Fixed pages that previously used local version of File:Bobtail.jpg, to instead point to commons:File:2008 Tiliqua rugosa.jpg.
3. Prior local version of File:Bobtail.jpg deleted, the Wikimedia Commons version, commons:File:Bobtail.jpg, should now show through instead.

Should be all done here now. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Cicely of Sicily

Resolved

 – User sent to the corner. TNXMan 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has shown some rather unfortunate editing decisions for being so new. Having already been warned for this profane edit, this attack-y edit and this homophobic edit, the user made this indirect attack at a RFD discussion. Their edits are also of questionable value, including a new redirect of WP:LULZ to Wikipedia:Vandalism and in general, clearly does not seem to be here to edit in good faith. I don't know if a block is required yet, but I would at least like to know what should be done with this editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not create WP:LULZ; I was nominating it for discussion.--Cicely of Sicily (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Even so, your edits are very highly questionable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, that edit was not homophobic. I am not a homophobe; I respect the rights of gay people to do what they like in their own personal lives - nothing to do with me; it doesn't bother me, it's a personal choice. I was merely adding a fact about a person who is homophobic. There's a difference.--Cicely of Sicily (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing. That's not an attack. It's just a reality check. Wikipedia may be fun, but I see people who are addicted to it, and I see some cult-like aspects of it. Wikipedia's not all bad, but it doesn't really have any kind of check for people who are addicted to it. It's like World of Warcraft. People get really addicted. And editing Wikipedia all day may well increase your knowledge of random facts, but it is not going to get you a job, get you laid, get you a social life, get you popular, get you well known for your work.

And if you block me for this, you are insulting my mother who says these things to me who is terminally ill with cancer.--Cicely of Sicily (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely for trolling, vandalism and personal attacks. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

After completing this Deskana pinged me with information that he is also NavyDrinker (talk · contribs). Just fyi. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadow Wikipedia

Resolved

I'm going to boldly archive this (as a minorly involved party, so as usual, anyone is free to revert me). No administrator intervention is needed, but feel free to start a discussion on either WT:WPOoK or WT:WikiProject Contents or start a Requests for comment on the subject. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

---

I have just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. Apparently, the idea is to build a counter-article to any article. So, for biology, we'll have outline of biology. It is unclear what the difference between an "outline" and an encyclopedic article is supposed to be, apparently "outlines" tend to be crappy incomplete lists, sort of a return to how the main article looked in ca. 2003.

The mind simply boggles at just how bad an idea this is. This needs to be moved out of main namespace asap. Inasmuch as it can be considered an indexing effort, it may have room in Contents: namespace, but most of it appears to be just WP:CFORK on a monumental scale. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for administrator intervention here. If you have a problem with the project that cannot be rectified by discussion with its participants, start a Request for Comment or send it to WP:MfD.  Skomorokh  09:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who told you that WP:AN is for cases requiring urgent administrator intervention, I'd like to know. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It might also be worth comparing more mature examples: Anarchism, Outline of anarchism, {{Anarchism sidebar}}, Category:Anarchism, Portal:Anarchism. There is overlap, but not redundancy.  Skomorokh  11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The scale of this "project" is a catastrophic undermining of Wikipedia's core principle of "one article per topic". This is not an "incident" requiring immediate admin intervention, which is why I post it here, not at ANI, but this is certailny a serious enough attack on the project's integrity to be brought to the attention to the admin community. Your "mature example" only drives home the point that we are looking at large-scale WP:CFORK violation. I do not have the resources to deal with this scale of problem single-handedly, we will need many hands in the cleanup effort this entails. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly it is about these types of pages that violate WP:CFORK? That guideline is primarily concerned with the phenomena of POV forking and unintentional duplication, which are not issues here. Outlines, as their etymological past as "List of x topics" indicates, are not articles (i.e. prose), but are structured and annotated lists. I think it would be prudent to make sure that there is consensus that Outlines are problematic before soliciting administrators to remove them. In any case, this discussion ought to be continued at Wikipedia:VPP#.22Outlines.22. Regards,  Skomorokh  11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds like a huge misunderstanding. As far as I can tell, the outline of knowledge is simply an index that uses articles instead of categories. I don't see any problems here. This over "view" is an effort to make lists useful, and should be encouraged. The end result is that there is more than one way to view a topic. If one thinks of this as a top-level view, it is possible to drill down to the specific article by subtopic without having to traverse category pages. Ideally, these types of pages would be generated on the fly instead of by users; If I wanted to change the presentation of a category from a list, to a subtopic, to an outline, I would just toggle my display somehow, but we're not there yet, so users have to create these views by hand. All these outlines are doing is giving the user the ability to view the contents of top-level topic categories and articles on one page in the form of a glorified list. The category system could be redesigned to do this, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon; I seem to recall Samuel_Wantman hinting at this idea some time ago. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline of anarchism looks very article like to me. It has a lot to say about what anarchism is, for a start, which will either duplicate or probably more likely disagree with what our Anarchism article (and other articles mentioned in the Outline) says. What is the plan if these start to contradict each other? Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline of anarchism (which is to say Outline of X) is a fork waiting to happen. Built that way, there is no means to keep the content locked with the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One could say the same about almost any list. Queens of the Stone Age discography (featured) cannot be complete without overlapping significantly with Queens of the Stone Age, which is no objection to its utility.  Skomorokh  13:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, lists aren't the same because they're so narrow as to what they can carry. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually kind of like this. It's like a central top-level home page for major areas. Or am I misreading it somehow? rootology (C)(T) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's where I get torn, I kinda like the notion behind it. Could this be done through transclusions of article leads or something? Only thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think such articles can be useful, if done properly. Sometimes with complex ideas it helps to have a quick reference. I especially like the simplicity of pages like Outline of dentistry; it is very helpful. I don't see at all how this is a threat to or can damage Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought this was going to be a proposal for a Shadow Wikipedia where everyone can espouse truth, write trivia, and as many fict-related child pages as they wanted =] –xeno ^talk 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons why this is a bad idea:

1. Typically, an outline is an unfleshed out version of a detailed piece of text and, I presume, that that is the intention of this project. However, we already have a humungous problem with inter-article consistency and creating 'outlines' for every article just raises this problem to a totally unmanageable level.
2. This is a content fork not waiting to happen. One look at Fiction and Outline of Fiction makes that clear. We'll need an army of editors to keep the 'outline' articles at the level of a skeleton.
3. Any project whose stated goal is to provide a fundamental outline of human knowledge is a bad idea to start with. Wikipedia thrives on simplicity, not grandiosity.
4. (This one is a bit facetious but I do mean it.) The whole 'Outline of' format is a tad awkward. How would one interpret an article entitled Outline of Human body? As something out of Law and Order?

--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be done with raw text without becoming a harmful subset of forks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP does have "an army of editors" , and an encyclopedia is fundamentally an outline of general knowledge, not a collection of bits and pieces. Whatever we can do to organize it for access is helpful, considering the customary scattered way articles are contributed. Articles like these are a good complete to filling in more of the hugh empty spaces in the encyclopedia, and may even contribute to it. DGG (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was a separate army of editors. Also, I'm not sure what the outline contributes over the main article (the Fiction example above), why it wouldn't be a content fork that is inconsistent with the main article. (Plus the very awkward title issue but that's secondary.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with dbachmann on this; it's massive duplication of navigation/information already handled by portals and articles, not to mention navboxes. These outlines do precisely nothing to assist the reader that is not already being done better elsewhere. Unfortunately, the walls around this garden are particularly high and dissenting opinion is met with derision and scorn, so I wish you the best of luck in trying to do anything about this massive waste of time and effort.//roux   19:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a concern about Template:List resources. I'm pretty sure we try to avoid having templates that mix between projectspace and articlespace like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the portal namespace. I don't see any mix with the project namespace in that template. This issue has only been addressed in the use of the see also section. I could only find this as part of the {{Outline generator}}. One quick solution I can see is to move all of the outlines into portal namespace. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Without trying to deny anyone their God-given right to argue this up and down and back and forth forever - Viriditas's proposal is the way forward. It doesn't throw anything away, doesn't result in duplicated articles, and uses the portal space for the exact sort of content the portal space is supposed to be used for. The only hitch is matching them to existing complete portals - but that's an implementational detail, easily fixed by just doing it. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as massive duplication. I see this as another way to get to the information. Different people have different ways of digesting and visualizing information. Just as MS Windows allows you to use a mouse or a keystroke to do something, the Outlines allow another way for readers to get at the information. Kingturtle (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The one difference being that when MS Windows uses a mouse or a keystroke to do something it gets at the same underlying 'information'. Here, the information is duplicated - with all the accompanying problems that redundancy brings in. If we could automate the creation of outlines from the underlying articles - for example if a request for 'outline of Burma' created the outline from the article Burma on the fly, we wouldn't have this problem. But, in this case, the information is duplicated. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is any indication, it is not an army we need but several venti armies! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Random section break (Shadow Wikipedia)

I noticed one of these the other day, and my concern was the number of redlinks that should forever remain redlinks: Outline of the Netherlands Antilles seems to imply that if the topic had been covered properly, someone would have created Air Force of Netherlands Antilles, Sikhism in Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands Antilles Stock Exchange, and Rail transport in Netherlands Antilles, among others. I can just see the bot request coming up to create millions of useless little stubs to correspond to each of these redlinks, as if the only reason no one had created an article about the extensive rail system we have connecting our five islands is because there wasn't a helpful stub to encourage them.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

looking at some other similar parts, it points out missing pieces that matter-- even for the larger countries. We do need humans to clean up after it, using judgment. DGG (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an extremely poor and unproductive idea. Would anyone object if I simply nominated it for deletion? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, could one of the proponents of this scheme explain to me how Outline of Anguilla being longer than Anguilla (of which it is supposed to be a briefer summary!) is constructive? Because if it's not, then there are scary numbers of articles which are basically useless... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone think of inviting User:The Transhumanist to this discussion? As the leading force behind this WikiProject, he is probably best qualified to explain why they are so useful. I'll alert him, but give my belief of the usefulness of this WikiProject. Actually, I'll quote Penubag: "Have you ever read an article about something you wanted to know more about only to later find an article that had more info on the exact same topic? This has happened to me too many times but with these new outlines and with proper dab notes, readers will be able to find and read more articles on exactly what they're searching for. The See main article: under a heading doesn't always cut it. On stubs and poorly developed articles, topic outlines may be the only place to direct and get specific information. Hopefully more ways can be devised to better connect our articles or integrate them into each other in a better way. -- penubag (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)"[30] NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Quiddity's staccato explanation: There are a number of "meta"ish projects that have been living happily in mainspace forever: The topics lists, lists of lists, and index lists, which begat the outlines (formerly "basic topic lists") a few years ago. Originally created with reference cards in mind. Can be compared to portals, or indexes, or navboxes, or Wikipedia:Books-Table-of-Contents pages, or a college course curriculum, or the Propædia. As Smorokh says, see a more-fully-developed example or three, to get a better comparison:

1. Article: Philosophy
2. Index: Index of philosophy articles (A-C)
3. List of lists: Lists of philosophy topics
4. Outline: Outline of philosophy

Also good are: Outline of geography, Outline of anarchism, Outline of Canada, and Outline of the United States. Less-developed but still useful are examples like Outline of linguistics and Outline of anthropology.

Plus, read through some of the archives at (and next time it might be helpful to notify one of) Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion disturbing, because there is an obvious negative/anti-cabalistic POV being expressed by naming this notice topic as a "shadow" Wikipedia. Most paper encyclopedias have indexes or outlines that help people quickly find pertinent information and directs them to the more detailed articles in the body of the encyclopedia. I know that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, but that's no reason to dismiss good ideas that help visitors locate information and gives more access to articles that are sometimes difficult to locate without already having considerable knowledge in a topic.

Furthermore, these are not rogue pages that were setup on a whim. They are under the purview of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. That means that these pages were not designed and developed in secrecy (something you would expect for a so-called "shadow Wikipedia"). They were implemented with at least the knowledge of (and hopefully also the consensus of) the active participants in those WikiProjects.

As Quiddity points out above, there is no reason to bring this up here. What is an admin going to do about a large section of the encyclopedia (it covers over 500 pages)? If an admin were to be bold and delete them all, the situation would probably quickly escalate to ARBCOM for review. That would suck for everyone involved. Instead, discuss the matter in an appropriate forum... the main talk page for the outline, the talk page or the other talk page for the two WikiProjects overseeing it. If you feel that much broader input is required, then bring it up in an WP:RfC, but it seems like that would be a complete waste of time and effort since the discussion would be probably be based around destroying a lot of quality work that makes Wikipedia more useful and easier to use. Regardless, WP:AN is not the appropriate venue for this. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Toss an RFC on Cent

I still kind of like the basic idea, and this is growing past AN (it's not something that can be decided by admins, it's a pure content matter, mostly). Someone toss up an RFC on Cent, please, and start the chat up there. rootology/equality 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a pressing need for an RfC? The project has been rolling quite smoothly along for quite a bit longer than I have been on Wikipedia (almost a year now), and I feel that even an RfC would be a bit of a distraction to the massive amount of work to do for this project. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 07:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean toss up an RFC if someone really wants something done about those pages, since there's nothing us admins can do as admins about them based on all this, since no tool use is required here. I like them. rootology/equality 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 66.31.71.110

It looks like 66.31.71.110 has been adding pieces of excessive/incorrect information for an extended period. The user's been notified a couple times already, a few months ago. There's a fair number of articles that need to be checked. Sorry if this is the wrong spot. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

JCutter

Resolved

 – previous account hacked, now blocked –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:JCutter, known also as User:7, has sent me an e-mail asking me to block as many constructive users as possible by midnight. He threatened he hack into Wikipedia and desysop me and as well as any other administrators, should we not comply with his request or attempt to block him. I can forward this e-mail to anyone who is interested, but WP:EMAIL prohibits me from actually posting the content of the e-mail here. I can't judge how serious this threat is and whether he really has the means to follow through on this. For now I am blocking both JCutter and 7. I have to go now and won't be home all evening, so I hope someone else will deal with this.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually User:Chris G already appears to have blocked User:JCutter.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just for the record: I've unblocked User:7, since apparently User:7 is a good-faith editor, who's former account is being exploited by a vandal, per the discussion on the incidents page.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

UAA is quite backlogged right now, with nineteen active reports. Help clearing this would be appreciated. Thanks, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done – backlog cleared for the most part. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren using article talk pages for soapboxing and for making personal attacks

User:Digwuren has for a long time abused article talk pages by using them to express his personal opinions [31][32][33][34] and to make personal attacks and other uncivil comments [35][36][37][38].

I have asked him to stop: [39], but it did not help, as he only responded with yet another rant: [40].

[41] is especially outrageous:

A lot of funny conspiracy theories are going around regarding pecularities of Russian national interests. Some of them are rather hard to believe. But the plausibility of Internet brigades is significantly reinforced by the fact that a number of editors with well-known Russian connections keep attacking an article casting light onto the Internet brigades. If the Internet brigades' story were just an old wives' tale, it certainly wouldn't deserve such an attention, and instead of removing content from here, those people would actually watch out for this kind of vandalism, so it would be reverted a bit faster than in three hours' time. I guess Internet brigades' coverup is more important than ensuring the quality of an article about Russian economy. Very sad. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He is clearly accusing other editors of working for the Russian state to censor articles. This is despite the following ArbCom ruling [42]: It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society. WP:DIGWUREN might also be relevant.

Another example [43]:

For a taste of Teinonen's opinions, the first article about him on Google is an interview headlined "Teinonen: National Socialism had many good sides". He's notorious, not notable. I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Wikipedia would be a good idea. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From the same talk page [44]:

Your and Offliner's editwarring to keep neo-Nazi material in this article speaks for itself. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is despite the warnings at Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned: All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.

I'm really tired of hearing Digwuren's political rants that have nothing to with improving the article itself and of his continous personal attacks. Can someone please give him a warning and make him stop? The subject was already discussed on Tiptoety's talk page, but he said he doesn't have time to look at it. Offliner (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In regard to Offliner's complaints, particularly in reference to what he considers "especially outrageous" [45], if taken in context of this humorous request and similarly humorous response by a Russian editor Illythr who delivered a formal thanks from the Wikipedia department of KGB, it is clear that Digwuren's comment was a light hearted expression of his frustration that more isn't done to protect Russian articles from blatant vandalism rather than squabbling over the article Internet operations by Russian secret police. The fact that Offliner should choose to affect offense over this comment says more about his WP:BATTLEGROUND and vexatious approach rather than anything about Digwuren's behavior. --Martintg (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Having some experience with Digwuren a few weeks back at some Baltic pages, I found him to be highly contentious and abrasive. He's not here to build the encyclopedia, but to fight Russians. That said, there are plenty of Russians who appear to be here only to fight Digwuren. A bad situation all around, but not one limited solely to Digwuren so much as the likes of Digwuren, and such editors are pervasive. Outside of massive topic bans, or mass blocking a large number of nationalist POV SPA's, I really don't see any value in singling out Digwuren, even though banning him would be a net positive to the 'pedia. As admins, there is really very little we can do here unless a *ahem* cabal of us all go over to the related pages and start a highly active mass enforcement of the various arbcom decisions related to this area (some of which directly name Digwuren). Since we *ahem* don't have enough admins to carry out tasks like this, taking any kind of concerted action is probably futile without a broader mandate from Arbcom. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears contention that this is some kind of battle against Russians is wholly false, a total red herring which is unhelpful. Offliner is from Finland and PassportUsername admits he is not Russian. Hiberniantears previously crossed paths with Digwuren when Hiberniantears single handedly caused much disruption to a stable article when he unilaterally moved and split, himself admitting against talkpage consensus and policy, then used his admin tools to perma-protected resulting re-direct. Hiberniantears own behaviour has been less that exemplary during this, eventually resulting in an apology. In the end the mess caused by Hiberniantears was cleaned up by another admin (who btw is Russian), who moved the article back to the original title. So I don't think Hiberniantears' viewpoint is impartial. --Martintg (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. I think there are plenty of Russian editors who are also a problem here. You, however, represent another editor that falls into the mold of Digwuren. There are numerous editors having a well reasoned debate on historical issues, but there are also numerous editors trying to score political points, some are Russian, or Estonian, or Latvian, or Lithuanian, or any number of other things... even Australian. The apology was to Peters, who turned out to be pretty reasonable, despite my initially viewing him as just an SPA. My impression of Martintg and Digwuren, however, remains unchanges, and unfavorable. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem might be Digwuren. I'm not even Russian (though I have some connections to the country), and only a month after having joined I had the pleasure of Digwuren repeatedly making personal attacks, following around my edits, and conspiring to brand me as a sockpuppet. I note that the vast majority of his contributions are anti-Russian (his latest article, for instance, just happens to be a three-liner taken from a news story about an apprehended Russian criminal). He has just returned several months ago after already having been banned for a year – a decision taking into account his advocacy and soapboxing, though primarily based on his general belligerence towards others; he does not appear to have benefited from the experience all that much. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong or anti-Russian in his latest article (and in his articles in general). Russia does have some criminals, many, in fact, so what? There are other venues (like AfD) to address this issue if you think it is not encyclopedic, but in my opinion it is. After all, that one seems to be very prominent according to many sources. E.g. I may not like (to put it mildly) the pro-communist undertones in the content you create, but I certainly don't consider it a bannable offense. And I don't wish to conspire to brand you as a sockpuppet, but your extensive knowledge of the past conflicts on Wikipedia "only a month after having joined" is noticeable and your willingness to inflame them again is not particularly helpful here.

Colchicum (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PU, the reason you were suspected of being a sock puppet is because 1) your account is new and 2) your edits WERE very similar to that of a confirmed sock of banned user Jacob Peters whose edits you even restored. Digwuren wasn't the only one who got suspicious at first. It happens.radek (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in criminology, a subject of relatively sparse coverage on Wikipedia. If you liked Otari Totochiya, you might also appreciate the pages in Category:Crime in Estonia, most of which I happen to have contributed to. I have particularly fond memories of working on Rene Reinmann, but your mileage may vary. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think everybody here has been tired of the constant forum-shopping on your part. Bring it to the ArbCom, it will hopefully sort out the mess. Mind, however, that your own behavior, which can also be easily seen as attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground, will also be scrutinized, as WP:DIGWUREN, despite its somewhat misleading name, applies not only to Digwuren, but to all editors; many others from several sides have already deserved an "honorary" mention at the bottom of the arbitration page. Now, back to the facts (oh, wait, it was more than a month ago! You should be really desperate in your crusade), as I understand it, D has not accused anybody of harboring Nazi sympathies, he said that the material you strived to include was produced by Risto Teinonen, who is a notorious neo-Nazi, as reported in numerous reliable sources. I can certify that Russavia and Offliner edit-warred to keep neo-Nazi material in Kaitsepolitsei is an accurate factual statement, D was most probably right in his opposition to this, and it wasn't D who created a battleground in that particular case. Note: the material was neo-Nazi rather than the mentioned users, and I have little idea about their actual sympathies. And, Hiberniantears, note that I am Russian, yet D doesn't fight me, probably because I don't fight him. This often helps. Colchicum (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you're a problem, or that everyone in those articles is a problem. I was just trying to point out that, as you note with Wikipedia:DIGWUREN, the problem extends beyond just one editor, and represents problem editors pushing a variety of POVs. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the first part of the message was addressed to Offliner. Colchicum (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said over at Tiptoety's page this basically looks like Offliner making lots of random unsubstantiated accusations against Digwuren, mischaracterizing his (Digwuren's) edits, having his (Offliner's) friends show up and desperately hoping that something out of all this falsehood sticks. The problem with his contention above include presenting criticism of article text/material/sources as personal attacks, pretending that discussing involvement by security services in Wiki on a talk page of an article about ... involvement by security services in Wiki is "soap-boxing", taking insult at anything that can hardly be construed as such by anyone with a modicum of good faith, and generally wasting editor's valuable time. From the comments above it appears that this is a frequent tactic employed by Offliner - and at a certain point it becomes disruptive.radek (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that pretty much covers it. If you can't attack the edits, attack the editor. And thanks to Colchicum for pointing out this is not about any inter-ethnic conflict, this is about the conduct of individual editors and the creation of battlegrounds (and who started the battlegrounds). PetersV       TALK 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, regarding Offliner's dim view of edits such as this one, I think that humanizing perceptions of "discrimination" and the role of self-perception is a crucial point. For example, on Latvian radio I heard a Russian woman call in to a talk show complaining that she was being discriminated against because her apartment block wouldn't grant her another parking spot for her second Mercedes, that she had already gone to the Russian consulate to lodge a formal complaint. That Offliner uses Digwuren's edit as evidence against him is, frankly, an indication to me that Offliner is not interested in thoughtful considered discussion of that topic. PetersV       TALK 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Radek; and I am fed up with the continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner. He has started baseless threads here, at user talk pages, at other Wikipedia pages... and has been throwing mud on Digwuren by the bucket, hoping something will stick. Enough is enough. I think this merits an official action - at the very least, a ban on Offliner comments on Digwuren (a form of a wiki restraining order), if not an outright preventative block.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Talking about baseless accusations... You say: I am fed up with the continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner. He has started baseless threads here, at user talk pages, at other Wikipedia pages... and has been throwing mud on Digwuren by the bucket... Could please provide evidence that I have done such things? When have I harassed Digwuren or started baseless threads about him? I do not recall starting a single threat about him, except this one. Offliner (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Without regard to the general issue, posting anecdotes such as the one just posted above, and the one linked to in that post, is not a proper use of Wikipedia . Actually, looking at that talk page, a good deal of it is similarly improper uses of Wikipedia by a number of editors of clearly different persuasions. . DGG (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of more block shopping by Offliner. He was warned over vexatious litigation, and recently received a block himself [46] after block shopping somebody else for edit warring. I find Digwuren's talk page comments on topic and informative, nor has he engaged in any personal attacks. Offliner's and UsernamePassport's continued accusations about Diguwuren's personal behavior may in fact constitute a personal attack against Digwuren, if not harrassment. I would support a preventative block on Offliner to stop this combative WP:FORUMSHOP against his perceived content opponents. --Martintg (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, that is Offliner who suspects other editors of being paid agents: [47]. Biophys (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I analyzed the behavior of Digwuren and Offliner, and I think Offliner should be blocked for his disruptive behavior. He was blocked for 31 hours on 16 May[48], but he doesn't seem to learn anything. AdjustShift (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What kind of thing exactly, is it that Offliner "should be blocked for"? PasswordUsername (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Disruption, edit warring, and pushing his POV. He was blocked on 16 May. After returning from the block, his attitude hasn't changed. I just analyzed his edit warring in the bio of Johan Bäckman; such activities are unhealthy for WP. AdjustShift (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
        • He did only two reverts on Johan Bäckman – three if you count changing "found" to "claimed" – on two separate days and hasn't touched the article since May 18. I honestly don't get what "disruption" constitutes here (seeking admin help – ie, shopping – he was told to go here) and I'm honestly puzzled that you apply the epithet of "POV pushing" to one editor if you have examined both user histories. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Digwuren is somewhat disruptive, but so are some of his "opponents". Offliner's edits to Johan Bäckman were not constructive. Yes, he hasn't touched the bio since 18 May, but his edits were not constructive (eg. [49]). He should have posted something on the talkpage, and try to reach a consensus with fellow editors. AdjustShift (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

About the accusations of blockshopping. How can I be blockshopping when the only thing I asked for is that Digwuren be given a warning to stop abusing talk pages? It takes about 30 sec for an admin to do this, and I think there his high probability that it will work. The reason why I'm asking for this is because my own warning did not help. I don't want Digwuren blocked; I only want him to stop this behaviour. Offliner (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The best thing you and Digwuren can do is just walk away and behave. The only thing you'll accomplish here is getting yourself and a number of editors on both sides blocked and/or topic banned. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. AdjustShift (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and as I said above, I think we should issue a community restraining order - the next time I see this circus back in town I'd like for us to be able to end it once and for all (if we are not going to end it now). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User Petri Krohn

I am speaking with experience; Digwuren's first edit on Wikipedia was a revert of my contributions. In fact almost all of Digwuren's edits for the first two months were reverts of my edits.

Initially we fought over the Bronze Soldier. The early version of the article was largely created by me. My interest on the subject started a year earlier, when I took the set of photos that initially made up Commons:Category:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn.

I gave up on the Bronze Soldier the minute the article left the in the news section of the Main page, and have hardly even opened it sense. Instead I continued my newfound interest in Estonia by creating tens of new articles on Estonian history and independence. All of them in turn became battlegrounds with Digwuren. I tried every trick to combat what I considered his abusive behavior. I reverted his edits, no help, Arguments would fall on deaf ears. I tried forum shopping, no help. I even tried writing to Wikipedia:Help desk, no response. I thought that it would be clear to any administrator looking into his edit history, that he is here only to disrupt Wikipedia. None of them saw it my way. The only thing that was somewhat successful was tricking him into 3RR. Even that turned detrimental, as his friends were able to (falsely) convince an administrator, that I too was guilty of 3RR. If some administrator ever took action against him, his sweet talk was able to convince them that he did not really mean to do anything wrong.

Digwuren was not acting alone. The Bronze Nights brought to Wikipedia a wave of nationalistic editors from Estonia. Later I would refer to this group as Korp! Estonia, in reference to the student nations of the Tartu University, the Alma mater of many members of this group. (Later, on the Finnish Wikipedia I read that the Tartu University is the last bastion of Greater Finland irredentism, but unhappily the article did not provide a reference.)

While I was in conflict with him, he did not contribute anything new to Wikipedia. He was however utmost skillful in turning any article into what I considered to be nationalistic POV. In wiki terms I considered all his edits to be WP:DE or WP:TE or both. Finally he made his first original contribution to Wikipedia, two stubs on the Soviet deportations from Estonia (June deportation, March deportation). At about the same time I made a conscientious decision to distance myself from anything he may be involved with.

My logic was this. If I leave Digwuren and Estonia alone, he will go around and find new “friends”. As I considered him a disruption, I thought he would be more likely to make enemies. At some point, I thought, this would lead to him being permanently banned from Wikipedia.

This has not turned out to be the case. He has made numerous new enemies. On the banning front the statistics are different. He and his supporters have come across numerous generations of pro-Russian editors. In the end, it has always been the pro-Russians, that have been permabanned. I believe I can name at least ten Russian editors that have been banned because of opposition to Digwuren and his supporters – and almost an equal number that have left out of simple disgust. The greatest loss to Wikipedia was Ghirla, who left, I believe, out of solidarity to me.

I was the first in this long list of fatalities. In WP:DIGWUREN I was banned by the arbitration committee for a year. I never thought the arbitration case would in any way be even related to me, as I had left all areas of conflict long before the case was even opened. I never participated in the deliberations and have never even read the proceedings. I hardly even know why I was banned. What I read from the decision is that I was banned for stating political opinions on article talk pages. In fact I believe I was banned for allegedly doing the same kind of “soapboxing” that Digwuren is accused of doing here.

It is a small miracle that a small country like Estonia can so totally dominate over its far larger neighbor. I seems as if Wikipedia has no Russian editors left. Those defending the Russian point-of-view are in fact from other countries. None of the true Russians edit or live in Russia, Australia seems to be a favorite address. The English language Wikipedia seems to have a systematic bias. The Estonian regime is aligned with NATO and the West. Most of the English language editors come from those same countries. Meanwhile the Internet is becoming ever more infested by right-wing hate groups. I cannot see how Wikipedia could escape this trend.

On Digwuren I can offer you no new advise. As long as he is a member of the community I will limit my contributions to the minimum. Offliner has far better changes. He is writing under an alias. Once he is burnt out and permabanned, he may hope to return some day under a new alias. I am writing under my own name. My good name is too valuable to be wasted in some vain effort to achieve neutrality.

As for Digwuren's future, I do not see the community banning him anytime soon. He may sooner be confronted by Russia's newest agency. <Removed "friendly piece of advice" misunderstood as a threat. Petri Krohn (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) > Things said on Wikipedia do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Wikipedia may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That last paragraph is horrifying. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to remove the implied threat there. //roux   07:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I am not surprised to read Petri Krohn threatening Digwuren, Petri has a some what toxic view of Estonians, and Digwuren is in his mind the archetypical Estonian and hence focus of his ire. Krohn was banned for a year by ArbCom for attempting to incite Russian editors against Estonian editors and engaging in some really appalling hate speech, accusing Estonian editors of having Nazi skeletons in their closets. I was concerned about Krohn's return and reported my concerns to WP:AE here. Unfortunately this appalling threat upon Digwuren's physical safety has proved my concerns were justified. --Martintg (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph by Petri Krohn shows, somewhat unexpectedly perhaps (given his more cautious stance after his 1 year ban ended) that this user still lacks the idea that an encyclopedia is a cooperative project which also does not rely on marginal POVs like SAFKA ideology. His physical threats, given his links with pro-Putin orginizations, shows that he is still a user we could do easily without having here. --Miacek (t) 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This was taken to AN/I, current thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat_by_User:Petri_Krohn. There is no consensus there, yet, that this was a threat. Disruptive editing here can get you banned. Is that a threat? Actually, it's just a fact. Editing with a strong real-world POV that can arouse hostile actions against a revealed real-world identity is dangerous. Is that a threat or a warning. I'd say it's a warning, one which we all need to be aware of; those who reveal their real-world identity (as I do) should be prepared for possible consequences, and, in fact, we could do nothing to stop those consequences from coming down. Focusing on the last paragraph is missing the point of the comment; whether or not Petri Krohn should have said that or not is a question I'm not going to address, but threat, it is not. I get warnings all the time that, by the logic followed by some here, could be considered threats. I don't take them that way, and don't report them to AN/I!. --Abd (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"<Text deleted Petri Krohn (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) >"

plus hinting to a Russian Agency. Not a threat? Biophys (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "hinting to a Russian Agency," or at least no evidence of that has been presented. Petri Krohn, above, notes in smalltext that he removed the "threat'" with [50]. He did not remove all mention of the "agency," but he did remove the "advice" part. Now, shouldn't we know about this agency? Any references to it? Is this shooting the messenger? --Abd (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify on what I intended to say in the last paragraph:

Russia's new law may make future contributions similar to those Digwuren has made in the past a criminal offense in Russia. The extrajurisdictional extent of the law criminalizes such actions, even if done outside Russia in any of the former states of the Soviet Union, including the Baltic states formerly “occupied” by the Soviet Union.

Wikimedia servers are in the “free world”, so the law should have no direct influence on Wikipedia. Baltic editors should however be aware that their contributions on Wikipedia may later be prosecuted, it they ever decide to visit Russia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

this is undoubtedly true, and we might find some way of giving an appropriate general notice, although I doubt any regular editor on these topics is unaware of it. But it is not appropriate to warn individual users with whom one is having a conflict. No matter how phrased, in that context it's an attempt at intimidation. DGG (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't appropriate, and that Petri Krohn should not have posted it as he did, given the history. These conflicts, though, breed all kinds of inappropriate responses by editors.... and the project loses. The solution is not more blocks and bans, but better and more effective intervention by neutral editors and administrators to restrain and channel conflict into useful work. --Abd (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

The above case is now closed. The announcement can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Requests for arbitration/Ryulong.

For the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and update of LTA page

Would anyone object to my going through and updating the long term abuse page? A lot of those vandals have basically gone away and there are a couple of new fools I think should be added. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, do it!!! Be bold!!! etc Arma virumque cano (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

{{uw-coi}} Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. But I'd urge you not to remove LTA reports just because they are old. I've dealt with the Suki vandal on and off for I think three years now; he resurfaces approximately every six months. The information about his editing patterns should exist somewhere besides in my head. I imagine there are situations like this for many other vandals listed on LTA. That is why they're "long-term", after all. rspεεr (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Innactive "accountcreator" users

The following users currently have the accountcreator right but wither do not have an ACC account or was suspended due to inactivity (or other reasons) [51]. Can an admin please remove the accountcreator flag accordingly.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User - Granted this year
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User - Granted this year
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User - Legitimate reason to not have an ACC account

I'll deal with it. ~fl 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

All  Done except those with comments above. Those that were grated accountcreator this year should be checked to ensure that they don't just have a ACC/onwiki username disparity, as I have had on occasion. ~fl 11:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I restored it to YellowAssessmentMonkey. It's an alternate account of an admin and former arbitrator. Keegan^talk 19:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

disclosure I also maintain an account User:Ched (public) which is appropriately tagged under alt. account guidelines. No rights are assigned to it, and at this time there is no need. I have only logged into my ACC about half a dozen times, and only once was their an item to address (at that time, the requesting name had the "@" symbol in it, and I deferred to admin.) I would prefer to keep the flag, but it's not something I'm going to get my shorts in a knot about. May I ask, what are the edit-per-month requirements on maintaining the bit? — Ched :  ?  22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

already suspended even though it's noted "Granted this year. I see "inactive for 45 days". Guess that answers that question. Personally, I object to the removal of any rights to any user who is both active, and has not abused those rights. Not much more for me to say on the matter I guess. — Ched :  ?  22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PERM#Permissions, ever since ACC came about the general rule of thumb for granting the tool is that you get it if you need it, stop using it and its gone. Its not a punishment to have it taken away, just as its not an achievement to have it in the first place--Jac16888^Talk 22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever ... That's not directed at you personally Jac. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I'm familiar with the PERM items due to my work in establishing WP:RIP guidelines and such. I remember the excessive steps involved in obtaining the AC flag, request, admin here approves (almost immediately in my case), wait for admin at tool server, login password confirmation, etc. I do not approve of the removal ... (repeat my previous post). Just ticks me off, but not a battle I see as worth the effort of fighting. There may be things that are "broken" at WP, so I look at it as being wise in the battles you choose to fight, and at this time, this just isn't one of 'em for me. Thank you for your reply though, I really do appreciate that ;) — Ched :  ?  22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Puebla F.C.

Admin help please!

Puebla F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't remember how I came across this article, but a fellow editor was having to revert IP edits that weren't verifiable, and could have been OR. They were also "unencyclopedic" - descriptions of matches and suchlike (is there a guideline on that?!). The edits seem to be in good faith, but I have repeatedly had to undo as they're not appropriate. I tried to engage the IP editor on their talk page - User_talk:76.235.130.49 and on the article talk page, but to no avail. There's now a slightly different IP making the same changes. I'm bored of trying to engage debate because they're clearly just insistent on inserting their "info". Someone tell me I'm wrong or take whatever measures are required to "fix" this, as I'm bored of it. I'd prefer it if they vandalised my userpage or something instead of just robotically making the same edits every few days!! Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Bigger digger (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. They are experienced editors of footballing articles and well used to this sort of thing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

The following motion was carried 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) further to this request to amend the Fringe science arbitration case:

• 1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

The remedy has been entered onto the arbitration case page, at #Further motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009).

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 14:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Backlog alert

Have fun! → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairly new account closing RFAs and AFDs

When did new accounts start closing Requests for adminship? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And Afd's on the very same day they were started? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's probably no minimum time or edit count set to perform these actions, however, if one is snowing an RFA please ensure to follow the steps here: User:Enigmaman/SNOW, and NAC'ing AFDs, please ensure to place the {{oldafdfull}} template on the talk page of the article. –xeno^talk 14:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the AFD closure, it hasn't even been open 24 hours yet. –xeno^talk 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The RfA is/was scheduled to end May 29. I don't think practically new users should be closing RfAs. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And apparently there's been other issues with this user. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This user is likely a sock -- not problematic in itself, but the account (first edit May 10) seems to be getting used mainly to make deletion votes in AFDs and (recently) oppose votes in RFAs. Still, I agree that a brand new account shouldn't be closing RFAs. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the instructions Arma virumque cano (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not go accusing people of socks here. I also have concerns about inexperienced users closing RfA's, but if they pick it up quick and do it right, like this user did, I assume it's no big deal. However, I have a large problem with new inexperienced users closing controversial RfAs, as they have very little experience judging consensus.  iMatthew :  Chat  15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there are legitimate uses for sock puppet accounts. This user's knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia suggest they have longer experience here than their contribution history indicates. But as I also said, I agree that new accounts, socks or not, closing RFAs is potentially problematic. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So was closing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harish89 per WP:NOTNOW appropriate? It seems quite abrupt, and uncalled for. In addition, the user Arma virumque cano doesn't appear to be in good standing as suggested by WP:NOTNOW.Smallman12q (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What does "in good standing" mean, exactly? Is it actually laid out anywhere? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It means he's a consistent vandal, hes vandalized my userpage twice, put a fake banned user template on it, and deleted large blocks of sourced text indiscriminately with "I'm not a crook" as his edit summary, hes repeated the same "not a crook" nonsense in user/talk page vandalism. Him having knowledge of the workings of wikipedia is not a good thing if his only purposes for using them are disruption. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what s/he's done. I'm asking if it's actually laid out anywhere what "in good standing" means. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it doesn't mean repeated vandal. But I can't find that in policy, just from common sense. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTNOW is (or last time I looked) discouraged for users with such a length of service to Wikipedia (talking about the candidate, not the closer). It would be better to suggest they withdraw rather than closing it. I'm not going to revert the closure, but others, or the candidate, may feel free. –xeno^talk 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to let the candidate know. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really wanting to defend Arma virumque cano but I did notice the AfD closure and was aware of the prior discussions on AN and still didn't see anything wrong with the closure, it was appropriate. I had more of a problem with one an administrator did the other day. Drawn Some (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened the RFA as per xeno's recomendation and because User:Arma virumque cano does not appear to be in good standing.Smallman12q (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that it? No measures, no warning? These actions were ridiculous, esp. for someone whose most notable contributions are the reiteration of "I'm not a crook." I criticized User:Eugene Krabs a little while ago for slapping a vandal-4 warning on Arma for one of those crook-comments, but now I'm wondering if Eugene didn't intuit that we are dealing with a disruptive user here, a user who needs to be watched. What moves one to start closing down RfA and AfD debates? Good faith? I doubt that. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone think that User:Cosmomancer is a sock of this user? He's doing the same thing (new account voting in AFDs, mainly), quite often within a few seconds of this account. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

that account seems to have made actual article contributions to a single article in Oct 2008, and resurfaced for the apparent purpose of tagging articles and voting in AfDs. Perhaps he's the sockmaster, or more likely they are both socks of someone else. DGG (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Until now, Arma virumque cano has had the appearance of a sockpuppet (too knowledgeable about procedure for such a new user) but one whose actions seemed mostly legitimate; his biggest problem seemed to be good hand, bad hand issues (using the sock to cast consistent pro-forma delete comments on AfDs). And the snow closure of the AfD, while probably best left to an admin, looks legit to me. But if Cosmomancer and Arma might be the same person, that's a much bigger problem, since they have both commented on the same AfDs (especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Command System). Worth looking into by a checkuser, perhaps? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and just opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cosmomancer --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

...Which found that the two are unrelated. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cosmomancer was a sock of User:McWomble. (blocks noted on the SPI page). Arma virumque cano was unrelated, and doesn't share an IP with any other users at this time. --Versageek 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Further investigation shows that Arma etc. created multiple accounts in quick succession. I've blocked the other accounts. It is correct that the other accounts were not related to Cosmomancer (as far as checkuser can figure), but account creation behavior of that sort is exclusively the realm of abusive editors. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I throw the wild idea out here of an editing restriction to the mainspace (ie. articles) on this account? Constant oppose-!voting on RfAs, delete-!voting on AfDs, being so obviously a sockpuppet but in denial, absurd early closure of RfBs, ludicrous repetition of "not a crook im not a crook" and a general tendentious style, are not conducive to anything here. I suggest that we put them on mainspace only for a couple of weeks, and see if they manage to do anything constructive — we are, after all, here to produce an encyclopedia. If they do, we can reconsider, and if they don't, they can be blocked as having no competence in either article writing or the processes. They certainly show no process competence now. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, albeit unusual, to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure limiting his disruptions to the part of the project most visible to the visiting public is the best idea. Then again, him screwing up in a more public fashion would be the quickest way to his removal. Nar Matteru (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Essay

Just so everyone knows, he has now created Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet and liked to it from WP:Sock puppetry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And created redirect WP:PARANOID to it. lmao - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Straight to RfD it goes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And I noticed that the article has quickly followed to MfD. — Ched :  ?  06:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we actually either block him, or restrict him from Wikipedia-space now? He's just causing so much hassle for us all, and doing absolutely nothing constructive... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked [Fairly new account closing RfAs and AfDs]

I have blocked the account giving the following reasoning: "I have blocked this account. It is impossibly clear that this is not your first account, and you have been nothing but disruptive since you got here. If you would like to 1. improve your behaviour and 2. come clean about any other accounts you may have used in the past then I will unblock. But until then...". Now I am usually very lenient on newbies but this one does not appear to be here for the right reasons (or appear to be a newbie at all). That said if someone feels they can talk some sense into him then go ahead and unblock. Viridae^Talk 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support > this'll probably clear up a big headache for us all. Well done! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this 'new' user is now disrupting stuff all over the place. I smell something fishy. KrakatoaKatie 09:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons given above and per WP:DUCK Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose While the closing of AfDs / RfAs should probably be something the user is dissuaded from it is hardly a blockable offense unless he does so in a disruptive or pointy manner, from what I can see this does not seem the case,although of course the new 7 day guideline should be observed. I don't see what it is exactly he is being blocked for, and if it is the case that he is a new user then the terms of his unblocking are impossible to meet. The bad hand / good hand theory was shown to be incorrect, what has he done wrong? Lets not disallow us the opportunity to discover a platypus. Unomi (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support sockpuppet or not, account was made with the sole purpose of disruption and ill intent, I see no reason to hold this guys hand Nar Matteru (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support his pattern fits into the general principle of disruptive editing even if no one act was particularly offensive. His actions have served no purpose but to waste the time of others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Clearly a reincarnation of another user, we should not be having to spend our time dealing with this. Majorly talk 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd say give editor a second chance. If it continues, block. hmwithτ 15:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Well, if you've left an avenue of communication open (his/her talk page), let's see where it goes from here before we jump on any "indef" or "ban" topics. — Ched :  ?  15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

He just got his talk page turned off for requesting unblock 3 times in a row. or the record, I would be open to giving them another chance after 1 week - 1 months time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef block for now. Fairly plain to see that the account was not here for anything constructive, even if they only toed the line and did not cross it. If the owner of the account can provide a satisfactory explanation for what's going on I'd be open to an unblock though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC).
• Comment Impossibly clear as a phrase strikes me as potentially rather unclear - at least, it is awkward. Incidental in this case (thus far...) but with those prone to wikilawyering, hairsplitting, and general and sundry arguing-the-toss, it pays to be extra careful when stating reasons for such decisions. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Per all above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX

ThuranX (talk · contribs) has been harassing me on my talk page for the last day or so. It began over an edit I made on a Hulk page, and along with Cameron Scott, he instigated an edit-war. Cameron Scott then accused me of having a sock account (it is my wife's account), and ThuranX proceeded to enter into the case page offering insults about my family life and presenting me with one threat after another about blocking etc, even though I have made several attempts to open rational debate.

He seems to have targeted me on the grounds of a mistake made by my wife on the Hulk page. She was aunaware of certain Wikipedia rules and has NOT made the same mistake since she has become aware of those rules now.

I have examined the discussion page for Hulk and it appears as though ThuranX treats it as if it belongs to him. I appreciate that he has put a lot of fine work into it, but this does not mean he has the final say as to what content should remain on the page. He certainly shouldn't simply delete people's contributions without first discussing his concerns with whoever edited, and he appears to have done this to other people besides me.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely fagged today but this provides a good summary of my involvement. If anyone had any questions, I'll pop by later with a G&T in one hand. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone coming out like a rose here. The only reason Cameron and Thuran didn't violate 3RR is because they were tag-teaming; considering there was no productive discussion on talk, they aren't any more absolved of wrongdoing than Pant and his wife. Thuran escalated things by applying {{test3}} rather than discussing comments on Pant's talk page. Rather than try and solve things and bring in the alternate account, Cameron immediately went to SPI (rather pointless, considering that by their own admission we know what the results are going to be.) There has been no extended discussion with the reverter, Lynn Header (talk · contribs), and no meaningful discussion on the Hulk (comics) talk page. This doesn't need admin attention. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk)

what's the point? I don't consider the reverter to a seperate person "my wife" is up there with "my brother" "my roommate" "my dog", especially when the account is created and used solely on one article. As for discussion, I asked him a number of times on his talkpage to start a discussion on the article page and also noted in an edit summary that the normal course of events is BRD. I also suggested that if he stopped meat/Sockpuppeting I would *not* file a report, he carried on, so I reported him. So you can take your troutslap and... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The hell I did, David. I provided MULTIPLE explanations, links to policy, and so on, between his talk and the edit summaries. I went out of my way to be kind, and in return I've had nothing but flack for it, as he IMMEDIATELY labeled me a chauvinist for assuming that he and his wife are capable of discussions. He straddled the incivility/clueless line for a while there, and despite his attitude I AGF'd like mad to get him to listen, but all of his responses were of the 'i don't beat my wife like you say i should' confrontational nature. ThuranX (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Damn, I forgot to post back here that I am trying to mediate between Pwd and ThuranX. I think we need other neutral voices to diminish the potential disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• User:Pantwearingdoom has co-incidently contacted me to advise that the content is, as far as he is concerned, resolved with Cameron Scott's explanation to him. I responded by commenting I would note this here with the suggestion that all parties take a break from the article until tomorrow, along with the usual respectful... collegiate guff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming guidelines for placenames in West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Voting or commenting on each segment of the Proposed guidelines in relation to remedy 13.1 of the recently closed West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. Please comment here on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009.

The more comments/votes/consensus, the better. We really need to firm up consensus by community input into some of these areas to reduce the drain on admin and editor resources in policing naming disputes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Voting"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

oh, yeah --> !voting, if you prefer...(sigh) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Marean

Current events

Please tone down Current Events. Those who censor out good news are engaging in terrorism, including in the Aussie newspapers. The public goes to current events. Current events are not things you could get in trouble about. The theme of Current Events should be “all is well.” Lists of tragedies and worries are insensitive to veterans and children. For example, making the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea out to be dangerous is unnecessarily stressful. There are versions of Dancing with the Stars throughout the world, and local non-troubling news is of global interest. Chuck Marean 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Administrators do not control the content of this site; they deal with policy violations. Durova^Charge! 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Um, what? Current events should only contain good news, is that what you're telling us, and people who put in things that are not good news are terrorists? Really? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This edit by Ixistant, this edit by Chuck Marean, and this edit by Capitalistroadster, toning down Chuck Marean's phraseology, might shed some light. As indeed might this edit and this edit, where an editor without an account removed two of Chuck Marean's additions for the prosaic reason that xe is listing events that didn't in fact occur on the date specified. It seems that one person's "terrorism" is another person's simple quest for actually making the encyclopaedia correct. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Current events

I've been trying to put G-rated current events on Portal:Current events, but someone (maybe with dial up) has been removing them. For example: this edit. I'm really not sure what to do about it. Current events should not be a list of terrible things. --Chuck Marean 05:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure why your edits were removed, this appears to have been vandalism. I restored it. I'll warn the IP. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Instead of warning a good faith editor for doing the right thing, I suggest reading what is already on this noticeboard.

    M. Marean was at it again, and the editor without an account was correcting his incorrect addition. The event that M. Marean was adding this time, to the 2009-05-26 page, didn't happen on that date. Go and read the source that was cited. It explicitly says "on Monday". Once again, the editors without accounts are correcting the editor with an account. Xe calls them "terrorists" for doing so. (See above.) They don't deserve vandalism warnings for that. Nor should the text have been restored.

    Other recent current events edits by M. Marean, corrected by editors without accounts, include edits such as this one, where xe removed, for example, the inauguration of a windfarm and the declaration of a natural disaster, for being "improper" current events. And here and here M. Marean wrote about a current event for the 26th that isn't an event that occurred on that date, and which even xe xyrself knew about before that date. Again, an editor without an account corrected this. They don't deserve vandalism warnings for removing patently incorrect statements of when events occur. Uncle G (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    • It would have been more helpful and easier to spot if this could have been explained by the IPs removing the material which WP:AGF appears to be duly cited to sources, instead of simply removing it with zero explanatory edit summary when doing so. Cirt (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks liky chucky may have plaxicoed himself, if I'm reading this correctly. Solutions? Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • On the contrary: It was easy (for me) to spot this because they did, in fact, give such edit summaries. Look at the accountless editors' edit summaries to the page of the 25th, whose diffs are above. One has the edit summary "Bolden removed, was nominated on Saturday", the other the edit summary "Thornton won on Sunday". The accountless editors weren't doing anything wrong, and they were even explaining what they were doing. We don't get to transfer the blame for this to them, not even to transfer the blame for our missing what they were doing. We don't get to automatically assume good faith of the editor with an account and at the same time try to continue to lay the blame at the accountless editors' feet with an automatic assumption of bad faith on their parts. The assumption of good faith applies to all of their edits, too, remember. Uncle G (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • News shouldn't be anything rated, it shouldn't be censored and Wikipedia does not censor events or articles. I don't understand why Chuck thinks that news should be G-rated. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
        • It's probably best to have that discussion in the two sections on this at Template talk:In the news that M. Marean has already started, or at User talk:Chuck Marean#Portal:Current_events/2009 May 20. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Pokista02

Resolved

 – blocked and further warned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Pokista02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please take a look at User:Pokista02? This user has continually adds album and single covers to Michelle Williams (singer) ([52] [53] [54]) despite one warning and a final warning. — Σxplicit 18:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 3 days and left a very stern warning regarding the consequences of misusing Fair use material in future. I would suggest that similar incidents should be reported to WP:AIV, and then WP:ANI if the AIV patrollers are not inclined to deal with it, for a faster response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

An author wants the AFD about him closed and the article deleted

Resolved

 – Article deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a WIP and the backlog will get handled eventually, but user:RFStapelberg has requested Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rudolph_Frederick_Stapelberg this AFD be closed and the article about him be deleted (request here). AFD is 8+ days old and appears to have consensus to delete. I can't vouch that that user is in fact the author, but that point appears to be irrelevant because there is consensus. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. There was already a consensus to delete, even without the nudge. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   00:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• A little caveat here. If WP:BLP is followed, whether or not a famous person wants to have an article about them on Wikipedia is rather beside the point. Notability is not removable. We should not be bending to the will of people who wish not to have articles about them on Wikipedia. The consensus was to delete, but the consensus should not weight based on the subject's wants. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

While notability is not removable, it is very often arguable whether they are actually notable. In the cases where notability is borderline, the wishes of the subject should certainly be weighed - since these are the articles least likely to be maintained, therefore most likely to include under the radar BLP violations, and most likely to be of non-public persons. – Toon^(talk) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - but I agree with you both) Completely agreed, and perhaps I mis-worded my subject here. The reason I put that in my subject is because usually we are used to seeing people who want the article about themselves saved, not deleted. I can't speak for him, but I think this was more a case of the subject of the article endorsing its deletion and reminding us to get it done per consensus because it appears he agreed with the problems that existed in the original article (which some speculate may have been autobio). I agree we don't need his endorsement or permission and should make decisions based on consensus, and in this case I don't htink we were bending to his will, but perhaps accepting his reminder.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish to express my agreement with Toon and my disagreement with Hammersoft, both in the strongest terms. Toon, please let me know when you require my support in editing the relevant policy page(s). --Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

An FYI for transparency

I undid the non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet as the closing user also !voted in the discussion and it's my understanding that if you !voted, you can't close such discussions in which you did so. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert me. Also, if an un-involved admin feels it should still be closed, please do. The nom has withdrawn his nom, but as I understand it as well, once there are delete !votes, (Or is it participation by the community in general?) a deletion should run its course. Either way, I'm making notice of it here and why I did what I did. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, since others have !voted to delete and the nom withdraws, essentially the delete !votes can now be considered as noms, per Wikipedia:Speedy keep item #1. However, the essay that was nominated is no longer the essay that is being discussed, the whole MfD seems out of process and should be closed and re-nominated in a few days, IMO, if anyone so chooses to do so. --64.85.215.85 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

undoing incorrect edits of Oyster Bay material by a non-logged in user

A non-logged in user has deleted big passages (most of the material) in about twenty Oyster Bay, New York, related articles, with an edit summary "Removal of information which violates wikipedia policy". The edits are currently visible here at contributions of 220.1.48.46. The non-logged in user misunderstands the copyright status of material there and deleted material which in fact is covered by an OTRS copyright release. The user believes, incorrectly that a wikipedia article is being used as a source, which is not the case. I noted at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Park that, while source attribution could be improved, there is no copyright violation. There are duplicative passages in a larger Oyster Bay article, but the articles where the non-logged user removed material do not rely upon that article, rather they rely on an audio tape which is like a book, not available on-line, but valid as a source. There is definitely no copyvio present.

Could an administrator using "rollback" or some other tool undo all of them please? I don't have the tools to do this easily. I did undo the one for Wilson House (Oyster Bay, New York) already.

Also, I don't know if administrators would recognize this IP address or type of editing as part of any larger pattern. It looks to me like the person is wikipedia-experienced but, by not logging in, is avoiding accountability. It seems disruptive to do a lot of big edits of this nature, not logged in. Perhaps the IP address should be blocked or the user warned or something? doncram (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you need to re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The editor without an account is wrong about the copyright issue. The content came from the source. The source didn't copy Wikipedia, as looking at the past revisions of the relevant articles clearly indicates. But xe is not acting in bad faith.

  We don't require people to log-in to make edits (This is a Foundation issue.), and we don't make the assumption that you appear to be making that someone who is not logged in is automatically acting in bad faith. Only 23 articles appear to have been edited, which is far from an overwhelming amount, and the talk page comments accompanying each edit (example) raise valid questions of the reliability of these sources, which don't indicate what historical research they are based upon, or who their author is (and thus what the author's credentials and expertise are).

  The edits are clearly good faith ones, with detailed talk page rationales accompanying each one. Your intended method of addressing them, with blanket reversions, blocking, and no attempt at all to address the reliability concerns raised, is not a good response. Assume good faith, and address good faith concerns properly. The editor without an account, from xyr talk page rationales, wants to ensure that Wikipedia's account of history is accurate, and is based upon proper historical research. That your reaction is to think that such a person should be prevented from editing is not a good sign. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I was just returning here to give the update that i have undone all the IP editor's edits manually, and responded with an identical response for each of the IP editor's identical talk page explanations/accusations. (I don't think that is a good rationale, especially as it is uniformly incorrect.) And that the editor seems to have stopped. Yes, I agree now that the editor appears to have been acting in good faith and that perhaps I should have recognized that. But, I was mainly asking for help in undoing the person's edits which were indeed all incorrect, and would cause more work to undo later if not addressed promptly. It looks like there were further, unrelated, non-bot edits made only in one article, the Oyster Bay High School one, before I got around to undoing all the incorrect edits. Also, FYI i and a group of other editors are indeed investing a lot of effort in addressing this set of articles, with discussion centered at Talk:Oyster Bay History Walk.

I think this is done. Thanks. doncram (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. You seem to have done exactly what Uncle G said was not a good response: namely reverted everything and assume the other user is incorrect. I've made a suggestion to the IP address as to a more neutral forum than your talk page. Frankly, I think a completely dismissal of a serious potential copyright concern (you seem to dismiss the possibility at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Park, which I assume is repeated, that the audio tour is citing Wikipedia which isn't a copyright concern but a serious reliability concern). Hoonestly, I don't know how an audio tour qualifies as a reliable source anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

70.105.246.237

70.105.246.237 actively editing. Some of the edits have been uncivil but after requests not to do so, it has stopped. However more recently 70.105.246.237 has stated on a talk page "But I swore to never put my heart into this project ever again after having undergone that very process in the past and seen all my efforts dashed by admins -- who iced the cake by blocking me for complaining about their abuse."[55].

How are such incidents usually dealt with, and as I have already chastised the IP addr] for their uncivil behaviour, I would appreciate it if another editor would take a look. -- PBS (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't the appropriate response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

70.105.246.237 does not mean that this IP address has been blocked they mean that their user account was blocked. So this is a user who is stating that they have been blocked but in making the statement are using an IP address to circumvent the block. --PBS (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This IP needs more eyes on it. It's been rude, abrasive, has an obvious POV in all of its edits, and appears to admit to being a blocked user. I'm tempted to block it for a while if it keeps up the attacks. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's not getting better, so onto someone else to lecture them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked them for 31 hours, denied ability to edit talkpage, and replaced content with a block template noting my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon's signature

Resolved

 – Signature tweaked to comply with WP:SIG. –xeno^talk 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon (talk) has declined a number of talkpage requests to do something about his ludicrous signature. If you look at the wikitext of the sig, it's even worse (though he insists it has no linebreaks in it at all). Can someone stress to him the importance of this? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite the liberal interpretation of IAR... I don't see how not having a fancy sig prevents one from improving the enyclopedia. I've wrapped the hidden text in noinclude tags [56], it violates WP:SIG. –xeno^talk 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

<span style="color:#333; font-face:Trebuchet MS; font-weight:bold; font-size:12px; border:5px solid #FAECC8;background-color:#FAF6ED; padding: 5px 15px; letter-spacing: 1px;"><b><sub>[[User:KoshVorlon|Naluboutes, Nalubotes]]</sub></b><i>[[User:KoshVorlon|<b><sup> Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris</sup></b><i></span>]] 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC) ← Yeah, that's a bit much. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only in terms of the wikitext, but also how it displays on the page, it's huge and distracting. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not true. My signature was larger and bolder, after receiving two request to change it (at the same time) from "Weburryoursecretsinthegaren" and "Treasury Tag", I did just that. TreasuryTag continued to state there was a line break in my signature. I have explained to him that what he's seeing is the text that is subscripted in the first half of my signature, then superscripted in the second half. Yes, it looks like I'm using "br /". However, I'm not. I attempted to clarify with him that we were using the same terminology (page break = "br /", "br"). He did not and still has not responded to that at all and continued to state that it has a line break in it and now that's it too long. I have remained civil with him and attempted to explain again, that there is no line break ( "br /", "br") in my signature and that the printed portion of my signature is the same as it was before, (letter wise). I have asked him to refrain from posting further communications on my talk page, as I now consider his conducting, hounding-like. He disregarded this and has continued to harp on my signature. _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're using a 5px border every time you sign. Change your signature. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that your signature is overly large and thereby disruptive. Its purpose is to quickly identify you in discussions, not to perform signature art. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NB:- I'm using Firefox, and this might make a difference. I can provide a screenshot if necessary. Though of course, sigs should be designed to look fine on all browsers, so – yeah, change the sig, sounds good. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Notice how your sig obscured what you have written? With this edit, your sig is within the guidelines. –xeno^talk 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  I've just removed the hidden text, which seems to no longer apply, now that the character-limit is met. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  And he's just re-inserted it, because I was "hounding" him. There we go :P ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good lord, Kosh; your signature is so big that it's obscuring some of what you have written. I consider myself good at making signatures for other editors; I'll suggest a few for you:

1. KoshVorlon ^{(Wanna chat?)}
2. _koshvorlon talk ^edits
3. KoshVorlon ^{Shout it out loud}
4. KV ^{feeling lucky, are we?}
5. KoshVorlon _{(T · C · L)}

What do you think? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 17:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dylan, I like your signatures! Yes, I realize part of my signature obscured my text. That was more or less to prove to Treasury Tag that there's really no line breaks in my sig. If there were, it would have move the sig down a line. And TreasuryTag, you ARE hounding me.
_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Click for full-size version.

(groan) It did have linebreaks in in the wikitext. The bits labelled (LINEBREAK), in red print, in the picture to the right are the linebreaks. You can tell this because of the fact that the text stops, despite there being more space, and continues on the next line. If you want to delude yourself that I'm hounding you, by all means do so. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Treasury, thank you for bringing this here, it may be best if you disengaged. –xeno^talk 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your padding at 2px. 5px is still obscuring text, as you can see, it obscured the tail on the g in TreasuryTag, making it appear as if his name was TreasuryTaq. –xeno^talk 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The signature is so large it obscures part of what the user has posted (I'm using Firefox). I'll admit to being biased against fancy signatures of any kind, but this is a particularly obtrusive example. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• KoshVorlon indicated to me at my talk page s/he's amenable to the tweaks, so marking resolved. –xeno^talk 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• On Firefox the border does overlap the last line of the preceeding text, blocking it from easy legibility. The main issue I have is that all the lyrics I've seen show it as Nalyubuites', nalyubuites', Aeria Gloris, Aeria Gloris :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral admin needed

I'm fairly sure of how to deal with this, but I've been heavily involved in editing the article Battle of the Plains of Abraham so don't want to appear to be WP:OWNing it here.

A while back, an editor appeared on the talk page and expressed concern with what he/she felt was a British-centric viewpoint of the battle (often considered the turning point in the Seven Years' War between Britain and France and the last obstacle to Britain controlling the Canadian territory). Plains2007 (talk · contribs) brought some useful references to the article, which was great, but also expressed a fairly strong sovereigntist and anti-British tone to the situation. A look at his/her contributions will indicate the issue with this editor - some good contributions, but couched in some POV issues (this edit illustrates that}. The editor has dropped in sporadically, occasionally assisting in improving the article and others, but in recent days has been attempting to insert this poorly-written section regarding one of the unit commanders in the battle and pointing out this commander's later failures against the American Revolution. Useful information, perhaps, in the person's own article, but not in the context of this battle, as several editors have pointed out in reverting the changes. I tried to engage both on the article talk page and the user's talk page, to little effect; he/she was blocked for 3RR violation. Now, however, Remover2009 (talk · contribs) has popped up and made the same edit. It's a blatant sock.

Could an uninvolved admin please kindly take some time to explain to Plains2007 what they're doing wrong, and encourage them to consider POV and 3RR et al? They do make some reasonable edits, and their information has benefited the article in question, but their POV is showing pretty strongly. Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I first left a comment with the original blocking admin in case he feels like adding to that. I didn't go into 3RR or the like at User_talk:Plains2007#User:Remover2009 but simply asked him if he really thought his addition makes sense. Yes, it's interesting that the British guy leading the battle in 1759 becomes the general in the American Revolution 15 years later and eventually leads to Yorktown, but that's not relevant before the battle details if at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious new users

I happened to be looking at the new user creation log, and in a few minutes the following new user accounts were created:

• User:RP Singapore
• User:NP Singapore
• User:NYP Singapore
• User:ITE Singapore
• User:SP Singapore
• User:TP Singapore

They keep coming... Suggestions? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(non admin response) I would suggest a checkuser to make sure there aren't any other accounts out there by this obvious same user and then watch them to see if they cause a problem. Cause right now, the only thing they are guilty of is having "Singapore" in all their names. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the acronyms:

• RP Singapore == Republic Polytechnic
• NP Singapore == Ngee Ann Polytechnic
• NYP Singapore == Nanyang Polytechnic
• ITE Singapore == Institute of Technical Education
• SP Singapore == Singapore Polytechnic
• TP Singapore == Temasek Polytechnic

Block them on the suspicion of being role accounts. MER-C 08:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. They probably would have kept going but they were stopped at 6 account creations in 24 hours. Suspect if they aren't blocked they'll be 6 more tomorrow (or after they find a new IP).    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   08:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a single IP, with no prior contributions/users that I can see. -- Luk ^talk 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've left them all a warning that role accounts aren't allowed and they are liable to be blocked if used as such. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Docu

Resolved

 – xFD is not a vote-counting endeavour. That being said, WP:DRV is the proper venue to review decisions by closing admins. If, on the other hand, the complaint is that there is a pattern of behaviour that the reporting user is concerned about to which the admin has not adequately responded, WP:RFC/U would probably be a better venue than AN, to solicit a wider range of outside opinion and suggestions as to how to proceed. However, this does not appear to be the case. –xeno^talk 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note > section retitled by myself as a compromise between this edit and this edit. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note₂ > LibStar revert-warring over section title. I'm leaving it alone, s/he can do as s/he wishes. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, you should leave it alone. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to complain about some of the recent AfD closures this administrator has made on discussions involving bilateral relations. First, Docu is clearly biased in favour of keeping such articles. See for instance here, where, after I voted in very reasoned fashion, he dismissed my comment as irrelevant, implying I only participate in this sort of discussion, which was obviously false (I pointed out I'd recently written 4 articles). Second, let's review some of the closes he's made. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Finland relations: 6 delete, 4 keep, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations: 10 keep, 7 delete, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Slovakia relations: 6 keep, 4 delete, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Malaysia relations: 8 keep, 6 delete, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations: 7 delete, 5 keep, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–Croatia relations: 4 keep, 4 delete, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations: 5 delete, 1 keep, closed as keep, plus direct involvement by Docu here.

Most of these should at least have closed as no consensus if not delete, especially considering that many of the participants were essentially canvassed through the Article Rescue Squadron and brought little to the discussion. Moreover, the arguments for deletion were often quite compelling. Regardless, it seems apparent Docu's impartiality in this area cannot be trusted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than the last one, all of these were within normal discretionary ranges - AGF, perhaps the last one was an error. I suggest you take that one up with Docu directly and if needed send it to deletion review. The other could have been closed as no census, but it would have the same effect. I also suggest you drop your claims of canvassing unless you have some actual evidence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you may want to consider your own bias before accusing others of bias. You have !voted delete on dozens (hundreds?) of these things, so I hardly think you are justified to judge strength of argument/consensus without any bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I know the practical effect of "no consensus" is the same, but still, most of these should have closed as such, as long as we're to have that option. Also, I did not say outright that anyone was canvassed, only that ARS had the effect of canvassing them, which is hardly an allegation I alone have made. Finally, aside from the fact that I've also voted to keep a few of these, your last point is a straw man: I've never closed a single one of these debates, while Docu has. And given both his bias and his participation on the "keep" side of debates he hasn't closed, a recusal may be in order. And yes, I certainly am qualified to judge whether a consensus has developed, both by looking at the arguments (far more cogent on the "delete" side) and simply the raw numbers.

Let's not shift the debate here. The point is that Docu strongly favours keeping this set of articles, and his closes as "keep" where that was evidently not the consensus of participants raises serious questions abut impartiality. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you miss the point here. It is highly improbable that you (or anyone else) can accurately weigh the strength of arguments when they already have a strong opinion themselves. Of course, you believe the delete argument is superior or else you wouldn't have !voted delete in the first place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit I'm not impartial here. That's not the idea of the thread. The idea is for those who are impartial to look at the facts and either concur that there is an issue of bias with Docu making these closes, or not. And I think most of the discussions I pointed out support the notion that "keep" was selected as the verdict where it should have been "no consensus", or "no consensus" where "delete" was more appropriate. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You are in the wrong forum. If you think these discussions were closed in error, please use WP:DRV. I'd just like to note that administrators are not to my knowledge prohibited from closing deletion discussions about articles in the same subject area as other articles on whose merits they have expressed an opinion about in other deletion discussions. They're just required to close such discussions, like any others, in accordance with consensus and policy. "Having an opinion" and "being biased" do not mean the same thing.  Sandstein  21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying outright that Docu shouldn't close these debates simply because he's participated. I am saying that the manner in which he's closed them, as well as the rather strong opinions he's expressed where discussing them, raise questions about his ability to judge impartially. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Random Section Break [Docu]

I think its highly unlikely any action will be taken against Docu because of this thread, as there is nothing actionable here. If you really think there is a consistent problem with his closures I would suggest taking it up with him directly and going to WP:RfC if that fails. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

However, I will add that it might be wise for Docu to voluntarily agree to stop closing these debates, though, as his impartiality can be legitimately questioned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul, the elements you summarized and voiced as "who cares" in the first AfD you mention, I haven't seen you acting on the perceived problem since, while other participants did contribute since. I even had one of my contributions removed due to lack of referencing. It was an AfD that was closed with "keep". Obviously, you are free to open or participate in the DRV for that closing or any other.

Personally, I think it's an odd assumption that there would be another issue than to keep an article, if there is no consensus for deletion ("If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." [emphasis added by myself]). It shouldn't be forgotten that each article was written by one or several Wikipedians who did take the time to research and write it. Besides, if one looks closer into the various AfD debates, one notices that some participants didn't just stop by to tag every article and debate with their "vote", but added pertinent explanations in relation to the specific article. Others didn't label their contribution with a recommendation for "keep" or "delete", but commented, refuting or advancing arguments, or even suggesting alternate solutions, clearly indicating that they care. Any summary that points out a mere count of votes ignores the core idea of the process. In general, I think it would frequently be more useful to {{prod}} articles than to walk them through an AfD. As I haven't set up the tools for this type of clean-up, I usually don't delete them (I'm a bit too busy with WP:CHECKWIKI). Naturally, when using the {{prod}} tag, this would require one to read and understand the process behind. One couldn't just insist on adding it to any article and dogde questions to why it was added by quoting its label. -- [[User:Docu]] [[07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)]] This is the first time ver I've seen Docu sign with a date and time stamp. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite requests recently by several editors on his talk page, Docu apparently still does not sign his posts with four tildes. Docu deleted that discussion from his/her talk page, which is an editor's right, but archiving of discussions is recommended. Edison (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1) I encourage Docu to better sign his posts as Edison mentions above, but 2) most of those AfDs could easily have been justified as strength or argument keeps, because after all they are not votes. With that said, "no consensus" closures would also be reasonable, and in the case of the one under DRV, a much more fair read of the discussion. Nevertheless, those border ones with equal or more keeps that basically refute and therefore counter the deletes reflect either a "keep", because they refuted the deletes or a "no consensus" because they cancelled out the deletes, but clearly not deletes. I suppose given the way the DRV looks, that that one may be a bit questionable, but these others are really not that out of line with admin discretion and I have been in enough AfDs to see majority keep ones closed as delete somehow and upheld, so, in any event, we should give him the benefit of the doubt per WP:AGF, while encouraging more in the way of providing links to the talk page in signature. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment As someone who nominated many of these AfDs, I noted that Docu closed many as keep when it was clearly no consensus. the Estonia-Luxembourg was one of the worst decisions I've seen from a closing admin. see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20. the issue is not deletion review here, the issue is the behaviour of Docu exercising admin functions. lastly, Docu has been repeatedly advised to sign with date and time stamp which he/she consistently refuses and also identify themselves as an admin which he/she consistently refuses. and vague responses like this when asked to identify themselves as an admin. [57]. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • LibStar, is there a particular reason why you nominate AfDs, but don't withdraw or revise your nominations? This could really save us time. Obviously, you don't have to do this, but you seem to follow the argumentation of other participants, commment on them, and even approach them on their talk pages. Instead of bringing your points to DRV, you seem to insist on posting them to ANI or user's talk pages. -- User:Docu 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

this is another example of poor judgement of Docu as an admin, trying to rename this ANI thread [58] to deflect attention from themselves. the thread is not resolved and the issue is Biruitorul's complaint of Docu's behaviour as an admin. If you wish to bring an ANI thread against me, set up a new thread. Docu, why is it after repeated requests you have not added a time and date stamp until this ANI thread? secondly, why haven't you identified yourself as an admin on your user page, this has caused confusion and other admins have alerted to you this. all admins I've encountered identify themselves as admins on their user page and always date and time stamp their comments. admins should lead by example in the Wikipedia project. LibStar (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there a reason that I'm missing as to why Docu doesn't have a a link to his userspace in his signature? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please also note my concerns over LibStar's civility regarding this issue, here (and subsequently deleted). ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with the complaint of Docu's behaviour, the above is evidence that TreasuryTag is taking sides. Comment on Docu's behaviour not mine. this is the purpose of this ANI. I've never seen anyone try to rename ANI threads to deflect attention from the user in question. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides, I am simply stating that I think you are an extremely rude user. I have provided quotes and examples to demonstrate this. I only renamed the ANI thread because Docu had done it one way, then you the other, so I went for a compromise. I'm sorry if my taking a neutral middle-line offended you. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

even if I am a rude user as you accuse me, how is this relevant to this ANI about Docu's behaviour as an admin? start a separate ANI if you wish. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my listing of your civility problems here, please start a thread yourself, or open an RfC or something. I think that my concerns are perfectly legitimate, and perfectly legitimately listed above. I invite anyone to scrutinise my actions to confirm that I am neutral, and not "taking sides" beyond quoting examples of incivility by one of the parties to this dispute. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

how is this relevant to this ANI about Docu's behaviour as an admin? LibStar (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

it should be noted that Docu is only time and date stamping his/her signature on this ANI thread (after it was raised as an issue of concern) but at the very same time in other forums they are still not using a date and time stamp such as [59] and [60]. This is of concern. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this ANI about Docu's behaviour as an admin? ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Edison raised this first on an ANI. as an admin, they lead by example the Wikipedia project, it is difficult to track one's editing on talk pages without date and time stamp, as I've stated before I've never ever seen this from any editor. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up before (see ANI archives) and referred to WP:RFC/U if someone felt it necessary. Docu has been signing this way for 6 years now and old habits die hard. Personally, I wish he would sign regularly, as ideally all users should comply with the WP:SIG guideline (and userpage links are convenient and timestamps are helpful to keep track of conversations). However, I realize that in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter all that much. –xeno^talk 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the noticboard archive, if anyone's interested. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LibStar

Resolved

 – Nothing immediately actionable, other venues may be engaged if there is a pattern of behaviour here that warrants attention and discussion with the user does not resolve concerns. –xeno^talk 14:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LibStar (talk · contribs) — Let me add a separate section header and re-add my question:

LibStar, is there a particular reason why you nominate AfDs, but don't withdraw or revise your nominations? This could really save us time. Obviously, you don't have to do this, but you seem to follow the argumentation of other participants, commment on them, and even approach them on their talk pages. Instead of bringing your points to DRV, you seem to insist on posting them to ANI or user's talk pages.

This to avoid any confusion. -- User:Docu 11:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

the above is not appropriate for an ANI. I request that this matter be closed as an inappropriate use of ANI and discussed elsewhere. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's appropriate.

You are subject to the same scrutiny you vociferously insist that Docu be held to. Please also note my concerns over LibStar's civility regarding this issue, here (and subsequently deleted, naturally). ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The above relates to TreasuryTag's changing of ANI thread title without consultation with the user who started the Docu ANI. I should note that on the same token TreasuryTag deleted message left on his/her page. Does Docu's concern require Admin intervention? that is the purpose of ANI. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Docu's concern might not (stress might, as it could potentially—don't know for sure, haven't looked—indicate a pattern of disruptive deletion-related behaviour). My concern, relating to your complete non-adherence to the civility policy, may well. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to push this civility angle, please read top of page "If you are here to report a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility or personal attacks, please instead raise them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts." LibStar (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to "push" anything, I wish to air a legitimate concern about your mode of editing. My concern seems congruous with various other editors' disparate concerns about your mode of editing. Since numerous policies, civility, deletion and disruption, to name just a few, are involved, I think that this is the right place.

I'm not going to continue bickering with you, however, I'll let the community examine the issues that Docu and I have brought forward. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

you say "My concern seems congruous with various other editors'" who are these other editors? and I stress plural...besides Docu, who else? LibStar (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They are: Lankiveil (talk · contribs) and Drmies (talk · contribs) here, MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) here, Bwilkins (talk · contribs) here and Sandstein (talk · contribs) here. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

you should acknowledge that there are separate avenues for reporting civility issues. you say you are neutral yet a phrase like "that Docu and I have brought forward" sounds like a team. and since you want everyone to see, other users should note your sudden interest in AfDs I've nominated immediately after you started communicating with me and posting on my talk page when I requested you to stop TreasuryTag (talk · contribs). I would say this matter between us would not have happened if you left the name of the ANI as is. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement from TT (not directed at LibStar at all): I renamed the ANI thread in a compromise between the version of the title that two users, Docu and LibStar were edit-warring over. While I understand that that was obviously a highly partisan, disruptive and bad-faith move on my part </sarcasm> it wasn't intended to offend anyone.

My participation in three AfDs that the LibStar recently launched was due to me checking out his/her contribs (as I usually do after mentally labelling an editor as a "problem user"). In two of those AfDs, I provided substantiated arguments for the article to be kept, and in one, I agreed with LibStar that the page would be deleted. This doesn't seem like any form of stalking to me.

I object to LibStar's persistent allegations of bad faith on my part. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your ongoing participation in bilateral AfDs. I do wish you realise how others might interpret your renaming an ANI as not in the spirit (I wouldn't say "bad faith"). That was my main issue. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I do wish you would realise that if I see, in my watchlist, Docu renaming User:Docu to User:LibStar, and LibStar renaming it User:Docu, the logical thing to do seems to be a compromise and include both of them. It wasn't "disrespectful" – it was just the obvious way to resolve the dispute. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Aradic-es

After warning User:Aradic-es on his talk page, he continues to support his Croat pov by reinserting symbols and names deemed unconstitutional. The symbols in Canton 10 and West Herzegovina Canton were deemed unconstitutional as they only represented one group. Despite this Aradic continues to push his pov even going as far as inserting "Herceg-Bosanska Županija", a name found unconstitutional. PRODUCER (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute. If the user is edit warring, please report him at WP:3RN. Administrators do not settle content disputes, and I do not know of any Wikipedia constitution. Could you be more specific about the nature of the dispute, state what policies or guidelines you believe this user is violating, and post DIFFs to demonstrate these violations? If the user is not violating Wikipedia rules, then please consider following the normal dispute resolution routes (WP:DR). Admins do not settle content disputes. Community consensus is what drives those.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I investigated this further and saw a history of edit warring on these two articles. Accordingly, I have locked the articles for one week. During this time, please attempt to resolve your dispute. If you come to an agreement between the parties, you can request for unprotection. I've also warned 3 users of 3RR: User:PRODUCER, User:Aradic-es, and User:Journalist 007. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I have notified Aradic-es about this thread. In the future, if you bring a complaint about someone to a noticeboard, please inform them of it. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew!

I just wanted to mention that issue with these articles is that users Journalist 007 and PRODUCER keep removing the flag and alternative name for Canton 10 (“herceg-bosanska županija”). Thes flag of the county is used by local government and there is no any “alternative” or “official” (imposed from the federal level) –so I believe there should be the flag and coat of arms. The dispute about flag and name should be mentioned in the articles-I do agree. But simple removing-I do not think it is nice. And POV-pushing. Like it or not these names are present and used-as well as the flag!

Regards!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

The remedies (1 and 2) ordered by this Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate are suspended for a period of 90 days. During this period, the editors who were previously restricted by these remedies may edit without topic restriction. However, they are instructed to comply with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their editing, particularly those discussed in the original arbitration decision. Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account.

During the 90-day trial period, should any of the previously restricted editors engage in edit-warring, POV editing, or other misconduct on the articles in question, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban against that editor or impose another appropriate sanction. Unless the misconduct is blatant, a warning to the editor should first be given.

As the end of the 90-day period approaches, a request for permanent termination or modification of the remedies may be submitted for consideration by this Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 18:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Pseudo edit war on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, moved here from ANI

Resolved

 – Delta T. indef-blocked by LessHeard vanU Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• DeltaT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lebob-BE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:DeltaT is apparently waging a pseudo-edit war(no one has broken 3rr, one warning was issued), several editors is engaging him in a heated dispute over his edits. Primary opponents are User:Lebob-BE and User:Will Beback, the dispute is apparently over the correctness of sources and plagiarism and verfiability. In my opinion as a "innocent bystander", this is growing out of control with at least DeltaT saying:

I'm adding to the article what seems appropriate according to encyclopaedic standards. Please do not delete my edits again.

I view that last sentence quite alarming. Gsmgm (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you notify the relevant parties of this thread, please. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done twice Gsmgm (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like DeltaT has been edit warring against consensus. Multiple editors have been reverting their changes:

• Lebob-BE
• Will Beback
• Pekayer11
• J.delanoy

In addition, DeltaT has recently vandalized Antisemitism [61] and on at least one occasion has used a deceptive edit summary.[62] They've also made arguments that "pro-Jewish" sources shouldn't be used.[63][64] That seems to be a very bad argument. Sources can have a point of view; they just need to be reliable. I especially am concerned that DeltaT equates Jews to neo-Nazis. To me this looks like a case of disruptive editing. Before taking action, I'd like to hear what DeltaT has to say. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia promotes voluntary contributions - maybe some administrators have forgotten that principle. My [contributions] have been consequently removed (editing by me in those contributions has been done to some words only[[65]]).

In the meantime, NPOV template has been removed, while there is an unresolved neutrality issue. The NPOV concerns this: there is no proof, only opinion, about the plagiarism between [Dialogues in Hell] and the [Protocols]. DeltaT (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As I noted when removing the template, this does not appear to be a content dispute. It looks like you are edit warring and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, in addition to soapboxing. If you will not agree to stop, then technical means will be used to prevent further disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that DeltaT behaves as a typical POV pusher who wants his point of view reflected at all costs in a wikipedia article no matter whether this POV is justified or not. In that view, his two first (not motivated) changes of this (featured) article made on 22 May clearly show (see this and this) that he removed sourced material and that he dos not want this document be acknowledged as a forgery and a hoax. Whatever his motivations, substantial changes with no reason at all like these could almost be regarded as vandalism. since these initial changes he has been repeatedly trying to push his POV in this article despite the opposition of several contributors (I am only the last one in the chain). As he has also constantly put forward that there is no proof that the protical are a forgery and a plagiat, I have put a short note in the talk page explaining that the forgery has been demontrated since 1939 by a French author, Henri Rollin, in his book "L'Apocalypse de notre temps, written and published in 1939 when the protocols were the master piece of the nazi antisemit propaganda. This book has since then be republished a couple of times and is still available. The only answer I got to my statement is this one, which only shows, at best, that DeltaT has little knowledge about the debate and the scholarship work regarding the protocols. At least twenty pages (and probably more) pages of Rollin's 600 pages book are devoted to a thorough comparison between the protocols and Joly's plagiat and clearly show the evidence of the plagiat. If this is not a proof, nothing will be. The article only shows of few examples of this comparison (taken more would have raised copyright issues). In conclusion I this that DeltaT's only objective on this article is to push his POV. I let to the administrators the care of deciding what must be made in that respect. --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Delta T.: Here's a principle you maybe aren't aware of: If you don't want to see your work edited mercilessly, don't edit Wikipedia. You aren't granted the right here to have your edits remain against consensus. You are forcing through changes that several editors disagree with, and you've yet to convince anyone different. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AE, nice quoting of "Please note" guideline #1. True. DeltaT, just get with the program or get the hell out of Wikipedia. Your actions are not helping your cause in any way. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Jehochman: I am extremely concerned by the diffs you've presented. I think they indicate an immediate apology and promise from DeltaT to cut it out, or failing that a block, is necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't seem to be backing down. Here's the latest disruptive edit: [66]. Block, yes, but for how long? Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing anything from publications from Liberty Bell Publications as if they are a neutral publisher is probably Not A Good Thing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For avoidance of doubt, who did that, and where is the diff? Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[67]. Hipocrite (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, that edit is problematic in the extreme. What are we going to do about this? Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And this by the user who objects to other sources as being unreliable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the same change to the article being put back repeatedly. Editors who make controversial changes are expected to make a good-faith effort to persuade others and respect consensus. Although DeltaT has commented here, I see no effort at persuasion. I suggest a 48-hour block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That would provide a break from disruption, and if they were to resume upon returning, a longer block could be employed next time. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Per Due weight; the preponderance of academic thought and literature is agreed that the "Protocols" are an anti-semitic forgery, and therefore if follows that the article upon the subject should, neutrally and in accordance to the available sources, reflect that. Delta.T, and any like minded account, needs to understand that and edit to that consensus, or otherwise endeavour to change all the very many reliable sources that declare the tract a pile of Jew blaming nonsense. This would of course entail a long break from Wikipedia, and I for one am happy to encourage them on that undertaking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A 48 hour block is too kind in my opinion, but it's a place to start. I suppose someone might want to warn DeltaT before the block is put in place? I'm a bit skeptical that the block will help, though; DeltaT's perspective seems to be fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the project. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a 72hr block, to be very quickly and permanently reapplied if DeltaT just comes back and carries on. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Which particular 72 hours do you think should become permanent? --WebHamster 07:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion was that he is blocked for 72 hours. If, after they have lapsed and the block expires, he continues editing in the same vein that he has been, he is blocked indefinitely. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. They get a second chance, one second chance, after the block expires. Jehochman ^Talk 08:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin, someone else'll have to do it—I was just making the suggestion!) ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, after having read what stays above I would have expected DeltaT to be blocked by the administrators for a while. Now I realize that not only he is not but that he keeps editing the article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as can been seen here and there. This is even more surprising when one realises he has just the same behavior on other articles --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

He does seem to have a history of removing reliably sourced criticism from articles on fringe theory and taking said theory on face value. [68] is an older diff showing degrading of an article to favour the fringe material. --Peter cohen (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to the referral from the article discussion page[[69]]. Some contributors forget that there are five pillars [[70]] on which Wikipedia is built. There have been two infractions on those principles in the [Protocols article]:
1. My relevant [voluntary contributions] are censored, while they have been adherent to the neutrality and good referencing standards
2. [achieving consensus]: there is no reason whatsoever to even suggest a 'blockade'. I hope this unnecessary dispute can be solved in a civil manner.
In response to Peter cohen: I have a Master's degree in Philosophy, which taught me one thing: source reference well, or your content is unvalid. DeltaT (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please seek consensus on what you're doing and don't brag about whatever degrees you got. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never edited The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article and I not involved in that debate, but DeltaT is doing the same thing to the Bob Lazar article. He is removing sourced criticism from the LA Times, Newsweek, and even the government in order to leave a positive biography of a UFO conspiracy. This editor's actions is a troubling pattern of disruption. Just look at this edit. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be wide agreement regardig the problems with this user. I can't place a block because I've been involved in undoing the problem edits. But I support taking action to deal with this user who is pushing a POV in a disruptive manner.   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have left a final warning on his user talk. I will block on further disruption. Please update this section if he does something - I'm watchlisting articles but might miss something. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this outrageous remark? Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I'm not surprised at DeltaT's response to my references. As I'm editing, I can't block, but that sort of comment is definitely not wanted here. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My final warning left open a slim wiggle for him to do that on a talk page, the way I phrased it.

That was not on purpose. I have left a more clear, zero-tolerance warning. The next step across the line is a medium block, further abuse long ones.

My apologies for phrasing the first one in a way that didn't clearly cover talk page disruption. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked upon consideration of the diff provided by Jehochman. I admire Gwh's patient good faith, but my thought - as detailed with the block template at User talk:DeltaT - is that anyone who can seriously argue that "racial/ethnic/religious" considerations motivate a certain group of editors simply on a supposed cultural heritage really have no place in a project like Wikipedia. As ever, my action is open to review and reversion if deemed appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection. Once I engage I try consciously to AGF and give fair chance and warnings, but another uninvolved admin may always decide enough is enough. The last comment was right on the edge for me, for the reasons you listed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock declined and block endorsed.  Sandstein  21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorsed as well. seicer | talk | contribs 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unremorseful and now making legal threats in violation of WP:LEGAL-which would result in a block anyway. BBiiis08 (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jpuligan 12

Jpuligan 12 (talk · contribs) is already blocked for a week for repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into Pasig Christian Academy after repeated warnings. While blocked, he used 222.127.33.212 (talk · contribs) to repeat the misbehavior (I warned the IP account about block evasion), and then used Jpuligan 012 (talk · contribs) (which has since been permablocked}, to repeat the same behavior. The only acknowledgment that they have received these warnings is here. The original account is still blocked. I reported this to AIV, but a Helper Bot removed my report, since he's already currently blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Edited as IP 14:53, 25 May 2009
• Warned on IP talkpage about evasion 18:44, 25 May 2009
• Edited as Jpuligan_012 07:39 & 07:42, 26 May 2009
• Warned on puppeteer account 15:53, 26 May 2009
• Since he edited on a sock account after he was warned on the IP account, his block should be reset at minimum. Since he has been warned twice now, if he edits again before block expires, then block should be extended. --64.85.210.19 (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown's 3rd studio album: Graffiti

Why aren't you allowing the page to be made when the release is nearing so soon? Why couldn't you just have it become a page that gets more information as time passes? 122.107.33.133 (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

need some help please

Hi. how does one arrange to have an edit which I made completely deleted from the article edit history? it contains confidential data which I would like to delete completely. thanks.--207.10.186.108 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OVERSIGHT if it contains confidential information. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If oversight applies to your case, detailed instructions for requesting it can be found on this page. ThemFromSpace 14:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

perplexed

While scanning categories, I noticed this page. It's the first time I've seen an entire article copied onto a user page. Should it be deleted? APK lives in a very, very Mad World 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same as the original, he's probably going to make his changes there and then upload them. that being said, userpages should not be in categories, which I will remove. Mind you, I'm not an admin. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you did that. Silly me. Fair-use images would also be a problem, but there are none. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at MfD has been that this is an acceptable use of an established user's user page (not, generally, of other pages in one's userspace), notwithstanding WP:UP#Copies of other pages, a strict construction of which would tend to suggest that the use of a user page to archive a copy of an article indefinitely is disfavored; lest the GFDL should be violated, though, a user should, in an edit summary or in text on the page, note that it adopts content from XYZ article, with a link thereto. I imagine that we would extend that latitude, at least for a few more months, to a user who uses the page as a sandbox (from which he has migrated content to mainspace) but has made fewer than ten edits and has been inactive for more than a month. Joe 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Joker Returns 2

Section deleted. Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack on myself

Dear Administrators,

User:Interestedinfairness has made a personal attack on myself here, by saying "Seriously Cinema your a a discrase", and he furthermore told me to "So go away and go and concentrate on the Serbia page"... Now, I have made several attempts to explain how facts aren't the same as opinion (as you'll see on his talk page), and I just don't have any motivation to try to explain to him why POV pushing is simply not allowed (and I'm not the only one to do so, User:ThuranX did so as well), and now the personal attack... I don't know, can anybody do something about it so that this doesn't get repeated?

All the best,

--Cinéma C 18:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning on the user's page. Just do your best to stick to the high ground and talk about articles/sources, and you'll be OK. If the behavior continues, you can re-report the issue here. TNXMan 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cinéma C 19:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had attacked yourself. John Reaves 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. JPG-GR (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be self abuse. Edison (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GEOIP

I have disabled it from watchlist.js as toolserver is down. _→AzaToth 17:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

TS seems to be back up, can someone do the deed? -- Luk ^talk 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Q ^{T C} 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban imposed on TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) (see WP:RANDARB#TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on Ayn Rand and related articles for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

User:Freemee

Just a notice that I have indefblocked Freemee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for persistent creation of attack pages over the years. Well, only 1 page Taimak (edits in history)...but considering the warnings he/she's been given and the BLP concerns I think the project is better off without their contributions.

If someone else wants to try and give them a chance, feel free to unblock. Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre--one account to vandalize one article and nothing else, really, over the years? I'm half inclined to suspect this is a bizarre sock of some other account, simply because it's so odd for someone to keep a lone account for this kind of purpose. rootology/equality 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that bizarre. I can think of another reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

In remedy 1.1 ("Area of conflict") of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, "... the Palestine/Israel dispute ..." is replaced with "... the Arab-Israeli conflict ...".

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

AF

Just a note to any admins who haven't noticed this yet; there are quite a few brand new accounts doing subte vandalism with an edit summary linking to WP:Tags but using AF as the pipe. I'm not sure but this is likely a reference to the abuse filter. Anyway, these accounts usually pan out to be vandalism only, so just a heads up. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe, based on the WP:Tags page, that it is the abuse filter itself providing the edit summary. The vandal themselves are just doing 'DSJDSHDJSDUISYHUIHEUWHDHSDJCSD' or whatever as their edit and the abuse filter put in an edit summary of 'AF: repeating characters' with AF piping the Tags page. Could be wrong. Syrthiss (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is correct to my knowledge; maybe it would make sense to change the "AF:" to "Tag:"? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should be bold and just change that... it seems very confusing to use an abbreviation when it could be quite clear if only one letter longer. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:ABFIL#Tags look like edit summaries sometimes and feel free to change it to "Tag:" if you prefer. –xeno^talk 19:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'll going to be bold and make the change. I think that it will be much clearer. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is the filter tagging the edit, not a vandal providing a helpful edit summary describing how they vandlaised the page. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

:) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok. Sorry for the mixup. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No Nonsense

I may be mistaken, but don't Wikipedia naming conventions and the Wikipedia Manual of Style say to capitalize trademarks according to English spelling rules and not by the actual trademark? Because a user keeps changing the capitalization to what the trademark is, and that seems contradictory to MOS:TM... --Даниэла ★ 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the need for admin intervention? Have you tried steps of dispute resolution with that user? Regards SoWhy 18:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is best discussed on the article talk page. FWIW, No nonsense is consistent with both MOSTM and the company trademark. I am not sure why User:Daniela591 thinks that No Nonsense is preferable. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The brand's website indicates the capitalisation. I think it should be "No nonsense". I think the page name needs moving to to "No nonsense". Snowman (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The naming convention isn't to use the actual named spelling of an organization, group, or product? Really? rootology/equality 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you mentioned that. It did not say that it should be copied, I said that it indicates the capitalisation. Perhaps I should have added that MOS is also taken into consideration. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to be superseded by User Daniela591's request on the talk page for an administrator to move the page back to "No nonsense". Snowman (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec, re to Rootology) Really – see WP:TITLE#Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise. My opinions on this (IMO particularly idiotic) policy are fairly well known; see Talk:Victoria line (and the threads linked there) for more of the same. – iridescent 20:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's... boggling. rootology/equality 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really - it's pretty clear to me that we shouldn't use River LINE and MidTOWN DIRECT, despite New Jersey Transit doing the same. --NE2 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Page restore

• Autofellatio/FAQ was created by a user for the FAQ template at Talk:Autofellatio.
• Talk:Autofellation/FAQ was created by a user as a redirect to Talk:Autofellatio.
• Since the FAQ doesn't work with sub pages in main article space, Autofellatio/FAQ should have been created at Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ.
• I removed the redirect at Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ and replaced it with the content from Autofellatio/FAQ.
• I CSD-tagged Autofellatio/FAQ. I also left a note on there that the content was moved to Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ.
• Autofellatio/FAQ was deleted per the CSD but so was Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ.
• Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ should not have been deleted as it was in use in the FAQ template at Talk:Autofellatio.
• The FAQ template being displayed at Talk:Autofellatio is now empty and red-linked.
  • All of that said to ask: An admin, please restore Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ.
    • Thank you. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I laughed a lot. Out loud. that's a whole lot of autofellation. Plus, way too much interest in it. Does Wikipedia REALLY need a how-to for that? come on. Really? ThuranX (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

haha I couldn't figure out how to explain it in a paragraph so I went the "history of" route. The FAQ is a necessity because despite the fact that a couple years worth of discussions/Rfcs has yielded no change in the consensus in regards to the particular image in the article, people just can't seem to accept that and to this day want the image hidden/removed/moved. {{Round in circles}} indeed. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But the history is lost. As far as I can tell, the text was not created by Allstarecho but by Benjiboi. A history merge will need to be done. Fram (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Which page? When I click on history at Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ, I see it all. From when Benji created it as a redirect to when I copied over the content from Autofellatio/FAQ. Keep in mind, I didn't "move" Autofellatio/FAQ to Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ because non-admins can't move a page to a page that already exists. So I did a copy & paste move, then CSD-tagged Autofellatio/FAQ. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The history of the article FAq (not the talk FAQ), created by Benjiboi andedited mostly by the two of you. The current history does not indicate that the text added in edit 2 (after the redirect) was not created by you, or at least does not indicate who actually wrote it. I understand why you did a copy-paste move, but you shouldn't have done it and gone to requested moves instead. I'll try to correct the history now, don't be alarmed if some pages get redeleted and restored a few times in the next minutes :-) Fram (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done now. The history is quite complex now (I should perhaps not have restored a couple of the edits made on the main page after it was redirected), but all actual contributions to the text can now be traced back to the original editor, as required by the GFDL. Fram (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Title page

Resolved

The picture in the today's Featured Article on the Title page has a bad description ("Hunt in action in 2004" instead of "Paulinus of York"). It is locked, so I cannot corect it myself.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it's not already fixed, are you talking about the caption at Paulinus of York, its description at File:Paulinusofyork.jpg or something from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 29, 2009? Other than the caption, the article talk page and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article are available? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever created the Article of the Day template didn't overwrite the caption from yesterday. I've gone and fixed it up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

Cross-wiki templates

I'm curious.. is it possible to include content from sister sites via transclusion? I ask because I'd like to put the WikiNews weather and the WikiNews ticker on my user page here. Possible? Not possible? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's possible, but disabled. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, though, this is a perfect question for the help desk. :) hmwithτ 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

E-mail concerns

Already discussed. Section blanked per WP:DENY. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Protecting an article

I really apologise if this is not the right place to ask for this, but I would like to respectfully ask an administrator to protect the Matthias I of Hungary article. I keep adding neutral, foreign sources about his Romanian origin (that is, his father was the Romanian nobleman John Hunyadi), sources from Corvin's contemporaries, yet I see someone tries to push a Hungarian or even Cuman descent on his father's side. I believe the vast amount of sources which indicate his Romanian descent at least allow for this "theory" to remain in the article, since there are many more numerous, and more objective, sources claiming he is Romanian, than otherwise. Thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1) The origin of the family is disputed by scholars. Maybe he was romanian or hungarian or cuman or serb we are not sure."Gáspár Heltai in his chronicle makes Hunyady the illegitimate son of King Sigismund and a Wallachian peasant-girl. Others try to establish the purely Hungarian origin of the family; others again put in a plea for its Serb or Wallachian origin. In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin; János Hunyady himself, however, may be regarded as a Hungarian from his birthplace; probably he spoke the Wallachian language only during his youth, and no doubt was born in the Catholic faith, which his father Vajk (Voik, Vuk) probably had already professed" [71] It was/is also disputed on the talkapge:[72][73]2.) Please do not remove reliable references from the article:[74]

Who is this person who doesn't even sign his username ? We have his contemporary and collaborator Antonio Bonifinius stating his Romanian origin, we have the neutral observer Ransano, we have his rival Friedrich the III who used his Romanian origin against him... There are sufficient sources pointing to his Romanian origin - it should be in the article, if this really is an encyclopedic article. --Venatoreng (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonfinius? You mean the guy who wrote that the Hungarians are Huns and Matthias is the second Attila? Please read WP:PSTS. Also, this is not the place to discuss this.

Please see WP:RFPP. Nakon 23:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV, criticisms and controversies

Hi there friends. I've been trying to sort out why our Barack Obama coverage is being allowed to violate our WP:NPOV policy. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the policy it states that: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Yet significant and notable criticims, controversies and perspectives are being deleted from our Obama coverage. No I'm not talking about fringe craziness, although it should be included appropriately, I'm talking about the 44% of the United States, and the people on the political right and far left, who are having their views and media coverage of their issues excluded in violation of our policies (ie censored). I understand the decision was made to eliminate most criticism articles, but the content is not being integrated into any of the articles. So what then is the alternative? Help, suggestions, and ideas welcome. Thanks for remembering to assume good faith and for keeping the personal attacks to a minimum. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you give any examples of where you think policy is being violated?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by examples. Do you want examples of the content that's being excluded or examples of the objections to it? To generalize, every possible policy is brought out in objecting to any addition no matter the phrasing or the source. Saying it "may" belong in "some other" article is also a familiar meme. If you clarify I'm happy to respond with specifics, but I don't want to burden the discussion with details that you're not asking about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean diffs where properly cited, reliably sourced, NPOV information was censored or objected to or removed. I think it will be very hard for anyone here to stop the problem without knowing exactly where it is happening or who is doing it. In general I think everyone will agree that, per the policy you quoted, all significant views of his presidency should be expressed.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at [75] for example I would agree with you, that you added a properly cited comment. I'll let an admin reply, because I was just really looking for a clearer picture of what your concern was.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume ChildofMidnight doesn't know the answer. Here's the short version: Wikipedia policies (meaning policies or guidelines) that have no enforcement mechanism are something closer to aspirational essays than actual policies. Unlike WP:NPA and WP:BLP, which have enforcement mechanisms, after a fashion, there is no enforcement mechanism enforcing WP:NPOV if a group of editors successfully camps on a particular page or group of pages. WP:CANVASS, an asinine policy that goes way beyond what's needed to prevent over-spamming of user pages, actually discourages you from going out to find a larger group of editors to overrule the POV fanatics who camp out on particular pages. If you do get that larger number of editors to overturn the campers, the definition of "consensus" will be expanded by the campers to try to deny that you have such a consensus, and since there is no set definition of it, you'll have to argue about that. Along the way, the campers will snipe at you for any procedural problems with your proposed consensus, helped by the fact that Wikipedia has vague strictures on procedures for developing a consensus, so if someone is motivated to argue about something, they can usually argue it for a long, long time. As you're trying to do all this, expect to be sniped at, continually, by campers trying to get your goat so that if you snap back in a way that steps over a behavioral guideline, admins will slam you with a block as AN/I commenters attack you mercilessly. These are, in fact, the rules as they now stand, and they are pretty much iron rules. We really ought to have a set of written-out real rules to help editors through the actual challenges of this website. The way it is now, it's kind of like a Congressman trying to get a bill passed only by reading some "How a Bill Becomes a Law" pamphlet, rather than by realizing that a certain committee chairman needs to have his ego stroked or a certain lobby needs to be mollified -- except when trying to get NPOV there are no unwritten rules, either: unless it's the unwritten rule You Can't Get There From Here. Extreme cynicism on this is the wisest attitude.

Can it change? Glad you asked. It's next to impossible to get any policy change on this website. SlimVirgin has a proposal still under discussion: Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. That proposal isn't my preferred way of going about it, but you and I and anyone else frustrated by Wikipedia's enormous failure in this area should probably discuss the matter there or somewhere. Keep in mind that, like any proposal, you'd be fighting ignorance, stupidity, complacency, bad-faith bias and a number of other problems I'm probably forgetting about on your way to establishing consensus for some proposal that probably hasn't been created yet and which might or might not work. Personally, I prefer to edit List of mammals of Connecticut. -- Noroton (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet one must consideer how 'out of bounds' the situation in an article may really be. CoM, for example, wants to see more in the BO article focusing on both the Ayers/Acorn/Wright stuff, and on criticism of his policies and presidential actions. The former are covered in a proportion which finds consensus, and doesn't become a tarring and feathering, which most of those opposed to the current proportion want implemented, and as to the latter, there's an article for that already. On highly contentious topics, like Obama, Wikipedia suffers as much from POV warriors as it does from apathy. We get a set of editors as regulars at that page, and unfortunately, they spend a great deal of their time fending off POV pushers. Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person, they're people with a seriously adhered to set of beliefs. They aren't going to be interested in hearing our policies, and they aren't interested in 'neutrality', though they shout that word a lot. They're interested in smearing the topic. A few of those may learn some policy, and shout it out, hoping that like whack-a-mole, they'll hit an effective argument. Unfortunately, that presents a misrepresentation of 'consensus' and 'neutrality', because they've simpyl gone from POV Vandals to the 'Civil POV Pusher'. They still aren't serious, reasonable editors. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person Neither are the people camped out on the article. Both groups tend to be POV warriors. You can't solve the problem of POV editing by bashing one type of editor over another. (In fact, no one can actually "solve" it anyway, all we can do is ameliorate it.) One idea is to have some mechanisms where we attract a broader group of editors to an ongoing dispute, so that advocates of one POV or another will need to appeal to a group that is, overall, likely to be a bit more neutral. Another idea would be to conduct some ongoing disputes more like XfD discussions with set periods to discuss, and a third party to make an ultimate decision in a process where there are some well-understood procedures. These ideas would build on what we already do, so they innovate as little as possible and might, eventually, sometime, somehow, get consensus. Just a couple of thoughts. -- Noroton (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment is right over there; that would be the appropriate forum. Keegan^talk 07:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is NPOV a core policy or not? How can we make sure it is enforced? And as far as what particular criticisms and contrary perspectives are the most notable in regards to Obama, I am very flexible and interested in collaborating on phrasing and sources. But certainly there are notable issues and concerns that have been widely reported on and that are that are appropriate to include. Excluding this content violates a core policy and it needs to be addressed. I don't think RfC provides an answer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find answers about this at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and there is also a notice board for such questions here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which is pointed out at the first link right on top.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

some requirements and policies can be specified more exactly than others. NPOV is always going to be a matter of judgment. Nobody is actually neutral on any important controversial topic. Even when one edits intensively on something one does not care about in the least -- some dispute for example involving two groups neither of whom one has the least interest in., it is almost inevitable that one will become of the opinion that one side is more in the right than the other, or that one has more sympathy for one position than another. We can try to repress the grossest expression of our biases, but we cannot do so completely. Nobody can. Most of us realise that there are so topics we care too much about to work on in an objective manner, or at least, that the strain of trying to do so is excessive. A reporter will always have the tendency to turn into an advocate. Inevitably also, the mix of people here is not uniformly distributed among all possible viewpoints. No work can be done totally objectively. All encyclopedias, all histories, reflect the views of those who write them. all group works reflect the group. The older encyclopedias reflect the cultural views of the time. This one will inevitably reflect the general views of those people most interested in contributing to a work like this. Given the nature of the work, there are going to be several general tendencies: one is towards general political and social liberalism, the other is to a somewhat libertarian attitude, both left and right. given the possibilities here, there will also be people of very extreme positions on all sorts of issues. the hope is to find some sort of balance. The general run of people here are not zealots; the y will normally give a very wide tolerance to opposing positions. I'd say, in fact, that of all works of this sort, Wikipedia gives an extremely wider tolerance than anything else I can think of. The sort of people who who support Obama here are by and large not going to be extremists about it. They'll accept a good deal of material from the other positions. And remember, there are people here also who oppose him--from the left. They too will help keep the fans from running away with things. The practical attitude, expressed rather cynically but not inaccurately by Noronton, is that you will get a good deal of what you want if you do not ask for too much. DGG (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. I will try again in the next few days. But we've gone from having criticism articles to having criticisms "integrated" out of existence for Obama. I believe it is an issue of censorship and it goes to the heart of Wikipedia's integrity. Many editors find the criticisms objectionable. They simply don't want them included, just as many of our articles on overt sex acts are objectionable to many, but we aren't confronted with them because they aren't topics that most of us work on regularly. But the policies seem clear.

Are we to believe there are no perspectives or criticisms that should be included in a U.S. president's biography? Are the criticisms about his approach to economic policies, foreign policies, associations (yes those!), not worth a couple sentences? Clearly there are sources discussing these issues. Clearly they are mainstream opinions even if they aren't majority opinions. If NPOV is a real policy, I don't see how it's acceptable not to include perspectives that are critical of Obama. We certainly include perspectives that identify his popularity, speaking ability, charisma, awards and recognition etc. And if there are more notable criticisms or controversies then lets include those instead. I'm flexible. But let's not have such an important article on Wikipedia that contains only the narrowest of perspectives and that violates one of our three core policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You know you're dealing with POV pushers when they object to numerous criticisms, each of which has been made by significant, reliable sources, often many such sources that represent significant points of view on a subject. You know you're dealing with an area in which Wikipedia just doesn't work well when you bring up the problem and no one has a real answer for you. But you're not going to change a thing until you change your focus from your particular problem with the Obama article to the problem of POV in general. By focusing on Obama so much, you undercut your own case by making it appear that you're only interested in promoting your own POV, not promoting NPOV across many subjects. You seem to expect a greater level of intellectual and emotional maturity on the part of editors here than is justified by Wikipedia's history. Editors in general, and admins as admins, seldom respond to pleas to help other people with promoting their points of view when it's a POV the audience doesn't share, and a majority don't share the general outlook you and I do when it comes to Obama. Therefore, in their immaturity, they don't view the POV problem with that article as a particularly bad problem. They also view it as a knotty problem (because Wikipedia makes resolving POV issues incredibly hard to do when there's a determined group camping on the article, and everybody with experience on Wikipedia knows this). In other words, you're wasting your time by complaining on this page. I assume this thread hasn't been archived just yet because there's a bit of sympathy for the fact that there really is no adequate spot on Wikipedia to air this particular basket of dirty laundry. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DGG, The fact that we can't be perfect (or even nearly perfect) in terms of NPOV doesn't mean that we couldn't make enormous strides toward fair coverage. WP's free-for-all atmosphere on article talk pages is fine for typical discussions, but it tends to favor editors who aren't being fair but who have enough allies to push their own viewpoint. So far, the game has been to get editors on the other side to commit behavioral violations because that's the only way admins will eventually ban them from the topic. It seems to me that the best solution would be to create incentives for editors to be on their best behavior -- not just in terms of civility, but in terms of reasoning calmly and striving to be as objective as possible in their own thinking. By bringing more third parties to the page, POV pushing editors realize they need to provide adequate arguments to promote their view, and they tend to respond with arguments that are as reasonable-sounding as possible. When a discussion is subject to more rules and when there is someone there to enforce those rules, discussions tend to be more productive, more reasonable and less emotion-laden. I think even the worst XfDs are seldom as bad as the very contentious article talk pages for just that reason. Court trials and our own ArbCom cases have more rules and enforcers, and, despite the fact that very contentious subjects are discussed, they seem to work better than our free-for-alls on controversial-article talk pages. I think that's the direction WP needs to go in, and, I think, eventually it will. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you about the problem. I think required decent manners even from devoted content writers would help tremendously. But I do not think formal process at Wikipedia works very well; if it did, why do we have repeated arb cases over the same issues? They don't lead to closure either. And neither do XfDs. I've been arguing the same topics for 2 years now. But yes, greater participation is the solution to many problems here. We can;t prevent a general trend that way, but we can prevent a few people dominating a subject. DGG (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think formal processes like ArbCom and XfD work better than the free-for-all situations where we have large numbers of POV warriors dominating an article, so it would be useful to have some kind of more formal process as an option for intractable content disputes, especially larger ones. By "better", I mean "more reasonable" and "with results bringing us closer to NPOV", but even "not as nasty" and "with less edit warring". I think the fact that XfD discussions are more formalized results in more editors taking part in them than would otherwise. -- Noroton (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is probably more suited to an RFC that details specific shortfalls of NPOV in it's initial findings, sourced to mainstream media (since while no source isn't partisan somehow, the general mainstream is arguably the most centrist). Since admin tools can't be used directly in regards to content disputes, and NPOV isn't a policy whose violations can be sanctioned for basically short of RFAR, there is nothing any admin can really do here based on this discussion. rootology/equality 16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of topic ban for ChildOfMidnight

COM has been parroting on about wanting a "criticism" section in the Obama article for months, now. I should point out that no featured article, outside the arts, has, or should have, a "criticism" section. And why is that? Because they inherently violate NPOV by focusing solely on negative opinions. And that's the exact reason why Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't exist any more, and why there was a strong consensus to keep an Obama criticism deleted. And honestly, seeing how the Bush articles ended up, said articles will invariably end up criticising his choice of cheeseburger toppings (because it was discussed in reliable sources, after all). This is the point that COM just won't get. It's becoming very disruptive now. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The summary of the case may be found here.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• This has now been picked up by the DrudgeReport, linking to the CNN article [76]. --64.85.211.32 (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Now might be a good time to clean up our Scientology articles; I note that the articles associated with entheta and enturbulation are deleted and now we have merely a circular redirect and a pointer to a particularly inscrutable Wiktionary definition; since the terms explain (or would have) the Scientologists' efforts here (see [77], perhaps one of them ought to be recreated. - Nunh-huh 12:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

speedy?

Do these qualify as G4s even though it's userfied? It looks like "material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", given the user's edit history (re-creating the article after it was deleted, plus this). The pages were accessible through categories, but I've removed them. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 05:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI is the first impression, one can prewrite articles in user space it is common pre election to write a up likely candidates that dont meet notabitlity unless they win. It wouldnt IMHO be a speedy candidate Gnangarra 06:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

They're new, COI writing is not forbidden but COI editors must take the greatest care in what they do, putting the encyclopedia first, these look like good faith, policy and guideline-abiding drafts in userspace, not speedies. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A merged page

The page Sydenham, Warwickshire was recently merged into "Leamington Spa". The merge was formally listed as a merge proposal on the article pages and recently at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. The discussion was closed by an editor who proposed the merger and who was involved in the discussion being in favour of a merge. There was some on-going discussion and the merge was then completed. I am questioning the merge, because I feel that this merge is not without controversy, the "votes" being 3 to 2, and also because the wiki guidelines indicate that an uninvolved administrator should be asked to close a controversial merge. Also, I there have been a number of edits initially on my talk page regarding aspects of the merge, which I perceive as undue criticism and which I am becoming uncomfortable with. I have copied the discussion on my talk page to Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire, where the discussion can be continued. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote. There were no good arguments from the "no merge" side, the obvious choice was to go ahead with the merge. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Views from anyone uninvolved with the discussion will be welcome. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jenuk1985 - consensus was reached, with no adequate reason given against merging, and no attempt in 1 year to reach notability. This argument is moot - by removing the merge banners, Snowman had already subverted the process. As per guide above, further discussion of this issue should continue here Talk:Sydenham,_Warwickshire. Widefox (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Views from anyone uninvolved with the merge discussion will be welcome. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the situation as a completely uninvolved admin, having read the discussions on the talk page and looked at the sources referenced in the article, I agree that there is a consensus to merge. Arguments opposing the merge did not address the issues raised in a way that was well grounded in the inclusion guidelines; the arguments to merge were well made and well grounded. Editors' own testimony carries little weight without support from reliable sources, especially those which point to things "being obvious". See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

I would note that the RM should really have been closed by an uninvolved editor (to avoid these sort of disagreements), and I would advise everyone to avoid using the word "vandalism" to refer to others' edits, as it rarely does anything but cause friction. – Toon^(talk) 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

More Bambifan101 weirdness

I just tried something on a lark. The password this individual actually provided on a talk page for his sockpuppet accounts is apparently that of pretty much most if not all of his other socks. I just picked two at random and was able to log on to both. Any advantage to going in and changing these passwords since they're blocked anyway? This just gets stranger by the minute. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless we can do this to shut down, permanently, emerging socks, which I doubt we can, there's no advantage. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If the passwords are freely available, the accounts need to be blocked with email blocked, to prevent abuse by third parties. Or scramble the passwords. Thatcher 11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is a bad idea. It's a checkuser nightmare waiting to happen. Should any checks be done on this account, your IP will show up and your account could be suspected to be involved with Bambifan101. Also, it will mess up the SPI bot because it uses article edits to search for socks. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

HaX0r3d by PMDrive1061? - It would really be best to scramble the passwords.. If you really wanted to have fun with them, leave the accounts unblocked & let them spend hours trying to guess the password. (less time to abuse other accounts, and yes - I know there are all kinds of really bad things that could happen with this approach). Collecting them as "trophy accounts" probably isn't a great idea either. --Versageek 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I'm pretty sure that it's not legal to use someone else's account. At least not in the UK... – Toon^(talk) 00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoo boy, have I learned all of that the hard way. I had to unblock my own IP at work!  :) No more "trophies" for me, thanks. Thanks for all the help. Meekly, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cancerslug

I had a request on my talk page asking for the restoration of the edit history for an SPI investigation. I didn't know how to simply restore or link to the history of the deleted article, so I restored the article, protected the title and left word on the body of the article itself. Hoping I did this right. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't really need to restore articles, just tell them to file the case and mention the deleted edits. The folks that close SPI cases are admins and can see the history themselves. —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with editing protected template

Hi there, could an admin with some experience of working with complex templates deal with this request please? Many thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil remark left on my talk page

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193 § Chuck Marean

Please note this uncivil remark left on my talk page.--Chuck Marean 07:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nice...like, who the hell is he to even say that if you were editing in good faith? --Eaglestorm (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hm, okay. This is neither an endorsement or admonishment of the post.

    If there was ever, ever, a user on Wikipedia whose opinion I would listen to, it's Jahiegal.

    I am in no way saying that Marean is right or wrong, I would simply express that if Joe leaves you a talk note, it is good advice whether right or wrong.

    There's less than my fingers of users here that I would ultimately go to the bat for (HI MZ AND YELLOWMONKEY! et al), so please take this into consideration when dealing with the ongoing situation ITN. Jahiegal has a voucher from me concerning good faith and attempting to resolve this conflict. Happy editing. Keegan^talk 08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I'll go a bit further - I endorse that post in its entirety, and it wasn't made in an uncivil fashion (unless I'm missing something?) Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not uncivil. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• I direct you to User talk:ZimZalaBim#CM as well as to prior discussions of your current events editing on your own talk page and this very noticeboard. Jahiegel is quite right that this edit of yours is crossing the line from disagreement into intentional vandalism to make a point.

  I also note that you are continuing to add incorrectly dated material to current events. In this edit, for example, you added an event that occurred, as its source specifically states, on 2009-05-28 to the page for 2009-05-29. With this edit, and this edit, and this edit you did the same. ("Thursday", as stated in all three sources, was 2009-05-28. Two of the sources are even datelined 2009-05-28.) In this edit you added information to the page for 2009-05-30 that is not only not specific to that date, but that cites a source dated three days before, meaning that even if the event were date-specific it could not have possibly occurred on that date. You do the same thing in this edit. And in this edit you add an event for 2009-05-30 that the source itself explicitly says occurred on Friday 2009-05-29.

  Jahiegel isn't an administrator, but several of us in this section are. I, as one, am telling you this: Stop! People are not reverting you because they are "terrorists" or because they want "only bad news". And they aren't being "uncivil" to tell you that what you are doing is wrong. They are reverting you because your edits have descended into vandalism to make a point and adding incorrect information to the encyclopaedia, namely descriptions of events that did not in fact occur on the dates that you are stating them to have occurred. Stop, and stop now. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • FWIW, Chuck has a long history of edits that myself, Jahiegal, and others have monitored, and largely, summarily reverted due to a variety of reasons. The way Chuck archives his talk page makes this difficult to highlight, unfortunately. Both Jahiegal and I have assumed good faith throughout, and, IMO, shown great patience. But I'm starting to come around to the notion that Chuck has tried the patience of the entire community, since we're constantly having to monitor his edits and revert accordingly. After multiple years, he still isn't making constructive contributions, and is requiring continued supervision. None of which is helpful for the project. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I think my contributions are constructive. Most of my current events additions were referring to articles written on the same day, and all articles were still published on the web sites they were published on. People claiming an edit is unconstructive doesn't make the opinion true. I apologize for the "In the army" edit. That was on a whim. However, that was after several of my very constructive edits were removed. I would also like to point out that North Korea being "sanctioned" has two meanings. One is the UN approved of their rocket tests. It seemed to me the Press was almost hoping Nato and the Commonwealth would attack North Korea over their space program. I felt Wikipedia could do better than that.--Chuck Marean 03:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with ZimZalaBim. I ran into Chuck on the TANSTAAFL article, where he was claiming that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" is, contrary to the well-known and commonly accepted definition, equivalent to "there is such a thing as a free lunch". He did this by citing the dictionary for "ain't" (which is "is not"), and claiming that "ain't no" = "is not no" = is. This is original research if I've ever seen it. The discussion on the talk page involved many editors telling him he was wrong, that it was a colloquial phrase, etc, all to no avail. Non-productive would be a kind description of his editing there. Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Look it up in the dictionary. The article's definition was ignoring the meaning of the word ain't. I was right and those accounts were wrong. Therefore, I am not bad. The remarks left on my talk page were against looking for good news for the Current events, as far as I could tell. I favor looking for good news for the current events to keep it from being a list of bad news. --Chuck Marean 15:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Ain't no" is a colloqualism and doesn't follow the standard rules of english. It means "isn't any", as the the multiple citations provided to slang dictionaries on the talk page bear this out. Apparently you still do not understand that (a) you were wrong, (b) that you enganged in origianl research, and (c) your editing there, counter to everyone else who knows the meaning of this well-known phrase, was disrptive. In short, I think you've just made my point for me. Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Those citations ought to be put in the footnotes of that article. That's a point they support. --Chuck Marean 16:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, the comment on your talk page at User talk:Chuck Marean#Response to Election Results, for example, quite clearly told you that your edit had been reverted because you had inaccurately listed an event that didn't actually happen on that date (and which had been listed on the correct date almost 24 hours before your edit was even made). Whatever your philosphical position on news may be, what you are actually doing is vandalizing Wikipedia and adding false information. That is unacceptable. You have become so caught up in furthering your own personal philosophical position that you are paying no attention to the fact that you have begun to damage the encyclopaedia. This is a line, and you are crossing it. Stop and reverse your course. Right now. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio problems

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#en.wikipedia_admin_needed for details. I deleted one, but don't have time to look through the other contribs today. History of socking on commons. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sockpuppets:
  • Con2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - no uploads locally
  • StevenLSears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - no uploads locally
  • Lucy Xena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - not registered
• Also mentioned:
  • LL290368 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Of LL290368's uploads, File:Night Est.jpg (←[78]) File:NW Europe Tour.jpg (←[79]) File:Nightwish live 1999.jpg (←[80]) are clearly copyvios. File:Nightwish End of an Era.jpg ([81]) and File:Jennifer Sky.jpg ([82]) are suspect. The rest don't show up on Tineye, but the amount of red links in the upload log is a red flag. I'd say nuke them all. MER-C 11:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed - looks like a very clear case of flickrwashing - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an old case, for us. We've blocked multiple accounts, and repeatedly deleted the same Xena/Nightwish uploaded images, since at least November 2007. The puppet master is either Lykus xena (talk · contribs) or Tarja Lawless (talk · contribs), depending from whose block log one reads. I didn't waste time, therefore. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Finding this bad behaviour was a quite disappointing expirience, so thanks for the help. Only 4 images from the Flickraccount should be handled: linksearch. --Martin H. (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That draws attention once again to sockpuppetteer Frostie Jack (talk · contribs) (whose uploaded identical images from Flickr to the ones uploaded by identified "Lawless" sockpuppet Brazil 23 (talk · contribs)) and to the Flickr account "Nightwish Fan", which appears to be engaged in this same Flickr washing and which you should check for further images at Commons. Uncle G (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I dont see the connection of "Nightwish Fan" and Frostie Jack, but yes, the Flickr acount consists of copyvios from http://ausxip.com/conventions/2005burbank/photos/index.php, that was easy to find and add to commons:COM:QFI. I cant proof that Frostie Jack joined Flickrwashing because in opposition to LL290368 there is a large timespan between Flickr and Wikipedia upload, but the upload text is very similar. However: they are blocked, case solved, the 3rd involved project is the pt.wikipedia, CommonsDelinker provided a list, I added some pages to my pt.watchlist which disables the problem on pt.wp and Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • You'll see the connection if you look at Frostie Jack's upload log. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)