Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive139

Tendentious editor on policy pages

I would like some advice in dealing with a tendentious editor on policy/guideline pages. He doesn't understand that guidelines are prescriptive and thus keeps editing them to reflect what he thinks should happen instead of what actually does happen according to consensus. He makes arguments for this using spurious logic, misinterpreting other policy or guidelines, ignoring evidence to the contrary, insisting on straw polls to "prove" him right, and personal attacks. He reminds me of the ill-fated Zen-Master (no, he's not a sock, he just acts similarly). Basically, he is starting to show all the signs listed on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, except it's in Wikispace and it's not out of hand (yet?). I tried talking to him but that doesn't help; other suggestions would be welcome. >Radiant< 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is it, or at least which policies? Guy 10:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sift through the Radiant!'s contributions and it will soon be clear. --Doc 11:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A clue might be good, he's edited a lot of different good stuff. (man am I glad he's back!) ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I should be less obtuse :) It's Fresheneesz (talk · contribs). This has been going on for about three weeks now. Among others, he has claimed that style guidelines aren't guidelines, that there's a difference between guidelines, "full guidelines" and "official guidelines", that the GFDL isn't policy, that numbers aren't verifiable because addition is original research, that policy pages may not link to non-policy pages because of a status conflict, that AFD is a vote and therefore Wikipedia uses polls whenever desired, and that it's proper (or even possible) to make a guideline to force editors to stop a common practice. Oh, and a bunch of personal attacks thrown in, and calls for people to "fight" others.

His main agenda appears to be opposition to WP:DDV (formerly VIE) and WP:N - however, confusingly, he makes a somewhat nebulous difference between notability and votes (which he opposes) and significance and polls (which he approves of). Anyway, while he has every right to his opinion, the above practices are not at all a constructive approach. These two diffs pretty much sum it up: [1] [2].

>Radiant< 12:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts... ignore it. Seriously, the changes he is suggesting are significant and the number of people who knew of them insignificant (though 'advertising' like this may change that). Generally major changes like this happen because alot of people want them to happen. One guy and a couple of people who say, 'yeah I can sort of see some benefit to that but what about these three problems?', don't seem likely to amount to much. Even if he holds a 'poll' and five out of the six participants support him... a reason to significantly rework Wikipedia policy it is not. If he tries to change policy without widespread consensus it can be dealt with then. If it develops widespread consensus... well then it is a reality of what users do and could then be recognized as such. --CBD 12:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Radiant seriously misconstrews my actions and my thoughts. Many of the things he complains about me are old news - for example, I did claim that "style guides" weren't guidelines - but I have seen that I'm wrong, a looooong time ago. Also, he misinterprets me, for example - AfDs using polling, they aren't pure votes. Wikipedia *does* use polling, as i'm sure all of you know. Radiant is under the perception that polls shouldn't be used on wikipedia at all - and hes making his case by tagging his pet proposal WP:DDV as a guideline without any clear consensus. Hes actually gone so far as to delete a poll I was trying to run - saying that I "just don't get it".

I can't disagree that radiant has a very many good edits, but almost any time i'm dealing with him, its somthing disruptive and agressive (probably because I don't bug him when he does stuff well). Frankly, I find his actions abusive. Fresheneesz 01:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't pitch in then, as I have had a long-standing disagreement with Fresheneesz over other issues. In fact, I think Fresheneesz's non-notability policy may have been a response to the aggressive pruning of articles on personal rapid transit subjects, particularly the UniModal concept by Douglas Malewicki, which currently has no prototype, no funding, no customers, no test track and no similar installations in use anywhere in the world but is being pitched all the time. Personal rapid transit is a transportation technology which in several decades has yet to achieve a single real-world implementation, although one very small installation quite unlike the wide-scale urban schemes described in the article is currently being constructed in the car park at Heathrow Airport. Heaven forfend that we should say so, though, as that would be bias of the most appalling sort :-) User:Stephen B Streater may be a good person to ask, he has more patience with Fresheneesz than I do. Guy 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You never miss a chance to get back up on your soapbox, do you Guy? Face it: you tried to you tried to slant the article to reflect your POV, and failed, then tried to suppress verifiable fact that you didn't happen to agree with, and you failed on that count too. We've all moved on, and the articles haven't significantly changed in months. Maybe you should let it go now? :-) ATren 12:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Same old bullshit, I see. My POV is that the article should reflect reality, not what Douglas Malewicki and Jerry Schneider think reality should be. In this I succeeded admirably for a long time against considerable opposition from you and Fresheneesz. Stephen Streater also pitched in, and you'll note that his views pretty much coincided with mine: it's a hypothetical form of urban transport, interesting but unproven. Last time I looked the article still represented my POV, starting out by saying that it is a category of proposed urban transport, and that no wide-scale implementations exist or are planned. You can portray this as victory for yourself if you like, as long as the article remains accurate in respect of the unproven nature of the scheme I don't really acre overmuch. Guy 11:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz has established a clear pattern of disruptive editing on policy pages. It is not so much his opinions, though to be clear his view on voting is completely mistaken, but his method of making them. You can't change policies you don't like by modifying the tag yourself, and trying to round up others to revert for you, and concocting votes where there is no dispute, and being rude to others, and especially not when you are simply wrong. I feel like our time is being wasted for no discernable reason. I am ready to suggest a community ban from policy pages, at least for a bit. Opinions on that? Dmcdevit·t 04:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that Fresheneesz has been primarily engaged in policy edits by the contributions. There's a patter of a response to a Wikipedia talk: page, followed by editing of the policy in question. The responses of the user on the talk page are not very combative, they are tearse though. I think Fresheneesz is meaning to do good things, but in an improper and inappropriate way without discussion. Proposed and official guidelines and policies must be hashed out with appropriate channels. Fresheneesz, post to the talk page what you'd like to change, or make a user subpage. I'm not for community banning a user for taking a part of policy or process, just watch your steps and consider the whole community before editing a policy or guideline. Stay within bounds to play ball. Teke ^(talk) 04:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not proposing a community ban, per se (as in, by block), but just a probationary restriction from policy(guideline/essay)-related pages. I agree with Lar's proposal below. Dmcdevit·t 05:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a bit of a saunter through his contribs... changing a guideline that we've been using since forever to a guideline [3]. Threatening Radiant: [4] and just generally arguing about whether the sun rises in the east or not: [5] I don't at this time support an indef ban from all policy/guideline/style/proposal/essay pages but a ban for a while to get this user to realise he's not being constructive might be a good idea. How about a week for starters? ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How is [6] a threat on Fresheneesz's part? ATren 12:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The guideline we've been using "since forever" has been a guideline for one week, the opening words of his "threat" are "that was not meant to be a threat", and the last citation isn't a problem in any way. This user has 4989 edits. 360 of them are to project space. Let's take it easy with the flaming torches. —Nate Scheffey 12:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Freesheneesz has to say first, but that's not too shabby. Teke ^(talk) 05:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Users should discuss on the talk pages and gain consensus before making major changes in policy/guideline pages. I am not suggesting a ban here, but user should take this seriously enough and not engage in what would amount as disruption. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, I second DMC's and Lar's suggestion. Let's just give him a time-out for a while. By the way he's now asked Jimbo to step in :) >Radiant< 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The appeal to Jimbo: Wikipedia's version of Godwin's Law. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's good to avoid unnecessarily hostility. Fresheneesz has put a lot of work into developing a view of how Wikipedia should work. His generous view of notability is out of line with consensus, but OTOH the notability article is less than a month old and has not yet completely settled down. Whether such an article in flux should be termed a guidline or a proposal shouldn't be allowed to cloud the bigger issue - whether there should be a guideline at all. I started the rationale section to show how the guidline relates to policy, and Centrx and others have refined this. The article is becoming tied down to official policy. In the mean time, I suggest Fresheneesz raises his more general points about notability - perhaps on the mailing list. Stephen B Streater 11:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on this discussion on AN/I and the numerous comments on Freesheneesz's talk page, I support an one week community probation that prohibits Freesheneesz from editing all pages related to the Wikipedia policy, guidelines, essays. Additionally I suggest an one week community probation that prohibits Freesheneesz from editing Policy/Guidelines talk pages. For the duration of this probation, Freesheneesz is restricted from editing places that these discussions occur and starting policy discussions on another user's talk page. After the probation ends Freesheneesz is encouraged to limit his discuss of his ideas to the talk pages of these policies and other customary places for these discussions. Freesheneesz is counseled to avoid spamming his opinions across multiple user and article talk pages.

This restriction on talk page discussions is necessary to remind this user that we are here to write great articles not great policy. His tendentious focus on writing and discussing this topic makes me believe that s/he does not understand this point. Freesheneesz talk page has feedback from a variety of users that he encountered while editing policy/guideline pages and talk pages. Very few are supportive of his approach to this topic. The suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Freesheneesz's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 12:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse FloNight's suggestions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for any kind of block/ban here. Debate over policy is normal. —Nate Scheffey 12:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I browsed the talk page, and there were several people on both sides of the debate. It was not just Fresheneesz. In fact, a quick look at the history of the page shows two editors other than Fresheneesz changing guideline back to proposal. Also, I am new to this debate, but Radiant's argument seems dangerously circular: he says Notability should be a guideline because that's what is currently done, but he ignores the fact that what is currently done is controversial (isn't notability one of the most hotly debated topics in content disputes?). Shouldn't there be a more rigorous process for accepting a controversial guidline than "Well everyone's doing it these days, so why not?"? The Notability "guidline" was still listed as a proposal just two weeks ago, so this is far from a settled issue.

Back to the question of Fresheneesz, I've not seen any evidence of behavior that would warrant a probation (what does "community probation" mean anyway? Does that mean he's blocked but not really blocked?). Radiant's original complaint was vague, and the evidence presented by others seem to prove nothing more than a minor dispute. Perhaps before any action is taken, someone should document here exactly what edits he made to deserve this probation? ATren 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

These two remarks are a sample of some that go beyond simply debating the policy. [7] [8] Freesheneesz is ratcheting up the discussions past the point where a civil exchange of ideas is going to occur. This topic ban is preventative not punitive. Freesheneesz needs to learn the boundaries for productive editing related to policy changes. FloNight 14:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The first is a relatively polite plea to Jimbo to intercede (certainly not unusual or in violation of anything), the second is a single revert of a rejection of the policy proposal - and note that he did not re-revert after that. Was consensus reached on rejecting that proposal? It's quite possible that the other editor was jumping the gun on rejection. In any event, he did not re-revert.

I still see no evidence of anything more than a spirited debate. Let's not overreact here. ATren 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some poking around on Non-notability talk page, and it seems there was an extended debate over whether to have a straw poll - Fresheneesz wanted one, Radiant didn't; when Fresheneesz started one, Radiant deleted it, which angered Fresheneesz. Regardless of the merits of straw polls, there is no policy against them, so was it appropriate for Radiant to delete Fresheneesz's edits? Now, if Fresheneesz was misusing the results of a straw poll to, say, change the proposal to a guideline, that might be a different issue. But just calling for a poll doesn't seem to be like that big a deal, and deleting it was unwarranted. So I believe this just is a spirited debate with some minor transgressions on both sides -- and we shouldn't be singling out one side or the other. In fact, Stephen B Streater has a good solution below: they should both back off the notability pages for a few days and let things cool down. ATren 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite his comment here [9], Freesheneesz continues in the same manner. He needs to take a break from policy making until he sorts out a better way to go about it. FloNight 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what the problem is. He is polite and he offers rationale for his position. The examples of some sort of egregious edits on his part do not seem worse than others I have seen. There is no evidence of any violations of policy here. It seems like folks are piling on. I think ATren said it very well and I am troubled that this fellow is being given threats and bans for extremely vague reasons that seem to amount to "I don't like him". --Blue Tie 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Stopping the discussion will not resolve the underlying issues. The problem seems to be between Fresheneesz and Radiant. Perhaps they should both refrain from editing the policy pages for a while, and leave this to more mainstream editors. In the mean time, I am happy for the discussion with Fresheneesz to continue on my talk pages. WP:NOTABILITY is developing nicely. Stephen B Streater 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Um. Anyone who wants to claim that Fresheneesz is polite clearly hasn't even looked at what is being discussed here. He's calling others' edits vandalism, threatening someone with "If you don't replace my poll, I'm going to arbitrate against you. You are the most abusive administrator I've ever come in contact with.", soliciting help by calling Radiant a "very abusive and violent editor", and just generally calling him abusive at every chance. I would remind you that incivility and edit warring are two of the strongest policy violations you can make. I find it hard to take this comment seriously. Dmcdevit·t 18:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Fresheneesz should have another look at WP:OWN. He has got a bit close to these particular policies. He is not the only editor to implement strong opinions in this dispute though. Stephen B Streater 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Fresheneesz clearly lost his temper a bit here, but Radiant also deleted Fresheneesz's poll on the talk page. If you are going to condemn Fresheneesz for his hostility, then Radiant cannot be excused for his actions either. Frankly, I consider removing someone's talk page comments (that's considered vandalism, isn't it?) a more serious offense than the incivility shown by Fresheneesz. Once again, I would also repeat Stephen's suggestion that both these editors should back off from the policy page temporarily and cool down. ATren 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• A poll is not a comment. Removing polls is common practice because polls are generally considered a Bad Idea (needlessly polarizing, not conductive to consensus and inhibiting creativity; see also WP:DDV). >Radiant< 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing polls is commonplace? So anyone has the right to remove anyone else's poll? This doesn't seem right. Also, I found this quote on WP:DDV: "Straw polls, a type of non-binding poll, are sometimes used to gauge where editors stand after a lengthy discussion. Such a poll can be a simple tool to help explore and negotiate a consensus, and is often seen as a simple means to recap current positions, or to test or document a likely consensus." That article also says "Polling isn't evil in itself", and I didn't find anything that says polls should be deleted on sight. In fact, the guideline seems to say that polling itself is not evil unless the results of the poll are misused. Certainly the "evils" of polling, if any, pale in comparison to the evils of deleting someone else's comments (we're not talking about personal attacks here) ATren 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• For instance, [10]. By the way you are citing (part of) the letter of a guideline in a way counter to its spirit. >Radiant< 23:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the guideline (DDV), and the spirit of the rule seems to be "Polls are not evil, but they can be misused". In fact, the words "Polling isn't evil in itself" appears more than once. Straw polling even seems to get a mild endorsement on the page ("Such a poll can be a simple tool..."). I see no justification in that guideline (neither literally nor in its spirit) for removing another editor's straw poll. Now, maybe deleting polls is commonly done, and maybe it's even an accepted practice, but I don't see where that's documented as policy or guideline; in fact, it seems to run smack in the face of two well-known policies: civility and vandalism. I think I would have reacted the same way as Fresheneesz, if my edits were deleted in this fashion. ATren 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised this discussion all developed in 12 hours. I'm also surprised that a great many people think my actions are worthy of a ban. In the last few weeks, my faith in the wikipedia community has been dwindling.

One interesting thing I see is that peoples main grudge against me is that they think i'm taking policy/guideline into my own hands - and changing tags without discussion, etc. The funny thing is, that is exactly what i'm combating. A select few editors have been trying to change old guidelines into non-guidelines, and new proposals into old guidelines - without consensus. I've come in contact with a larger group that agrees with Radiant than I expected to find - and these people all agree that guideline is basically someones description of what already goes on. Personally, I find that view of guidelines to be very inefficient, because rather than giving us the ability to better wikipedia, we are at the mercy of what people already do. That narrows our options a bit.

If you want to ask me and Radiant to step back from policy pages for a week or so - I'm all in agreement. It'll give me more time to get started on some actual content pages (now that i'm starting school, I'll be editing pages that should (but don't) help me with HW).

Seriously tho, I'm not concerned with a ban against me - but i'm very concerned with what happens to our guidelines and policy here on wikipedia. I'm also concerned with the way people seem to preach consensus, but are scared to find out what it actually is. I don't want wikipedia to turn into a giant beuracracy, or some oligarchy of abusive admins. I'd like wikipedia to stay as a place based on consensus, with a common goal of helping people.

Lastly, I ask you all to just look at how you contribute, and see if you discuss with others enough, or if you actually know that you're doing something that is endorsed by more than one or two people. Please utilize the discussion pages, for eveyone's sake. Fresheneesz 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fresh is now also calling Doc Glasgow a vandal ([11]) and threatening him with arbitration ([12]). >Radiant< 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mhm, deleting someones talk page posts is vandalism. Does anyone disagree? I have also warned Radiant of this. Fresheneesz 23:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling an established editor's edits vandalism is considered poor form on Wikipedia. Do you think that Doc has suddenly become a vandal? Wasn't he putting a specific tag on an failed proposal. Didn't Doc mark out a straw poll that the editors of that proposed policy had not agreed to use? IMO, neither of these actions deserve warnings, but discussion. Please make your comment on the talk page and then wait for many other people to remark before you claim to know something so strongly that you will start an arbitration case against those that disagree. --FloNight 00:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He is not a vandal, and I didn't say he was. However, good editors, and good administrators still have the power to vandalize wikipedia - and he has used that power. It is now within my power to make sure his vandalism is corrected, and stopped. You haven't told me i'm wrong that "deleting someones talk page posts is vandalism" - so i'll just assume you don't disagree.

The proposal he marked has not "failed" in any significant way, and noone has agreed not to use straw polls. This is completely ridiculous. Fresheneesz 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So I'm 'not a vandal', I have just 'used my power to vandalize'. Well, I'm glad that's not a personal attack then. I didn't 'delete your post', I struck through a poll you'd unilaterally opened in the teeth of objections. 'No one has agreed not to use straw polls'? WTF type of logic is that? No one has agreed that I shouldn't block you for a week either - so can I? The notion that notability should not be used as a criterion for deletion is often suggested - and there is nothing approaching a consensus to support it. (See any deletion debate for evidence.) This has all been said, but the problem is that this user isn't interested in listening.--Doc 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious: why is there such extreme objection to a straw poll? What's the big deal?? I think the actions you and Radiant have taken to prevent these straw polls are way out of line. You're treating a harmless little straw poll like it's a personal attack, reverting it on sight without discussion. ATren 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like polls, but if there is consensus to conduct one, and a reasonable discussion of its purpose and wording, then so be it. But this had none of these - one user instigated a worthless poll, on his own terms. I did not revert 'on sight without discussion', there was endless discussion on the talk page, at the end of which one user unilaterally, in the face of objections, initiated a polling process. I struck it, allowing for further discussion as to the merits/dismetits of the poll.--Doc 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So there has to be a consensus just to conduct a straw poll? How does one gauge consensus on this - might I suggest a poll? :-)

Seriously, I just think deleting someone else's poll crosses the line. There is no policy or guideline that forbids polling, and therefore removing it seems quite unwarranted. As I said before, I think I would have reacted the exact same way as he did, because deleting others' good faith comments is generally considered vandalism. That's all I'm saying. ATren 15:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming uninvolved people re. an arb case? Strongly suggest AC speedily reject and severely warn user. – Chacor 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC) I agree that removing other editors comment, including polls, from talk pages is one of the most violent actions an editor can take against another. It should only be done in the most utterly stupendously extreme cases. This situation is quite far from that mark. The only goal reached by removing the poll is to ratchet up the controversy. Very bad form, especially for an admin. Wjhonson 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The guy suggests a poll, some users object, a discussion ensues. In the midst of it, without discussing possible wordings, someone unilaterally starts a poll, ignoring all that others are saying. What do they expect, except to be reverted? --Doc 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is removing talk page comments considered "reverting"? I mean, come on, you keep talking like deleting someone's comments is nothing worse than a simple revert, when you know that it's more than that. I'm shocked that both you and Radiant have not only taken these actions, but continue to defend them as "no big deal" while you attack Fresheneesz for insinuating vandalism in response. Something is out of whack here, that you feel fully justified in removing someone's non-binding straw poll (no matter how you feel about) but are up in arms about that same user calling your actions vandalism and telling you (politely!) he's taking you to arbitration! I'll repeat: I probably would have done the same thing Fresheneesz did in response to your actions, and I can honestly say I understand his frustrations that he's being made to look like the only aggressor in this debate. ATren 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• WP:DDV. Consensus is not created by polling, and as such we do not vote on proposals for a variety of reasons explained in that guideline. It is common practice to revert, remove or delete pointless polls. This one in particular was only a call for everyone to repeat what they already said, and that is really not helpful. There were deeper problems with the proposal that its author has so far refused to address. >Radiant< 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the section on straw polling, and point to me the part where it says straw polls are so evil that they justify breaking two policies: WP:V WP:Vandalism and WP:CIVIL. You seem to be saying this is OK because "everyone is doing it", but I've yet to see anything near a justification for this kind of behavior in policies or guidelines. ATren 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What does verifiability have to do with removing a straw poll!? —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, wrong "V". Corrected it, thanks. ATren 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, WP:CIV promotes removal of other people's comments. >Radiant< 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are now saying that conducting an informal straw poll is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and so egregious that it warrants removal of the entire poll? That's a little bit of a stretch, don't you think? ATren 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, I'm saying that if you're wikilawyering policy pages to call people names, you should at least pick policy pages that don't contradict what you're trying to say. >Radiant< 13:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly is "uncivil" about conducting an informal straw poll? You are clouding the issue, which is that you blanked Fresheneesz' talk page comment based on your revulsion for polls, when in fact blanking someone else's talk page edits is considered vandalism except in the case of incivility or personal attacks. If Fresheneesz's straw poll were uncivil, I would give you the point, but I find nothing "uncivil" about a poll. Therefore, your removal of his comment was unjustified, uncivil, and can even be construed as vandalism. ATren 15:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing talk page warnings (yet again)

I just intervened in a spat between three users who escalated a content dispute into a "Vandalism" dispute by warring over content warnings on talk pages. They justified it through the language of {{Wr1}} and {{Wr4}}. Now, {{Wr0}} is reasonably friendly, but Wr1 and Wr4 (and Wr2 and Wr3 which are redirects to 1 and 4) are often inflammatory and not in keeping with the current definition of vandalism, or Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.

Can we maybe tone down those templates, or even drop them on MfD? Thatcher131 23:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be blocking for people removing warnings in most cases anyway - it always remains in the history. I don't think those should follow the similar vandalism warning layouts either. Cowman109^Talk 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I pulled a complaint off of AIV in which user A was accused of vandalizing user B and C's talk pages, which he did, but only after they all edit-warred over the placement and removal of warnings on user talk:A. Which B and C justified by referring to {{wr}}. I gave them all a stern talking to instead, but this is going to come up over and over again. The current vandalism policy on user talk pages does not agree with the template language. Thatcher131 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The removal of legitimate warnings doesn't have to be defined as vandalism to prohibit it. In fact, {{Wr4}} states that "Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered disruption." Disruptive behavior can be prevented, even when there is no written policy against it. Indeed, many unregistered users have had their talk pages semi-protected to prevent further warning removal -- for a few examples, see [13] and [14]. Furthermore, the warning removal templates have recently undergone a TFD discussion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_9#Template:wr.2C_wr2.2C_wr3.2C_wr4, which indicates a clear consensus to keep them. John254 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Wouldn't the people voting on that TfD tend to be more representative of the template's regular users than of editors who don't pay much attention to it? FreplySpang 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The TFD process does indeed involve placement of notices on the affected templates to notify interested users. However, many users actively participate in many TFD discussions. Consequently, a number of users would have seen the discussion on the TFD page; we should not conclude that the editors participating in the discussion were necessarily unrepresentative. Furthermore, if TFD discussions aren't votes, then we can't assume that the discussion was closed as "keep" simply because there was a strong supermajority in favor of this outcome. Instead, the outcome of this discussion would represent a genuine consensus :) John254 21:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can see what the template says, but please explain to me how it could be disruptive to the encyclopedia to remove a warning from a user talk page? TFD isn't particularly useful in this regard since by design it cannot decide on policy/guideline matters. >Radiant< 22:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I explained why the removal of legitimate warnings could be considered disruptive here. Furthermore, the argument that "TFD... cannot decide on policy/guideline matters" is unconvincing since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. John254 23:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I see, and that is indeed a good point. I suppose a counterargument would be that Wikipedia tends to make things easier for editors than for maintenance workers (including the CVU, admins, etc). Not that I necessarily agree with that but it seems to be the way things work. I believe the main problem is this: removing warnings hampers the CVU - but since it's not actually possible to stop people from removing warnings, you have to check people's history anyway. So prohibiting warning removal doesn't really solve your problem. I think a better result would come from a technical solution, possibly involving some automated off-wiki log page (WP:PROD used to have a very effective off-wiki log page). >Radiant< 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • At least for unregistered users, it is "actually possible to stop people from removing [legitimate] warnings", without blocking them, by semi-protecting their talk pages. A technical solution to parse talk page histories and display the warnings contained there might be valuable -- however, until such a solution is developed, we are constrained to do the best that we can with the existing technology. Furthermore, if we are to designate the talk page history rather than the current version of the talk page as an archive of warnings, such warnings will be effectively irremovable, except by administrators, even where the warnings are mistaken, or completely frivolous. It is possible for an administrator to remove frivolous warnings from a user's talk page history, by deleting the talk page, then restoring the revisions without the frivolous warnings. Such talk page history deletions might frequently be necessary, if we are to rely on the talk page histories to indicate legitimate warnings, but not frivolous warnings. John254 00:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want to talk disruption, I have seen far more disruption resulting from edit wars over talk page warnings than would ever be caused by the simple removal itself. Thatcher131 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Thatcher131, the way to do this is not to allow policy violations until we create a technical solution. We had discussed technical solutions on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, but it kind of fizzled due to the fact that no-one who really needed such a technical solution was involved in the discussion. I would suggest reviving discussion there. JYolkowski // talk 15:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said about the need to find ways of keeping track of 'disruptive users' which are not themselves disruptive. Revert warring to enforce warnings (which are all too often specious to begin with) and then throwing these 'you will be blocked' templates at people causes far more problems than the issue it is designed to address. As to the TfD... there was an active debate on this issue at the time the TfD was running, but the existence of the TfD was only mentioned in that debate after it had concluded. The TfD thus obviously did not include the opinions of many who object to this practice. --CBD 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Serious criminal threat by user Sahands

This user threatened me with violence after I just nicely commented that a certain picture should be kept. The exact threat is: "You're a motherfucking retard, if you ever insult me again I'll break every bone in your useless body.". It can be found on My user talk page. He has been blocked for 1 week, but I think this kind of threat deserves a more serious punishment. This is a very serious criminal threat. I am considering taking legal action and reporting this to his local police.

I have no knowledge of the Canadian juridic system, but my lawyer will find out.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 13:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) This isn't really "vandalism" but something more serious. I recommend taking it to WP:ANI to get a consensus of admins. Newyorkbrad 13:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 13:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make legal threats. It is degenerative for the encyclopedia. Consider this as a warning. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a legal threat against the encyclopedia, but against a user who has used the encyclopedia to perform a criminal threat. Why should I be punished for it?

At least in the Finnish juridic system, even though it is the Internet, threats of violence will be dealt with seriously. A minimum punishment would be a fine, but if he happens to be felon under probation (for example), he will go back to prison.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you're lucky you're not also blocked for personal attacks [15] [16] [17].

Second of all, the No legal threats policy states that you can not make legal threats on Wikipedia against Wikipedia or other users. You can either deal with the problem here through the normal dispute resolution process, or try to take legal action offline, but you can not post legal threats online here. Regarding the attack, a 1 week block is about all you're going to see for a first offense. See the blocking policy. If after the block he makes similar attacks against you or other users, he will be blocked for longer. But you need to cool it too. His opinion about your photo is as valid as yours, and your comments, while less offensive than his, are also unacceptable. Thatcher131 14:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I read your legal threat policy, and I understand. My bad. I do refrain from legal threats and trust that the dispute resolution system, which I am writing into right now, will deal with the matter. Please help me out here. And I deleted my above-mentioned comments immediately after writing them, cooling off.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that I'm very new to this encyclopedia and just wanted to contribute things, and then was pretty shocked to get criminal threats of bodily harm for no reason whatsoever. So please cut me some slack on the legal policy, I did not know about it.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that given the nature of the threat, your reaction was understandable. I might also suggest that, although it's probably just rhetoric (if only for geographical reasons), Sahands be asked by an admin to withdraw the physical threat. Newyorkbrad 14:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

After Sahands was supposedly banned, this is what is now on his personal page: User Talk Sahands Death threat Quote: "Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com><---the most fucking retard on earth, your location has been tracked down, my boys will come for you now and kill off you and your waste of a family..."

So now it has become a death threat. A DEATH THREAT to me and to my family. I think additional action is required.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to need Sahands IP address, ISP and log information. Could some admin please provide this to me?

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If the police require that information, they should contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. See their web site for more information. William Pietri 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely based on these edits:[18]; I will protect the talk page if necessary. If there is another admin who is more familiar with the dispute and thinks I've overstepped, please comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Update. I have protected User talk:Sahands after Sahands used it for childish vandalism/PA and then followed up (after being reverted) with blanking the block notice.

I have also warned Jk-bmw that taunting a banned user is entirely inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins don't have access to that information, only the foundation do. The terms under which they'll release that info are defined at Wikipedia:Privacy policy#Policy on release of data derived from page logs. So you'll need to raise an ORTS ticket by mailing to info-en@wikipedia.org or you may wish to contact your local law enforcement service. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So any admins still think it's a bad policy to take any legal action against a wikipedia user who uses wikipedia for death threats against another person? In this case I think wikipedia itself should take legal action against the user who made these criminal threats!

Your thoughts please.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In two and a half years here, serving as an admin a lot of that time, I have received at least five separate death threats. I ignore them. Doing anything else would waste too much of my time. You are free to have another opinion, but I think that calmly ignoring them, and not responding in an inflammatory way, is generally the best policy. Antandrus (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NLT policy doesn't say that you can't initiate legal action as appropriate, through the proper authorities, though it doesn't venture an opinion as to whether such action might or might not be a good idea at any particular time for any particular person (only a qualified attorney should be giving you legal advice). The policy just says that you shouldn't be using threats of legal action (against Wikipedia or other Wikipedians) in order to attempt to influence activity on this site (like to get the upper hand in an edit war). *Dan T.* 18:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to see people chiding someone who has been threatened with physical violence, just because he mentions the possibility of going to the police over it. We need to keep in mind what the NLT policy is all about and apply its spirit rather than some literal-minded reading. I'm glad to see that there is now an indefinite block in place. Metamagician3000 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though I would like to add that repeatedly posting taunting messages on the userpage of a person that was blocked for threatening you is -- less than constructive. --Sherool (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering the incredible unliklihood that a person would fly from New York to Finland to "break every bone" in someone's body (which isn't possible by the way), I'd say the reaction is understandable. Wjhonson 19:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And I must, in fairness, add that the taunting was not a good idea - though I guess it was also an understandable reaction. Metamagician3000 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Which bones are unbreakable? Given a crowbar, a hammer, and a probe to get the ear bones, I figure I could break every bone. The subject probably wouldn't survive the experience, but that's beside the point. --Carnildo 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Update. I blocked Jk-bmw for 24 hours yesterday for continuing to make various threats against Sahands after being advised that this wasn't the appropriate forum. While I can understand Jk-bmw's concerns about Sahands threats, this – with the namecalling, threats, ultimata ("I will contact the authorities...unless there is a sincere apology...", "You still have your chance to apologize. If you do not, you will be in a world of hurt."), taunting, and misuse of a protection template – isn't an appropriate response. There are appropriate channels to pursue further action; a user page is not one of those channels. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye's constant edit warring

user:hogeye's game playing continues and continues and continues. With little sign of thewolfstar in a few days (phew), he's the only reason the Anarchism article remains locked. Please could we have some action beyond more 3RR violation blocks? Donnacha 00:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My god that block log is ginormous. Can anyone attest to this user's positive contributions to the project? Is a community ban perhaps warranted? Grandmasterka 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also see this discussion. He is editing warring at individualist anarchism, as well -- he keeps reinserting OR of his that was deleted a long time ago. --AaronS 02:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's definitely making positive contributions to coercive monopoly, in reverting to the agreed definition against an otherwise productive wikipedian who is using an unsourced definition. He may still be edit warring, but there's only 2 editors on the other side. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Heck, if you want I'll watch that page and start reverting back to the agreed on def if it means hogeye gets banned. But looking at the talk page, it looks like it isn't completely agreed on yet, and it looks like there might honestly be more than just one definition. Perhaps we should have a neutral disambiguation page there ;) or else mention that there is more than one definition. I don't really know how notable that source is that those two are using though.

Anyway, back to hogeye. I was actually thinking of opening an RfA (the bad kind) on him today, but I don't have the energy right now. Here are some other discussions: Bishonen's talk, Woohookitty's talk. I'm most concerned with hogeye's creation of a "neutral" disambiguation page for anarchism (Anarchism (disambiguation)) despite a clear rejection on the anarchism talk page (a couple different times) of his proposal to do so. The page now redirects to anarchism, as does his pov fork anarchism (political). The other pov fork that he created was anarchism (social) which now redirects to social anarchism. He reverted attempts by different users (including myself and Bishonen, an admin) to redirect anarchism (social) to anarchism, calling them vandalism in the edit summaries, which resulted in a 3RR block and several condemnations by various editors and admins, including ones who aren't at all involved in all the battles on the anarchism page. And guess what some of his first edits were after his block expired? You guessed it: reverting Bunchofgrapes and myself. Hogeye has openly encouraged edit warring and gaming of the system. He refuses to abide by consensus and is incredibly disruptive. I has said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again: we need to ban him indefinitely! He has consistently shown a lack of restraint and good faith, and I am seriously sick of trying to work with him. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone look into Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)? Ryūlóng 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on a community ban, as I haven't investigated the other edit war areas. I'd appreciate a watch on coercive monopoly, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's currently evading his block by editing with an IP sock puppet. I support a community ban. This user is trouble, and never learns -- just look at the extensive block log and dozens of suspected sock puppets. --AaronS 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic that the person complaining about how Hogeye is unable to be properly governed goes under the handle "The Ungovernable Force"! *Dan T.* 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, did you pick that one up from thewolfstar? Seriously, grow up. If someone comes into a community and continually makes trouble and repeatedly violates group consensus, we have the right to remove them. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Hogeye indefinitely. If anyone strongly disagrees discuss it here. Grandmasterka 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this. Hogeye, however, has a hamper full of stinky socks that he is not afraid to use. I urge administrators to be on the look-out for his sock puppets. His sock puppetry rivals Thewolfstar's. --AaronS 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but putting a indefinite block on Hogeye is out of process. Intangible 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Did you see his block log? Honestly, I'm not sure why he wasn't blocked indefinitely as soon as he got the 3RR vio a couple of days ago. His last block was for 2 months. I only did 1 week earlier today mostly because I know that other admins are more versed on him than I and I didn't want to overdo it. But I can't see disagreeing with the block. He's shown no inclination to change. To me, content forks are the most disruptive thing you can do outside of random page moves. And that's what he's been doing. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience. Is this current ban in line with the policy? Intangible 17:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. (Not sure non-admins can even post here, but anyways...) I watch this page a bunch, to see how Wiki 'works' behind the curtains, and I have to say, being a 'new reader' to the articles iin question, that it looks like Hogeye's got a lot of research and solid ideas in his versions, and while it's clear he's breaking lots of policy, I have to ask, how did this entire mess get started? was this a case of too much being bold and not enough talk page? Is there any way to merge his long historical content on anarchism in to the page, finding a compromise? ThuranX 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD Wheel Warring

See also : Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 30#Simon Pulsifer

Just after one day of closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer 2, The Land speedy deletes the article out of process. A7 is not valid in this case because AfD has been undergone twice, and the results trump speedy deletion. The article was restored by another sysop, and then Improv deletes it under A7 and protects it.

This is unacceptable, because firstly it is clearly out of process, and consensus has been determined twice to keep the article. This is not even OFFICE. Secondly, wheel-warring has occured, and these two sysops who undeleted the article have not even participated in the latest AfD. Something needs to be done here. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Give the "in lieu of a block" templates to the two deleting admins, restore article, let DRV run it's course. They're my suggestions... Daniel.Bryant 09:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively you could try to find out the reasons why several admins are behaving in this way, decide whether you agree with it, and then decide what to do... The Land 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See the deletion review, where I have thoroughly explained my reasoning. Yes, it is out of process. WP:IAR is a well-established guideline. Hopefully the DRV will draw more thoughtful contributions than 'oh, he's been mentioned in the media, we must have an article on him'. The Land 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about your opinion. What matters is concensus. You can't just waive DRV because you endorse the deletion, against over 50% of people wanting the deletion overturned. Daniel.Bryant 10:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction not a democracy etc. votes are not the be all and end all, what matters above and beyond everything else is wikipedia's core goals, that's what WP:IAR is all about. We can't vote to ignore copyvio's (say) or blatant attack articles or blatantly non-NPOV etc. If you are just going to go with the numbers I guess WP ought to give up now myspace here we come. --pgk 10:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats the point of having input from admins to DRV if they will just carry out their notions whether there is concensus from the general Wikipedia community or not? Daniel.Bryant 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So do you support the notion that if we get enough "consensus" to allow copyvios, libelous material etc. etc. we should allow it. What if we get enough consensus to say screw this encyclopedia writing stuff, we just want it to host our own vanity articles and act as a free web host, do we do that? --pgk 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is, you'd never get concensus for copyvios/libel. This is neither. Daniel.Bryant 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If we ever get consensus for that, the project will have failed anyways. Wikipedia is not primarily the software or a set of articles, its the people who write it. --Stephan Schulz 10:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, of course anyone could get enough people together to try and push any given agenda. wikipedia is not an expriment in democracy still holds. --pgk 10:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So having community concensus is paramount to Wikipedia, yet administrator concensus means more? Geez, no wonder people are losing faith in administrators and their ability to remain part of the general community... Daniel.Bryant 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying our core goals of being a free encylopedia means more. We can't just look at numbers and vote WP:ENC et al. out the window. --pgk 10:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the article specifics I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is the current culture that the community can go thru procedures like AFD/DRV, and yet admins can break the concensus at these fundamental procedures. However, I shall say no more on this issue. I really think it should be undeleted, and if needed, run back thru AFD so it can be evaulated in a way which isn't purely one or two editors opinions. Daniel.Bryant 10:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agenda? Who is the one pushing the agenda? There's 10 days of AfD time, and WP:V concerns was not even raised in either. I wouldn't mind if the article goes through a 3rd AfD. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:V still trumps WP:CON, and when AFD fails to recognize this, AFD will need to be circumvented. Kudos to TheLand for stepping up to do something necessary that is going to catch him a lot of shit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why didn't TheLand just take it to DRV? David Mestel^(Talk) 10:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why not we discard AfD altogether and let sysops to delete anything they want? - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that if this is your worry, then it's not so much the administrators you are concerned with, but rather, WP:IAR.

To be honest, an article about wikipedians in the media may just be a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia - it's about a noteable subject that someone may just look for, and wiki would naturally be the first plce to look for it. Naturally, this user would have a reasonable entry on such an article. However, an article about a wikipedian who's become an 'E' list celebrity for nothingmore than editing really is little more than a vanity thing.

In terms of the vote - to the best of my knowledge, it's rather like the RfA process - the votes can be counted, but the comments are more important, and so with valid reason, it's perfectly acceptable (and required) to go against consencus by invoking WP:IAR for the sake of the encyclopedia, which is what's happened here wit User:The Land. Of course, it may get undeleted on the decision of another at some point, in which case there will undoubtedly be complaints in the opposite direction. --Crimsone 10:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But it's the closing admin's prerogative to gauge consensus and assess the quality of argument, and if you disagree with that you go to DRV - you don't just take unilateral action. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ignore all rules and speedy deletion don't go hand in hand. CSD A7 was the stated reason for deletion. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am not sure that trying to trip me up on whether I deleted it on the basis of A7 or IAR is very helpful. I was perfectly aware that there were two AfDs which had been closed as keeps, and therefore a7 as written was of limited help. However, I felt that it was nevertheless an unencyclopedic biography, and applied IAR in ignoring the AfD discussions and part of the written CSD rules, to remove content which was clearly unencyclopedic: and gave a7 as the deletion reason because that is the CSD that matches unencyclopedic biographical articles. Hope this clears it up. The Land 10:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  So for all that, choosing to wheel war rather than discussion is also correct? - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  I was not wheel-warring and it does you no credit to say I was. We don't want to be in a situation where people should 'OMG! Wheel warrior!' at every controversial admin action. Specifically, I did not overturn anyone's use of admin tools and did not use mine to further a dispute about content, policy or behaviour. The Land 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  You knew it was going to controversial. And you did not even bother to try even discussing it with me first. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  I knew it was going to be controversial. It didn't occur to me that I should consult you: it never struck me that closing an AfD as 'keep' should be treated in the same way as a deletion, protection or block. Sorry if this aggravated you. The Land 11:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  That is at least better, and first step in the right direction. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that it's the best use of IAR I've ever seen for sure, there's no WP:V concerns here, it's someone who's been written about or mentioned in theglobeandmail.com, beachwoodreporter.com, canada.com, Gannett News Service/USA Today, magazine.utoronto. Rx StrangeLove 10:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats a fair comment, and I'd have to agree that it's probably not te best use of WP:IAR in the world on that basis. I just don't believe that an admin has done anything strictly "wrong" with it - though certainly somewhat eyebrow raising so to speak (ie - the minor controversy here). To be honest, having looked at googles cached page of the article, I'd have to say that the form it was in (unless there were major changes afterwards) was little more than a stub. Were it to be expanded, then it could only ever go into such things as editing style, preferred articles, articles created or featured, etc, etc. Of course, that would be vanity anywhere other than in userspace, where EVERYbody has their own page.

I can understand using A7 in combination with WP:IAR (vanity) - though given the exact wording of A7, it's nothing if not a contraversial thing to do - it is possible to see that The Land may well feel he was acting in in the spirit of the clause in the best interests of wiki though (WP:AGF). Whatever happens, I can only hope that the DRV will have the final say on the matter, and will make a judgement poste haste, without passing judgement on the good faith actions of those involved. --Crimsone 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Retracted my comments after IRC convo with Theland. Daniel.Bryant 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do we require that people be mentioned in reliable sources in WP:BIO? So we have sufficient verifiable material for an article. Despite numerous trivial mentions as human interest in stories about Wikipedia, there clearly isn't enough material for an article here.

If you reduce the article to what's backed by the sources, it boils down to "Simon Pulsifer is an 24-year-old from Ottawa who is a prolific Wikipedia editor." All of these articles are not about him, but merely mention his background in a sketchy way as human interest for articles about Wikipedia.

The AFDs forgot that "non-trivial" bit in "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources", and no amount of voting is going to make verifiable content suddenly appear. Discretion is why admin actions are entrusted to people instead of bots, and this is a case in which discretion needed to be exercised. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, that said, I didn't realize that TheLand didn't let Mailer Diablo know what was up, and that's not cool at all. I know I'd be a bit ticked off if my AFD close was suddenly overturned without comment, and I understand MD's feelings of annoyance and betrayal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For the love of god, A7 should have been used in the first place. So this guy has been "featured" in some news articles about his "editing of Wikipedia." (at least that seems to be the moral to the stroy here) So what? There are plenty of other editors featured in a similar fashion, and do you see articles about them on here? Lastly, people come to Wikipedia to read up on things like science or history, not about some non-notable editor of a website. If he has an article we all might as well have one. Not going to happen. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nosnense. It never fit the description of A7 to begin with, and even if it did, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead." If it did fit it, there's more than enoguh reason to keep the AfD result as it stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and all the college students have to do a research project on Simon Pulsifer. Thanks for clearing that up for me. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Whatever you feel about whether the article should ultimately be retained, MD was treated very discourteously here. Metamagician3000 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So, we have a minor celebrity (subject of a number of newspaper articles including 2M-circulating Mail and Globe). The article on him does not violate the not-negotaible principles of Wikipedia (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, copyright law, etc.) Some people consider him to be notable enough to be included, some think it is not the case. It is an extremely common situation and that is why we have the AfDs. There was no consensus to delete (if anything there was a consensus to Keep). Thus, the article should be kept. Do not see anything unusual here warranting WP:IAR and other heavy artillery. abakharev 02:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am dumbfounded. I will simply say that I am in agreement with Mailer Diablo and leave it at that. Agent 86 01:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if Mailer Diablo's close had merely been challenged at DRV it would have been good manners to discuss it with him first. Failing to discuss a proposed speedy delete action like this with him was very bad manners - such a discussion might have led to MD voluntarily reconsidering his closure, or it might have led to agreement to test his "keep" closure at DRV. I'm not suggesting that what happened was anything worse than discourtesy (such as bad faith, wheel warring, blah, blah), but it certainly was discourteous. This discussion should be a reminder that good manners in interaction with colleagues can go a long way. Metamagician3000 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:216.55.185.224 is a block-evading sock puppet of User:Hogeye

Compare the anonymous user's contributions to Hogeye's contributions. Hogeye is really asking for an indefinite block. He was blocked for edit warring, and is now trying to evade his block so that he can continue edit warring. --AaronS 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is extensive edit warring occurring at individualist anarchism and anti-statism as a result of this sock puppet's constant reversions to Hogeye's preferred versions. --AaronS 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this user as a sock puppet of Hogeye where appropriate. I do so under the impression that it will not count towards violating the 3RR, and will instead be considered reverting without edit warring. If anybody disagrees, please discuss it here or on my user talk page, as I am open to alternative solutions. --AaronS 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue double-teaming with you. He's already violated 3RR numerous times - can we please have him blocked? Donnacha 18:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked indefinitely now. If you find other socks of his, post them here or on my talk page. I have (way too much) experience with this block evading junk. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New user wants to turn Wikipedia into a courtroom

Take a look at Judge John (talk · contribs · logs), apparently he wants to make a courtroom for deciding bans and stuff, sort of like ArbCom. Can someone gently tell him that Wikipedia is not a courtromm? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a reincarnation of banned user user:Mr.T99 complaining about his block. I'm going to block indef. Cowman109^Talk 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment. That really is a bit beyond the pale there I feel. [19] --Crimsone 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - it's blatantly clear from his contributions that he's some user already familiar with wikipedia, namely Mr.T99. Cowman109^Talk 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Our messages crossed lol. I figured he looked to be familiar with wiki, but not knowing of Mr.T99, well, I gave the benefit of the doubt and left the message. Never mind - alls well that ends well :) --Crimsone 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be codified in a strict policy involving a 5 day voting procedure -- Drini 14:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true, and it made interesting reading, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say with regards to this discussion? *confused*. At the time I read it, I just figured it was possibly a new user with a bad idea. --Crimsone 14:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To discourage the "rules and process are the only thing that matter" perception, for random reader. -- Drini 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you mean now, and I agree that it should be discouraged. Rules and process are all well and good, but sometimes they just don'e apply or otherwise get in the way of productive or otherwise valuable work and ideas. (just as an aside, the irony of course is that for this reason, a rule about it exists WP:IAR. lol :) ) Thanks. --Crimsone 16:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hispanicization of Catalan names

Just a heads-up: there has been a spate of anonymous Hispanicization of Catalan names. As far as I can tell, it's all anonymous, and while I hesitate to impute motive, given the nature of some of the edits it is clearly not being done in good faith: see for example [20], which changed "Antoni Gaudí i Cornet, in Spanish also known as Antonio Gaudí" to "Antonio Gaudí i Cornet, in Spanish also known as Antonio Gaudí". That is, the Catalan name was removed and the Spanish given twice, despite the article being named Antoni Gaudí.

I realize that only a relatively small proportion of English-language editors are familiar with the Catalan language, but when you see the letter "o" (or sometimes "io", "a", etc.) being added to the end of names of people from Valencia, Catalonia, or the Balearics, then this is probably what is going on; similarly, when names ending in "eu" are changed to "es", etc.

This may not have been the best place to post this, and if someone has a better idea, feel free to copy or to move (but if you move, please do leave the section header and a link). Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On a related matter, can anyone have a look at the recent contributions of Satesclop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He may or not have a point but I find his behaviour quite disruptive, not to say uncivil. Regards, Asterion^talk 07:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked MagicKirin indef

I have blocked User:MagicKirin for repeated serious violations of WP:BIO/borderline vandalism, violating WP:3RR a couple of times and using a sock User:MagicKirin1 to get around his block, and he only been here for less than two weeks. We don't need these types of editors to edit a long time. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:69.47.168.145=

I'm not sure if this is the right place (sorry if not), but the user severely vandalized a page. He got a Level 4 warning, and then he vandalized the talk page the person who gave him the warning. I just wanted to bring this up, as based on the warning he should be blocked. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He was already blocked soon after vandalizing your page. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from user Anonymous57

There seems to be another erpution from a user tagging everything in sight with {{unref}} tags. This behavior seems very similar to the behavior reported a few days ago from user ClairSamoht, so this could be an alternate login for the same physical person. This user goes as far as tagging entire sections of Featured articles as unref (see Canada). Rather than a list of taggings, here is the Contribs sheet of this user. I believe it is rather self-explanatory[21]. Somebody should tell this user that such behavior (tag and run) is highly disruptive.--Ramdrake 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, his behaviour is highly disruptive. The Canada article is very well referenced; in addition to the ref tags for the controversial statements and specific numbers, each section has it's own list of references in the References section. From WP:CITE:

"Inline citations for uncontroversial common knowledge items are not necessary. Common knowledge facts are those that appear in multiple reference textbooks for the field, all of which are listed in the references section of the article."

So the references at the bottom of the page are sufficient and extra ref tags are not necessary, and thus his behaviour is uncalled for. -- Jeff3000 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The editor's blind addition of tags is more disruptive than helpful, and has used only superficial interpretations of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE as "justification." I ask admins to look into this editor's behavior. --physicq210 21:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He has continued his actions on many other pages. Adding unreferenced tags to every single page is highly disruptive. -- Jeff3000 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this user's contribution, he/she has tagged no fewer than 12 different articles as unreferenced in the last 50 edits alone. The list includes such long-standing articles as Canada and English language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramdrake (talk • contribs)

Having worked with User:ClairSamoht, this appears to be a different editor. I suspect this user's interest in the verifiability policy started after an edit war at Esthero over including an emailed quote from one of the artists described. Choess 03:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Everything in sight"? No, just the unreferenced statements and articles. Anonymous 57 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) And frankly, given the amount of unreferenced material on pages such as The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (today's featured article), I don't think they deserve featured status. Anonymous 57 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Judging from his actions, I think this user is trying to make a WP:POINT as revenge for an article (Limecat) which was deleted despite having so-called "reliable sources". Axem Titanium 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous 57 may have some valid points (I just finished adding some references to sections he marked), but the way he is going about this is only serving to inflame other editors. He has been revert warring over the addition of unreferenced tags and was blocked from 18:32–21:32 for violating WP:3RR. He started editing again at 21:34 on the very article that got him blocked. If he would rely more on talk page discussion I think this wouldn't be such a problem. I suggest a voluntary cooling-off period for Anonymous 57, if he is open to the idea. Pagrashtak 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The user seems to still be at it on Detroit, Michigan but is more reasonable. Despite this, the user still is asking for citations for things that are directly addressed in branching articles [22] (in this example clicking George Armstrong Custer would have yielded the same info that the user was asking a reference for). Here he asks for citation for the Detroit flag noting France [23] eventhough just clicking the Detroit flag link above would have shown the same info. I made this known to the user [24] who civilly added the reference. Gdo01 06:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war over too many fair use images on one page

Recently, A Man In Black created Template:Pokepisode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for the episode list pages of which there was one large one, and he had eliminated an image parameter to do so. So, a few anonymous editors and three registered editors; Yugigx60 (talk · contribs), Ragnaroknike (talk · contribs), and Bobabobabo (talk · contribs); changed these pages so they utilized Template:Digimon episode and so that the images were used. After discussion with one, I editted the template so that images were transcluded, but then I was told by A Man In Black that they would never be able to pass fair use criteria number 3, which states that the number of fair use images on a page should be limitted, and the pages would have had upwards of 100 fair use images on them. After all of that, the anons decided to change the Pokepisode template so that it was a duplicate of the Digimon episode template which was reverted as vandalism (along with the extremely incivil edit summaries). It was all good for the night, until Yugigx60 changed the template back to a duplicate of the Digimon one, and then asked Mets501 to protect it because of an edit war. I have been going back and forth between Mets501 and Yugigx60 and I've been trying to contact the others, but we really need an outside view on all of this. Ryūlóng 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think images are good for the articles, and as long as images are conveying and adapting on central themes of the plot, they pass fair use. Screenshots help identify episodes visually and identify key moments. Identifiying episodes and distingushing between them are key reasons for having List of episodes type articles. (Yugigx60 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Don't copy over someone else's text. This is so that other users and administrators can see the whole situation. Right now, it is an edit war that you yourself are involved in and changed the template that was made specifically for the pages to be a copy of another template. I am here to get an outside view on the whole situation, since administrators and regular users are now involved in this conflict. Ryūlóng 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Images really need to go in be removed from list of episode guides, unless you're going to write a two-paragraph summary or something to provide commentary on the image. Hbdragon88 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The images would be on the episode lists; it's just that it was created to omit all of the images, which at one point were said were going to be used to make it pretty, which is also an FUC criteria failure. For List of Pokémon episodes (season 1) there are nearly one hundred images in use. Ryūlóng 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that came out wrong. When I wrote "they need to go" I meant they needed to be removed, but they way it's worded it looks like that I am for them. Hbdragon88

Please note that I have edited the now-protected {{Pokepisode}} to the version that does not display images. I respect Mets501's effort to calm the edit war, but it's currently on a version that leads, once again, to massive violation of WP:FUC. I've left a note on the talk page of Mets501 (talk · contribs). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting way out of control. Bobabobabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created Template:Pokepisode1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to bypass all of this at Template:Pokepisode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Ryūlóng 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the fair use criteria for episode pictures? Because a lot of episode list articles have images. Danny Lilithborne 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We're essentially going off of FUC #3 which states that fair use image use should be limitted (and a little bit of FUC #8, not for decoration). Ryūlóng 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Note the images are not on one page the images are on 6 seperate pages for each of the Pokemon seasons. (Yugigx60 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

It's still upwards of eighty fair use images on one page. Ryūlóng 15:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think FUC #8 is more appropriate here. When a TV episode article has a fair use image one can make a reasonable claim that it is necessary to illustrate and discuss events of the episode. Images on lists are largely decoration, and decoration does not meet fair use criteria. (Note that this is just another version of the debate over whether NCAA team logos could be included only on the articles about the teams themselves, or also on game schedules, where they are largely decorative.) Not to mention the fact that a list such as List of Charmed episodes take forever to load on dialup because of all the transcluded images. I believe MiB and Ryulong are correct here. If other TV shows do this (such as Charmed) they should be nuked as well. Thatcher131 15:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is ongoing debate about this subject at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. In my view, most of these lists have large swathes of images accompanied by very little text, which is usually not relevant to the image in use, and as such the use of images in those lists cannot legally be claimed as fair use. However others (mostly the authors of these pages) disagree. As I see it the discussion is gradually proceeding toward a consensus that as long as images are accompanied by sufficient text to offer some kind of critical commentary on the list item, and as long as the image actually contributed to that purpose, then the inclusion of images would be ok. New voices at the discussion would of course be appreciated. --bainer (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• What are so bad about images? The images improve the article. (72.232.215.170 17:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Robbing a bank would improve my financial picture too but that doesn't make it legal. Thatcher131 18:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in List of ____ episodes

• Low quality screenshot;
• Single image;
• Serves to identify the episode in question;
• Does not infringe on the owner's ability to make a profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Japanese_episode_list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale (Yugigx60 19:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

This is getting ridiculous. There are now two new users who have made and used the FUC ruining templates now. Jcox6656 (talk · contribs) and Agumon54 (talk · contribs) (created Template:Pokepisode2 which I have now forked back to the right one). Ryūlóng 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This debate is nothing new, especially to anyone who's familiar with the still unresolved List of Lost episodes dispute. There are already on-going discussions on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 and Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. To prevent discussion forking I suggest you guys continue this discussion on one of those pages or at least leave notice on those pages about the new discussion. Also, it would be good to over-view many of the points made by both sides in those discussions. As it is now there is no conclusive proof that images in a list of episodes, when properly chosen, violate WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Banned user posting personal attacks

After I reverted some vandalism on Phaistos Disc, 80.90.37.72 (talk · contribs) and 80.90.39.18 (talk · contribs) posted messages to my talk page (e.g., this diff and this diff). Aside from the violations of WP:NPA, these posts are clearly by a banned user who has been a rather problematic contributor to Phaistos Disc, who usually posts from the 80.90.xxx.xx range, but also the account Rose-mary. The specific account that has been banned is 80.90.38.176 (talk · contribs). --Akhilleus (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Rather problematic" is very tolerant of you, Akhilleus. The Phaistos Disc vandal is the "contributor" from hell. Please could someone, who knows how to figger the right numbers, range-block IP-only for a good long time, if it hasn't been done already? Seems to me this is exactly the kind of thing we got the IP-only feature for. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

Remember Gator1 (talk · contribs)? He was a "martyr" in trying to stop this vandal. 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 80.90.32.0/19. The block log for the range is revealing. I've tried a 3-month, anon only block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent harassment

As discussed in #Tendentious editor on policy pages above, Fresheneesz (talk · contribs) has embarked on a campaign of harassment against me, and to a lesser extent Doc Glasgow, and persists in doing so despite being told to stop. Basically, he has been spreading nasty insults, threats and personal attacks all over the wiki. This has gone way beyond the line of civility and wikiquette, and discussing it with him has proven fruitless.

[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

I request that a neutral admin keep an eye out, and block him if he keeps up this disruption. >Radiant< 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just let him have his poll, if this whole thing hadn't been blown out of proportion and umpteen admins rush to the proposal page to tell him he couldnt have a straw poll because there was no support for the proposal, none of this would have happened. Now he has his poll, it will get SNOW'd and be over. --NuclearUmpf 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• You are missing the point; most of those diffs are entirely unrelated to the straw poll (in that they predate the first proposal of the straw poll, or were made after the straw poll already opened). >Radiant< 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: See also the relevant RfAr --Ligulem 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor who self-identifies as 14 with massive amounts of personal data

User:Kimberly Ashton who is 14 according to the user page she created today (but 15 according to her simple wikipedia page), has a lot of personal information posted on her myspace clone userpage. She is over the limit that has been discussed for children revealing personal information but the amount of info and young age are still a concern. She has a simple wikipedia page and a commons page here. Her edits are mostly to user talk pages on all three projects, but there are a few legitimate ones so I think she could benefit from a mentor since a request to consider removing the personal information was denied. [35]. Obviously I'm not the person for the job, but someone should look into this especially since some of the edits border on a bit too friendly for safety. [36], [37]. pschemp | talk 03:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, that's a lot of information. Also, she needs to either license her image freely or delete it, as the description page says that "no one can use it unless they have permission from me." Hbdragon88 03:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the account being used for the purposes of genuinely editing the encyclopedia? If its activities are not consistent with the goals of this project, well, something should be done. --HappyCamper 03:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of her 45 edits [38], 9 are in the main userspace, the rest of them being on user and user talk pages. Hbdragon88 04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

9 main space edits since October 1st, clearly used for editing. But when you look at the edits, they don't look like they were made by a newbie 14 year old. -Lapinmies 06:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Simple Wikipedia. SimpIeton 06:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just had an interesting trek through CheckUser with this account. "Kimberly Ashton" is the same person as Lindsay1980 (talk · contribs) and the "sisters" Bethicalyna (talk · contribs) and Bethicalyna2 (talk · contribs), who were blocked also for being minors releasing personal information and using Wikipedia for social networking and not constructive editing, and another similar account which has not been blocked or taken note of before, Special Sylvia (talk · contribs), who has a user page which also gives out, unsurprisingly, a lot of personal information for a teenage minor. Of course, all of these users give out different personal information, and appeared in succession. We are being trolled. Dmcdevit·t 07:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you please also run a checkuser on User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz and User:Padawer, just in case there is any connection with this? -- The Anome 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

More Cute 1 4 u fun? Well, based on all of this, I'd say an account creation block is in order for this person. Now, we just need to get this person off of Simple and Commons. Ryūlóng 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention below, I did prohibit account creation from the IP, Dmcdevit informed me that address is not used for other editing here so there most likely isn't collateral damage. Teke ^(talk) 18:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If we carry out anything here, I have no problem doing the same on Commons (the images are worrying). I've reported this thread to the AN there.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

<tinfoil hat> Perhaps it's a Perverted-Justice.com-style attempt to bring wikipedia into disrepute as opposed to simple disruption. </tinfoil hat>
brenneman ^{L} 07:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. The pedophilia hysterics would do something like that, maybe they are just trying to get the response they want to prove that wikipedia is bad and create even more hysteria. -Lapinmies 08:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I support a community ban on all such accounts acting as sole community interaction. I'm not the heaviest mainspace editor of all time, but we are building an encyclopedia. Combine these accounts and you have less than 75 mainspace edits, and they're all fancruft related. We really don't have time to deal with these continual disruptions by users under 13, or claiming to be or whose actions are even suspect, and I can't imagine the lawyer disagreeing. Too many CHU and AN/I notices have been wasted on these kids. We're not a social site period. Teke ^(talk) 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both Special Sylvia and Kimberly Ashton, as they are confirmed sockpuppets and they are misusing the project in a way that, while I am not a lawyer, are potentially damaging and a waste of everyone's time to boot. Teke ^(talk) 07:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"The pedophile hysterics would do something like that"? Wow, that really does need a tinfoil hat. I agree that bringing WP into disrepute is one possible motive of these accounts. Another, clearly, is that they might be the work of someone looking to bait kids (the MO is right[39][40][41]). Denial may do a lot for your comfort levels, but it doesn't help WP. Just because the media like breathless headlines about such things does not, alas, make them untrue. [42][43] WP needs to defend itself from smear attempts and young users from predation, so we need to not be hysterical but to consider the real possibility of dodgy users, just like we do the possibility of sock and meat-puppets. JackyR | Talk 11:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the users' motivation, I support the blocking/redacting of "minors who reveal Too Much Personal Information" on sight. I'd rather be criticized for bruising the feelings of a 14 year old editor than by letting one come to harm through inaction. Nandesuka 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the above, but not necessarily for the same reasons. At this moment, since there is some ambiguity on how to deal with these situations, I will go with the rule of thumb that infinite blocks will be applicable for accounts which are primarily spent on making profiles and such. Well, this is an abbreviated idea, but hopefully the sentiment is clear. --HappyCamper 12:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The user is now also blocked on Commons. In cases like this, inter-wiki cooperation should be encouraged (though not forced). I'm inclined to say users who treat Wikimedia projects as MySpace should be banned.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is, could 'Kimberly Ashton' be a pseudonym and this person/people be attempting to troll us?? But, yes, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Gold-Horn 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Another really young editor

To echo the thread just about this, User:YSHOULDUKNOW123 identifies himself as being 12 on his user page. On top of that, he has his full name, school, and town listed on there. What should be done here? Metros232 03:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it from the page history. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

More Ebay stuff

After reading the (removed) recent stuff about an admin account allegedly being sold on Ebay, I did a search on the search term "wikipedia" on that site. I didn't find any accounts for sale, but there were a few weird entries, like this one with titles like "Practical hand forged Wikipedia Katana for IAIDO,AIKIDO". What the heck is a "Wikipedia Katana"? The description of the item doesn't give any indication of what connection it has with Wikipedia. The same is true of several other entries that, for no obvious reason, include the name of Wikipedia in their descriptions. They seem to be mostly from sellers in China. The only listing that actually had anything to do with the search term was for a magazine issue that mentioned Wikipedia in it. *Dan T.* 03:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's what eBay dubbed "keyword spamming". Basically, they're there so they'll show up if someone does (say) a Google search for Wikipedia, or something like that. It doesn't make much sense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wait, what about the admin account being sold? Is that really true?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If it seemed to be true, you'd have to ask the "buyer", and you'd have to believe what the "buyer" said. If the "buyer" actually paid money for the name and password of a retired admin and didn't get it, he -- somehow I imagine such twits as male -- would perhaps be too embarrassed to admit "I was a sucker; I got fleeced." And if it were true and the buyer claimed as much, he wouldn't give convincing evidence as this would identify the account and cause it to be blocked, and what a waste of his dough that would be. Investigating such an allegation would probably be a wild goose chase. Better just to keep an eye on what's done with admin powers. -- Hoary 07:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, this is just a bit of odd trolling, trying to start some nonsense rumor. Buying admin accounts would be silly anyway. --W.marsh 19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we have to watch out for admins leaving disgruntled with a "bone to pick" with Wikipedia. However the "farm grown" ready-to-sell admin accounts that I read about are a scary possibility too. Courtney Simpson 18:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Eh. The worst that happens is that we get one bad admin out of the 1000+. We get bad admins occasionally anyway; we deal with them, and nothing that anyone does is irreversible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How to prevent vandalism if multiple people use your PC

I have a suggestion for people; if multiple people use your PC, and want to edit Wikipedia, block it (so you don't get autoblocked because others are using the same IP address as you!)

Go to C:\Winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts or C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts, and add the following lines: 127.0.0.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/ or (Wikipedia's IP address) - then redirect it to a Wikipedia mirror etc.

Then, when you wish to use Wikipedia, just comment out the block in the hosts file like this: */127.0.0.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/* and you can edit again!

Hope this helps; if I'm helping to prevent vandalism, then let me know! --82.42.237.173 08:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, get an account, you'll never be bothered with autoblock at all... :) However, don't forget to log out... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I will get an account! But this is for people who have an account and when they get an autoblock due to the actions of other people on the PC. --82.42.237.173 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User admits to adding false information

GSNguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to adding false slogans to TV station articles to build up his edit count so he can become and administrator. I think a block is in order. [44] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CFIF (talk • contribs) .

For clarity, this diff was actually from Gsnguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not GSNguy (note caps). I imagine they're related but found no proof of it. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about signing, actually, I was talking about Gsnguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he kept adding false information and admitted to it. This is dangerous to WP. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. We don't need accounts on Wikipedia which behave like this I think. --HappyCamper 11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Really weird user conduct

Would someone mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/WTGDMan1986? The edit summaries are particularly odd. I thought maybe it was a recent thing, but I see he has been warned or talked to several times in the past about these type summaries. Also, look at some of the article talk page contributions like [45] (and note the edit summary on that) and [46]. This user seems to be severely disillusioned at times and seems unresponsive to some suggestions to curtail behavior. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? Metros232 13:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The user still continues the ridiculous edit summaries. The edit summary on this edit is "Revert Alex Varkatzas and Matt Heafy following by 69.37.169.238 (Vandalism) to last version by Orz. Please do not use private parts". The two people being singers apparently. What they have to do with a guy adding the word penis to a school shooting article is way beyond any of our comprehensions. Can anyone else try to talk to this editor to get him to curtail his actions? Metros232 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

WAWWMER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-proclaimed sockpuppet[47] of indefinitely blocked user Pnatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Quite why anyone anyone would declare on their own userpage that they are a sock of a banned user is beyond me, as it rather defeats the point of evading a block, but still... -- AJR | Talk 14:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Jay Mariotti

We have received an OTRS complaint regarding the state of this article. I have re-stubbed it due to WP:BLP concerns, and ask that other administrators please lend a hand with this article by ensuring that the sources added by editors are valid, and by helping watch out for other various forms of vandalism. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Jay Mariotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Just a little help here Thatcher131 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rapid-fire spammer at Spider-Man

Anon-IP user User:65.189.175.39 (talk) is repeatedly deleting this entire article, including with pages of the repeated phrase "fuck you". Warning him/her has done no good. Requesting immediate block. Here's information from Spider-Man history page:

• 17:27, 2 October 2006 Tenebrae (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism)
• 17:17, 2 October 2006 65.189.175.39 (Talk)
• 17:15, 2 October 2006 81.7.21.38 (Talk)
• 17:12, 2 October 2006 65.189.175.39 (Talk)
• 17:03, 2 October 2006 Shadzar (Talk | contribs) (reverting vandalism)
• 16:59, 2 October 2006 65.189.175.39 (Talk)

Thanks for any help --Tenebrae 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Please use WP:AIV in the future. Naconkantari 17:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. --Tenebrae 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, you generally want to work your way to a {{test4}} (and subsequent violation of it) before reporting. A {{test4im}} and other templates (ie. spam4) serve the same purpose in special cases. Admins generally won't ban in the AIV unless these have been given/violated except in exceptional circumstances; i.e. username bans, pagemove vandalism, clear sock vandalism, threats, and so on. Arbitrations, 3RR violations, etc. are a whole other area. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If an administrator sees a maliciously disruptive edit such as this (warning! possible client DoS! -p.) made to any article, they should block the offending person on sight without warning. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think working the test ladder would be superfluous in that case :) Thatcher131 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, non-admins should just use {{blatantvandal}} and then go straight to WP:AIV. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring consensus

What to do is a user keeps on ignoring consensus on a matter and reverts articles? I would someone tell him to respect decisions he does not like, and to work towards compromises, but he keeps reverting.--Panarjedde 19:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem article? See WP:Consensus; the solution is to invite other people in to see a compromise, or if one side is nonsense. (If it is, several attentive editors and the 3RR rule should take care of it.) Septentrionalis 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropiate username

User:An expiry time of 48 hours (Vandalism). A wicked sense of humour, I guess. Asterion^talk 19:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

blocked before you even posted. check the block log, few usernames like that are missed. pschemp | talk 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't even bother next time. This is the second time that happens to me. Great to see Wikipedia at work ;-) Asterion^talk 19:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas!

We need to put an end to this WP:POINT spree. The case is closed, and yet 12.*** is still rambling on. It shouldn't have even been here in the first place. Opinions? Daniel.Bryant 11:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Thatcher131 11:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support. – Chacor 11:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a temporary sprotect of this page wouldn't be out of order too... Daniel.Bryant 11:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the entire thread; it never belonged on ANI in the first place. I would rather not sprotect the page, so I rangeblocked the troll instead. Since he is so interested in anon-only blocks, let's see if they work. Thatcher131 11:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He won't be arguing back at my reply to his comment on my talk then? lol I'm in complete agreement with you all over him/her. --Crimsone 11:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can just imagine him/her frantically fiddling with IP settings. Daniel.Bryant 11:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

copy+paste of three articles

Is this the right place to report cases of copy+paste? User:Rarelibra copied and pasted the content on three different articles in short series of time, [48] and here [49] and [50]. AFAIK copy+paste are an absolute taboo since they de-link the history of an article, what is the correct procedure now in this case? Any help is welcome. Gryffindor 15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. —Scott5114↗ 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break Gryffindor. Rarelibra is trying to correct the extreme German POV you have spent almost a year trying to embed into WP. The archives are clear, from the beginning when you moved Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol. It is unethical for you to try to abuse the system like this to get your way, and waste other's time. Taalo 21:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy+Paste page moves are not an acceptable way of dealing with content disputes. Try mediation, an RFC or arbcom instead (in that order). exolon 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This was answered in more detail at ANI, and I'm not sure why Gryffindor felt it necessary to post it twice. No damage was done since the source articles remain intact and the destinations were redirects, and are redirects once more. If there is a future consensus to change the article names, an admin will have to do it. However this is a content dispute at its heart and administrators are not referees (when we can help it). Try a request for comment, third opinion, or mediation. Thatcher131 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This really needs to end, though. Rarelibra (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly doing these edits, just moving articles his way. I've been trying to show him the right way (I don't know how many times WP:RM has been linked on his talk page) but he just ignores and reverts. Ryūlóng 02:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not forget the drama he starts up cause he doesn't get it his way. Ryūlóng 04:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom template suggestion

This page has been protected because of a request for arbitration concerning this article. The page has been preserved in this state for evidence purposes. It will remain protected until the end of the arbitration case.

This is a proposed template for use in cases where an article in mainspace is the subject of an ArbCom case; what do people think of it?? --Gold-Horn 16:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Arbcom cases last months... I don't think freezing an article for that long is acceptable. Am I missing something here? --W.marsh 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's wholly unnecessary. ArbCom members know how to use the page history function, and can retrieve the page history of deleted articles. Captainktainer * Talk 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm aware they can retrieve the page history. My idea went wrong. Sorry about that! --Gold-Horn 16:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• They're the ones holding oversight, anything else can be seen by them as well, so not nessecary IMO. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware, oversight doesn't allow them to read oversighted (overseen?) revisions, only to hide them. If this is no longer the case, it hasn't been communicated to me. q.v. WP:OVER. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm trying to mean that only those with oversight can "destroy" evidence, and most of them are arbitrators themselves. Other than creating panic amongst editors on involved pages, the template really does nothing because everything else is preserved by GFDL and deleted revisions that can be viewed by any of the arbitrators. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

195.93.21.7

195.93.21.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) came to my attention with "reverting" an edit that was not a true revert but just a veiled deletion of content. Since the subject matter was not my expertise I checked the users other edits, and it looks like a longterm history of "sneakey vandalism". IP seems static. Please an admin doublecheck. Agathoclea 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw some good edits and some bad. It looks like a London-based AOL proxy, so there's no one user and not much we can do about it. Thatcher131 01:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Malber

Please look at Malber (talk · contribs)s contributions - This looks like vandalism on a truly massive scale, far wider than a simple set of warnings will handle. Or am I missing something here? Fiddle Faddle 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they're putting {{spam}} on the talk pages with good intention... Problem is I cannot work out the point myself! Thanks/wangi 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

They are putting {{lame}} on, you know. And there has been, at least on Guinea pig no edit war. So, either Malber is no longer in control of the account, or Malber has "spotted something that we have not". In either case I feel an admin shoudl investigate fully with a view to massive removal of the tag Fiddle Faddle 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Lame was created today. Its history and its talk page seem worth checking. There is something at best "unusual" going on here. Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Originally he only seemed to be putting it on those listed at the pathetic WP:LAME.. now it has gotten out of hand.. definitley needs deleting. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly it is causing so much trouble that a short acting block may be in order, simply to provoke a reaction, and to prevent this from spreading further. The template is now speedy-listed, but someone needs to go make a decision and get it. I am obviously incompetent at nominating templates because every darned talk page it is on has now been nominated. Please coudl someone who knows what they are doing have an urgent look at Template:Lame Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have flexed my IAR muscles. The template is gone. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 22:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And very mice muscles they are, too :) Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The template tags have also been removed from the affected talk pages. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 23:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Timtrent: Please outline the "so much trouble" this template has caused. This is an optional template. You could have removed it if you took your edit war too seriously. It seems to have only upset two users. Or did you also fail to keep things in perspective? This saga has potential for inclusion on WP:LAME. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• You know, if you want to ask about trouble, you might ask the nice person who deleted it and deleted it from all the many talk pages you put it on. Me, I'd have blocked you for vandalism. How fortunate I have no ambitions to be an admin. Do feel free to put it on WP:LAME. Thing is, thsi wasn;t an edit war. This was quite different. This looked much more like a WP:NFT issue. Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're going to quote WP:ALPHABET it may be helpful to actually read the policy/essay. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Spambot alert

Please take care of the spambot. Also please add the listed websites to the meta spamlist. --Cat out 21:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome a more permanent soultion against this persistant spambot... --Cat out 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 Done, added to blacklist. The best I can do is recreate the page as a {{deletedpage}} and protect it. Naconkantari 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to do that but the bot so far attacked my actual archives as well as creating fake archive pages in my userspace like the recent case. This is I believe the 6th spam case... All previous websites had been already blacklisted... --Cat out 21:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the user page, I've also deleted User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2005/01/ twice in the past... Any idea why your userpages are such a target? Thanks/wangi 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No real idea... Someone seems to be bored... Are the ips resposible geographicaly related? Granted they may be zombies, open proxies and etc... but who knows... --Cat out 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're all from Ukraine. Thanks/wangi 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Do they appear to be zombies/open proxies and other goodies? --Cat out 14:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fenasi Kerim (talk · contribs)

Please block the user as per {{usernameblock}}. "Fena Sikerim" is a Turkish curse and "Fenasi Kerim" is a clever yet not so clever way of writing it. --Cat out 21:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Domo arigato Pschemp. --Cat out 18:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Gold-Horn

I've blocked this user as a sockpuppet of User:Sunholm, User:Sunfazer, User:LiverpoolCommander et al. These accounts have been followed with large amounts of vandalism from the underlying IP whilst operating a single "good" account, and have had the underlying IPs blocked by checkuser on many occassions. After the block of User:LiverpoolCommander, the following day this user created a new account, activity since then has picked up as User:TheM62Manchester, trying to get the LTA pages for WoW restored [51]. As their IP declaring thaw WP:DENY is bad policy as LTA pages are public pillory for vandals [52] (Given the large amount of vandalism which has come from behind this string of socks this of course suggests the opposite to be true). The user declares themself to be the same as the corresponding username on wikinews. this for checkuser from wikinews shows that the then IP of that user was being used for creating WoW type usernames. The user then shows up saying I am a legit contributor from that IP. The IP in question 82.42.145.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is of course the IP being used by TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous vandal accounts, such as Mersey-guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --pgk 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, subsequent to this block 69.50.208.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has shown up protesting User:Gold-Horn's innocence. Strange thing is that the IP is an open proxy (verified this morning, see it's talk page) and the user doesn't seem to know who they are signing themself as Joanne on one page and becky on another. --pgk 06:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Gold-Horn has told me on Wikinews that he is indeed the owner of this account, so I unblocked it. Gold-Horn is an established user on Wikinews, so I trust he will be fine here as well. As with any other user, if he acts up, block him. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussed with User:Messedrocker concerning much of the other background concerning this user and reblocked. The block certainly wasn't on the basis of impersonating the wikinews user of the same name, I'm quite happy to believe they are one in the same. The issue here is that they are the same as a user who has been blocked under multiple accounts and has (according to checkuser) also had a string of sockpuppets behind the main "good" account, engaging in widescale vandalism, stretching back many many months. Previous blocks have also involved numerous other accounts springing up trying to get the underlying IP unblocked and previous experience has then shown (again via checkuser) the same situation recuring. --pgk 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User Lochdale

User:Lochdale has repeatedly removed well-sourced paragraphs I have written from the Elvis Presley page. This is not acceptable. See [53], [54], [55], [56], etc. Lochdale's behavior supports my suspicion that this user identity has primarily been created to remove my contributions and to harass me. See also his contribution history from the beginning, which shows that Lochdale is constantly attacking me, claiming false things and removing passages I have written simply because the content of these paragraphs is not in line with his personal view of Elvis. Onefortyone 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We have gone through this issue again and again. Your assertations are not "well sourced". Instead, you make an effort to take reputable sources to buttress questionable (at best) claims. You've made a considerable effort to have me banned not only from the article but from Wikipedia entirely. I have tried to engage you in the Talk page but you have a clear and direct agenda that has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the truth. This matter should be arbitrated. It seems, however, you want to create a red-herring by attacking me and focusing on me personally rather than your actions. Lochdale 03:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the last of those edits whose diffs 141 so handily provides is indeed a bit odd. In it, Lochdale adds a spurious backslash. I presume that this was an accident, triggered by understandable irritation over yet again having to delete a wodge of innuendo-filled blather about Presley's "male friendships". Anyway I forgive Lochdale for his (her) backslash. The other edits are exemplary. Well, we're now past the 27 Sep '06 end of 141's ban, so we can expect unrestrained additions of material that will imply that Presley was notable primarily for porking lots of girls in his youth, for porking his mother (?!), for being a playmate (?!) of someone called Nick Adams, for not being able to pork lots of girls in his middle age, etc etc ad nauseam and beyond. And any objection to this is likely to be held to show that the person objecting is a "fan" of Presley and thus blind to his failings (never mind that my own total collection of Presley discs and MP3s numbers zero, and perhaps is not so unusual). So, the participants of WP can decide: Is WP seriously trying to be an encyclopedia, or is it merely an indiscriminate collection of salacious factoids? My own suspicion is that a great number of people hereabouts are more interested in the tabloidy factoids than in substantive content about significant achievements by people who are (deservedly or otherwise) famous, and that's one reason why I "unwatched" the Presley article some time ago. -- Hoary 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, Hoary. Where is my contribution adding "material that will imply that Presley was notable primarily ... for porking his mother (?!), for being a playmate (?!) of someone called Nick Adams"? Such topics were not part of my last contributions. On the other hand, in my opinion, it is of some importance that Elvis (frequently referred to as a "sex symbol"), was not overtly sexual towards women, as several sources prove. But the real problem is that Lochdale simply claims that my edits are questionable, but this is not true. He also claims that most books do not support my contributions, but he is wrong, as facts show. You should have noticed that, as a kind of compromise, I didn't mention sources such as the controversial manuscript book by Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley in my last contributions, primarily centering on what is written in reputable Elvis biographies. But this material has also been deleted. It seems as if Lochdale did not read any of the major Elvis biographies. I have not yet seen that this user has given direct quotes from one of the sources he claims to have read. He frequently misquoted Guralnick's name as "Guralnik" in the past (see, for instance, this discussion), and he didn't even know the exact title of Guralnick's book Careless Love: The Unmaking Of Elvis Presley, as he cited it as "Careless Whisper". See [57]. He also disparages university studies I have used for my edits. He says, "I would disagree with that the information presented is really worth mentioning as a lot of it seems to be from college disertations etc...." See [58]. This statement speaks volumes. Lochdale's only aim seems to be to delete my contributions. Just one question. Is there a reasonable argument for excluding the whole paragraph on Elvis's male friendships from the article? See [59]. These friendships with members and employees from the Memphis Mafia are well documented and part of every Elvis biography and they are certainly accepted by the mainstream, as all these people played a significant part in the singer's life. Why should this paragraph be totally removed from the article? On the other hand, look at the unsourced "Trivia" sections of the article, for instance [60], and sections such as Elvis Presley in the 21st century or Elvis Lives?. These sections are fan stuff in no small degree, as they are always singing the praise of the megastar. Is all this material encyclopaedic? I don't think so, but some users, among them Lochdale, do frequently support these sections by their contributions (see [61], [62]). Though I am not of the opinion that all this material should be included in the article, I never removed these paragraphs, as Lochdale frequently does with my contributions. In my opinion, Lochdale is part of an Elvis fan group which endeavors to suppress specific details about the singer's life from the article, if he is not somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (we have already discussed my suspicion here and elsewhere). And what about the well documented FBI files I have cited and the false claims by Lochdale concerning these files? See [63]. It seems as if I am the only user who frequently, and accurately, cites his sources, and Lochdale is frequently deleting the passages I have written. These are the facts, and Lochdale's deleting tactics are not acceptable. Onefortyone 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is my contribution adding "material that will imply that Presley was notable primarily ... for porking his mother (?!), for being a playmate (?!) of someone called Nick Adams"? In the past, plentiful. But the history of this ghastly article is impossibly long and I am not now going to look within it for this. I'm happy to hear that you haven't readded/augmented it recently. I hope that you don't readd/augment it in the future. ¶ [I]n my opinion, it is of some importance that Elvis (frequently referred to as a "sex symbol"), was not overtly sexual towards women, as several sources prove. Then we differ, because in mine this is of no importance whatever. ¶ It seems as if Lochdale did not read any of the major Elvis biographies. I have not yet seen that this user has given direct quotes from one of the sources he claims to have read. Not being Lochdale, I don't know. The article has hugely too many direct quotes, sometimes taken out of context. ¶ He also disparages university studies I have used for my edits. The last time I looked, one of these studies was about Presley and seemed substantive; some of the others seemed to emanate from the polemical quasi-academia of "queer studies" and the like. ¶ Is there a reasonable argument for excluding the whole paragraph on Elvis's male friendships from the article? Yes, because Presley's male friendships seem entirely unremarkable, aside from those with the so-called Memphis Mafia and the twisting of the friendships (and everything else) that came with his descent into multiple drug addiction. They don't seem to have influenced his (sometimes good) music or his (almost universally horrible) movies, or indeed even his "iconicity" (!). ¶ [L]ook at the unsourced "Trivia" sections of the article, for instance [64], and sections such as Elvis Presley in the 21st century or Elvis Lives?. These sections are fan stuff in no small degree, as they are always singing the praise of the megastar. Is all this material encyclopaedic? I don't think so -- and while I disagree that they're all hagiographic, I agree that much of them is junk. Indeed, I was hacking away at "Trivia" (adding "{{fact}}" to it, deleting it, etc.) when Nicholas Turnbull invited you, me and one or two others to take a break from the Presley article. I gratefully took up that invitation; I suggest that you do so as well -- as does your earlier RfAr. Hoary 23:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am being harassed by user

If this is the wrong place to post this I will be happy to move this. I also put this at the personal attacks page. I apologize if I am not following the correct procedure. Please let me know. Thanks. Here are some recent exchanges between us.

I guess we will never be on good terms. Please try to be civil in all future correspondence. I will try to avoid contact to make that easier. Thanks, and no hard feelings. Jasper23 04:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Jasper23, you're the second worst editor that I've run across on wiki. Your arrogance with other editors here and ignorance toward the article are overwhelming. Take care.--Scribner 05:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have left this user numerous warnings on his talk page but he has reverted them many, many times. He has also reverted my talk page after I removed his personal attacks. He then took those posts and now has my talkpage posts on his talk page.

Here is more:

I smell a sock.--Scribner 20:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Do some research before accusing people of silly things. Fist time I have been called a sock though. Jasper23 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You and your sock need to start using spellcheck. Reckless editing on your part. Total disregard for other editor's work.--Scribner 21:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You've provided evidence against yourself with your inability to spell and ignorance of talk page formatting. Concerning the edits, you removed cited materials, disregarded the history of the talk page and the work of other editors. You included lies, cited with irrelevant articles and a personal website. Your checkuser's coming, for what it's worth. I'll revert your edits in 24 hours. If facts feel like insults to you maybe it's time for you grow some thick skin or leave, best wishes.--Scribner 22:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Here is another recent exchange:

"I hope that we can be friends.... now that you know I am not a sockpuppet Unrelated. I also hope that my edits are agreeable to you. Lets try and move on. Thanks. Jasper23 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)"

No, you were never suspected of being a sockpuppet, you were checked for being the a puppeteer Scribner

Concerning your gutting and wholesale disregard for other editor's work on the ACLU page, you've proven poor faith to me and likely other editors. One of your first sections was surprisingly ignorant.Scribner

Reported by Jasper23 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the situation calling someone the "second worst editor on Wikipedia" and talking about their "arrogance" and telling them to leave is a personal attack. Don't make it personal comment on their edits in an objective manner. Also, if accounts are noted as unrelated by Checkuser, the target is neither sockpuppet nor puppeteer. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my formatting is so bad I should just erase this and start all over. Scribner said all that and not me. I have marked all conversations by user and bolded my current comments. Thanks. Jasper23 06:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SALTing

How many times should a deleted page be re-created before salting? I noticed that Marcus dakers an attack page about some kid, has been re-created twice now, over a gap of several months. Is that enough? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently also deleted once under the name Marcus Dakers. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Tricky. If there is not potential for a real article to go in its place (thank you google) than I'd consider it. However... If it's on your watch list, seeing something with "N" appear should amke you suspicious and lead to it being re-deleted anyway. - brenneman ^{L} 13:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've blocked the creator of the recent version of that page indefinitely; their username makes it clear they're here for the single purpose of making that kind of edit. Since the one user interested has been blocked, I think we should hold off on the WP:SALT per WP:DENY, unless it is created yet again. Mangojuice^talk 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I wait three times if it's being recreated quickly. More if the recreations are very spaced out. Grandmasterka 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say even one re-creation is enough to apply salt if there isn't a likelihood of a real article or redirect that could occupy the same space. As both a WP admin and as a mortal human being, I have better things to do than check regularly to see if some middle-schooler has reposted his list of the gay kids in his math class (or whatever). Sometimes the time and energy saved by salting is substantial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Proxy revert war and help with User:BGC and User:Dudesleeper

At my wit's end I'm not sure where to post this or what to do here, but there has been an on-going, Byzantine, and nasty revert war/string of personal attacks/vandalism/etc. involving myself, BGC, and Dudesleeper. It all started on R.E.M. discography, with a dispute about what to include (if you're interested read the debate yourself), and skipping ahead to all the relevant material, the following incidents have occured:

• An edit war occurs on R.E.M. discography about "(un)official" compilations.
• I report Dudesleeper for breaking WP:3RR
• Dudesleeper makes misleading allegations about me on R.E.M. discography talk.
• Dudesleeper vandalizes the page by removing a dispute tag, and in the process reverts more than three times in one day. His edit summary: Given up explaining now, will just keep reverting."
• He accuses me of lying and flippantly ignores me.
• Dudesleeper propses a vote without following the guidelines at WP:Straw poll (e.g. "allow about a week for this process," instead his lasts a day.)
• Makes slurs about me (e.g. "childish," "can't comprehend," "dumb it down."
• After a "huge turnout" the poll is closed. This turnout includes the two people who support his version (including himself, and that is after voting the opposite way initially), and one person who dissented. Another who clearly opposed it (myself) was not counted, and another user who pointed out that voting was evil was ignored.
• He accuses me of lying and asks if I'm "bleating on again," ignoring the arguments that I put forward vis-a-vis the actual article itself.

At this point, the fighting on this page has ended due to a compromise on the content of the article. Meanwhile, at Template:R.E.M., a proxy fight emerges, again with BGC and Dudesleeper on the one hand, myself on the other. Instead of being a quarrel about factual content, this is regarding formatting. My argument is that introducing arbitrary HTML makes the page less usable, whereas BGC and Dudesleeper are arguing in favor of a certain formatting based on purely capricious aesthetics. The entire history is too long and convoluted to present here, but it mostly revolves around arbitrary formatting issues.

• I've tried several times to explain why my version is more sound web design, and have been categorically ignored (e.g. this)
• BGC has responded with a string of personal attacks and petty insults (e.g. "you're arrogant... and insecure.)"
• I posted a comment on BGC's talk. He didn't respond there or at my talk, and just deleted it. He tersely responds at the template talk.
• I post again to BGC's talk, and he ignores me. Dudesleeper chimes in with a sarcastic retort. BGC responds with equal bad faith on Dudesleeper's talk.
• BGC reports me, and consequently himself, for some reason, for breaking the 3RR (which we did.)

I made a request for mediation, which they both denied. While I appreciate that this is their right, and I'm not opposed to their refusal for mediation per se, they also did not bother to try any kind of good-faith discussion on talk, and are apparently only interested in blind reverts. Meanwhile, the two have conspired to get around the 3RR and bait me into breaking it (which I did.) I have no idea what should be done here, but I've made sincere good-faith attempts to resolve this dispute (including e-mailing two admins for assistance, getting none), and I'm at my wit's end. Meanwhile, these two resort to cheap sniping like this and this and refuse to discuss the substantive issues I bring up on talk. Surely we can't continue editing like this, as it's bad faith and wasteful. Can someone please assist me here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Update As I posted this, BGC left this cheap retort which is also a lame personal attack and continues to ignore the substantive issue I have brought up on talk for weeks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs)

• Note, Users Koavf and User talk:BGC have both been blocked for 48 hours for repeat WP:3RR violations. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note of the Note:Is this strictly a WP:3RR, no, it appears they are gaming the 3RR system though. If any other admin wants to reverse this I will not cry wheel war, as long as the reversal is to both parties. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history of the template in question, I do see Koavf having violated 3RR on 9/27 - 9/28. However, he already served a 48 hour block for that violation. I see no 3RR violations since then. From either side. That said, the revert war between these two was still continuing unabated, just a little more slowly. So I'm not really disputing the blocks themselves, more just the reasons for them. IMHO something needed to be done to tell these two that what is going on needs to stop. Blocks for Edit Warring can and do get issued, and that would be what I would have recommended, rather than 3RR blocks.

I'm also inclined to protect the template itself until these two can work something out. At this point it appears that 48 hour blocks are unlikely to solve anything. With the page protected, I'm not certain if anything would be more likely to get worked out, but at least the revert war would be stalled. Probibly time for them to take it to dispute resolution of some kind. - TexasAndroid 15:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From a recent email I received I have a suspicion that User:BGC may be Brian G Crawford, who is still very much up and down due to his personal health issues. I will check this. Guy 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, looks unlikely. Back to the troll-wrestling competition :-) Guy 20:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats from User:Gary Lorentzen

Found on User talk:Gary Lorentzen. The diffs: [64], [65]. A.J.A. 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Naconkantari 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is AFD a vote?

There is discussion (well, presently it's more like a stalemate) on Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote, on the issue of whether or not AFD is a vote. Perhaps some AFD regulars, or DRV regulars, could chime in and comment on this? As long as nobody suggests that we vote on the issue :P >Radiant< 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw polls are not votes. That is why comments that are just delete keep with no rationale are normally given less weight then those where people given an explanation. So no AfD is not a vote. --NuclearUmpf 15:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yeesh. See, I don't like either position. If you say "is not a vote" or if you say "is a vote," you're licensing further action that can be pretty bad, in my opinion. In fact, AfD does have tallies, and it is an iffy admin who goes against majority (or it's a very, very iffy AfD that generates a majority against policy), but, at the same time, it is not a "first past the post" sort of thing, either. If we go around trumpeting, "AfD is not a vote," we imply, both for ourselves and to the non-administrators, that we do whatever the heck we want. (If it truly were "not a vote," we wouldn't even have the thing -- we'd just have a huge CSD pile.) I guess it's the sloganeering that bugs me. (Yeah, I'll go say all this, but I wanted to say it here, too, in case my fellow adminfolken wanted to tell me how I'm wrong.) Geogre 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Truthfully, it doesn't matter what you call it because WP:IAR trumps the lot :p. seriously though - it's not a vote per se, but that doesn't mean admins can do what they like. Invocations of WP:IAR in admin actions can only occur where there is a firm justification for it that can be explained in terms of the goals of Wikipedia, it's processes, it's environment, or it's functions. Outside of this uncommon area, Amins merely follow established concensus and sweep the road in between their work as wikipedians like everybody else. As an example, if you had a vote of 70 delete and 30 keep, but 45 of the deletes were just that with no good reasoning or using defeated arguments insistantly, while all the keeps had good reason given, then there would be a reasonable argument for the keeps to have it. It's an extremem example, but it demonstrates the point.--Crimsone 15:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• XfD not a vote. Admins try to determine a consensus based not only on the number of comments in each caategory, but also the validity or the arguments put forward; they can totally disregard some comments, if they are clearly based on limited information or on grounds that are outside policy. For a reminder of how messy deletion can become, and how the discussion can turn 180 degrees in a very short time, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia. The Land 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. It's a call for discussion leading to consensus. The closing admin looks at the inputs and their convincingness, and makes the call, is consensus there? Then the admin acts. If there is sufficient doubt that the action wasn't quite right, it goes to DRV. So far, so good. No voting, all within the wiki way, good stuff, most outcomes stand... The problem really is not AfD, but rather DRV, in my view, which seems to be organised along strict voting lines. That just seems wrong. The effort to delete DRV outright, while amusing, also showed that there is significant opposition to how DRV runs now. That's my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• (after about 10 million edit conflicts) It's usually not a vote. But in the AfDs with 50+ non-sockpuppet votes (which are rare), who are we kidding, closing with anything but the raw numbers is just closing based on our own opinion. And maybe that's okay, but I don't like couching it in this "Well the delete side just made stronger arguments so that's what consensus was... coincidently I personally wanted to delete the article anyway" nonsense. In AfDs with smaller sample size, often people get it wrong, make unconvincing arguments, and so on, and there aren't enough people involved to counter it, so sometimes you'll end up with a 50% "vote" to keep original research and other Bad Things, and the closer needs to deal with that. In conclusion, I think this whole vote/not a vote stuff is... not good, somehow or other. I know people mean well with it, but it is just devisive somehow. Let people call stuff what they want, and make the decisions that they think are best for the project... it worked for a long time, why obsess over semantics now? --W.marsh 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Back when I looked at this over a year ago, one could predict ~93% of AFD outcomes by saying that greater than 2/3 delete votes would lead to deletion and less than that led to the article being kept. I think it is clear that AFD does have qualities of being a vote (as well as qualities of being a discussion). However, I will leave it to others to make up language on what to call these processes where we both discuss and vote. Dragons flight 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Important clarification:
Radiant neglected to mention the fact that the debate in question pertains not to the nature of AfD, but to the definition of the word "vote." We're in complete agreement that a closing admin should not simply count the votes and declare a numerical outcome, but the word "vote" implies no such thing. In this context, it refers to "the formal expression of a proposed resolution of an issue." Most of you are using a colloquial connotation that isn't strictly correct, which is why I don't advocate advertising Wikipedia processes as "votes." I do, however, object to the incorrect statement that they aren't votes. You really mean to say that they aren't majority/plurality votes. —David Levy 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in Moscow

Can anybody help me please with the situation in Moscow, where user Fisss removes images and gallary from the article (which was already discussed in talk), moves images above the headers (which makes them look ugly), replaces relevant images in sections with irrelevant ones. Only thing I wish him to discuss his changes in talk page. Please help!--Nixer 16:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR

User:Lochdale has repeatedly violated the three-revert rule during the last 24 hours by deleting the same paragraphs from the Elvis Presley article again and again. See [66], [67], [68], [69] [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. Onefortyone 16:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Onefortyone has been banned from the Elvis Presley article several times and continues to exhibit behaviour that is not consistent with Wiki rules. I would hope that this issue could be acknowledged perhaps via arbitration. Lochdale 17:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem, Lochdale? You are the user who frequently deletes well-sourced contributions I have written. This behavior is not acceptable. I think it's high time to ban you from the Elvis Presley article. I have cited my sources, you have deleted the material, thereby violating the 3RR. These are the facts. Onefortyone 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please report all 3RR violations to WP:AN3. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Serbia has been s/p-ed due to vandalism, and s/p has been requested for Belgrade. However, the same user (or group of users) have turned their attention to all Serb-related articles, using the following IPs: User:172.177.119.199, User:172.174.248.219, User:172.179.6.99, User:172.174.136.100, User:172.176.18.19, User:172.174.15.182 and User:172.173.92.36. Request that these be blocked, and pehaps the IP blocks as well, though that would affect legitimate users. --estavisti 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems our friend Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is violating their arbcom injunction again... Naconkantari 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect as much, but I don't want to go around falsely accusing people. --estavisti 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to accuse him but he's already blocked and the IPs are AOL, so there's not a lot we can do except protect the articles he attacks. Thatcher131 17:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

American Hunters and Shooters Association OTRS

As mentioned previously on this page, American Hunters and Shooters Association was subject to OTRS review. Seen here, User:John_Broughton keeps inserting/pushing for sources that don't meet RS such as Blogger pages on tripod.com. While not an admin action per se as it's gone through OTRS it could well end up thus, or even Office level. Would an admin or two be willing to pipe up on that article/talk page to calm things? I don't think I'm getting through to him (and User:Friday). · XP · 16:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're getting through (to me, anyway). More eyeballs on this would help. I've asserted on the talk page that John Lott's blog (because he's John Lott) could be an acceptable source. Friday (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Objectionable behaviour?

I'm not going to be specific about this, but sufficed to say I've been watching it for a while. What finally prompted this was his recent user page addition to a section "Administrator powertrips", but more importantly, what was written in the subsectio regarding bans.

Please could one, two, or better, a few of you guys review the contribs, talk and userpage of Lordkazan (talk · contribs), and offer an opinion. If nobody feels that there's anything there to deal with, I can comfortable and happily forget all about it once more :) --Crimsone 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Users are welcome to express opinions about the project, even critical ones, on their page. If it becomes disruptive somehow, we can deal with that when it happens. Friday (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. From the looks of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lordkazan, this user has already been disruptive. However, simply expressing opinions about the project is not disruptive. Friday (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Haven't looked deeply into the contributions, but the userpage bothers me. I don't care one whit about the "administrator powertrips" section, but Kazan has a lot of space devoted to some very strong and controversial opinions. Of course, everyone's entitled to their opinions (and I don't necessarily disagree with them) but Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it might be going a little far. Mangojuice^talk 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

True. The only thing that got me was the way it was phrased in saying that "bands are always punative" bit. To be honest though, it probably struck me only in combination with something written about the victims being the ones getting punished - I think he might have been talking about himself. I saw the RFC, but I also read a comment on his talk somewhere regarding one of the people who "tried to resolve" and retracting the support of it - seems to be the same people as were involved in an incident at WP:PAIN centered around him.

I've been involved in dispute resolution between Lordkazan and another user previously (at at great legth and effort), but it seems thatthere's yet another long and protracted dispute now. To tell the truth, my heads about to explode trying to understand what's going on. There's plenty of disruption present, but whether there's any blame or single cause of it is something I can't answer - I guess that comes from having been too involved in mediation a while back. lol

Still, if you guys think there's no particular overriding concern here, I'm happy (and relieved) to let it drop out of my mind --Crimsone 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible runaway bot

NE2 (talk · contribs) is creating disambiguation pages for highway names vs. U.S Navy units (at least 500 today), many of which contain redlinks. Either this is a 'bot or this editor can do twelve edits a minute. I'm not sure what's going on, but whatever it is, it's not working right. --John Nagle 19:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just heard from that user; it's not a bot, he really is editing by hand (probably with some software assistance) that fast. I'm not sure if what he's doing is a good idea, but it's not a runaway 'bot. --John Nagle 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that I was doing anything wrong. I was creating disambiguation pages for the "VA-X" style, which can mean U.S. Navy attack squadrons or Virginia state highways. I then looked at "what links here" for each and disambiguated the links. Some of these disambiguated links were red links, and still are, but could have become incorrect blue links had someone written an article on the highway and redirected "VA-X" to "Virginia State Route X". Was I wrong to do this? --NE2 20:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't see any issues with creating the redirects, but I've posted on his talk and requested that he stop for the time being until anyone with objections can discuss. alphaChimp^(talk) 21:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholar mass spammed Wikipedia with links to his web site

See evidence here [77] Thank you. Inahet 21:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

new problem editor

Looks like a problem editor, might be a sock of Nitrotjj (too soon to tell) Previous vandalism complaints. [78], edit history [79]. Posted a somewhat less becoming photograph on a WP:BLP, copyright clearance ok?--I'clast 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Hunterd's signature

Hunterd is using external links in his signature and seems to be resistant to removing them as expressed on his talkpage, "Oh, and don't bother asking me to change my signature, or the centre-alignment of this page, you incessant fools!" See WP:SIGNATURE for appropriate guidelines. Opinions? ~Kylu (u|t) 22:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm not aware of anyone before me asking him to stop, I'd urge anybody commenting on this to be polite. It's against policy (and annoying), but it's not exactly malicious. Zocky | picture popups 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to be hesitant in dealing with someone who has more than twice as many edits to his user page than to the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 23:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Politeness" and "hesitance" are not the same thing. Zocky | picture popups 23:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rudeness

I am occasionally exposed to rudeness and I don't like it. For example:

• Fucking quit it. ... Rebecca 23:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That comment was taken up by other editors.

Another editor has just left the following comment on my talk page:

• Sorry, what? You'd rather do a half-assed job because it's quicker and easier than doing it properly, but if I want to spend my time trawling around after you tidying up your goofs you'd be happy to assist? How noble of you. Do you realise what a selfish ass you just sounded like? --DeLarge 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a standard procedure? Can I simply delete rude comments? bobblewik 10:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's your talk page. Unless you talk about a real warning,and unless you misrepresent an editor by taking things out of context, you can delete whatever you like. Some find this in dubious taste (including me), but others do it frequently. --Stephan Schulz 10:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can simply delete rude comments, they aren't vandalism warnings or anything. However, I agree with the second guy, if you're going to make mass changes like that, do them right. --Golbez 11:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility is the official policy. Comments this incivil should not be tolerated. What you might do about it is outlined at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, although if the editors making these comments make such comments habitually, Wikipedia:Requests for comment sounds like the right avenue. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Could have really phrased her complaints better, that's for sure. However, it's a little difficult to blame someone for being short when you've been warned and blocked an inordinate amount of times for such things. Still, she could have been a bit more tactful. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am being threatened with rollback:

In future, expect your edits to be rolled back summarily - your dismissive attitude deserves to be reciprocated. --DeLarge 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment requires two users. Can anyone be my second? bobblewik 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved from The Village Pump (Policy) since there appears to be a dearth of actual policy questions or discussion taking place. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to make it official policy somewhere that when stylistic disputes about 'mass edits' like this (whether from bots, AWB, scripts, or even manual editing) come up everyone needs to stop, whether editing or reverting, go to an appropriate talk page, and sort out the consensus view on the issue before continuing. We have run into this over and over again with 'BC' vs 'BCE', road name standards, date linking, spaces vs nbsp, et cetera. Any sort of change to numerous pages is going to serve as a 'multiplier' on disagreements and waste an inordinate amount of time on all sides... the difference between edit warring on one page and doing so on a hundred. When a bot is making mass disputed edits we block it on sight... the same ought to apply to humans doing so - which would include reversions of the edits where that too is disputed. A fifteen minute block with an edit summary indicating that it is just to stop the ongoing changes to allow discussion shouldn't carry any 'stigma' and would allow these to be sorted out before people start going into meltdown (as above). In this specific case, the date linking issue seems to have been discussed several times before... so this seems like either mass edits against consensus or mass edits with a known absence of consensus... either of which strikes me as extremely disruptive and worthy of a block if they don't stop. Again, I think past experience / common sense show that mass changes should only be made when they are widely agreed to. --CBD 13:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In all the discussions on WP:MOSNUM there has been general consensus that individual years standing alone (which have no bearing on date preferences, unlike the ones associated with a day-month) are overlinked, and no agreement on how much they are overlinked. Unlinking them all when all were linked seems marginally acceptable, though probably not the best way to deal with it. Then the appropriate action to be taken should be adding back those few which are really relevant, not reverting en masse. But it would be better for Bobblewik and those like him to leave the most clearly appropriate ones, and make clear in their edit summaries that they are only removing excess ones. Gene Nygaard 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik complains here, but his long insistence on acting just like a bot even when it would be obviously stupid to an editor with any writing sense is pretty much custom-designed to wear away the patience of any sane editor trying to clean up his Sorcerer's Apprentice brooms' work, and "Fucking quit it" is entirely justifiable IMO. As is the response of summary rollback. If the manual of style says this, for example, is in any way a sensible or useful edit, then it's just wrong. Following guidelines robotically is incredibly stupid. Guidelines are things to apply with actual thought. Particularly when one has been pissing people off with them for YEARS. What the hell. I suggest a commendation to Rebecca for her remarkable forbearance above and beyond the call of duty, and a cookie - David Gerard 23:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard again cements his place as my favorite editor. <3 --Golbez 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Those of you tut-tutting at Rebecca above may care, by the way, to read User talk:Rebecca#Re:_Date_links - Bobblewik has been messing with the MoS, going on a botlike rampage and then pointing to the MoS to justify his actions. That is, this is the disingenuous variety of complaint - David Gerard 23:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

usernameblocking without notice

I notice that people no longer bother to warn people before giving them usernameblocks, this means that someone creates JoeSmith382752836, and 20 seconds later they're looking an autoblock square in the face that says something like "Usernameblock, less numbers plz" and they're left blocked from actually creating a new username for at least 24 hours. If they're genuine new users they don't even know what an autoblock is, and don't know to wait around for it to expire. For harmless usernameblocks like the hypothetical one above, shouldn't people be given a warning before being blocked? Come to think of it, why block at all? If someone creates bobsmith358239552325 why not just ask them to pick a new username, and wait for them to reply? The current policy just scares away new users at random. Heck, even the email thing, the reason for not using your email as your username is to protect the user from spammers, yet people are giving punitive usernameblocks to people who list their emails--152.163.100.65 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not any more because the mediawiki software doesn't allow the @ sign in usernames since it causes software issues. Accounts with no edits have never been warned before a username block, and doing so would be a giant unfeasible waste of time sinc emost of them are vandals anyway. pschemp | talk 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but it seems to me that there's a big difference between how an admin should issue a username block to a blatantly offensive or vandalistic (e.g., offensive, racist, "Wheels" etc.) username, and a good-faith username that happens to contravene a rule created for admin convenience (e.g., "not too many numbers" or "no special characters". In the case of the latter greeting a newbie with an indef username block is almost guaranteed to create a WP:BITE issue if care isn't taken. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If every account was used, that would make sense. However, blocking, and leaving a {{usernameblocked}} message expalaining how to change the username is perfectly acceptable since most accounts with no edits rarely get used. It has never been the practice to warn first as doing that to 500,000 unused accounts is a waste of time. Additionally, the username block summary contains a link to that template which explains everything. Its not a bite issue at all. Btw, the username rules were not created for "admin convenience" and stating so shows a bit of paranoia. Username rules were created to help the community function easily. That includes all editors. pschemp | talk 00:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Strike "admin convenience" from my comment and substitute "other editors' convenience." I meant convenience for the administration of the site collectively, not any individual administrator. Given that this issue has never affected me personally and I was just offering a viewpoint, accusing me of "a bit of paranoia" strikes me as inappropriate. I was concerned about the autoblock issue raised by the original poster as well, but I will drop the matter. (edit conflict: I can agree more with Doc's comment below, however) Newyorkbrad 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. The abbreviation admin is ambiguous though, and since you used it to mean "wikipedia administrator" in the first instance, there is nothing for me to do but assume you meant it like that again given that I can't read your mind. I'm sorry but the way you worded it, the meaning would be a manifestation of the general paranoia going around that admins are out to rule wikipedia by abuse or whatever. I'm relieved to see this isn't the case. pschemp | talk 00:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, if we're going to insist that a user changes his username, it seems that the kindest time to do it is immediately on creation of the account, before they have edited. That ways it isn't so much that they find their established account blocked, or an admin asking them to jump though a hoop - as it appears like their initiall attempt to log in with that name is met with 'please try again', and are not prevented from doing so. --Doc 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with both the initial concern and Doc's suggestion. Definitely a WP:BITE issue if left as is. JackyR | Talk 10:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Uninvited Company deleting articles

User:UninvitedCompany deleted the article Flavor Flav (the rapper from Public Enemy and star of Flavor of Love), saying that it "had no sources." Last I checked, that wasn't a reason to unilaterally delete an article, especially on a subject who is clearly notable. I restored the article, and figured you all needed to know. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• he's also deleted a few other articles under similar circumstances, apparently: [80], someone will need to look into those too. Speedy deleting articles for lack of sources is clearly not supported by policy, or common sense. At most articles should be deleted through PROD/AfD if someone suspects they're hoaxes. --W.marsh 03:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just restored Maria Ford, another clearly verifiable, NPOV, and notable subject deleted recently by UninvitedCompany. The sole reason provided was that it was unsourced. Andrew Levine 03:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not something I'd expect a bureaucrat to do, even under WP:BLP. Just stubify it if needed. – Chacor 03:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of these had received WP:OTRS complaints. WP:LIVING encourages all editors to remove unsourced material from articles and to delete articles where there are no sources in the article history and the article would be substantially empty after the unsourced material is removed. We are presently trying to clear a large backlog of OTRS complaints which exists in part due to Kelly Martin's departure from the project and also due to several other OTRS regulars scaling back their participation due to school. So I try to work quickly. I have no problem with someone recreating these articles as stubs or for that matter making expanded articles, if proper attention can be paid to sourcing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles can always be restored. It's better to have no article on notable persons than articles filled with libel, puff or gross inaccuracies. I can also verify that the OTRS queue is incredibly large...Kelly Martin was a very hearty correspondent, and her absense is being felt in the amount of work necessary. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 03:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a place for OTRS folks to request other editors to give some attention to certain articles? I bet people would be willing to do some of the editing required in clearing the backlog. I understand that confidentiality is a concern, but surely some of the legwork could be done by people who aren't reading the actual email communications. Friday (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say something like that. People are always saying OTRS is backed up, but then only people who are friends with whoever runs OTRS can actually help out. I'd probably help with the backlog, but no one's ever asked. --W.marsh 03:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. A "call-to-arms" for OTRS would be answered, I imagine, with gusto from Wikipedians. And if it isn't limited to admins only, I'd help out in any way I could. Daniel.Bryant 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We sometimes ask on IRC. If you're interested you can start at American Hunters and Shooters Association, which needs more serious NPOV work than I'm able to provide. I will opine that nearly all of the articles on schools, radio announcers, and 2nd-string TV and movie actors need TLC and are only getting OTRS involvement as their subjects discover them. That said, we could think about using a category tag just as we do with other article problems. There are pros and cons and it would have to be thought through with care. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And Judith_A._Reisman which needs particular attention to sourcing due to the nature of the subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested in helping out without actually answering emails is welcome to join wikimedia-otrs and hang out. We've always got things to do! Bastiq▼e ^demandez 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was Maria Ford deleted twice again? Ryūlóng 20:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

<unindent>I had nothing to do with it the second and subsequent time around, though I had stubbed the article after it was restored. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could start a list of articles that need attention at Wikipedia:OTRS (Or some other, more prominent place)? --Conti|✉ 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, should've read a section ahead. --Conti|✉ 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help with User:Raymond arritt

User:Raymond arritt is harrasing me, he has reverted most of my edits as they happen, and after viewing his contribs I noticed that he has been telling some other users that I am a sockpuppet.. someone deal with this please :)--KFA UK 12:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll help.--MONGO 18:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice help. ;) Danny Lilithborne 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Frisch blanking Deborah Frisch, using it to attack others

Warriordumot (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (who admitted she is Deborah Frisch on the failed AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deborah_Frisch), is taking a chainsaw to her own article, turning it into a hagiography about herself, and using it to attack her enemies in a rather bizarre fashion (see diff). Given her track record off Wikipedia (just read the article about her for details on that), I think it's safe to say that she needs to get some full-blown level 3 or 4 warnings from admins right now, and her actions need to be watched. --Aaron 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You will need to review and follow WP:BLP. Thanks. JBKramer 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting that an administrator look into the editing actions of Warriordumot, not asking that an editor attempt to lecture me that WP:BLP means that the subject of an article is allowed to blank all negative information about herself and replace them with comments such as "Frisch gained internet and blogosphere notoriety when she resigned her adjunct position at the University of Arizona after hundreds of rightwing nutcases emailed her boss at the University of Arizona whining about something she wrote on the internet." Thank you. --Aaron 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that the adminstrator who looks into this will say "two wrongs don't make a right, stop violating WP:BLP." JBKramer 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Warriordumot just blanked Deborah Frisch entirely. --Aaron 18:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And you, yet again, violated WP:BLP, inserting negative claims about a person without "a verifiable secondary source." In this case, you used only a court record, which is a violation of WP:BLP on it's face. I must insist you read and follow WP:BLP. JBKramer 18:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So now WP:BLP means whatever you wish for it to mean? Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable. --Aaron 19:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you stop while you are only midly behind. "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." JBKramer 19:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Aaron was making a good faith attempt to revert vandalism and blanking. That should not be construed as maliciously reinserting BLP violations. - Crockspot 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Crockspot. Sadly, the damage has been done. User:Warriordumot is still vandalizing the article, and too many admins are busy admonishing me to even block her. --Aaron 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just issued her? a warning and one more instance of vandalism and I'll block the account--MONGO 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, the current version you created is most fitting version according to WP:BLP [81] --NuclearUmpf 18:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be time to try another AfD. Danny Lilithborne 19:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to come up with some sources in that article or I'll make it become history. Follow WP:BLP to the letter.--MONGO 19:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Linked articles Protein Wisdom and Jeff Goldstein contained similar poorly-sourced allegations which I've also removed. Demiurge 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't hang around blogs or the blogsphere, but this particular article and a few related to it seem very non notable to me. What is, in fact, Deborah Frisch claim to fame? That she is/was a professor and made some comments on someone else's blog? I wonder how many persons would fit this level of notability? Me thinks the bar of notability is way to low much of the time.--MONGO 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sources, vandalism, blanking, BLP, or whatnot, I fail to see how this article avoids CSD A7. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone close the new AfD please? I opened it prematurely 'cuz I'm a goof. :) Danny Lilithborne 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp

The Arbitration Committee has found User:Tonycdp conducting personal attacks against User:Asterion in Spanish (can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop#Personal_attack_by_Tonycdp). He is being found disruptive by the ArbCom at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision#Tonycdp_is_disruptive. I will now quote the decision of the ArbCom that was approved by the ArbCom on 14 September 2006: For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits. Tonycdp is a party in the Arbitration over the Kosovo article. He has made articles called Southern North Kosovo and West Kosovo and according this diff violated disrupted the Wikipedia. I will now quote User:Consumed_Crustacean from User_talk:Tonycdp#WP:POINT: ..you may be placed on a ban from Kosovo and related articles while the arbitration case is underway. Consider that ban now active, thanks to these edits of yours. It will be lifted once the case is over, and whatever decision they make will take its place. If you create or edit any articles related to Kosovo, you will be blocked (by myself or another administrator) from editing the Wikipedia for some period of time. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC) He was thus banned from Kosovo-related articles on 29 September 2006 and the Arbitration on Kosovo still lasts. However, he violated the ban, editing Kosovo in 09:44, 3 October 2006. Then he edited Dardania (Europe) in 10:17, 3 October 2006 (which as a part of the History of Kosovo series). And then he edited Priština (capital city of Kosovo) in 10:20, 3 October 2006. I do not know if this can be applied to talk pages, but he has edited Talk:Kosovo on [], [], [] and []. According to the instructions of the administrator who banned him (User:Consumed_Crustacean) - he is to be blocked if he violates the ban, which he did. --PaxEquilibrium 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are more looknig for Arbcom Enforcement --NuclearUmpf 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You can probably blame me for giving him the wrong page. Tony is on a 3rr ban right now, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No rush then. I'll look at it tonight. Thatcher131 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I extended the ban with an extra 24 hours, simply because this user was warned repeatedly to cut with the distruptions. He continued though, on Kosovo and Albania pages (all politically motivated and POV-introducing, which is the focus of the ArbCom). He also acknowledged previously that he read the Kosovo ban I placed on him, saying that "it's about time". Pop it back down if you want, but I figured it was justified. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thatcher131 11:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Linnwood removing donkey punch article talk comments unilaterally

In short: 1) I asked Linnwood if he were a child and if that was what interested him in the donkey punch 2) He came back with a trolling accusation when I was asking a very serious question. Conversing about sex with minors via the internet is not a good idea, to say the least, and I want nothing to do with it. 3) I concluded there's a good chance he's under 18 because anyone would have confirmed adulthood, especially young adults, who usually don't want to be mistaken for kids. 4) I put a warning on Talk:Donkey punch to warn others he may be a minor and to be careful until proof of age is established. 5) Linnwood removed it, calling it trolling. It's not called "trolling," it's called "keeping others safe from the cops." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Blythe (talk • contribs) 3 October 2006.

This user was blocked already once for "considerable personal attacks, incivility over a considerable period of time." See here. This user is continuing this activity by adding these comments to my talk page and the talk page of the above mentioned article. — Linnwood 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also see here & here. — Linnwood 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Billy Blythe is indef-blocked, this can be archived. Guy 15:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Heh! Jimbo has pwn3d Donkey punch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :-) Guy 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:US House Page

US House Page (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm just wondering if this might be a poor choice of username. He's edited on Congressional topics. Seems like that could be a problem, but I don't know the applicable rules. Derex 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Um yeah, not the best choice in names to be editing the Mark Foley article. Also, he uploaded a photo of a random page without permissions (hello, legal issues of picture of minor) and has added unsourced opinions and trivia. I'm blocking the username and requesting a name change. pschemp | talk 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic4gl

Could an admin take care of all the crap going on here, the formats are messed up, there are a bunch of extraneous comments by new and anonymous users, some being apparent single purpose accounts. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I also question why Madcowpoo (talk · contribs) is allowed to edit, he obviously shows no grasp of proper grammar and spelling. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we can't have people here who have no spelling skills whatsoever. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really see a problem with the AFD except that the layout is messy (feel free to fix if it bothers you) and it has two or three socks. As to your other question, we used to have an encyclopedia with strict standards so that only experts could edit it; it was called Nupedia and didn't really work out. Since basically any minimum level for editing is going to be arbitrary, that means we don't set a minimum level and also allow e.g. foreigners with poor English skills, or children with lack of grammar, to participate. Well, as long as they d0n#t wri3t in l33t, anyway. >Radiant< 16:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is one of our biggest problems here, but I digress. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP violation Predatorgate

Grazon, without discussion, moved Mark Foley scandal to Predatorgate. He also dislinked the Talk page. I seem unable to move it back, it seems he might have also protected the talk page. Obviously, Predatorgate is highly POV and a neologism. Worse, it labels Foley a "predator", which is a clear violation of WP:BLP, considering an investigation is only starting.

My understanding was that you could move a page back if the redir hadn't been edited. Apparently not, or I'm messing something up. Derex 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1) google Mark Foley scandal and then do the same with Predatorgate and see which one is being used more. 2) POV? the guy is a child Predator! 3) I don't even know how to dislinked the Talk page.

grazon 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• It was a copy-and-paste move; I've deleted it. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• That entire article has serious problems, starting with the infamous "alleged" and then re-stating as fact that which has not been admitted or sworn in testimony. I would suggest we should leave this to Wikinews, make a short section in Mark Foley and link to the Wikinews coverage. They are far better placed to deal with breaking news than we are. Guy 15:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

More JarlaxleArtemis socks to ban

These JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) socks want banning:

• BomberMan 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Asdgger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Asdger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

They've all been recently used for vandalism. —Psychonaut 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, but there's more coming out of the drawer. Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Averette re. Conch Republic again

(PREVIOUSLY ARCHIVED)

We have a content dispute on the Conch Republic page which has escalated into vandalism and nonsense misuse of sources. Averette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FairHair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began disputing whether the Conch Republic is a valid micronation some time ago and have been arguing with Centauri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and recently myself Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the subject.

There are three abuse issues I want to present:

One, Averette and FairHair are behaving like a sockpuppet pair, and have 4 or 5RR'ed he article a couple of times [82]. I'd like uninvolved admins to take a look and see if a CU is called for.

Two, Averette is now persistently using http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-fl-cr.html as a source for his claim that the Conch Republic is a former rather than current entity [83] [84]. This is the website for a company which produces specialty flags. That website includes an out of context past-tense citation from the main Conch Republic primary source http://www.conchrepublic.com/, most specifically http://www.conchrepublic.com/republic_position.htm. The Conch Republic website uses past tense for its secession and present tense for its existence. This appears to constitute persistent nonsense edits, as the source's validity has been disproven and pointed out to him.

Three, Averette just made the nonsense claim that a road (Card Sound Road) which is more than 120 miles away from Key West, Florida constitutes a valid second route out of the city, beyond U.S. Route 1.

In fair disclosure, I have 4RRed the article in the past 24 hrs, with my last edit [85] being to revert Averette's reposting the misused source info after I warned him it was nonsense to add bad material and misuse sources. I believe this was a vandalism revert, however, at this point I am going to stay hands-off on the article until others can review the situation. I have not reverted the third, road-related nonsense vandalism.

I am generally loath to bring a content dispute to AN/I, however I believe that Averette is now violating WP policy in multiple manners. User:Lar had been looking at the situation (including warnings to Gene Poole, who has been rude at times in the dispute) but is too busy at the moment and recommended ANI. Georgewilliamherbert 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I warned them again, maybe it will do some good. I'm not unwilling to block teh lot of them for a bit to get it to stop, or protect the article, as they really do seem to be going at it quite vigorously. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Users are claiming things are sorted so am back to watching to see if that's so. Not blocking is vastly preferrable to blocking, after all. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this back from the archives, as User:Averette has decided that now it warrants a mention in "areas affected" of Hurricane Wilma. I've reverted him, but I hope someone is keeping an eye on this. – Chacor 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been trying to talk to him through edit summaries at Parrot Jungle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he has violated 3RR in turning a redirect into a slightly altered version of Parrot Jungle Island, after seeing this thread. I'm not sure if Conch Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) counts as 3RR either in this situation. Ryūlóng 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on Conch republic with several exhortations on the talk page there. Not sure I'm getting very far. Ryulong, full marks for trying, but I'd like to suggest that "talking through edit summaries" may not be the best approach. Take it to the right talk page(s) instead. If this continues to escalate there are a number of things that we can do. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:leyasu has returned

Leyasu (talk · contribs), currently blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, is editing under a new user name: Fred138 (talk · contribs). The users edit history is identical to the blocked user. Fair Deal 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its also important to note, that Fred138 has twice been returned as a user that isnt myself by RFC. It is also important to note the multiple warnings that Fair Deal has deleted from their talk page for accusing users of being myself simply to violate revert rules. Leyasu 04:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Heads up on RNA interference and related articles

User:Mussaali, also appearing as User:70.183.113.24, User:209.16.74.251, and User:129.81.15.58, seems to be the real-life Mussa Ali, a former member of Craig Mello's laboratory during the discovery of RNA interference. Back in July this user repeatedly spammed the page with a link to his personal website (now defunct), where he documented his side of a personal dispute with Mello, including legal disputes on related patents. He also removed references to Fire and Mello as co-discoverers of the phenomenon.

Recently the matter same up again with new spam linking to a document apparently detailing recalled conversations with Mello, personal attacks against Mello and repeated demands for my personal information, culminating in repeated vandalism of my user page and a threat to start spamming RNAi-, Mello-, and University of Massachusetts-related pages with his favorite link. Today he inserted the link into the RNAi page again and also vandalized the University of Massachusetts Medical School article.

Mello and collaborator Andrew Fire were recently awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of RNAi in animals, so these are high-visibility pages at the moment, and there's only a few of us who regularly keep watch. The user account and the IPs have collectively made one edit not related to using Wikipedia as a platform for promoting one side of an ongoing dispute. Some external intervention may be necessary to keep these pages intact. Opabinia regalis 03:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention that this guy is not at all familiar with how to use a wiki and that not all of his inappropriate user- or article-space edits are intentional vandalism; they're just inability to find the talk page. Opabinia regalis 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm this is a real problem. This user has an axe to grind re: Craig Mello and appears to be involved in a law suit against this individual. He is currently using wikipedia as a platform for his agenda against this individual. Given how prominent recent Nobel prize winners are, we are talking about a serious threat of libel against wikipedia if comments from this user remain intact. Not to mention the civility issues that this user has. i.e. demanding that user Opabinia regalis is identified. This can only escalate as this user has shown very little interest in trying to understand the role of wikipedia or the role of the community. David D. (Talk) 04:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable behaviour and indeed has been going on for a long time. I have blocked the usernames involved, and temp blocked the IPs to stop the spamming as the status of this as a current event will only make it worse. Wikipedia is not the place to post original research and legal complaints. Let me know if our spammer shows up at other IPs. pschemp | talk 04:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I need help with a disruptive vandal

User:Mykungfu, blocked for vandalism, 3RR violations, and just generally violating WP:POINT, has been running amok by editing via AOL IPs. His primary targets are Alpha Phi Alpha, Alpha Kappa Alpha, and now Sigma Pi Phi, the latter of which he has reverted six times today across various IPs. He also removes sockpuppet notices from the IP pages and from his own userpage [86] with bogus edit summaries like "harrassment" or "dangerous threats." He removed a warning from one of the IP talk pages [87] related to deleting another editor's comments from an article talk page [88], and he put a racist message to another editor on my talk page [89]. He's now trying to use the protection system to lock his vandalism in place [90] and to stop all editing to those articles until he gets his way. I've gotten a little help here and there from some great admins, but I need a more comprehensive solution. I can't stop this vandal myself, especially when he avoids violating 3RR because his IP address keeps changing. I've suggested semi-protection on all articles, which would at least allow serious editors to work on the articles, but even so I'm not sure that will stop the bigger problem of Mykungfu's behavior. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can look below for such an edit. Ryūlóng 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. This is getting ridiculous. I propose an indefinite block of Mykungfu/Ninjanubian and semi-protection of the affected articles. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just copy-pasted the old malformed nonsense over to WP:RFI with a new IP range. Ryūlóng 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, guys. His latest edits (that I can't revert because I'm at 3) are removing another sock notice [91] and continuing to delete content from Sigma Pi Phi [92] (one of the few pages he can still vandalize; my request for semi-protection is still in the queue). I think there's a racist subtext here as well, unfortunately. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics in hockey players' article titles

Over the summer, I had the misfortune of getting into a move revert spree concerning Masterhatch (talk · contribs) and the use of diacritics in hockey player's names. He was blocked for a short period of time after he went and mass moved back while I was in the middle of it. This all culminated with a requested move at Teemu Selänne which did not occur, and there has been no such guideline concerning the use of diacritics in a person's proper name, either at naming conventions nor the hockey WikiProject (there was a proposal, but it was not accepted). There should be something to do with this user and his repeated page moves when there is no real guideline or consensus either way. Ryūlóng 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus either way, but why should people be able to move an article from its original spelling to one of diacritics but when i try to move it back to its original spelling, i get called a vandal? When there is no consensus or a dispute, leave as is. I am not a vandal and the vast majority of my page moves are to their original spelling, not to my pov. Now Ryulong has enforced his pov and undid my attempts and restoring to the original spelling. If i try to fix it, i will get called a vandal. Masterhatch 06:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Outsider comment: If it's the proper spelling, why would you not want it as the article's title? And I don't see how that's POV. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There just needs to be some sort of greater consensus to all of this, and I have brought it here for that reason. There has to be an administrator who knows some hidden guideline about this. Ryūlóng 06:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I say leave articles at the oringal spelling until a consensus is reached. If the original article spelling used diacritics, then leave it that way. if the original spelling didn't, then don't. Diacritic spelling is not wrong and neither is non-diacrtic spelling. I am just a firm believer in "most common spelling in English for wikipedia articles". Masterhatch 06:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember that argument from the RM. There is no "most common spelling in English" for these hockey players' names. Just because diacritics are omitted in, say, the newspaper doesn't mean they should be omitted on Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The commonness of a misspelling doesn't make it permissable. This isn't really a controversial thing in my book, so I don't see what the real problem is, and just because it's the original spelling doesn't make it the "best" one. I assume you wouldn't object to moving a mistyped article name to the correct sentence case, so I don't see how this is that much different. It doesn't appear to hurt anything, and is being done in the interest of correctness. You don't seem to be arguing in favor of correcting a misspelling, though, and I also don't see this as being something we need consensus for. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, that is what got me on this in the first place. the English spelling is not a "misspelling". English does not spelling English wrong. In the vast majority of cases (especially with hockey players), diacritics are dropped. and i am not just talking about the internet. i rely on reference books, atlases (for city names), other incyclopeadias, etc for my arguments. If a reputable reference book about hockey ommits diacritics, then are they "misspelling" it? i think not. they are just spelling it English. It is Ryulong's pov that all the articles should include diacritics. it is my pov that all articles should go to their original spellings until a consensus is reached. I request that Ryulong moves back all the articles to their original spelling until a consensus is reached, in good faith. And i repeat, English spelling is not wrong, just different. it is a blind pov statement to call spellings without diacritics wrong. Masterhatch 06:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But they're not the "original" spellings. They're not transliterations, they are, indeed, misspellings in the name of ease. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is your pov that the english spelling is a misspelling. some words, such as Pokémon are most commonly spelt in English with the diacritic and therefore, Pokémon, not Pokemon, is the correct title for that article. My argument is simple, the most common spelling in English is the spelling to be used for article titles. But that is not what i mean by original. When i said original earlier, i was referring to the original author's spelling of the artilce title. if the original author spelt it with diacritics, then until this dispute is finished, it should keep the diacritics. and vice versa, if the original author didn't use diacritics in the article's title, then diacritics should be left off until this dispute is resolved. That is what i was trying to do. Why was i tryiung to do that? because a few users mass moved most of the articles to include diacritics without any form of consensus while discussions were in progress. my "attempts" to set things "straight" have been thwarted by ryulong. There were about 3 users i can think of off hand who went on that moving spree without consensus. in the summer i tried to straighten things out back to the way they were and i got blocked. i am still trying to return things to back before the move dispute. Masterhatch 07:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what #REDIRECT [[Insert non-formatted text here]] is for. Since there is no answer to the issue, settle on one spelling and redirect the others. It's probably not worth dying over Fiddle Faddle 07:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have told him of that already, but he believes that the diacritic names should be made as redirects (which is really utterly pointless). And there has been no consensus as to where these articles should be. It was (I believe) decided that Teemu Selänne not be moved to its diacritic-less title, and there is no policy, guideline, or consensus to state anything otherwise. Just one editor moving with as much consensus as anyone else. Ryūlóng 07:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Teemu

you keep proudly mentioning mr. selanne as an example of a failed move attempt (which was over 50% in favour of a move btw) and you keep forgetting about Marian Gaborik, Jaromir Jagr, Jaroslav Spacek, and Quebec Nordiques. Those four articles were successfully moved while one article (again, over 50% in favour of a move) failed. My belief is simple: the mosst common spellig in English should be the one used for article titles and the policies and guidelines seem to follow me on that. Masterhatch 07:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But these names aren't originally in English. Those articles should probably be moved back to the spellings from their original language, instead of the English variants. Ryūlóng 07:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

haven't you been reading anything i have been typing? I dont' care about "originally in English". less than half of all english words are actually "from English". languages change over time. currently, most "foreign" words in english drop diacritics, and not just on the 'net either. the most common spelling in english from reliable sources should be used as the article's title. simple as that. Masterhatch 07:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But these are proper names that have been transcribed into English. Not names translated or even transliterated. Ryūlóng 07:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, i don't see what difference that makes. We on wikipedia are still after the most common name and the name most recognisable by the layman. Basically, we are after the name that is most commonly found in reputable publications from various different sources, not just other encyclopaedias, but reference books, newspapers, magazines, the Internet, biographies, and other such publishers too. Masterhatch 07:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the proper spelling would eliminate the need to debate what the most widely accepted spelling is. I'm just going to end my tenure here with that, if that's okay. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and has no place on Wikipedia. Please see the notes at the top. — Werdna talk criticism 07:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume you meant on it has no place on this noticeboard, not Wikipedia, right? If so, then yes, this seems more like a content dispute. Please use dispute resolution. --physicq210 07:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Utter nonsense" comment re: article about Jennipher Adkins's inventions

After taking the time to create a new article that relates to my several invention and the licensing agreement with national companies that are using the innovations, an administrator (lucky 6.9) called my entry: "Utter Nonsense." Twelve pending US patents, some with licensing agreements, and two granted pantents currently on the market (for the past 15 years!).... is utter nonsense???

When I searched my name, "Jennipher" the results were that of Jennipher Frost, a model search contestant who was upset about cutting her waist length hair.

Pardon me for trying to contribute "Utter Nonsense" to your "encyclopedia".

"Jennipher Adkins"

As you have given no information (such as an article page or a diff) to look at, I know very little about this. I suspect though that the issue may be one relating too WP:V, rather than having some kind of personal intent behind it --Crimsone 16:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Found and userfied: User:Jennycapp/Jennipher adkins. Thatcher131 17:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing that she's berating us about inclusion of one of America's next top models because we won't include mention of her scrunchie. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I find it amusing that if I didn't know what a "scrunchie" was, from its context in your post I'd be tempted to assume it was part of her body. (Now excuse me while I go scrub up my my mind. :-) -- llywrch 19:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Yolanda82

I have blocked this user, based on his/her edit history as being a sockpuppet of indefblocked User:Wiki brah. See Special:Contributions/Yolanda82 for further information. It's likely that Wiki brah took the desysoping of the blocking admin as an indication that it was now acceptable to edit again. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Defamation in Colegio San José

In Colegio San José, new user Elturey defamed someone in this revision: [93]. Could someone delete this revision? Thanks. Jesse Viviano 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Balz WBF

User:Balz WBF has done nothing but cause trouble on this encylcopedia. The user has only used wikipedia as a social networking/chat site. The user's contributions, [94] have also only been to talk pages, where the user has simply made insults or chitchat and the like: [95] , [96]. The user has also been asked to stop several times (by me and others, see:User talk:Balz WBF) and has responded in such manner: [97] . The user also bears a startling similarity to User:JG55[98][99], who has been blocked before and has used wikipedia similarly [100] and writes in a similar style. --huntersquid <°)))>< ^{Calamari Cove} 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an pretty obvious sock, but i've made a 24hr blocked based on their incivil comments. Thanks/wangi 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps at it after the 24 hours is up, request a checkuser and get the socks taken care of. pschemp | talk 21:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arghoslent

Someone care to close this? I decided several days ago to participate in it instead of closing it. Grandmasterka 20:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've closed it. Thanks/wangi 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism by 212.82.169.11, but NOT within the last 24 hours

212.82.169.11 keeps adding irrelevant information and personal, verbal abuse e.g. "Christian is Gay". He's been appropriately warned twice before, but after a break he continues as before. Obvious vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acid_rain&diff=prev&oldid=22902627 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&diff=prev&oldid=24223187 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&diff=prev&oldid=24223252 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wave&diff=prev&oldid=24223494 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&diff=prev&oldid=24223566 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge&diff=prev&oldid=30704097 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norway&diff=prev&oldid=70934869 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuy_%28province%29&diff=prev&oldid=70939052 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466363 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466423 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466531 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466612 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=78466794

Possible "well meaning contributions", but most probably meant as vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&diff=prev&oldid=24223816 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&diff=prev&oldid=24223926 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&diff=prev&oldid=24224014

This I don't understand...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge&diff=prev&oldid=30704063

With best regards 84.209.218.120 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edit was on the 29th of September, only about 20 edits in total. If the user returns and vandalises then please add the appropriate tag to their talk page, leading eventually to WP:AIV if they persist, see Wikipedia:Vandalism for more info. Thanks/wangi 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Durham

The creator of the article, User:Michael Woods, closed the Afd early and posed as User:Mailer Diablo when he closed it. Does this warrant any warning or block of some sort? T REX_speak 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari gave him his only warning. The nominator later withdrew his nomation, and I closed the AfD. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OTRS call to arms

Per request (above) here are some items of interest to the OTRS team where any interested editors would be more than welcome to help out.

• QVC - Unsourced except for an FCC enforcement reference. Triva section a particular concern.
• American Falcon - POV, sourcing
• Sufi Muslim Council - POV, sourcing

Referenced several things, some proper tagging on the article. If its the group, it may be just be an issue with the fact that there is an external link to a website and a section on a person who's criticised the group, but left an NPOV tag on the article. --Kevin_b_er 06:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Will Jordan - sourcing, formatting

Cleaned up and ref'd...still looking for one though. Rx StrangeLove 05:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (maybe if this comes up a lot there should be a sub-page somewhere?)

• Enfield Poltergeist - prose, relationship of general sources to assertions

Reworded, currently in a state of requiring sources for certain statements or else they will be removed ({{fact}}). Daniel.Bryant 04:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I Know You See It - producer reportedly inaccurate

Found a reliable source which confirms the producer is correct. Added reference to article. Daniel.Bryant 05:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Orascom Telecom Holding - out of date and unsourced. See [101] for possible updates. Subject may not be sufficiently notable to merit coverage here.

Some MOS fixes. That link basically confirmed all the stats were correct. Sources are provided to a reasonable degree, however in-line would be preferential. No comment on notability. Daniel.Bryant 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cracked - Was distribution erratic? Are the sales figures correct? See history for two competing versions.

I added some refs to some of the sales and personal related statements. I'll go back and clean up some of the longer sections, but the 2 points above are ref'd now. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Psycho (1960 film) - Was there an uncredited producer? Is the "myths" section sufficiently sourced?
• John Esposito being conflated with John Esposito (screenwriter/producer). Extent of problem unclear but see in particular the Masters of Horror page.

Fixed - changed links of those not concerned with the Islamic writer to John Esposito (screenwriter/producer). All were pretty clear-cut, with the exception of Eric Person, which I haven't fixed. Daniel.Bryant 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Gang Tian POV problem with possibly undue weight being given to a "controversy" section.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

As per Rx StrangeLove's suggestion, could there be a subpage where OTRS people list stuff they can't be bothered doing/don't have expertise to do/don't have the time to do, and people could fufill these requests? Comments are welcomed. Daniel.Bryant 05:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! Three posibilities:

• A project page, maybe Wikipedia:OTRS-requested cleanup
• A category, maybe Category:Articles requiring OTRS cleanup
• A template; {{otrs}} is free.

Personally, I'd prefer a cleanup template containing a category, with a parameter to say what's needed; for instance, we could have

(based on {{cleanup-afd}}). If there's enough approval for this idea, I'll create it. --ais523 10:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. A template and a category would suffice. Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template {{OTRS}} (redirect {{otrs}}) and Category:Wikipedia articles requiring OTRS cleanup have been created. --ais523 11:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This tag solution is terrible. I have removed all the OTRS templates from article pages. If OTRS receives email indicating that the subject of an article considers it libelous or defamatory, we need to take much more drastic action than a dispute tag. In other cases, this kind of criticism should go ONLY on the talk page. Dispute tags that allow for arbitrary user comments are, plain and simple, divisive. And it adds a whole new dimension when the source of the criticism is an email Wikipedia gets: the source of the criticism isn't around to make suggestions or clarify the situation -- so, it really carries no weight. Suggestions for improvement of an article belong on the TALK page, not on the article page: dispute tags are an exception: they exist so that edit wars can be averted. By including a note like "the neutrality of this article is disputed" it is made clear that the current version of the article is not completely acceptable to all editors, which means that those who don't find it acceptable can at least feel that they've made some progress towards having their objections understood. Templates like {{POV-because}} have been deleted for this kind of reason at WP:TFD, and this case is even worse, because it brings objections onto the article page from people who aren't even Wikipedia editors. Mangojuice^talk 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mango, I would like to point out that the OTRS staff screen the complaints. The majority of article complaints sent to OTRS aren't acted upon. The complaints about vandalism and attack pages we generally can resolve very quickly. The problem is that there are a certain number of legitimate complaints regarding articles which are, on the whole, undersourced, inaccurate, and badly written. This is the area where the OTRS staff are particularly much in need of help, because it can take hours to fix one of these unless the fix is to stub or delete the article. I don't want to be hasty, but on the surface of it I see nothing inherently wrong with us maintaining some sort of list or category for articles for which we need help from the community to fix. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I agree: see my response to Ais.Mangojuice^talk 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking through POV-because's TfD, and many of the deletion comments were because it was used for trolling, or because POV-pushing extended to the tag reason itself, which wouldn't seem to happen here. However, there are legitimate concerns raised; I would imagine that not all OTRS cases would be at all appropriate for a publicly-viewable tag. Still, in the section above there is a list of OTRS cases; do you (Mangojuice) object to the tag but not the list, or would you rather the list was removed from AN/I as well? Would you allow a Wikipedia: subpage for such lists? Just wondering, I don't have any experience with OTRS myself, I just create templates from suggestions on AN/I (among other things), but there seems to be a debate brewing here. (I hope I haven't started an edit war by creating the template!) It may be worth TfDing the template to get wider opinion on its usefulness. --ais523 14:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, there would be nothing wrong with having a category, or a Wikipedia namespace page, or even a talk page template for documenting these email comments. I vehemently object ONLY to the idea of putting it on the article page. If tags would be used on the article page, they should be the standard dispute or cleanup tags, and explained in detail on the talk page. Mangojuice^talk 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OTRS ? (The WP:AN pages seem to get a lot of attention) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that is all that is needed, a page with links and room for discussion...nothing very complex. Most of the entries would be articles that have drawn some criticism and needs more immediate attention then your typical "cleanup" page. Not much more than the section above with a list of articles OTRS would like some attention paid to. That's a good idea. Rx StrangeLove 22:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was specifically uninvited from the OTRS mailing list, you obviously don't need my help. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mykungfu

I have blocked this user for a week. Neither blocking nor IP-spamming investigation are my fortes, but this user continued to disrupt the AfD at Alpha Kappa Nu after his last unblock. Additionally, there is some suggestion at his talk page that he persists in other disruption. I don't know enough to recommend an indef. block for sure, but I do know that admins should examine this case collectively before we consider unblocking the user again. Advice from wiser parties, please? Xoloz 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I should just add that the disruptions continue, and that the user in question left a racist message on my talk page aimed at another editor [102], and has threatened to continue removing properly cited content indefinitely [103]. I think the best move is to semi-protect the articles he's vandalizing, so that he can't continue to hide behind AOL IP addresses. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm losing my patience with this user. He has consistently and blatantly used sockpuppets to avoid his block. Just look at his userpage and he's editing it with IPs while he's blocked. I blocked him indefinitely once and unblocked him given evidence that he wants to change, but he hasn't admitted to his sockpuppets (which are painfully obvious by his spelling/grammatical habits and the times they were created compared to when Mykungfu was blocked), so I am looking to indefinitely block him again at the first sign of future trouble. Cowman109^Talk 23:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, he just spammed his manifesto on ANI again (as user:205.188.116.65) , and has been using socks to disrupt all day today. I've changed the block to indef. pschemp | talk 15:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple disruption on article Derek Acorah

After viewing this article i noticed in places it was :

1: Poorly written.

2: Unacceptly POV and Unbalanced.

3: Contained weasel words and thinly veiled attack material.

4: Links to viral videos, spam and unrelated websites.

5: Contained an entry from a dubious source (In this case, "Badpsychics.com" which has been caught editing their percieved "evidence" in an attempt to further the website's own agenda) and is hardly a source for intelligent, neutral and factual information in an online encylopedia.

NOTE : These pointers have also been brought up by past editors and users.

This was latest state of the afermentioned article BEFORE i cleaned it up...

[Acorah] Revision as of 21:56, 2 October 2006

So i decided to tidy up and neutralize this article to mirror only fact and relevant information to this individual's biography and nothing more and NOT to cheapen it and desperately attempt to attack or defamate the article's subject, nor imbed POV or pointless speculation.

Here is a snapshot of MY edit..

[Acorah] Revision as of 11:45, 3 October 2006

I later notice to see that two "editors" USER:Stevepaget & USER:Paulmoloney with similar goals to each other (seemingly to disrupt wikipedia and garner attention by polarizing articles to befit their own POV) have persistantly continued to revert my (and others) legitimate edits back to the previous states.

After i served the relevant cautions and FINALLY warnings to these culprits i discover the following bizzare and unfortunate personal attacks posted on USER:Paulmoloney user page (beneath the warnings)

• "Topov, I'm rather disappointed you were reduced to adding spurious warning to my talk page because I've been correcting your wholesale deletions of material criticising Derek Acorah. It would be far better for you to engage with other editors on the talk page there rather than degrade yourself like this."

Followed by..

• "Cowardly"

Posted on the Derek Acorah talk page.

Indeed as you can see these two editors have a problem, including understanding edit summaries and adhering to the guidelines and policies of wikipedia.

Including Disruption, Vandalism, Excessive reverts, Personal Attacks, and NPOV.

Perhaps a permanent block would suffice.

Thanks! :)

Topov 07:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deal with this on the talk page of the article (something you have been asked to do, and have not been doing), and stop removing sourced and proportionate criticism of Acorah. --ajn (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Topov seems very familiar with Wikipedia jargon for someone whose first edit was yesterday. In their first edit [104] they're reverting with proper edit summaries, "rv" abbreviation and all, eighteen minutes later they're adding (properly subst'ed) warning templates to user talk pages [105]. We're clearly dealing with some kind of prodigy here... Demiurge 11:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, the user can see how the page is layed out and the fact that it asks for an edit summary, and has checked the appropriate page on the subject of how to issue a warning template. I know I did when I first issued one. --Crimsone 11:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We now have a User:Derek Acorah, whom I have warned will be blocked for using the name of a celebrity if he can't prove he's him. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Vision Thing

With thewolfstar gone and Hogeye out the door after him, Vision Thing appears to have decided it's now his job to wreck the Anarchism page with POV updates, refuse to properly discuss issues or do anything else (see here: [106]]). This is ridiculous. Donnacha 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? He's at it again today, making unilateral changes despite agreements on the talk pages between everyone else, adding tags to anything he disagrees with it, etc. He's acting as badly as Hogeye. Donnacha 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Arisch

I just received the following email, apparently from User:Arisch. Here is the email, verbatim. If anyone needs to see headers, I can provide them. Please feel free contact me on my user talk page if you need my attention. (The "*?*" would have been added by my filter, which identified this as possible spam.)

From:	  Arisch <inflames666_ @t hotmail d0t com>   
To:	 Jmabel <jmabel @t speakeasy d0t org>
Cc:	
Date:	 Wednesday, October 04, 2006 08:07 am
Subject:	 *?* You're such a typical Jew.

You criticize everything but when fact is thrown in your face you shut up quick. 
I would really like to know just exactly how my comments were, "racist"? Of course, 
I've already emailed you explaining to you that what I had pointed out was fact, 
and facts cannot be racist. It really disappoints me to learn that even on the net 
we don't have freedom of speech anymore. And it's all thanks to shill spewing kikes 
like you.

I looked at WP:PAIN and it appears to require that several warnings be given before taking action. I would presume that the preceding is egregious enough that warnings should not be necessary, so I've come here in hopes of short-circuiting that process. I can say without qualification that if this had been directed at someone else, I would block either for a year or indefinitely. I would hope someone else will do the same.

At first I honestly didn't have any idea what provoked this: I edit about 50-100 articles a day, so it could have been almost anything. But I looked through his (sparse) edits and found it. I had reverted this. In part it reads "members of the Ku Klux Klan who masked their identity and used "terror" to protect themselves from marauding African Americans who, angry and resentful about slavery, wished to exact revenge on their former owners by murdering them and raping their women." It goes on, similarly.

After reverting I wrote on his talk page "Normally, I make a lot of allowances for new users, and I try to welcome them, and so on. I don't usually 'bite the newbies', but your racist remarks added to White Terror as your sole edits to date put you in a category all your own. I imagine you intended this as a throwaway account; so be it. One more edit like that and you won't have a choice in the matter." In the circumstances, I think that was rather restrained. - Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the email addresses to prevent spam harvesting. Naconkantari 19:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I posted this hours ago, and no one has responded. Apparently I can't even get this discussed. Either no one (except Nacon, who I believe is not an administrator) is reading this page (unlikely), or no other adminstrator thinks this user's conduct is a serious problem (unlikely, I hope), or everybody is deciding it is someone else's problem. And, as the person attacked, I am the one administrator barred from blocking him.

I'll put this bluntly: I will make a note of this matter on my user page and user talk page so that it is clear to people why I am gone for an indefinite period. If this person's conduct is considered anything like acceptable, then, much to my surprise and regret, I have been mistaken this last few years about my belonging in the Wikipedia community. If someone wants to deal with this, fine, then, I will gladly come back: leave me a note. I'll at least check my user talk page daily for a while, or you can feel free to email me. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't normally block for emails, as off-wiki actions are difficulty to link with certainty to accounts. But based on those edits, I'd have indef blocked the account without batting an eye. Finally, while I do see that this is upsetting, it's best to just hit "delete+block spam". I was gettimg lynching images for a while, and yeah I lost my hat over it. If fact, I'd had a good rant on this very page, almost exactly like your (but with more venom) to the effect of "Thanks for nothing, suckers" that no one was helping me. - brenneman ^{L} 00:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, I've just seen this. I'll take a look at it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I looked too and it sounds bad. I'm sure they'll be banned, it's just a little stunning. No one made this person "welcome" here. DVD+ R/W 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

omg - what is "shill spewing kike"??? Something bad no doubt. take heart in that someone so pointless that they need to write ugly e-mails about wikipedia are most likely very ugly, have slimy horns, 3 eyes, and sewage breath. --Merbabu 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, SV beats me to a blocking yet again. This is the first I'd seen of it too, Jmabel, and I was up and ready to ban the account. No one thinks it's acceptable or believes it's "someone else's problem". I understand it really sucks getting emails like that (I've gotten a couple myself), and an editor exhibiting such abusiveness has no place here. But respectfully, don't climb the Reichstag. JDoorjam Talk 00:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

SV, thank you for blocking, and thank you to the others who said they'd have done the same. I'm back.

JDoorjam, say what you will, but this was not an effort at melodrama on my part. If this had been dealt with by a slap on the wrist, I would have (sadly, but firmly) given up on Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Monitoring permabanned users who continue to make (bad) edits using socks or anons?

Hi, I am here in part to report a small incident of vandalism by a permabanned user editing as an anon, but mostly to make a suggestion relevant to the things you guys often have to discuss on this page.

My reading of various policy pages is that

1. permabanned users are not supposed to create socks and continue as before,
2. they are not supposed to edit anonymously, although this is harder to control (but see the cited page for evidence that this particular permabanned user is easy to spot even as an anon)
3. to further the mission of the encyclopedia, users in good standing are allowed to keep notes listing relevant links as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun#Keeping_notes
4. a permabanned user who is being tracked at such a page is certainly not supposed to vandalize them.

KraMuc has repeatedly violated all of the above, most recently at my page of notes User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc.

I propose that some place be found in Wikipedia space to keep notes like this under admin lock and key. My idea is that ordinary users can still create such notes as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun#Keeping_notes, but if admins agree the subject really is a problem user (probably a no-brainer in the case of permabanned user!), they can be moved (or copied) to the new location, protected, and thereafter maintained by admins. Perhaps a template could even be devised, probably following the model of that page more or less closely, to help standardize the layout.

The point is that this would avoid the kind of vandalism we see in the history of User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc. This would also shift the "moral responsibility" for a troubling activity (monitoring activities of other users) to the larger community (kind of like: in a civilized community, citizens shouldn't lay hands upon each other, but we make reluctant and carefully regulated exceptions for cops, firemen, and medical personnel).

(An aside about this particular page of notes: even before Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun#Keeping_notes came out, on the basis of common decency and common sense, I consistently made an effort to stick to the facts in these pages. I've actually noted in my partial reversions some of the points he wanted to make, but KraMuc has been ignoring the header of the page in question. However, now he's just repeating himself, and he certainly feels no compunction about violating WP:CIV by ignoring the header.)

Comments? ---CH 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Long term abuse, but also note that recently there was discussion, how some measure to control bad users are actually contraproductive, as it gives them the "fame" they want to achieve, see WP:DENY.

I've blocked the dynamic IP in question for 24h, but in the grand scheme, this doesnn't have much effect.

You may feel left alone in the struggle with KraMuc, as he targets a very narrow (and one may say obscure) set of articles. IMHO simple by having editors feeling responsible for those few article, the problem should become under control. I've recently recruited someone from the German WikiProject Philosophy to have an extra eye at de:Hugo Dingler and this better help the article than any amount of blocking and banning, I assume.

Pjacobi 06:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NuclearUmpf removing talk page comments accusing others of AGF

This editor, already under ArbCom probation for tendentious editing under the name 'Zer0Faults', has removed comments on his talk page, while accusing others of violations of WP:AGF]. All I asked was if this user is User:Rex071404 (a known, vicious troll). Zer0 had refused to answer and I don't think a simple question, as I put it, is a violation. His answer, accusing me of starting 'wikidrama', was arguably tendentious - but deleting the comments wholesale certainly is. Please review and if you feel it's appropriate, please provide the proper warning to this Zer0Faults sock. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

First, Checkuser to find out if this is true (as you seem quite convinced, and even if negative it will clear things up). Secondly, if the situation is as you claim, with a positive checkuser, then this should go to ArbCom Enforcement. Otherwise, there really is little to do here. --Crimsone 01:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything, nor am I convinced of anything. In good faith, I asked NuclearUmpf (an admitted new account of a user on probation) a simple question regarding his identity - which he ignored and deleted from his talk page. If, as I suspect, this user doesn't want to be on the record lying about his sock campaign, he'll ignore the question as Zer0 did. And as Checkuser isn't for fishing, once again it's musical chairs for the ill-intentioned trolls, and back to square one for the users who've already taken Zer0 (and Merecat and Rex before him) to ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf and his former account Zer0faults were checkusered against Rex071404 three times and they all came up dry. There are certain similarities, but the case seems unlikely to yield technical proof. Ryan formerly posed this question to Zer0faults, and in recent context (see WP:AE and my talk page) posing the question again seems a wee bit like trolling. I have asked all parties to deal with the content of each other's edits, and I think we can safely consider this a closed issue. If NuclearUmpf is unable to edit articles while conforming to usual community standards of behavior, he can be dealt with per his arbitration case. Thatcher131 04:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did not troll by asking NuclearUmpf the same question I asked Zer0faults months and months ago. Since the very issue of his sock identity was being discussed, I felt it a valid question. Instead of being answered, the question was wiped from his talk page as trolling. Do you think calling me 'a wee bit like a troll' here is productive? Because I find it offensive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you stop your wiki drama now [107] [108] you asked months ago, yet the question was answered months ago, so yes I consider it trolling and I pointed you to RFCU, your unwillingness to go there and instead come here only proves you were trolling. --NuclearUmpf 10:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding your accusations to be uncivil. The question was not answered, as checkuser cannot prove a negative - so a simple good faith question was the right, simple way to address the issue of just how many socks you've employed. Your refusal to even answer seems most uncivil and a serious lack of good faith (exactly what you accuse me of, another pattern of Rex'). Frankly, as you've never answered the question, the jury is still out, and your conduct will (once again) have to speak for itself. I honestly wish you the best of luck, NuclearUmpf. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I apologize for offending you. I was dealing with this issue last night on my talk page, e-mail and WP:AE, and just before I logged off I found you had brought it here as well. I would like to suggest that it was at least unhelpful to ask NuclearUmpf a question that he had refused to answer several times as Zer0faults, especially given his current claim that he switched accounts not to avoid his probation but to avoid being followed by people he was in dispute with. (Dmcdevit and I have both answered this line of reasoning at WP:AE.) I think the best suggestion I can think of is to treat NuclearUmpf like any other editor and pretend you don't know anything about his past. If he still can not conform to community standards of good editorship, he is subject to sanctions under his probation. Thatcher131 11:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I do feel that the evidence and behavior indicates strongly that this user is gaming WP (and if Nuclear is indeed Rex, that's well proven at this point), but once again, I'll simply leave the question unanswered, ignore the instantaneous, rapid-fire accusations (another clue) and let Nuclear's conduct speak for itself, for well or for ill. Again, thanks for the apology, as after dealing with Rex and his ilk in multiple incarnations and the actual disruptions they cause, I take flippant accusations of trolling (meaning intentional disruption or baiting) against solid editors quite seriously. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy out of process

Lucky 6.9 speedied a delete of Dylan Avery just after I had posted {{hangon}} claiming "the info had been deleted so many times already". He also deleted the Talk page (citing "Orphaned") where I had given my reason why it shouldm't be speedied. In the ensuing discussion with this administrator, here and here, an amicable solution could not be reached. The reason I post this to WP:ANI is that I find the administrator has clearly misrepresented the facts both given to me and in the deleteion summaries. Otherwise I would be quite content to subject the matter to a regular Deletion review. __meco 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This individual is totally out of line. I tried to help. I didn't decide on the speedy. Several others did and I just deleted the talk page as exactly that, an orphaned talk page of a deleted article. I tried to help by suggesting that he request an undeletion and I get thrown under the bus. Again. - Lucky 6.9 01:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem here was the tagging of the page as a {{db-repost}}, which it wasn't. G4 only applies to similar content reposted after an AfD. The page in question was actually a redirect, so it was the tagger of the article who was out of line. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed that part of the hangon template which read Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if it is considered that the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon.? Just slapping a hangon on it doesn't make it immune to deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the AfD on the issue, only 10 days prior to this deletion, decided to delete, and not redirect. Redirect was thrown around, and eventually out, byt the concensus. I endorse the deletion of the redirect. Daniel.Bryant 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any arguments against redirection on the AfD page. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The AfD was closed as delete, not merge, not redirect. --Aaron 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, neither do I. I retract my hasty statement. However, I wonder why, in that case, it wasn't redirected when closed...? Oohhhh, the questions :D Daniel.Bryant 01:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As Lucky 6.9 has indicated his interest in solving this amicably since my posting to WP:ANI, I request that further discussion of the matter here be suspended pending our possibly being able to work this out among ourselves. __meco 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Backstory. (Disclaimer: I'm the one who put the {{speedy}} tag on Dylan Avery earlier this evening, though I did not contest the {{hangon}} or discuss it with Lucky 6.9.) There was an AfD for the Dylan Avery article recently (one of a rash of 9/11 conspiracy articles lately), which passed as delete, in a somewhat contentious fashion. It's been on my watchlist since, since comments were made somewhere around here that some expected an attempt at recreation. Meco's recreation was as a redirect to Loose Change (video), but as I read the AfD, that possibility was brought up and didn't get a lot of support. So when it was put up, I slapped the tag on it. If an admin decides a redirect is okay, I won't challenge it. --Aaron 01:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Argh! Five different edit conflicts trying to get this posted! --Aaron 01:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• You too, eh?  :) I've restored the article. All I was trying to do was to stop what I thought was an edit war. I was just the unlucky admin (Unlucky 6.9?) who was only trying to head off an edit war. - Lucky 6.9 01:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm kind of shocked that something like this is being handled as civilly as it is. Most speedy victims would just, at most, scribble "no u" on some guy's talk page and go home. Danny Lilithborne 01:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A tribute to Wikipedia indeed. Normally when I get involved in disputes, things get ugly. Not this time, however :D Daniel.Bryant 01:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At least 10 people in the AfD suggested merge/redirect or some variation on that. If his info is in the Loose change (video) article, a redirect to such is probably the most sensible idea. —Nate Scheffey 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Any usable content here is good content. I admit to being taken aback when I found that a complaint had been posted here after just doing what I thought was right, but my cooler nature prevailed. Feels better. - Lucky 6.9 02:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you delete all the revisions prior to the AfD? It was closed as delete. Daniel.Bryant 02:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've just done so. Mangojuice^talk 04:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is perhaps useful to point out that redirecting, like merging, is an editorial decision. The various XfD pages determine administrative issues. They decide the question of whether the article should be deleted or kept. And that's it. If 50 people vote on an AFD discussion, and they all vote "Redirect", then (assuming they're not all sockpuppets citing bogus interpretations of policy as justifications for their votes) that's a keep result. There is no binding obligation on the part of anyone to actually redirect that page (though any editor could make such a redirect with plenty of justification). Only WP:RFD can be said to have any authority over editorial decisions as well as administrative ones, because discussions there can often result in a redirect to another page.

Similarly, if an article is deleted through the AfD process, and someone creates a redirect under the same name as the previously-deleted article, it's no longer an AfD issue. The article that was deleted hasn't been recreated. A shiny, brand new redirect has. Which makes it an RfD issue.

I realize that the issue in question has already been resolved, and I'm just blathering to hear my fingers click merrily across the keyboard, but I felt moved to air my opinions.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
04:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NuvaRing <-> Nuvaring

Hi, "NuvaRing" is the proper name of the device, but I accidentally created the article at Nuvaring and NuvaRing has an edit history (as a redirect). Can an administrator please swap the two pages? I think this move is uncontraversial. Vectro 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please move this request to WP:RM. Daniel.Bryant 02:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User: Michael_Snow

This user , along with another named Crockspot and one named WAS 4.250, continually delete undispited material on the Paul McKenna page, even after a warning about vandalism. Some of that reflected a content dispute, but that conent has since been withdrawn. See this [diff] for the specific material. All of the information is properly sourced. Yakuman 05:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Brad Patrick removed it, operating as Wikimedia's legal advisor, speaks loads. "Undisputed"? See the same section - it's far from it. I'm interested to hear what everyone else thinks should happen, but I personally feel that this is a Brad Patrick issue, and not an administration issue. Daniel.Bryant 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this dispute is taking place on Brad's talk page, meaning this is redundant. Daniel.Bryant 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand what I'm referring to. I'm referring to content that has nothing to do with Brad Patrick. For example, there's a sourced statement that the subject gives money to bereaved children. There's no controversy there and no reason for deletion. Yakuman 05:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, the fact that Brad Patrick has been involved recently will limit the actions taken by administrators in most cases. Also, please don't refer to their removal of content as vandalism; the vandalism policy states "content disputes are not vandalism". Daniel.Bryant 05:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not referring to the section that triggered Brad Patrick’s involvement. Also, unconstructive edits can be considered vandalism. It is standard boilerplate policy. This is not a content dispute and serious claim as to why such material should be moved has been made.Yakuman 05:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a content dispute - what are you arguing over? Content! Take this thru WP:DR, and not here. Daniel.Bryant 05:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote the top of this page:

This is not the Wikipedia complaint department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user...or if your problem is a content issue...then please follow the steps in dispute resolution; these include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

Please proceed thru the chain of dispute resolution, thanks. Daniel.Bryant 06:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a barely recognizable characterization of the problem. Anyone can take a look at Talk:Paul McKenna. Aside from the issues with biographies of living persons, which Yakuman blithely ignores or twists completely around (he claimed he shouldn't be blocked for violating the three-revert rule because of this), there's some additional conduct to consider. The tone he's taken with me and SlimVirgin (see my and his talk pages) is getting in the nature of legal threats, which are clearly out of place. --Michael Snow 06:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The message on Michael's talk page about that is a testiment to this user's actions. Further to that, I actually removed a {{bv}} (or test3/4, not 100% sure) from Michael's talk page. And this comment, which I removed as "harrasment" under the WP:TALK guideline from my talk page, "Please refrain from policy disputes if you have no positive contributions to make!", is totally unacceptable. Daniel.Bryant 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now he's wiped his messages to me and said he's dropping out of the debate, so maybe that will be all. --Michael Snow 06:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If he doesn't drop out of the debate then it will be all, I would suggest. Undoing foundation actions has no good result. Guy 13:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kit Jarrell

The AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kit Jarrell has been open about two weeks. An anon user closed it, but this was reverted and a slow revert war is developing, so an admistrator should close it and settle the matter. I have contributed to the debate so it would be inapropriate for me to close it. Thryduulf 09:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Bong. It's done/wangi 12:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:CarlosPauloEthetheth

Can someone check whether this user is a clever hoaxer and sockpuppet of 82.46.157.9, please? I suspect many of this user's additions to be deliberately misleading and almost all unverifiable, particularly Shevjenko. Most of both of these users' edits are related in some way to Iain Lee, the article of which is regularly vandalised. Thanks. Stephenb (Talk) 09:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Shevjenko I deprodded (I had prodded it already and CPE had removed it) and afd'ed. I agree that aspects of it just sound very odd. I did a search to see if it was maybe copyvio from somewhere and that came up negative. Particularily the bit about Iain Lee being his great great grandson etc etc, for which I want a specific citeable reference (considering the "Oh Christopher Lee is Iain Lee's father!!1!!! I herd it on teh radio" vandalism we often get). If it turns out to be a real article then I offer my full apologies to CPE and the inuit subject with his odd life. Syrthiss 12:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

More interesting - We just had an anon (82.46.157.9) add vandalism to Shevjenko mentioning Waspard (deleted last week) and Pet duel (also deleted last week) with the edit summary of rvv. Both afd's had huge bunches of socks/meats. I looked on the talk page, saw several warnings and went to block for 24 hours...and what did I notice? Netsnipe had to clear an autoblock of CarlosPauloEthetheth regarding this IP. Similar astroturfing occurred on those afd's, mentioning books with full ISBNs that could possibly refer to the subject in question. Syrthiss 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn. Looks like my good faith in lifting the autoblock was taken advantage of. CarlosPauloEthetheth (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was autoblocked after Jamesr84 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was blocked for vandalism [109]. And surprise, surprise, both users have a penchant for Iain Lee. I've indef'ed CarlosPauloEthetheth for sockpuppetry and placed a 1 month long block on 82.46.157.9. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I smell an open proxy. 82.46.157.9 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) recently vandalised it:Francia on September 24. vcn-proxycheck has cleared it though, so I'm not too sure what to make of it. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of the older Iain Lee vandals claimed they were secretaries at Deusche Bank-UK, and their posting IP appeared to be the single ip for the office...though there were claims that they were posting from several DB installations in the UK and the US. So it may be a proxy, but perhaps not an exploitable proxy. Syrthiss 18:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Lachroed serial spammer

User:Lachroed created the page Lachroed in April 2006 to promote himself and his band; it was speedy deleted on April 13 by User:DJ Clayworth. He then created the article LaChroed several times, which was speedy deleted repeatedly as non-notable. Both pages were protected against re-creation until September 19. Today, the user reappeared and once again created LaChroed, along with Stay LaChroed, LaChroed (Demo), and Blue Angels (group). He then removed a {{db-spam}} notice from the first-named page, in violation of the rules contained in the db template. Taking to heart the recent appeal by Brad Patrick, I suggest this user needs to be blocked for repeatedly spamming Wikipedia. --Russ (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for disruption. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ALso, I have deleted his pages and protected them against recreation should he create sockpuppets. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet Henco - MarkStreet

I suspect User:Henco to be a sockpuppet of User:MarkStreet. Henco registered at Wikipedia in 2 October and the only thing he did here was to vote for links in Talk:Transnistria. No other contribution. In 29 September registered at Wikipedia User:MarkStreet who claims is the editor of "Tiraspol Times". In Transnistria talk page we are voting to include or not a link to "Tiraspol Times", this is why I suspect User:Henco as being a sockpuppet of newbie User:MarkStreet, who possibily want to promote his newspaper through Wikipedia and to influence the vote through sockpuppets.--MariusM 13:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam URL

Hope this is the right place to post this request. Please point me in the right direction if not.

IP addresses from Thailand have been spamming a link to engagementring-4u.com to the Engagement and Marriage articles over the last two days (Diffs [110], [111], [112]). The user has been warned (Diffs[113], [114]) as far as is possible with an anon poster from a changing IP. The site linked to does not seem to have anything to add to an encyclopedia. Can an administrator block the URL? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 14:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I will add the link to the spam blacklist immediately; for future reference, you can request it here, and a meta admin can add it for you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reposting of existing Wikipedia articles

I have a strange issue. Muhammadhani (talk · contribs) repeatedly creates new articles that are copied and pasted from existing WP articles (so he's not violating copyright policies). I've left a couple of messages ([115] and [116]), but he has continued to do this. It's not vandalism, it's not a copyright violation, but it is annoying. I don't know if another editor needs to go in there and tell him to knock it off, or if he needs a brief block to reinforce the ideas, but I don't know what else I can do. Help? -- Merope ^Talk 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The user is essentially doing cut'n'paste moves from "Company Name" to "Company Name Limited" and is creating a lot of duplicated mess in the process. I see your warnings have got nowhere. I'll try further talk on their page and maybe a small 15 minute block if they continue. It's clear they have good intentions, they just happen to be going about it the wrong way. The "move" option probably isn't available to them either... Thanks/wangi 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it was a good faith effort. However, even if the "move" option is available, I don't think the articles should be moved--in some cases the "Limited" isn't actually part of the company's name. Plus, I believe the MOS has something about not putting "Inc." or "Ltd." in article titles. (I could be completely wrong, of course.) Anyway, thanks for looking into this. -- Merope ^Talk 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll refresh myself on the naming conventions! Can you keep a log of the articles created and redirs you've created in response and post it to my talk page in due course? I'll then work through it later on to fix up this mess. Thanks/wangi 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've caught all of them as he made them--I noticed the user a week or so ago doing NPP and have been, well, watching him. I've just created rd's to the existing article, though maybe those should be deleted. I'll leave you a message on your talk page after I've reviewed his edits. -- Merope ^Talk 16:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for block review

Kappa (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) hasn't edited since 27 September, and was just blocked for 48 hours for his spam-burst back then. I don't believe that we do punative blocks, and the logic of blocking an established (if fractious) editor days later escapes me. The spamming was discussed here and no one felt the need to block him at that time. I'd like to see this block lifted, but the blocking admin has indicated they are unlikely to do so. - brenneman ^{L} 15:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had plenty of run ins with Kappa when I was involved in the schools debate. While i disagree with his extreme position with regard to school inclusion he always led by example. He has always been very productive with respect to cleaning up school articles, especially those stubs and crap school articles that went to AfD. It escapes me how any punitive block can help this situation, especially if he is not currently spamming. There is no way that a block like this is constructive with respect to fostering a postive and collegial working environment. I would recommend this block is lifted. i would also recommed that people use the dialog option more often. We do not need our admins to turn into a police force that runs under the agenda of shoot first ask questions later. David D. (Talk) 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyde may have a point [117] but catching up on old business 7 days later doesn't seem right either. Thatcher131 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the block was unhelpful, and I'm also concerned that Cyde frequently displays a tendency to deal too aggressively with those he disagrees with. Part of his stated reasoning in the diff above was that Kappa is a school inclusionist. I disagree strongly myself with the "all schools should have articles" folks, but this is nothing like a reason for a block. Friday (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. It concerns me that there is a core group of admins who pursue their own agenda aggressively and at the same time accuse their critics of somehow being against wikipedia. Accuse them of being wikistalkers, trouble makers and whiners ([118] and [119]). Excuse me, but this aggressive enforcement of "my way is the only way" is doing a lot of harm to wikipedias community and someone has to stand up and rock the boat. "My way is the only way" may often be the right way, but there are ways to convince people of this without punitive action. Every punitive action will make it harder to persuade people in the future. Each block and thoughtless comment to ones critics will make it harder to reach the final goal. These police edits create a situation that is very much one step forward, two steps back with respect to reaching the desired goals. It also erodes any trust and respect that such admins would have had in the community. Wikipedia is not usenet. David D. (Talk) 15:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cry me a river, it's always the same from you two. Maybe you don't like my methods because you perceive them as being unhelpful, but let me tell you, it is plain as day that your methods of persistently groaning and latching on to the tiniest thing you disagree with and making it out to be the end of Wikipedia aren't helping either. Wikipedia is not Usenet? Really? Want to try out some more hyperbole out while you're exaggerating? --Cyde Weys 16:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why do behave like you're some enforcer on usenet? Take a step back and see how you behave, it is not an exaggeration. By the way, the majority of my edits are not groaning, so your use of the word persistently would seem to be a little exaggeration on your own behalf (See the above bit about calling your critic whiners). David D. (Talk) 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, that incivility was totally uncalled for. - brenneman ^{L} 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, saying that someone's actions are going to bring about the descent of Wikipedia into Usenet, or that one is eroding trust in all admins, is a lot more incivil than calling someone out for those comments will ever be. And you hanging on, exercising every opportunity to try and get in your licks against me isn't productive, either. In fact, I do recall an arbitrator already asked you to knock it off yesterday ... maybe take his advice? --Cyde Weys 16:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You claim I say that your actions will "bring about the descent of Wikipedia into Usenet". Huh? I said you behave as if you are on usenet and this is not productive. Very different thing. How easily you forget: Let me remind you of this comment from Slim Virgin "Your first post after not editing for ten days is to post a personal attack on behalf of someone who has left Wikipedia"[120]David D. (Talk) 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because SlimVirgin has soooo much currency with me. Oh wait, no. I actually had to add her to my email spam filter because of the vaguely threatening emails she kept sending me when I stepped up to defend Bastique after she accused him of defending trolls. (Letters will be provided on request to ArbCom if this ever goes to a case.) So, yeah, anything negative SlimVirgin is saying about me on-wiki is because her tactics in email weren't working, and they certainly aren't going to work on-wiki, either. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realised she was a whiner too. David D. (Talk) 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I have no idea what warranted this further personal attack from you, but it won't be tolerated. The community isn't going to take this abusive poisonous behavior anymore. I have not sent you any threatening e-mails, but I am telling you now quite openly that if you continue to take pot shots at me (or anyone else), this will escalate. Learn from the events of the last few days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, the quote was "I don't think the sarcastic comments are helpful." And it was correct. No mention there of stopping telling you when you screw up. - brenneman ^{L} 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am in favor of blocking !vote spammers on sight for the duration of the !vote, simply because of the disruption they cause (I'd like to have other people's opinion on that). I don't really see the point of blocking several days after the !vote has been concluded. >Radiant< 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Blocking Kappa during his votestacking efforts would have been ok, but blocking now was not helpful. I endorse the unblock and hope Kappa is not reblocked with a different duration (as stated in the unblock summary). Punitive blocks (if we have to have them at all) like this one shouldn't be handed out at a single admin's discretion. Kusma (討論) 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I can agree with unblocking provided that there's a broad consensus that blocking him at the time would have made sense. Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not mix two issues, eh? I personally agree that blocking at the time might have been alright, as a preventative measure. I don't see that 48 hours would have been neccessary. However, the question of whether to unblock in real life should not hinge on some impossible hypothetical question. Friday (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At the time would have made sense if he had continued spamming after being asked to stop. I for one, am not arguing against a block at the time of the event. I'm not sure of Kappa's history with respect to spamming but even if it is bad, a block prior to a warning would not be justified. Days later makes no sense. David D. (Talk) 16:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My concern, Friday, is that we not miss one issue for the other, and that we recognize that the problem with the block is that it came now, after the fact. Mackensen (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• David, note that he did continue spamming after being asked to stop. I don't recall Kappa having a history of votespamming, but in general votespamming is so obviously disruptive that in my opinion it doesn't require a warning. >Radiant< 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Noted. He should have been blocked at the time, however, the window of opportunity was lost. David D. (Talk) 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Excepting the time period, a block of trivial time period is good to permanently document this infraction, one of many, in the separate record. —Centrx→talk • 16:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's definitely one of the things I was going for. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That is definitely one thing blocking should not be used for. People react very sensitively to their block log, and there should be no blocks made just documenting things in the block log. If an editor does something bad, but the issue is solved without blocking, there is no need to taint this editor in future RfAs or similar by an entry in the block log. Kusma (討論) 16:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It's precisely because people care so much about their block log that it is an effective tool. You can give dozens of warnings to some users to knock off disruptive behavior, but they'll just keep continuing on as soon as they think your attention is diverted. That's not a productive use of time for anyone, having to constantly babysit like that. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposed to an unblock at this point (he hasn't edited in awhile anyway, so this current block might not even hit him), I just want the unblocking message to make it crystal clear that the vote-stacking was unacceptable, it was just the timing of the block that was questioned. Far too often I see admin actions get reversed with a summary of "No basis in policy for this block," when the person was legitimately doing something bad, and then they think they have carte blanche to do it again. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• It is pretty clear that at this stage the block was punitive and very unhelpful. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's widely accepted that vote-spamming is a serious threat to our consensus-based model. Anything done to try to stop it (that works) is not unhelpful. Hopefully this will work, but the jury is still out on that, so you can't yet declare it as unhelpful. --Cyde Weys 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Cyde, three of your last five blocks are clearly inappropriate, and one certainly looks inappropiate. Is it at all possible you've gotten the wrong end of the stick with regards to appropiate blocking? - brenneman ^{L} 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting wildly off-topic and producing a large amount of needless wikidrama. Therefore, although I was involved with Kappa initially and had requested a block at the time (and in fact, involved admins got Kappa to stop without a block by having about 5 admins tell Kappa to stop) I will unblock with a blocking note to the affect that the block would have been acceptable at the original time. JoshuaZ 17:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It must be the Bizarro world. I'm fully agree with JoshuaZ. Everyone on this thread needs to just stop. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for everyone being civil and calm, but one thing should be pointed out: discussion of the merits of a particular block is absolutely a valid topic for AN/I. Discussion of concerns over the blocking behavior of an admin is also absolutely a valid topic for AN/I. We can ask people to discuss things appropriately without asking them to not discuss it at all. Friday (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I said I agree with JoshuaZ and that everyone just needs to stop. I.E., what JoshuaZ said. The Wikidrama. Please don't make comments like yours misleading people as to misinterpreting my remarks. All you're doing is further poisoning the discussion by publically contradicting me. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection for The Notorious B.I.G.

I'm having a hard time keeping up with the vandalism and poor edits at The Notorious B.I.G. How do I request that the page be made semi-protected? -- Mikeblas 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for page protection right this way. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me again note that it's easy to find a page that says it's "not" what you want. This page has a large section telling me what I'm "not" supposed to do here. But it's hard to find a page that tells me where I can find the help I might need. -- Mikeblas 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's been added since this was posted, at the top of the page under the heading "Are you in the right place?" just below the bit in red saying this isn't the complaints department is a list of resources that includes the protection link. =) Not a problem, though - you got to the right place, I hope! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)