Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive166

Killer Kowalski's deathEdit

Legendary wrestler Walter "Killer" Kowalski has died earlier today. I'm having a hard time finding references and sources. Can someone help me? Noble12345 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's sources of his death on the page. Am I missing soemthing? D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure this is the best place for your question but have you tried Google News? I found this just now... All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tweak to AOREdit

I had an idea - does Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall#Proposal_for_changes_to_AOR make the whole AOR process fairer and address both ways it can be rorted then folks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

this is hardly a "tweak" -- you are proposing compulsory recall for all admins. Was that intended as ironic? (I'm not judging the merits)DGG (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess it was a bit of an understatement, but I figured it was a balance - compulsory participation but vetting of recalls by bureaucrats. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is to make recall mandatory for admins. Just thought I'd make that crystal clear for anybody reading this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that there should be an admin recall to all current admins. This has been discussed before, I don't remember a consensus. I think that every admin should have to go through recall at this point as we have many admins, and we can cut back by eliminating the admins that don't need to have the extra tools, or should have them taken away, if you know what I'm saying. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
How many times does this need to be addressed? There is no consensus for this. Corvus cornixtalk 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Um... are you sure you've thought that through? Stifle (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I raised the idea above because of issues with the AOR WRT Elonka and mindful of how it can be gamed in either direction. My proposal was pretty well nixed by everyone (which is fine). I thought about it some more and it really depends on how folks feel the current system is doing. Pretty clear the majority are against AOR, and I too cannot see its value and how it does anything not already covered by RfC, AN/I or arbcom, so it really depends on whether arbcom feel overworked, and my impression from discussion in the proposal to enlarge or devolve arbcom was that jpgordon indicated this was not the case. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleteing talk page commentsEdit

There was a bunch of controversial edit's referencing the activist blog Daily Kos made to Sarah Palin article. I made a mention of this and my entire post was deleted - I was referring to a question about information that someone removed. I know general talk is not allowed but I need a second opinion regarding the deletion of my talk page post. Here is the edit he deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&oldid=235231715 --Papajohnin (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The post was specifically directed toward article content. The user was told about this notice on WP:AN through his talk page to give a chance to defend his actions--Papajohnin (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have found out that the activist blog Daily Kos website is hotlinking to the Sarah Palin article. Which would explain the previous 2 post up why a request was put in to semi-protect the article. Seems like one user had a wiki account tho.     papajohnin (talk)(?)  23:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kos is a well-respected political blog with Democratic Party leanings. "Activist" seems to be a loaded term, unless you consider the Democratic and Republican Parties as "activist" organizations. Corvus cornixtalk 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is the link you wanted. You do use some loaded language, and calling people on Daily Kos "kids" isn't going to win you any points, neither is repeatedly referring to the blog as "activist". Corvus cornixtalk 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your obviously missing the point. This was to address the reason why the article had to get semi-protected(thankfully it has been) and one users concerns over another user(not me) removing a speculative statement from Daily Kos in the article - and shortly thereafter having my reason deleted by a proponent of the blog entries addition to the article. I'll rehash that again: Not the content of the of the blog entry, but the deletion of my rationale for removal of the blog entry. Does that make any sense? =P
Activism is not a "loaded" word, nor is it perjorative, nor was it used as an ad hominem. As you can see from the wiki article I just linked for you. Even the wiki article that you wikilinked for me (Daily Kos) refers to them as netroots activist. I can't possibly imagine someone who is interested a political subject taking offense to being labeled an Activist but If I offended anyone by calling them an Activist I'm truly sorry as it was obviously not my intention to insult. If the page having been locked is any relevance to you I'm sure you would agree with my statement about the said behavior as being considered childish. Hence my reference to them being like "Kids". I don't think I was out of line but maybe you are right, I shouldn't have resulted to calling them "Kos Kids" I just get agitated when people use Wikipedia to peddle propaganda.
Now since you brought up the content I think I should address your statements. The Daily Kos is an extremely slanted political blog with their own version of Wikipedia that they admit is biased. In their forums there are a group of members who take it upon themselves to bring that said information to Wikipedia. In most academic circles it would be considered an outright travesty to do this. I won't address your statement about Daily Kos being considered highly respected as that is one highly debatable position your pushing because I could say the same for any relatively sized Conservative blog and it would be just as valid - but of coarse using either of them for a reference in an encyclopedia for anything other than critical commentary remains against policy. and from what I understand(elaborate if I misread you) your saying that because a blog has a large member base, that it somehow nullifies the fact that the information is biased and should therefore be allowed to Wikipedia? No matter what the source - posting link's and referencing wildly speculative information is considered bad etiquette under any circumstances.     papajohnin (talk)(?)  23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It's too bad you couldn't have been this eloquent in the talk page comment that I removed. That comment reads like a rant with no particular point. If you had said, "Daily Kos is encouraging people to insert unsourced material into the article," I would have left it alone. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Me too - I used a generalized personal attack but you could have atleast left something in the edit box as to why you removed it other than 'editorilzation' - which would be valid if it was on an article but not a talk page. Or leave me something other than what you left me on my talk page. Very well, I will delete my message and start a new section about abuse of that article from and a warning about unsourced speculation on the talk page. Admin's please consider this resolved.     papajohnin (talk)(?)  03:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"extremely slanted" is your personal opinion. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the Daily Kos as a source. Corvus cornixtalk 06:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


User:Nathan Jay WilliamsEdit

Okay, I asked what to do with a situation where User:Nathan Williams redirected his user page and talk page to User:Nathan Jay Williams. Whoever responded told me to ask them what they wanted (name change, or whatever). Now, it has been 8 days since I asked and he hasn't responded. SO, I believe his pages should at least be moved back to their proper places. Thanks. Cavenba (talkcontribs) 01:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the user page back, and merged the histories of the 2 talk pages at the correct location. Kevin (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Question Mark (?) and the MysteriansEdit

Not of earth-shattering importance, probably, but it comes up as a redirect page, so it should probably be tagged for {{WikiProject Redirect}}. I tried, & couldn't, thanks to a blacklist.... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bongwarrior screwed up againEdit

  Resolved: Article resorted minus vandalised revision --Chris 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone try their luck at restoring Newcastle Grammar School please? I mistakenly thought it was a new article and deleted it as nonsense, but it was just a vandalized version that I saw (sorry, tired eyes). I'm getting a "database query syntax error" when I try to restore. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't seem to do it either, I'll bug a dev --Chris 09:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That message has been coming up for a few actions today, I think it is a server capacity problem as I was able to restore the last edit only (and delete it again) but it fails when I try to restore the entire article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Tim has fixed it --Chris 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AutoblocksEdit

I asked this on WP:VPT with no success so I'll try again here. Would it be possible to make a replacement for the old, non-working autoblock finder or is this something which can't be done? Any volunteers? ;) Thanks, GDonato (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User:MilosppfEdit

  Resolved: Communication with the editor achieved. — Coren (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Milosppf (talk · contribs) has been getting warnings since February about uploading copyrighted images without proper rationales, and yet, he/she continues to do so. Corvus cornixtalk 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From a review of the editors contribs, they edit almost exclusively in Serbian popular/rock music areas. It is possible that their level of English is not sufficient to understand either the policies nor the notices they recieve, so I suggest some good faith toward attempting to achieve an understanding with this editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The lack of acknowledgment or apparent understanding is troublesome. I have blocked them until they acknowledge the problem and assert they will stop posting problematic contents. I understand language might be a barrier, but that simply makes stopping the problem until communication can be attained more important, IMO. — Coren (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
unblocked, per his request. I hope he has understood the lesson. -- lucasbfr talk 14:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image whitelist requestEdit

Would someone like to volunteer to whitelist Image:Anus of a model by David Shankbone.jpg,Image:Anus 2.jpg, and (for good measure) Image:Anus m.jpg for use in the article Human anus? Recently the human-related content was moved from the old location Anus to the new one. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This does need to be done. Any takers? All you need to do is adjust the corresponding entries at MediaWiki:Bad_image_list. It will only take a minute or two. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done – iridescent 17:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rfcu box and noindex?Edit

  Resolved: {{NOINDEX}} has been added to Template:Rfcu box by Rootology. Anthøny 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea for this one template at Template:Rfcu box to be non-indexed with {{NOINDX}}? There are an awful lot of false positives (and hits) mixed into the 1560+ pages that contain it. rootology (C)(T) 08:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no problems with that. It's not something that should be indexable via Google (whyyy??) and there have been quite a number of RL names appearing in there, betimes - Alison 08:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. There's no need to rub people's noses in it. And now we can NOINDEX User:Jon Awbrey as well, which can only be good. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah PalinEdit

I tried to fix a broken reference on this article, but some admin has protected both the article and its talk page. Protect the article, fine, but preventing logged out users from even commenting on the talk page is pathetic. Please fix reference 57. It currently reads "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named HiredHelp". 72.147.76.31 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Very_brief_Sprotection and look at the talk history. There are a frightening number of IP BLP vios going nuts there, so a decision was made to protect the page. rootology (C)(T) 16:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Three cheers for censorship! If you're going to prevent the vast majority of editors of this project from editing both the article and its talk page, the least you can do is create a talk page where logged out users can comment. 72.147.76.31 (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an unusual situation. The talk page was being hammered with IP libel spam. If you're just logged out, can't you just log in? Wellspring (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No wai, The Man will get his credit card number and put a microchip in his brain if he does!!!11one JuJube (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Have no fear, the very defenders of free speech have made their feelings quite clear on my talkpage and userpage. I have given their rights due consideration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Blocks. User:John Reaves is threatening to block people who remove the pregnancy information. This should be resolved now. Corvus cornixtalk 21:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth please. The blocks threat was in regard to the removing of one non-contentious section that beginning to be disruptive. John Reaves 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User:LilplayboiiEdit

Is this kind of stuff allowed? Cheers, sicaruma (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, since it's not actually advertising anything (the bluelinks are all false-positives, and the company info is for Hot Topic), provided at some point they move on to real articles. It's no more disruptive than (for example) this. – iridescent 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the category, though.--MrFishGo Fish 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) may be temporarily inactiveEdit

Hi. I noticed that this admin, who is from New Orleans, stopped editing at 12:15 UTC Saturday; this coincides approximately with the announcement of mandatory evacuation of New Orleans; this is just to notify editors that the admin might not respond to queries at the current time. This is admin-related and should probably be left on AN for informational purposes; this is not a general public service announcement regarding Hurricane Gustav. Although likely currently temporarily inactive, I don't think this warrants a list onto inactive admins list unless you feel otherwise because this is most probably only for the time being. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

True or false?Edit

[1]

It's not listed on the list of sensitive IP addresses. J.delanoygabsadds 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

False (it's Qatar & Singapore that have the "single IP address" issue). – iridescent 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There is another IP address that is all of the UAE. Maybe this is a new one now? --mboverload@ 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The UAE doesn't have a huge amount of IP addresses, but it definitely doesn't have just one. (I seem to recall 768 /24s being quoted somewhere, but I can't find it now). Black Kite 00:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

At Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 30, I listed Image:Imslayout.PNG for deletion. It was recommended by somebody, but it's not deleted. Can somebody delete this thing? Noble12345 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving, these discussions are designed to get broad consensus over a period of at least 5 days. Since you only listed the image a day or two ago (and listed it twice, I might add, for the benefit of the closing admin) and I don't see it falling into either of those categories, it's still got some time to go. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So, did we figure out what to do about Calton?Edit

Did we agree to anything here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 or are we going to? It sounded like we were headed towards some kind of serious sanction against Calton, but we never finalized the decision that I could tell. Leaving this hanging will just make the problem worse.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? What "problem" are you claiming? Missing some opportunity to throw your weight around? Not being able to punish someone who didn't stand up and salute you and other self-assuming authority figures just because you demand it? Or maybe it's that by-God some spam pages might be deleted and spammers blocked without being coddled.
So be specific: what ACTUAL "worse problem" are you talking about? Hint: not saluting when someone cries "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!" is not an actual problem, no matter how you spin it. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That response alone illustrates the problem with how you interact with other editors, Calton. It's already been established that Calton will be blocked for retagging denied speedies, and I'd support a civility restriction. - auburnpilot talk 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked for a substantive reply, not vague handwaving, nose-sniffing, and authoritative threats. Try again. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? Hrm, the constant edit warring with other editors because you think that your judgment is the only one that matters? –xeno (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I just blocked for two weeks for incivility. Tan ǀ 39 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
His comments were apparently a somewhat slow response to my removing his rollbacker privilege. I had given them to him early this year based on his experience but cautioned him about my concerns that I'd seen complaints of possible edit warring. I don't know that he ever used the privilege but I was away for a while and when I came back I noted the 0RR restriction - noted in the recently archived thread I referenced above. I told him that I was revoking his rollbacker simply because it was inconsistent with a 0RR restriction and not because of any misconduct. Everything is on his talk page, and there's plenty there if anyone is interested.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • So, my understanding is that Calton's formal restrictions are as follows:
1. 0RR restriction previously imposed (anyone got a link for that?)
2. Indefinite prohibition on edits to any user pages except his own other than reasonable CSD and MFD nominations. Per the above referenced AN thread, archived yesterday.
3. A two week block for incivility per Tan above.
4. We were discussing whether there should be some sort of civility restriction particularly with respect to user talk pages and/or unreasonable tagging of user or usertalk pages with G11.
We need to give him notice of his editing restrictions so we ought to decide what we're going to do here and I'd like some confirmation of the above restrictions.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You could always try treating him as an adult, that might help. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tagging a user page as WP:CSD#G11 if it is an advertisement, WP:NOT includes "Wikipedia is not a free web host". Obviously a link or two to people's own projects is not advertising, but several user pages are blatant advertisements either created in userspace or moved there from mainspace. And now I suggest you go and talk to user:Geogre about the utter irredeemable stupidity of issuing two-week retaliatory blocks for "incivility" which is, in fact, merely a spirited defence against what looks suspiciously like pushing a grudge. And I mean that, talk to Geogre and if after a considered exchange of views (i.e. where you listen to him) you still feel that blocking Calton would achieve anything other than drama and making us all look like idiots, feel free to sugfgest it again. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem lies in that he will "spiritly defend" any of his actions, through edit warring or incivility. I don't doubt that he does identify pages that do need to go - but when someone disagrees with his assessment it would be best if he just walked on. I don't see how Doug could be pushing a grudge, because he's the uninvolved admin who granted him rollback a while back. –xeno (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Guy, if you really believe that it would be possible to have a "considered exchange of views" with Calton over issues such as this, you have a very poor sense of pattern recognition. Giving Calton an umpteenth chance and leaving him unblocked is the thing that causes drama and makes us look like idiots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I said Geogre not Calton. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not that this is going to make much of a difference, but I feel compelled to add my two cents... I haven't had a run in with Calton in over a year, but that run-in, or more correctly his behaviour during that time, is scorched into my memory. Very rarely have I encountered such an abrasive Wikipedian, who enjoyed baiting his "opponents" and in fact blatantly stated that he was doing just that. I obviously have no comment on his recent actions, but perhaps it should be kept in mind that this sort of behaviour has been going on for at least a year (and in terms of full disclosure, I was probably no angel myself, but Calton's uncivil behaviour was honestly quite unlike the vast majority of Wikipedian's I have dealt with). PageantUpdater talkcontribs 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Calton, pleaseEdit

Calton has made exactly three edits today: [2], [3], [4]. For this he was blocked for two weeks for incivility. Sorry, but I don't think that s even remotely proportionate to the offence, if offence it was (which I'd dispute). There's clearly some bad blood here, the best thing would have been for Doug not to even start this conversation, since Calton had not even edited since 17 August, we have a whole host of dispute resolution processes, but here we have blocked someone who's been with the project for over three years, has thousands of edits, and whose only offence appears, at least to some interpretations, to be a refusal to be sufficiently deferential to an admin. Surely we have some real problems to fix here rather than spanking Calton? Guy (Help!) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, sorry to say this, but I don't think you're a very good judge of civility, given your previous use of profanity and blatantly sexist slurs. Kelly hi! 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sexist? When? Guy (Help!) 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just remember evidence of you using the terms "twat" or "cunt" towards other editors. Which was it (or was it both)? Do you really want me to go find the diffs? Kelly hi! 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it took about 30 seconds of searching. "Cunt"[5] and "Twat".[6] Also "Fuck off".[7] Need more? Kelly hi! 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That is not sexist, it is British English invective. And given that the user in question had just taunted me about the then very recent death of my sister, I think that it was if not appropriate then certainly wholly understandable. Do you have any idea just how vile that particular user's behaviour was? To taunt someone who had recently watched a sibling die in agony is not exactly pleasant, as the subsequent arbitration noted. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The British English thing won't cut it (I've lived there and know perfectly well that you don't call people "cunt" in normal discourse), neither will the "victim card". You've explained one instance that I can sympathize with. How about the others? Is it normal in Britain to tell people to fuck off? (Clue - it's not.) Would you like me to bring some more diffs here? There are dozens, if not hundreds, in your RfC and Arbitration cases. You are no judge of civility, Guy, It's best that you go write some article, if you know how, and leave the judging of civility to civil people. With respect - Kelly hi! 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, that particular user was one of the most vile trolls I have ever come across, and I think most of those who remember him would concur with that judgement. See Bainer's evidence in arbitration. I said nothing to him that I would not have said to his face, always assuming I didn't deck him instead. That does not mean I am proud of it, but neither does it make it "sexist". I will put my hands up to being extremely rude on occasion, though not I think recently, but I do not believe I am prone to gender bias. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't buy the whole "not sexist" thing. In African-American culture, it's acceptable to use the term "nigger" to one's peers. A white editor here is not free to call a black editor a "nigger" just because it may be acceptable somewhere. Similarly, just because you may call your friends "cunt" or "twat" does not mean you should feel free to offend women here by throwing those terms around - they are among the most offensive terms you can use in the presence of a woman, and sensible people are perfectly aware of this - even in Britain. That you feel undeterred by this tells me that you are not a very good judge of civility (and possibly reactionary in regards to women's rights, though that is really irrelevant). Kelly hi! 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You have my full permission to consider me sexist, just be aware that I dispute that label and would challenge you to find any credible evidence for it outside of my occasionally ill-judged choice of cuss-words. I'll not link the words in question, but would point out that we discuss them in some detail and don't make any assertion in those articles that their use is considered evidence of sexism. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have, to my knowledge, never been involved with Calton or Doug. I have no grudge, and no prior history with this editor. There was no "bad blood" and the block wasn't simply for his three edits today. A "spanking" would have been the usual 24 hour wristslap (aka "cooldown block"). This one was for two weeks because I will not tolerate his behavior here, and if it occurs again after the block expires, the next block will be for a lot longer. Tan ǀ 39 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't do punishment blocks, we do blocks for prevention. What problem are you preventing by blocking Calton for two weeks? I'm not looking for a fight here, but I think this was not a good idea. And I'd like an answer from Alison to the question above as well, please. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Guy, which question would that be, please? Looks like I'm joining the party late here .... - Alison 09:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I am preventing him from being incivil to editors on Wikipedia. I'm also done arguing with you; your attitude/record predicts your responses. Tan ǀ 39 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, you know, if the editor with whom he is in apparent dispute had not started this thread then I don't believe he'd have said a thing. Doesn't that inform the issue in any way? Did anyone try discussing this with Calton and trying to broker peace or calm him down or get him to disengage or drop it? And since my attitude/record predicts my response, perhaps you could tell me what my next response will be. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Doug is not engaged in a dispute with Calton. All of this could have been completely avoided by Calton agreeing not to edit war (and trying not to be so "spiritful" in defense of his actions). –xeno (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A two week block on the basis of those three edits would have been excissive. A 2 week block on the basis of the recent attitude displayed is reasonable. ViridaeTalk 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that the block is reasonable in light of the pattern of behaviour displayed over a sustained period of time. The responses he made in the section above were just the straw that broke the [whatever]'s back. naerii 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

/me wanders off to document the all-new WP:BADATTITUDE policy which allows for two-week blocks for surliness. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Er, have to agree with JzG. The comments seem mildly heated, arguably uncivil but not blockworthy. And a two-week block? C'mon. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
JzG, don't waste your time; we already have that policy. It's called WP:CIVIL. Calton has been an uncivil editor for a very long time. He's received plenty of warning and has been the subject of many AN/ANI discussions. The block duration may be a bit long (no real opinion on that) but the block itself was warranted. - auburnpilot talk 22:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on the recent edits and the block history, I am fine with a block that escalates from the past level but 2 weeks is too long - one week at most seems like a fair length. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to be clear here, I am not saying that he is a saint or that he did nothing wrong, only that the remedy is disproportionate and - more importantly - very unlikely to produce the desired result (unless, I guess, the desired result is to hound him out). I think the problem here for me is that we don't seem to have learned anything from Giano. I really do not think that civility blocks have any positive effect on long-standing contributors with attitude issues. I'm not saying the issues don't need to be fixed somehow, just that this does not seem to be, from past experience, an effective way of going about it. What Calton needs may be a "critical friend" he can trust, or some firm advice from an arbiotrator in private or something, but right now the comments and the block seem calculated to wound his pride, and since it's his pride which seems to be the cause of the problem I don't see how further wounding it is going to help. Sorry, I'm not saying this especially well as it;s much more nuanced than that, and I'm really not having a go at anyone, I just think that we need to find a better (read: effective) way of dealing wiht this kind of thing. Geogre says it far better than I do, which is why I urge people to read his talk page, comments and archives. The Geogre is wise in the ways of human nature. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Support unblocking. Too much emphasis is placed on 'civility', a highly subjective and over used excuse for blocking. --Duk 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Block shortenedEdit

As said above, there was no call for a two-week block; I shortened it to 72 hours. If consensus develops here to unblock earlier than that, that's fine with me too, but I felt action was necessary on the block length. Chick Bowen 00:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you look over the previous incidents involving Calton before you made this decision? Did you consult the blocking admin? Is it really worth wheel-warring to defend Calton? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clear--I am not defending Calton; I think his comments today were designed to inflame the situation, and that's unacceptable. My shortening the block does not in the least undo it--it merely puts it into the realm supported by the block reason given by the original blocker. To call this wheel-warring is to misunderstand what wheel-warring is. Chick Bowen 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I have a strong urge to be uncivil myself here. That block change was way, way out of line, Chick. Tan ǀ 39 01:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Good change, blocks are not punishment. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A two-week block is more appropriate given Calton's long-term pattern of behavior, but maybe three days will have an effect on him. When the block expires, let's have a clear consensus that future incivility will result in progressively longer blocks. And please, let's not reduce the length of the current block any further. Everyking (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Obviously I support this, but it is not going to fix anything without some work in the background. We need to find someone who Calton trusts and is prepared to work with, who can help Calton to curb his aggression. I would really like to hear from anyone who thinks they could fulfil that role. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks was quite disproportionate. 72 hours seems like a reasonable warning shot. Nandesuka (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think he considers himself warned? Right now he's arguing for an even shorter block because admins are "overweening" and "stupid" and because he "did nothing wrong". [8] rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest "shorten to 72 hours" until I saw it had already been done. Blocks are necessary but overly excessive ones do not help the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 06:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A little backgroundEdit

It was commented above that I never should have started this thread. I just want to make sure everyone is clear that all I intended was to ask whether we had actually come to any conclusion in the previous thread that archived yesterday. I had made the last comment there in which were discussing significant sanctions and then no one responded so the discussion passed into the black hole that is the AN archive. I am not totally uninvolved in that my name does show up several times on Calton's talk page and in the discussion earlier this year about his use of {{temporary userpage}}, which was solved by other means (deleting the template among other things). --Doug.(talk contribs) 01:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • If you have a philosophical dispute over whether spam is userspace is speedily deletable as spam under WP:CSD#G11 then I would suggest taking it to WT:CSD, but it has always been my understanding that blatant advertising meant just that: blatant advertising, wherever it appears. Maybe the consensus view these days is that the community wants to spend five days discussing the deletion of pages where Wikipedia is being used for free webhosting to promote commercial entities, that is quite possible, but I'd say that trying to fix it by stopping one person from so tagging userpages is not the best way of dealing with it. Some examples would be good as part of that debate, most of the G11 tagged userpages I've seen have been ones where I completely agree that it's an advert and needs gone, but of course I am a heartless deletionist and my dislike of spammers is well known. There are certainly other issues, but I don't see how they can easily be rolled into one with this specific point, which is a matter for legitimate disagreement between good-faith users. So: separate it out and see what people think? If you like we could use User:SpeakerBoxLLC (edit | [[Talk:User:SpeakerBoxLLC|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a case study. Calton is not involved there at all. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not about CSD G11, I am not aware of any issues with Calton misusing CSD G11, if you have read the earlier thread, the consensus seemed to be drifting towards allowing Calton to use CSD rather than simply a community limited ban against any userpage editing (aside from his own). He had been most recently blanking pages. Please read the earlier thread. It's on the most recent archive and it's linked above. If it hadn't archived, my position would be a little clearer maybe. Thanks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The link again was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 and the mention was of any CSD, the example used there was U2, not G11. The issue is that Calton has shown historically that he just finds another way to do what he wants. After {{temporary userpage}} was eliminated he used the cat, then he was told not to use the cat, I think that was after another AN, and he eventually went away for a while and then came back using PROD, at some point that I wasn't even watching, he got a 0RR restriction, and he most recently has been blanking userpages that he personally believes are either advertising or worse "non-existent" (his shorthand for gone and not coming back) only sometimes they do come back. Read the prior thread and you'll see what I'm talking about. Ryan actually started this thread and I've only revived it since we never settled on the final sanctions (but seemed to settle that there would be sanctions) So I felt we needed to resolve it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's clearer to me now thanks, I can perhaps try to have a discussion offline about this as I think that particular problem is fixable. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So the question remainsEdit

Have we settled on what we're going to do? Guy wants to try to address the issue offline, but we seemed to have an agreement at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 to sanction Calton in the ways I've noted above. Additionally, we noted an earlier 0RR sanction but there is no mention of it on his talk page. Do we have a link to the earlier discussion that contained this sanction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug (talkcontribs) *** 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The 0RR restriction was never actually decided on because he simply stopped editing during the AN discussion. Someone needs to determine if there was consensus for 0RR and then formally inform him of it. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This is something he has had a tendency to do in each of the prior discussions.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't a party to the 0RR discussion, so I'm not sure what led to it. Can anyone help?--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I was pretty clear at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 that we were at least prohibiting any edits to userpages (other than his own), with the exception of nominations for CSD or MFD. In other words, no more page blanking. The discussion there certainly seemed to suggest an earlier 0RR had been agreed upon.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But that would stop him from tagging blatant spam in user space. I still think that dialogue is likely to be more effective than symptom-fixing. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone wants to stop the good spamfighting work he does, just the edit warring when someone comes along and decides that a particular bit isn't delete-worthy. –xeno (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I feel like I'm in a completely different forum. In the prior discussion one of the big issues, probably the biggest, was his incessant blanking of userpages with an edit summary of "nonexistent user".--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, shouldn't the outcome be :
  1. No edits to other users' userpages other than to tag them for CSD or MfD - this allows him to carry on with his G11 work, but stops the "blanking non-user's page" he's engaged in in the past.
  2. If CSD is declined, either by another editor removing the tag or an admin declining speedy, his only recourse is to tag it for MfD - retagging it for CSD would be expressly prohibited (although this wouldn't apply if the tag is removed by the user whose userpage it is).
  3. If a report to UAA is declined he can discuss it with the declining admin (subject to the below), to outline his reasons, but relisting it at UAA is expressly prohibited.
  4. In any discussions with any user he disagrees with, no matter how much he may feel that his intelligence is being insulted, he adheres strictly to WP:CIVIL and acknowledges that there are mechanisms to find a resolution to the dispute (ie. if there's a disputed CSD tag, MfD will resolve whether the page stays or goes) that don't have to involve hectoring and wiki-lawyering with everyone who disagrees with him.
And...forgive me if I'm wrong...but aren't those basically the rules that apply to everyone anyway? GbT/c 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You need to stop making sense right this very minute Gb. You're ruining the drama. I still have half a bowl of popcorn. Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Salt? Or sweet? GbT/c 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Popcorn was never meant to be anything other than salty. Anything else is just unnatural. Keeper ǀ 76 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Support community ban of Calton. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Supporting a community ban without a community ban actually being proposed is prima facie evidence of...oh, forget it. GbT/c 07:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I believe a limited community ban was proposed. That's why I restarted the thread, because we never finished the discussion, at least I didn't think we did.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was being semi-facetious...Kurt didn't make it clear that he was supporting a limited community ban. Anyway, without wishing to repeat myself, 1 - 4 above are the conclusions that I drew out of the previous discussions...
Oh, sorry, I guess I wasn't paying attention. It didn't register that you'd just written that. I agree that those are it and I guess the only thing different from other editors is that these things are expressly stated for Calton and therefore likely won't receive 4 levels of warning before any block, right? Is there something we need to do to notify Calton of this? Lack of notice was mentioned above as a problem with the prior 0RR. Also, is Calton subject to 0RR or not?--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he is subject to 0RR in respect of tagging pages for spam - that's what 2. above is designed to capture - if it's declined he cannot reinsert the tag. As for notification, well, it's pretty unlikely that he's not reading this thread, but once it disappears off to archive someone can post a link to its (unmoving) archived position on his talk page. GbT/c 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, I just thought the earlier 0RR was across the board. There was question as to whether he'd ever been notified of the 0RR. Above Xenocidic says that we never decided whether there was consensus in that earlier discussion and Calton wasn't formally notified he just stopped editing. So, the question is whether Calton is subject to a general 0RR restriction. It would be helpful if we had a link to the earlier discussion where the 0RR was discussed.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see you hand a loaded gun to every spammer and crackpot I ever cross paths with for -- what, exactly? Oh yeah, for being right and not bowing to "I am the Law!" as if it were an actual argument for anything. --Calton | Talk 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ResponseEdit

So much distortions and occasional falsehoods to respond to, it's hard to know where to start. First, let me start with my original unblock message, since Xenocidic couldn't be bothered to actually read it before his knee-jerk upholding of the block:

Exactly as I expected: not for vandalism; not for damaging the encyclopedia; not for disruption; not for impairing in any way the actual work of building and/or improving the encyclopedia; not for attempting to hijack the encyclopedia to promote myself, fringe views, businesses, or a opinions; not for promulgating hate; not even, as the boilerplate text above says falsely in this case, making unconstructive contributions. Nope, as punishment -- not as a preventative measure -- for insufficiently sucking up to the wounded pride of the self-assuming authority figures. For not accepting "Because I'm the boss" as an actual rationale for administrator behavior nor thinking that wielding admin buttons in service of petty vendettas is woth overlooking, and for daring to say that vague handwaving and authoritarian threats are not ACTUAL ways of co-operative editing: actual recourse to actual arguments, actual policy, and actual common sense -- as opposed to to those who've mistaken Wikipedia for social-networking site with themselves as leaders wielding power in some virtual club.
As I've said over and over again, though everyone appears to keep ignoring it, I respond to actual arguments, not "I AM THE LAW."

Meanwhile, as for the comments above, let me pick out a few of the real gems:

Sorry; I read as far as 'stupid' and then stopped reading; you'll have better luck if you can manage a request that doesn't include insults

I'd say that actually reading the unblock reason is what a resonsible admin is supposed to do, especially if it's short, but maybe that's just me.

...leaving him unblocked is the thing that causes drama and makes us look like idiots.

Any appearence of idiocy is certainly not of my making. Am I also responsible for cancer, unemployment, and coreopsis?

Very rarely have I encountered such an abrasive Wikipedian, who enjoyed baiting his "opponents" and in fact blatantly stated that he was doing just that.

Mind-reading followed by borderline libel by someone with her own problems, angry that my nomination a year ago of a slew of non-notable biography pages were blown out of the water at AFD. She's certainly not one to talk about being "abrasive".

Hrm, the constant edit warring with other editors because you think that your judgment is the only one that matters?

I asked for actual examples and/or actionable items, and most every word in that statement is, as the saying goes, Not Even Wrong. I mean "Constant"? Hyperbole much?
Certainly a bad-faith mind-reading at worst and pure projection at best. Other than the fact I don't buy "Because I said so" as an actual argument -- choosing, instead, to rely upon actual policy, actual guidelines, actual practice, and actual common sense -- I'm waiting for an actual explanation.

Right now he's arguing for an even shorter block because admins are "overweening" and "stupid" and because he "did nothing wrong".

See, this is why I have such contempt for some admins, when they tell such blatant falsehoods. Distorting words to change their meaning (Hint 1: what does the adjective "stupid" apply to? Use ordinary rules of English syntax. Hint 2: What does the adjective "some" apply to, versus the claimed "all" of you charge?) and poison the well: classy.

The issue is that Calton has shown historically that he just finds another way to do what he wants.

Oh, that's hilarious coming from Doug, who's decided to do an end-run at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion to get around some very Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox policies because he apparently attributes magic powers to the "User" prefix that circumvent general policy and ordinary common sense. And while he's rewriting policy by the back-door, perhaps he should have consulted with those others, like Template:Spamsearch and others who don't think Wikipedia is free webhost for those who might-maybe-someday-sorta return despite all common sense and evidence to the contrary. Hint: [a page] of those oh-so-valuable editors who left now-deleted MySpace-like pages on Wikipedia before buggering off. What percentage have returned or have contributed further to Wikipedia. Go ahead, click around randomly on the "Contributions" links: how many have even ONE edit to their credit?

Doug is not engaged in a dispute with Calton.

Blatantly and obviously untrue. Or do you have some alternate theory as to what's at issue for Doug? See directly above for a small hint.

I don't think anyone wants to stop the good spamfighting work he does...

Doug seems to, as well as Ned Scott, who seems to believe that every time any page, anywhere, gets deleted on Wikipedia, God kills a kitten.

...just the edit warring when someone comes along and decides that a particular bit isn't delete-worthy.

Speaking of hyperbole. Nice use of "when", implying regular occurrence. Hint: I just checked and Kate's tool says I have nearly 26,000 deleted edits -- and that's not from bad articles I created which have been nuked, it's from tagging and bagging bad pages -- so how much edit-warring, exactly, as a percentage of that do you think has happened? If you've been told once, you've been told a million times, don't exaggerate.

But enough for now. If you think I'm being contemptuous, I'm getting a hell of a lot of raw material to work with here. --Calton | Talk 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, Calton, next time someone removes a tag that you've placed (not counting the creator of the page, they're not allowed to remove tags from their own pages) or declines a report you've made, are you willing to move on? If so, I think we can all live happily ever after. –xeno (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Calton, it's good to see that you decided not to be argumentative anymore. Kudos. Keeper ǀ 76 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And I think it's pretty clear that you are not to blank userpages, since that's what caused this whole fuss. CSD, MfD, civilly discuss with the user, or forget it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Calton, I'm a bit confused at your comment about me. While it is true that I fear kittens being killed because of some random connection to an on-wiki action... what do you expect to gain from insulting someone who supported your block being shortened? -- Ned Scott 02:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. on the community cultureEdit

Xenocidic was the wrong admin to review the unblock request. How could you not know that, Xeno? On a minor note, Everyking ought to have acknowledged above that he and Calton are ancient, entrenched enemies. Everyking, for the record, I think Calton used to treat you badly when you were the underdog. But you ought nevertheless to have mentioned the old bad blood between you. Your comment obviously flowed out of it. (OMG AGF!) These things may well not have affected the outcome, but you've made yourselves look bad, guys. One of the things that says the most about our community culture is the way we treat blocked users: carefully or carelessly. Oh, and I agree Doug should never have started this thread. OK, everybody sufficiently mad at me now? Between WP:AN and WP:AE, I'm getting amazingly popular. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Range Blocks and Col. DamageEdit

Earlier after dealing a ticket I cited on AN/I a range block of 90.200.0.0/16. Now I understand short term (2 weeks or less) range blocks to deter vandals and the such. However, after having the availability of a list of active range blocks (such is available via the logs, this information is publically available) I have a couple of concerns with long term range blocks:

I would present the following to a candid community, in that;

  • Large range blocks with long expiry would deny editors the chance to edit anon, as is our goal to permit.
  • Revert, block, ignore works just as well as large range blocks, but without the denial of editing.
  • The range blocks are geographically biased (unintentionally) and could threaten geographical representation.

Could we review our range blocks and consider altering them, or unblocking them? Also what are the thoughts of putting some guidelines into our blocking policy? Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution of allowing individual articles to be protected against ranges instead of just semi/full/none. With that in place, we could have protected a handful of articles against 4.129.64.0/21 and 4.154.0.0/21, instead of blocking those two ranges for months. It would greatly reduce collateral damage if we were able to do that. Others have proposed similar solutions which differed in details, but most of them would be better than what we have to work with today. I think the current state of affairs is about the best we can do with the tools at hand.Kww (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Except that then, the 4.129.64.0/21 vandal can go on vandalizing other pages. I believe that the current system of page semi-protection + IP range protection probably can't reasonably be improved to prevent vandals from attacking specific articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of these long-term range blocks are designed to prevent socking. The 4.12.64.0/21 block is against Soccermeko, who obsessively edits articles about Kiki Shearer and Nicole Wray. Block the articles dealing with them against his IP ranges, and the problem goes away. I'm aware of similar ranges that are for similar socks: a seeming compulsion to edit a group of articles. No reason to block everyone in their dial-up pool from editing any articles if all you really need to protect is five or six articles.Kww (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Then someone creates a new article about the subject, and he vandalizes that. Alternatively, he defines "articles about Kiki Shearer and Nicole Wray" more broadly than you, and you don't block him from his pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The admin recall process is deadEdit

This section has been moved to: Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN) - last post over 24 hours ago. Time stamping this so it can be archived in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Points system for admin recallEdit

This discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#Points system for admin recall (WP:AN) - last post over 24 hours ago. Time stamping this so it can be archived in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dutch administrators, bureaucrats and editors handling of D.A. Borgdorff = User:86.83.155.44Edit

  • Because of no solution but "Catch 22", I'd repeat fyi attention from AN/I 464:

OK, this is a multi wiki case, and I am getting increasingly annoyed about it. The current part is here, I'll leave the other wikis to themselves (but mention them here to show similarities).

User:86.83.155.44 is an IP mainly/only used by (according to the signing etc.) D.A. Borgdorff. DAB came into problems on the Dutch wikipedia for some conflict of interest edits (don't know the case extensively, I am not a regular on nl.wikipedia, though I am Dutch), and apparently there have been some cases about that. I do see that the user indeed has that tendency of linking to own work/books, but if the reference is OK, and the editor is not only adding that, then it merits discussion, not plain blanking of such edits. I'd like to note at this point that conflict of interest edits here are discouraged, but not forbidden. Still, a couple of editors, as far as I can see all originating from the Dutch wikipedia (there are a few edits from 'locals', but not many), have followed this IP around many wikipedia, erasing his contributions (which are quite often indeed involving himself)

I have blocked and unblocked user:86.83.155.44 twice, in both cases assuming good faith on the user, hoping that he would improve his edits (and I think he is, he seems to stay away from the conflicts that resulted in the blocks). I did however quite strongly warn, also after the unblocks.

For as far as I can see, the involved Dutch editors are:

(there may be more)

I have now given user talk:MoiraMoira a {{uw-vandalism4im}} (yes, I know about not templating regulars), for twice reverting user:86.83.155.44 on user talk:86.83.155.44:

  • diff - summary: "please do not remove text of some one else on this talk page" - note that all what was removed was in own comments, and the rest was moved.
  • user:86.83.155.44 reverted the edit, and starts discussing on user talk:MoiraMoira.
  • diff - redoing revert of the edits; summary: "please do respect other people's contributions on this talk page and be so polite to answer questions asked before deleting them which is rather unpolite" - similar as above, nothing was deleted from others, only moved, and deletions only in own comments.

Other interesting diffs:

  • diff - Erik Baas removing a non existing redlink in comments made by user:86.83.155.44 (reverted by me, Erik Baas warned about this)
  • diff (to Tram) and diff (to List of town tramway systems), both without explanation. The removed reference on Tram were there for over 10 months, and 400 edits, and does seem to assert the statement (I have now converted into a more conventional reference). 86.83.155.44 reverted the removal, and was then re-reverted by Erik Baas (both 2 times). Information does not have to stay because it is there for a long time, but this unexplained blanking of a probably good reference is strange.

On many other wikis the user is blocked for various times. I saw this yesterday on it.wikipedia, where this user is blocked for a year after a handful of edits to his talkpage (last revert, diff by MoiraMoira: "Linkspam removed again - user does not contribute to wikipedia, only misuses talkpages for nonsense everywhere" and only to his talkpage since the last block finished!). Note, the 'linkspam' are links to some images in the top of his user talk page. I don't know about the Italian rules, but this seems quite strange to me (example contribution, so the user does contribute). Also, linkspam for me is something that is mainly visible in mainspace, or linked to that, and may be a very promoting userpage, but a talkpage which has a sentence (which may be for own convenience or whatever reason) does not need, IMHO, such drastic action. And I can't see that the self-promotion is quite obvious, but I am not happy that Dutch editors, administrators and bureaucrats are doing this, in this way, here.

If looking around on other wikis, the same Dutch users are involved in many of 'discussion' and blocks. To me this seems harassing/stalking, but I'd like some other comments before I go on. Maybe I am missing something crucial here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed references he included to his book in five other articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in July (together with Tram, this makes at least six articles where he included this reference, which seems a bit much for a local, self-published book (published by a club of tram enthusiasts that is). Afterwards, an edit war occurred between the IP doctor and a few Dutch editors (I was not involved in the edit war or the following blocking). I have today removed the reference to his own work again from Tram (while doing some other much needed cleanup on this poor article), together with the example that was referenced by this book. It added no value to the article at all.
As for the rest of this case: yes, Borgdorff is stalked by Dutch editors, which is bad. But on the other hand, Borgdorff has been IMO a nuisance on many Wikipedias, being mainly a dual purpose account, adding references to his own work and to a fringe scientist, while otherwise mainly being busy making tons of extremely small edits to his signature. It would be better for the English Wikipedia if both sides (Borgdorff and the listed Dutch editors) took there efforts elsewhere. Spamming Wikipedia articles with your own work is a bad idea, and following editors around to other Wikipedia versions isn't much better. Fram (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The behavior of the tram editor is so blatant, and the spam has continued for such a long time, that a 3-month block for 86.83.155.44 (talk · contribs) would be well-justified. (Beetstra's previous talk with this editor seems to have made no impression at all). If this were a registered account and not an IP I think an indef block would be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am (not hard) disputing that it does not add .. there now is not a reference for the '150 trams', which is in the book .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have put back the reference that was removed again, by another Dutch user. The book nicely illustrates the fact that trams continue to thrive in the Netherlands, while diminishing elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, does it? It is not only about the GTL8 vehicle, , but suddenly it is about trams in Belgium and the Netherlands in general? And Dirk, there was no longer a reference for the "150 trams" needed, since the whole sentence was removed as excessive detail (we are talking about the general article about trams in the world, with the history and so on: why was this example of one type in one city so important?[9]). This reference was inserted as self promotion and reinserted as a friendly gesture, not because it is in anyway needed in the article. And Guido, I'm Belgian, not DutchFram (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In so far that the remit of en-WP admins is only to the English language Wikipedia, what is it that you are requesting here? From what I can see, there needs only for some advice to those that are removing ip account talkpage comments by that editor from "their" talkpage that this is not permitted on en-WP unless the content violates en-WP policy. You can do this yourself (although you may wish to link to this discussion when you do). Only if this advice is ignored is there a need for admins to be involved. I would further comment that there is nothing that any editor can do here regarding actions on another Wiki, at least not as an en-WP account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Since my name suddenly appears here and my actions are judged and condemned by one of you guys I hope you will take the time to read this conversation here on my talk page archive which might give you more insight in the matter. I wish you all good luck in dealing with this troublesome Dutch person. Be assured I'll leave it up to you all to act wisely especially after what happened today on my talk page. Kind regards and good luck with wikipedia-en since this contribution is my final one here. MoiraMoira (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
On my talk page Beetstra wrote about dAb's self references "so there is apparently not much personal gain in that than a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia'. " If that's true, to me that doesn't mean it is OK to make those edits wiki-wide on a massive scale. Most of the self references dAb makes in the Wikipedia's I can only logically explain with a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia' attitude of the person who puts the self reference there. Mentioning a French book by Vallée in combination with dAb's translation into the Dutch language in an article doesn't make sense to me in a non-Dutch Wikipedia. If the Dutch translation is also not available to the public like in any library (on the Dutch Wikipedia dAb confessed no library he knows of has his translation) or from a book shop because that translation was only printed in about 30 copies in a proof-run in 1973, then mentioning it in the Dutch Wikipedia wouldn't even make sense. Especially since the French book is not even on topic in the article where he mentioned the book. Frequently re-inserting those self references, often while engaging in editwars, spread over some 15 language versions of Wikipedia with also local wikipedians reverting his self references that usually only stops after either his account is blocked or the article is semi-protected proofs to me he is extremely eager to have that self reference in those articles. He doesn't do that to help the readers of say the Japanese or the Bulgarian article because the book cannot be accessed by those readers and those readers are extremely unlikely to be able to understand a text in Dutch about a difficult scientific subject. That free translation cannot serve as a reference in the articles because it is a translation so nothing new will be in the book that's not in the French original and by the way, he always 'forgot' to mention the translation was into Dutch and not in the local language of the Wikipedia he added the self reference. He cannot do it to be able to sell more of those books so what other explanation can be thought of then a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia' attitude? Fram wrote above that he made self references in 6 articles, well so far I have even found 8 articles on the English Wikipedia (and maybe there are even more) in which he added those self references. I don't see why Dutch users who notice dAb is active with massive self reference spamming on so many language versions of Wikipedia cannot revert that on other Wikipedia's than the Dutch Wikipedia. In the past when I found spamming links in the Dutch Wikipedia and noticed they also occurred in other Wikipedia's, I also often removed those links in other Wikipedia's. If dAb wants to abuse all those language versions of Wikipedia for self promotion, why should I refrain from reverting those edits elsewhere? Especially if he refuses to answer questions on the talk pages of those Wikipedia's why the references were relevant. After months I still wait for his answer on e.g. the Japanese and Spanish Wikipedia. So yes, I could have asked him similar questions on talk pages on the English Wikipedia before removing his self references, but I guess he wouldn't have answered here either. - Robotje (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Re EdJohnston, I think I did make an impression, he has not performed similar edits since my second unblock (he even undid some things on his talkpage after I mentioned something about it on my talkpage). And the self promotion is there, yes, but it was introduced with information, WP:COI does not forbid such edits! We can question if the reference does add or is correct, or if there are better ones, but it does not have to be just removed because he added it (we've been through enough of such cases on WT:WPSPAM, user adding their own external links which were deemed helpful, and hence should not be removed).
Therefor, I feel that I was doing quite well trying to get the edits in line, and he did not do it after the second block. But the edits on his talkpage by the Dutch editors (with twice, IMHO, a false edit summary) does CERTAINLY not help the situation, it only aggravates it further. Therefor, I feel that edits like performed by user:Robotje, user:Erik Baas, user:MoiraMoira (in that way) did not have to be performed, leave the user, and indeed react when the situation gets back to mainspace. There is now for as far as I can see no reason to block him here, he is not performing any questionable edits in a content namespace. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am entirely in agreement with Dirk Beetstra. This is a stalking mob, although I'm inclined to make an exception for Wammes Waggel whose edits seem sincere and not coordinated with those of the others. There are two things I believe should be taken into account here. First, 86.83.155.44 is someone fairly unfamiliar with internet customs who was unaware of relevant guidelines. He is a good-faith user, a gentleman, with some interesting information to share, but not sure of where to add it. All he needed was some friendly advice and guidance, of which these Dutch users offered none. He has shown willingness to learn and stayed remarkably polite during all the harassment. Second, users Robotje and MoiraMoira have a different opinion about self-references. They, and some other Dutch users with them, believe - as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion, that this is about the gravest possible offense on Wikipedia, and that anyone who stoops so low is giving a free pass to get hunted down and chased off the planet. Since earlier this year, they have expanded their terrain to harass such users not only on nl:Wikipedia, where they are part of the ruling incrowd and have absolute power, but also on other Wikipedia projects. Robotje has even gone so far as to falsely accuse 86.83.155.44 of copyright violation on es:Wikipedia, and repeatedly deleted 86.83.155.44's citation of the text on Dutch national monument, which belongs to the public domain. MoiraMoira repeatedly brings up her status as a nl:admin to give undue weight to her side of the argument. Together with Erik Baas, who is not part of the nl:incrowd but is played as a puppet, they have violated WP:3RR and similar rules many times, disregarding all warnings. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Guido, in the text above you make several statements about me that are nonsense and/or very incomplete statements as you did multiple times in the past. For example, can you provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules?

A few months age you wrote here my comment was false and for the same edit you gave me a warning on my talk page. I asked you there to specify what was false. You never even attempted to prove anything was false but about a week later you wrote on my talk page immediately under my question "Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." Well, you did revert it a recent edit of mine, and you even reverted it 4 times within a few hours timespan since I was not the only wikipedian who removed your self reference in an article and as a result you were blocked (see [10]). An independent admin who looked at your unblock request wrote "The edits you were reverting were not vandalism. Period." [11] So you had better given yourself a warning.

Guido himself explained to dAb about the self references on the Spanish Wikipedia:

"A translation of a reference can only be relevant if it helps the reader. So, a translation of a French text into Dutch would typically only be of interest on nl:Wikipedia, but not on es:Wikipedia, while a translation of a Chinese text into English could be worth mentioning here." [12]
So, Guido agrees making a self reference about a translation in Dutch on the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't help the readers. Why then do you think did dAb re-inserted so many times that self reference on the Spanish and so many other non-Dutch Wikipedia's; some kind of self promotion seems to be the first answer that comes up. I never wrote a self reference is automatically self promotion; but in this case it is pretty obvious. You also wrote about me and others in the above edit ".. as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". Please give me a few links or even one link where I openly stated what you claim I have stated.

Besides, once again I ask you, please specify what was false, and please don't forget to also provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules. - Robotje (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a comment from the victim (dAb): that's me. Though very ample explanation in Dutch and English too, about contents etc. of said books, mr. Robotje, being no expert, is neither able to read nor understand the European and probably World première of this LRV series, researched from the late sixties as power electronics to the present state of the art. The same could be remarked of said reference to the works of the Hon. Prof. R.L. Vallée ing.ESE. I'm respecting the rather negative comments of Fram and EdJohnston either, though not being known as experts too, (unlike e.g. user:Slambo c.s.) from which I'm not being impressed at all, 'cause they are rather off the hooks with their more too personal views, and I don't like being talked over not scientifically enough. So: let it be ... remarkable too. Regards D.A. Borgdorff, retired Rail- and Tramway PE 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) → PS: for instance on mentioned Japanese and Spanish wikipedias, the answers were given some times ago ... FYI ... one could research it even out.
Well, let's start by looking at the Japanese Wikipedia. On March 4, 2008 I asked dAb 3 specific questions on this talk page about the relevance of that French book and his Dutch translation in relation to the Japanese article. The only reply I got from him on that Wikipedia was on March 10 when he wrote: "Dear Robotje, for the moment because of illness i'll have no problems with it anymore everymore nomore or more whatevermore. Though High Esteem Yours Faithfully &c. - D.A. borgdorff (with small B) by: 86.83.155.44 2008年3月10日 (月) 15:53 (UTC)" [13] So dAb never gave the answers on the Japanese Wikipedia. On this Spanish talk page I asked him twice "Well, then first explain why you so often mentioned your translation into the Dutch language with your name as translator on the Spanish article if your translation itself is not even publicly accessible in The Netherlands." and the reply from dAb in connection with my questions was: ".. This discussion has no fundamental scientific interactions anymore, and lacks judgement on peer review. The discussion partners have no qualification in the Quantumfield Theories at all. Regards: COITI D.A. Borgdorff .." [14] So also that question was never answered too. On the Spanish talk page dAb's attitude was a kind of out of all the people in this discussion I'm the expert so I don't need to explain why mentioning my translation in Dutch of a French book on non-Dutch Wikipedia's is relevant; not even if the book is not publicly accessible. That same attitude is also very noticeable in the reply above. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or an expert in the topic of an article to understand that mentioning a Dutch translation of a French book that cannot be seen in any library in the world is not relevant in any Wikipedia especially not the non-Dutch Wikipedia's. - Robotje (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, he did not add the translation after this was explained to him. Anyway, this is in no way an excuse for your behaviour, which is the topic of this discussion. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 06:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Robotje, please stop vandalizing articles about Dutch people that happen to be Wikipedians as you did on es:Wikipedia.[15] Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Guido. Regarding dAb stopping making references to his translation, as I explained above, on March 4 I already asked him on the Japanese Wikipedia several questions like why should the existence of a Dutch translation be relevant to the readers of a Japanese article. His reply didn't contain any any answer. I can easily find 50+ edits and maybe even 100+ edits where he wiki-wide re-inserted references to that translation in non-Dutch Wikipedia's after he refused to answer that question. Also on the Spanish Wikipedia he refused to answer similar questions about a self reference his was constantly re-inserting until the Spanish article was protected. On most of the Wikipedia's where he tried to get that self reference in an article that article is (semi-)protected and/or he is blocked. That effectively stopped him from trying again.

About the supposed vandalism. The article about Tjako was 'deleted' (only local admins could see it) on zea-wiki by a local admin on July 21 and restored yesterday as can be seen here in the logbook. So when I removed that interwiki on the es-wiki the article on the zea-wiki was not already removed. This is just another case where Guido blames others for vandalism although there is no vandalism at all. Oh, and by the way, I posted some requests for you earlier today on this page. For example you wrote " .. [Robotje and others] have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". I'm still waiting for link because I'm sure I never stated something like that. - Robotje (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your friend Troefkaart removed the article.[16] He is another Dutch user belonging to the same group. A very suspicious one-two. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I was mentioned above, so I'll mention here that I've added a note with diffs to the article's talk page on my own minimal involvement in this dispute. I have not read the reference so I cannot make any statements as to its relevance to the article content. Slambo (Speak) 10:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought to stating it very clear: I don't like to be threatened anymore by anyone, not even by somebody like Fram, Robotje, Johnston or whoever may appear to further harassing me with ridicule questions inquisitioning me too. I already was complaining about this treatments to the board of WMF, and I will persist to formalize if hunting as haunting, or inquisitions persists as well. It's a shame to blame my name as e.g. in Italia, Japan, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Sweden ... and elsewhere on other Wikipedias to persecution and prosecution people like me. I'm only a innocent sheep, not like those hunters from the more lower-lands. - I'll mostly remain with utmost regards being faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff or dAb = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
@ the Dutch editors here (first part bit more specific in answer to some comments from User:Robotje). You state above that you clean cross-wiki when editors are spamming/pushing cross wiki. I know that, I see that around the wikis that I am active on (in my xwiki work and functions), I do encourage that, and I am happy that you help with that. I included your edits above because you did it here IMHO without too much research (though the case was obvious, but it was depriving a sentence from its reference (though unclear it was the reference for the sentence), you could have removed the whole sentence, and said in the edit summary that you did). And it was the first edit that started another edit war with the user. In this case I am inclined to be on the side of DAB, and I explained that (there were 400 edits to the page, and it stood over 10 months without discussion, at least discussion or explanation was at hand there).
The removal resulted in another edit war with DAB, who is there also to blame, and he was blocked for those actions, and I believe that I have given him some strong warnings about that (and seen his edits afterwards, I believe he understands). He should not revert that himself but he should bring it to appropriate venues to discuss (and it is for me not an argument that he does not do that on other wikis either, he should here, and if DAB here fails to do so, then that at least deserves a (final) warning, and maybe blocking, as DAB now should understand that he should stay away from any form of self promotional editing, if the data is appropriate, then others should decide, he can start those discussions). It is this edit warring that gets him blocked on other wikis as well (though lately ..).
But then these three edits:
(and there are very similar things on other wikis, which tainted my feelings about this, but if I only look at these three edits:) These three edits are highly inappropriate, and are IMHO talk page vandalism (editing others peoples comments), and do not serve any function but to aggravate/harrass the user in question, the edits by DAB were reverted, but no message that the edit was reverted was left on the talkpage (e.g. that it is frowned upon that you delete comments from others; still it gives the orange banner), and as such resulted in an edit war on the talkpage. Especially from an admin/arbitrator on the Dutch wikipedia I expect a higher level of concerning the edits of other people (and looking at it more thoroughly what actually was reverted!), the two edit summaries there are untrue, and the user already asked not to do that after the first one. I am sorry, but I'm not willing to withdraw that {{uw-vandalism4im}} for that, and I find it also troubling that MoiraMoira, as an arbitrator, decides to leave in stead of discussing ... they thinks not too good about me (if they insist that I had to be friendlier to him/her, if I see the edits of DAB here, then here no good faith and friendlyness were applied to DAB either, what happens on other wikis does not concern us here), but this does not make me happy either.
You (the Dutch editors involved) did indeed not have to bring your cross-wiki cleaning to the higher boards here, though I would have appreciated that you did after the editor persisted, instead of edit warring, and starting more edit warring. That edit warring resulted in a block for DAB, because he was alone in doing so. But I hope that the group of Dutch editors realise that were removing were, as a group, also edit warring at that point, exceeding as a group 3RR. I do find that not acceptable here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am Dutch (that is I have the passsport numbered NF4636861, given to Hendrik Barend Gerhard Warmelink, all my ancestors were "Dutch", at least as far back as there was something like the Netherlands, the kingdom of Holland or the Batavian Republic, the "liberation" by "allied" forces destroyed earlier records), but I strongly oppose to be captured by the the phrase "Dutch editors" if that phrase is used to describe the vandals who control nl.wikipedia.org. D.A. Borgdorff happens to defend some controversial views (which I don't share, BTW), but opposing those views should be done by giving sources (or, lacking that, somewhat coherent arguments stating why the opposition should give sources for alleged "common knowledge"). Slander (D.A. Borgdorff is not anonymous), vandalism (reverting edits which remove spelling errors) and "flashy badges" are not coherent arguments. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And, it isn't only "flashy" badges: http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:Logboeken&type=block&page=Gebruiker%3AErikWarmelink. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • More comments are welcome, for since a month I'm not really able to further significantly contribute anymore without my rehabilitation, solving the -- imho -- wrongly executed deleting by mr. Fram. Most Obligated, I am faithfully Yours D.A. Borgdorff or dAb by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The hunt has started again, now into the direction of deleting the article of mr. Tjako van Schie: Dutch pianist, composer and professor at AHK: conservatory of Amsterdam, by user:MoiraMoira mentioned, and newly user:Jorrit-H, who absurdly placed the WP:AfD-template, .. wherein the still famous pianist is falsly accused too, in the same way as was done to me: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You seem to be Dutch hunter again too: Robotje.! And for the nominator: it has to be closed: this AfD. Don't nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created; it screams of bad faith. In addition, your rationale, - albeit consisting of only a few words, was weak at best. D.A. Borgdorff by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Possible spam site masquerading as us?Edit

What on earth is www.wikipedka.org? Doesn't seem to be anything to do with us, except that it's a virtual copy of the entire database from (I think) December 28, 2007. Ideas? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a outdated doppelgänger, it may be used as some sort of experiment, or maybe even as a way to scam e-mail and passwords out of some users. But I don't think there's anything we can do, our content is "free". - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not true that there is nothing we can do. Please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahem, "Wikipedia's license, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) requires that any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license" so there is nothing we can do as long as they copy the GDFL disclaimer, which they do. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see our Wikipedia logo in the top left corner. It is not GFDL, it is copyrighted to WMF. Using a registered logo in such a matter is clearily illegal Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:LunamusikEdit

  Resolved

Is this allowed? It's essentially a copy of the text from the now deleted article Luna musik. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, now resolved. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIVEdit

The AIV Helper Bots are not working properly. I submitted two IPs, and both were supposedly blocked by User:Spellcast. However, Spellcast didn't block (checked contribs), nor is there a block template on the pages. Also saw this happened to another report filed by another user. I suggest the bots be shut down. It is multiple bots, 3,5 and 7.--LAAFan 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? You re-reported 76.116.153.29 at 02:06UTC and the block log shows the block at 01:53UTC. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That's weird. When I checked Spellcast's contributions, it said there were no edits on September 1st.--LAAFan 03:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Checked again, and I still don't see it. Is that an error on my account, or a system error?--LAAFan 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"01:53, 1 September 2008 Spellcast (Talk | contribs) blocked "76.116.153.29 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Vandalism)" - Fine for me! 86.29.236.115 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
When an admin blocks someone, the block doesn't show up in the admin's contributions list. A block shows up in a user's logs. Try looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Spellcast. J.delanoygabsadds 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining. Cheers.--LAAFan 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Repeated removal of a fact tagEdit

If I put a citation needed tag on an article, and another user repeatedly removes it without providing a reliable source, is that acceptable? Corvus cornixtalk 06:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with removing the fact tag, it's the edit warring and lack of good communication that brings trouble. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you've problem with an editor, the best thing would be to talk with her. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried. All I get is refusal to source. Corvus cornixtalk 17:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Finally figured out what this was about, and have commented on Talk:Babylon A.D.. IMHO, the other user did provide a source; if you disagree, follow up on the talk page, but it really isn't fair to call their good faith disagreement vandalism. --barneca (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Removal of a request for a reliable source is vandalism, pure and simple. But we can continue this on the Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 18:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protectionEdit

It appears the bot hasn't archived the resolved requests for twelve hours - should it be done manually seeing as the bot hasn't done it? The requests page is getting extremely large. D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be back to normal now, but if not feel free to do it. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice pleaseEdit

I'm concerned about an article which carries the {{Controversy}} tag which requests that editors: "Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."

Unfortunately, this article, being controversial, often attracts editors who are in my opinion obsessed with the idea that they should "be bold". They seem to see the request to discuss changes before making them as:

  • contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia
  • stifling their creativity
  • a sign that some editors of the article are trying to own the article and keep other editors away
  • a request that does not apply to them.

On these occasions I, and other editors, have attempted to convince "be bold" editors to work through discussion instead of unilateral edits. This tends to meet with little success, largely (IMO) because the "be bold" editors are very impatient.

Can I please have some guidance about what to do in such a situation? (I have avoided raising the specific article here as I am currently looking for general advice.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Basically, being bold applies once per issue. After that, if you "boldly" insert material that a number of editors have a good faith objection to, it is more like "being a jerk". I would suggest that you try to outline points of contention and see where compromise can occur. Sometimes this isn't going to work because people can't see past their prejudices. Perhaps (I haven't looked at your contribution history) you aren't seeing their whole argument. For most "political" articles, the status quo is a constant fight over wording by two diametrically opposed group of editors, each on the border of established guidelines. In that framework, "discussing changes" is far too broad. Pick (as I said above) points of contention and make specific recommendations on wording. See if you can get editors to agree on wording and sourcing changes, then use that consensus to insert the material into the article. If each question is one of specifics (which can garner agreement) rather than generalities (which will almost always provoke conflict), slow progress can be made. Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
ps my e-mail is enabled if someone has advice they want to give privately. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you can't come to agreement, you may try the NPOV noticeboards; they can give some outside views on POV issues. Also, Wikipedia:Third opinion can offer a more complete outside view on a dispute. If that fails to work and significant good faith attempts by both sides do not resolve the problem, there is always Wikipedia:Mediation. Keep in mind that both third opinion and mediation are not first resorts. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD backlogEdit

There's around 200 AFDs waiting to be closed. I've made some inroads, anyone else care to lend a hand? Stifle (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If I had the tools, I would not mind helping. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
If I weren't so abusive, I would not mind helping either. Guess not though. Majorly talk 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that kind of comment helps anyone with anything? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that kind of comment helps anyone with anything? Majorly talk 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You know this whole RFC thing...where people are suggesting that you act more like an adult? Maybe they aren't too far from the mark. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting to be taken to ArbCom. I'm rapidly losing patience, so forgive my childish comments. I'll be very busy in the next few weeks with my grown-up job, so rather it was done ASAP, whilst I'm still here. PS I find it amusing TRM has the time to make rude snipes at me, but can't get stuck into the AfD backlog instead. Obviously I'm so much more important. Majorly talk 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
ATTENTION: The above exchange has been found by one or more editors as being unproductive and a complete waste of time. Do not decide whether or not to continue the above exchange based on the need to make yourself sound smart or to point out the irony of this warning.

kurykh 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice message. Is that a template?--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I stole the format from the hurricane warning thread above. —kurykh 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Might have to turn it into one. That would come into an awful lot of use. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
*cough* {{User:Cyclonenim/WOT}} *cough*, pending no objections. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Already at User:Kurykh/Inane thanks to MBisanz. —kurykh 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There's Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js. WODUP 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js, WODUP (talk · contribs), I think I shall start to do some non-admin closures :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't worked for me since new version of Firefox. 86.132.128.16 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some hacked up bits of the CloseAFD script scattered in my various JS pages, but I never got around to making it fully automatic. Now that we have the write API it should be easier. Maybe I'll work on it later this week. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this commons script on en wiki at the moment? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Backlog notificationsEdit

Don't we also have a CAT:backlog or something also? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing over 850 CSDs, but the majority are proper talk pages. Apparently, someone recreated {{Spoiler}}, and when it was tagged for G4 it wasn't noincluded - so every page that linked to the deleted template now is in the CSD list. It should purge eventually, but take care when deleting talk pages until then. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

3rrEdit

I won't engage this anymore, sorry about the edit conflicts, hat hab, and confusion. Edit warring was not my intent. I did not realize I had removed it so many times. I was only trying to comment. I could not comment cause the software would not save the page with the hab hab addition during my edit/comment. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Royce MathewEdit

Hello! I had recently asked about "Royce Mathew" on this page:

[17]

I would have left it as was were it not for the fact that he has written personal attacks once again in the last 24 hours, which is why I am bringing him up once more: [18]; [19]; [20]. In addition, he has vandalised/flagged one of my own personal pages as not "neutral" - it was a test page for an entry on a Featured Article log...: [21]. His previous account, User:Disneysuit has been previously indefitnitely blocked due to going against WP:COI, WP:NLT, WP:VAN, WP:ATP, WP:NEU and WP:NPA, having given out repeated advertisements for his case against Disney and continued personal attacks against those who tried to calmly resolve the issue with him (and giving out legal threats against us]]. He has openly stated that my judgement is impaired and that I probably "collect Walt Disney merchandise, sell it" and/or am otherwise affiliated with Walt Disney. On the contrary, I am not, in fact, I am on my way to graduating from college and am no where ready to receive such a job. I am very shocked and hurt to see such immature behaviour from an adult and want to know how this will be stopped. The previous discussion on him, in which he was indefinitely blocked, can be viewed here: [22].

Thank you for your time. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and warned. Any further incidents of this nature should be reported to WP:AIV, noting that they are ip/socks of an indef blocked editor with previous sanctions, for faster responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this. I don't think I'd've been able to go further with all the attacks! For how long approx. will he be blocked? BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
According the block log, 31 hours. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
A sock puppet report has been filed here over edits by 72.189.4.182. The evidence section contains a pretty concise summary of the entire situation, including the recent wikistalking and accusations of conspiracy. &#151;Whoville (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I've filed a formal complaint to User: AGK for harassment, but in addition, right after his block, he's done much more. My comments on Royce Mathew's behaviour:
The IP 72.189.4.182 [23] has continually harassed me, as well as others (including administrators who have blocked him). In addition, he has concocted false claims (look at links; e.g. that I work for Disney when I am clearly not old enough to) and is legally threatening us and others. There are several forms of proof, e.g. here [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]. This user is none other than Royce Mathew (the previously blocked User:Disneysuit, who is continually breaking several Wikipolicies. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE

Attn: Wikipedia community & Mr. Wales - This letter was placed in TALK / Discussion. Through certain editors & administrators, Wikipedia continues to uphold double standards including to not follow it's own policy of communications over issues. Thus the editors/administrators have total control, with a set of ever changing policies and double standards, including deleting anything that challenges their abuse of power and their own violations of wikipedia's written policies. This site continues to solicit itself as a free public forum that anyone can contribute and anyone can communicate as detailed by wikipedia's own written policies. Yet based on the continuing actions of particular editors and administrators, they have made wikipedia their own private forum and have taken away all of those things. Meanwhile Wikipedia is generating hits, ranking status, income and clout from their various statements, and thus wikipedia is committing at the very least fraud upon the public with it's continuous promotions, solicitations and statements.


Dear Lessheard vanU and to Wikipedia including all editors and administrators & Mr. Wales: This is a very serious issue. We contributing writers have attempted to follow wikipedia written polices in contributing and adding to an existing article or creating one. Yet there are double standards beings upheld by wikipedia’s own editors and administrators. As with Blackpearl14, who clearly believes that wikipedias polices don’t apply to her, and with other editors who uphold double standards. Then when challenged to the double standards, including Blackpearl14's violation of wikipedia’s own written polices and reckless authoritarian rule and control, other wikipedia editors and administrators then support each other when one of them continues to violate wikipedia’s own written polices. “Lessheard vanU” had then wrongly and deliberately calls the contributing people who writes back and flags the issue at hand a “harassing the editor”, outright agreeing with Blackpearl14. Then in addition to IP address being blocked, all “talk & discussion” are deleted leaving only one sided bias and reckless claims against the contributing writers. Even though wrongly deleted by wikipedia editors & administrators, all of this has been recorded, including that Blackpearl14 having repeatedly writing in both correspondence and her bio page (copies have been secure) that the articles belong to her and they will continue to be own and controlled by her. These statements alone proves that she is in violation of wikipedia’s own written polices and purpose. Yet you have ignored that.


As previously written in discussion, per wikipedia’s own written polices, but immediately deleted by Blackpearl14 and then sanctioned by “Lessheard vanU”, Blackpearll4. She celebrates on her official wikipedia bio pages that she did many pages and articles on the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean for wikipedia. Why would someone devote so much time to 24/7 check the site and on these pages, and then recklessly calls anyone who doesn’t follow her bias views vandals, attackers and such. Has her judgement become impaired? Her goal to fuse her love and fantasies with the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean is very clear. That is a conflict of interest and that is not being neutral and is against wikipedia’s own written polices. Sorry, but if one purchases products, such as Pirates of the Caribbean posters, toys and Walt Disney merchandise and also using emotional love and fantasies for wikipedia / wikinews articles, doesn’t make the articles neutral and it causes a conflict of interest. As recorded, Blackpearl14's pages regarding this issue are one sided, not neutral, are bias, in conflict of interest and are all promotional tools promoting the causes and products of the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean. Yes, Pirates of the Caribbean and similar wikipedia articles are not neutral, they are a series of one sided promotional pages including links to products and causes of the Walt Disney Company. Following wikipedia’s own written “neutral” policy, entire articles would have to be deleted. Yet Blackpearl14 continues to violate Wikipedia polices and purpose.


Then with IP’s being deliberately blocked and contributing writers having been wrongly accused and falsely called various things, if anyone then attempts to generate a new article related to Pirates of the Caribbean following wikipedia’s own written polices, editors and administrators gang up and generate false reason upon reason, to delete those articles and ban the IP user. They use a countless list of double standards and twisted logic to justify their reckless acts. It’s a total lock out by the editors and administrators, abusing their trust tools, acting like a private monarchy. To date, Blackpearl14's has proven she has ultimate control, has repeatedly stated that is her purpose, and had even sought to have the articles locked. Then you “Lessheard vanU” wrote that you don’t want to lock these articles, stating it goes against company policy, but yet you added that you are preparing to possibly lock the articles in some capacity and do other acts against those who have been falsely branded and wrongly labeled as “vandals” and “harassing the editors” etc...


Other editors and administrators who have proven their practice of bias and manipulative and outright double standards practices include “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” and “Chris Mann”. We have documented that they say one thing, yet practice another. We have documented that they enforce one set of wikipedia polices yet discard and ignore those same policies when it applies to themselves or their selective circle of peers. We contributing writers also wonder just how many editors and administrators have a conflict of interest to various articles. So since you “Lessheard vanU” have personally chosen to block IP addresses and made false allegations against me and other contributing people, we are requesting clarification. When did Blackpearl14 become owner, controller and self judge of certain wikipedia articles? If you believe that Blackpearl14 owns and has absolute control over Pirates of the Caribbean articles, then please state that is the policy. Why is Blackpearl14 allowed to violate wikipedia’s own written polices and purpose? Why are other editors and administrators upholding double standards? For you can’t have double standards, as the wikipedia written policies detail a cooperative community effort for articles and, it’s suppose to be neutral.

Meanwhile like Blackpearl14, Whoville and SVTCobra both continue to delete any critical fact or information, stating that it doesn’t meet their requirements, claiming it’s not newsworthy, not being current, or some other bogus excuse. But these reasons are actually double standards, because other information in the same article which does not meet those always changing requirements are allowed. Even if your contribution is neutral and has been in the news, both Whoville and SVTCobra will generate yet another reason to delete it. Yet they don’t delete other critical facts or information using the same standards. Instead those are allowed. Hence Whoville and SVTCobra continue to apply double standards. When challenged, they bring in their peer who immediately deletes, and bans IP addresses etc..


Furthermore, there is no way to discuss nor talk about the reckless actions of Blackpearl14 without saying and describing what they are. Yet, immediately, Blackpearl14 has wrongly and irresponsibly calls anyone placing anything critical or changes to certain pages she had appointed herself as self controller of, as “vandals” and outright claims that she is being “attacked”, and then goes to her peers with which to delete the talk and discussion, leaving only the editors and administrators’ comments and self bias online, while blocking IP’s. What is shocking that you don’t know who I nor other contributing writers are. Why are Blackpearl14 actions being upheld? Why is her emotional state, calling herself various names in fantasy as she selfishly promotes her personal cause to glorify and promote a cause for her love for Pirates of the Caribbean and it’s people, all to go unquestioned? Blackpearl14 has proven she is not able to be neutral, is completely bias while preventing other contributing writers to adding facts and information to the wikipedia articles she claims she owns and controls. “Whoville” and “SVTCobra” have also proven their bias and double standards practices. If Blackpearl14 owns and controls those articles, then why does editors and administrators prevent and block other contributing writers from creating their own articles of the same subject, and why are we held to different standards than Blackpearl14? Why are double standards being used against contributing writers who follow wikipedia’s own written policies and purposes?


Then following wikipedia’s own written rules, as recorded, discussion “talk” was created to confront these issues and serious charges and threats against contributing people. Yet Blackpearl14 simply gets you to immediately block IP addresses and threaten more. Then she gives you an award saying that she is thanking you for protecting her from being “attacked”. Are you aware of wikipedia’s own written polices about communications? Us contributing writers are well aware of them. Have you read this one “when in doubt, don’t delete”? Proper and detailed wikipedia communications procedures were followed yet you “Lessheard vanU” have followed her reckless actions, giving her more unchecked power, control and validation. This is both reckless and dangerous. There are written policies that you broke when you outright deleted the “talk” and “discussion”. But evidently you don’t care. Either there are the written policies of Wikipedia to be followed or by the actions of wikipedia’s editors and administrators have proven it is overrun by double standards, corruption and recklessness. Wikipedia’s purpose isn’t to create kings, queens and monarchies, upholding double standards, and playing power trip games, unless that is the editors and administrators purpose. Wikipedia solicits itself as a free public forum, and details it’s own written polices, yet some editors and administrators have shown that they have seized control of wikipedia, deliberately using it solely for their own personal agenda and causes, while wrongly blocking the public (other contributing writers) from using it, and continue to falsely solicit that it’s a free public forum. Thus if you yet again plan to delete this talk and discussion, continue to uphold double standards and generate more false claims with which to wrongly block and threaten against us contributing writers of whom follow wikipedia’s written community policies, then first notify wikipedia’s owners and lawyers of your actions. For this is still a free public community cooperative forum for everyone, that is until wikipedia formally changes it’s published written polices and solicitations. It can’t have it both ways. We await your respected reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.4.182 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup, this is an example of what I was talking about. He makes things up and says that we do not follow policies. Check our contributions: we are the ones following the rules. Mr. Mathew is not. Monarchies? And where on earth did I say I owned articles? Wikipedia owns articles. You may check my page history/contributions for sure. Unless Mr. Mathew has tampered with my history/contribs, I'm sure his "secured copies" will agree with what I am saying. As for blocking IP's? I asked to do that only for my talk page, that way IP's such as Mr. Mathew couldn't harass me on my talk page. I don't see anyone except Mr. Mathew complaining against me. Mr. Mathew's is the first problem I've had, considering we usually work things out with IP's (and other contributors) peacefully, something Mr. Mathew does not like to do. Okay, wow. I'm having issues with this harassment and I'm seriously going to take this forward. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 01:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this to the bottom as it was once a resolved issue but no longer is, an admin help would be greatly appreciated. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 01:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) WHOA there, this isn't the 5 paragraph PSAT essay test. Please make your comments short and sweet or literally no one will read them. I certainly didn't. --mboverload@ 03:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason your stuff kept getting removed was because you're (a) attempting to use Wikipedia as a billboard; (b) being unreasonably demanding to see a "supervisor", nevermind the fact that Wikipedia *isn't* a formal company and none of us are paid to edit here, and (c) trying to use Wikipedia to air legal threats. Do yourself a favor and drop the coats; all you're doing is giving the "supervisors" a reason to block you. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD backlogEdit

There's around 200 AFDs waiting to be closed. I've made some inroads, anyone else care to lend a hand? Stifle (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If I had the tools, I would not mind helping. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
If I weren't so abusive, I would not mind helping either. Guess not though. Majorly talk 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that kind of comment helps anyone with anything? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that kind of comment helps anyone with anything? Majorly talk 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You know this whole RFC thing...where people are suggesting that you act more like an adult? Maybe they aren't too far from the mark. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting to be taken to ArbCom. I'm rapidly losing patience, so forgive my childish comments. I'll be very busy in the next few weeks with my grown-up job, so rather it was done ASAP, whilst I'm still here. PS I find it amusing TRM has the time to make rude snipes at me, but can't get stuck into the AfD backlog instead. Obviously I'm so much more important. Majorly talk 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
ATTENTION: The above exchange has been found by one or more editors as being unproductive and a complete waste of time. Do not decide whether or not to continue the above exchange based on the need to make yourself sound smart or to point out the irony of this warning.

kurykh 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice message. Is that a template?--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I stole the format from the hurricane warning thread above. —kurykh 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Might have to turn it into one. That would come into an awful lot of use. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
*cough* {{User:Cyclonenim/WOT}} *cough*, pending no objections. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Already at User:Kurykh/Inane thanks to MBisanz. —kurykh 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There's Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js. WODUP 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js, WODUP (talk · contribs), I think I shall start to do some non-admin closures :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't worked for me since new version of Firefox. 86.132.128.16 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some hacked up bits of the CloseAFD script scattered in my various JS pages, but I never got around to making it fully automatic. Now that we have the write API it should be easier. Maybe I'll work on it later this week. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this commons script on en wiki at the moment? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Backlog notificationsEdit

Don't we also have a CAT:backlog or something also? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing over 850 CSDs, but the majority are proper talk pages. Apparently, someone recreated {{Spoiler}}, and when it was tagged for G4 it wasn't noincluded - so every page that linked to the deleted template now is in the CSD list. It should purge eventually, but take care when deleting talk pages until then. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

3rrEdit

I won't engage this anymore, sorry about the edit conflicts, hat hab, and confusion. Edit warring was not my intent. I did not realize I had removed it so many times. I was only trying to comment. I could not comment cause the software would not save the page with the hab hab addition during my edit/comment. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Royce MathewEdit

Hello! I had recently asked about "Royce Mathew" on this page:

[31]

I would have left it as was were it not for the fact that he has written personal attacks once again in the last 24 hours, which is why I am bringing him up once more: [32]; [33]; [34]. In addition, he has vandalised/flagged one of my own personal pages as not "neutral" - it was a test page for an entry on a Featured Article log...: [35]. His previous account, User:Disneysuit has been previously indefitnitely blocked due to going against WP:COI, WP:NLT, WP:VAN, WP:ATP, WP:NEU and WP:NPA, having given out repeated advertisements for his case against Disney and continued personal attacks against those who tried to calmly resolve the issue with him (and giving out legal threats against us]]. He has openly stated that my judgement is impaired and that I probably "collect Walt Disney merchandise, sell it" and/or am otherwise affiliated with Walt Disney. On the contrary, I am not, in fact, I am on my way to graduating from college and am no where ready to receive such a job. I am very shocked and hurt to see such immature behaviour from an adult and want to know how this will be stopped. The previous discussion on him, in which he was indefinitely blocked, can be viewed here: [36].

Thank you for your time. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and warned. Any further incidents of this nature should be reported to WP:AIV, noting that they are ip/socks of an indef blocked editor with previous sanctions, for faster responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this. I don't think I'd've been able to go further with all the attacks! For how long approx. will he be blocked? BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
According the block log, 31 hours. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
A sock puppet report has been filed here over edits by 72.189.4.182. The evidence section contains a pretty concise summary of the entire situation, including the recent wikistalking and accusations of conspiracy. &#151;Whoville (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I've filed a formal complaint to User: AGK for harassment, but in addition, right after his block, he's done much more. My comments on Royce Mathew's behaviour:
The IP 72.189.4.182 [37] has continually harassed me, as well as others (including administrators who have blocked him). In addition, he has concocted false claims (look at links; e.g. that I work for Disney when I am clearly not old enough to) and is legally threatening us and others. There are several forms of proof, e.g. here [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]. This user is none other than Royce Mathew (the previously blocked User:Disneysuit, who is continually breaking several Wikipolicies. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE

Attn: Wikipedia community & Mr. Wales - This letter was placed in TALK / Discussion. Through certain editors & administrators, Wikipedia continues to uphold double standards including to not follow it's own policy of communications over issues. Thus the editors/administrators have total control, with a set of ever changing policies and double standards, including deleting anything that challenges their abuse of power and their own violations of wikipedia's written policies. This site continues to solicit itself as a free public forum that anyone can contribute and anyone can communicate as detailed by wikipedia's own written policies. Yet based on the continuing actions of particular editors and administrators, they have made wikipedia their own private forum and have taken away all of those things. Meanwhile Wikipedia is generating hits, ranking status, income and clout from their various statements, and thus wikipedia is committing at the very least fraud upon the public with it's continuous promotions, solicitations and statements.


Dear Lessheard vanU and to Wikipedia including all editors and administrators & Mr. Wales: This is a very serious issue. We contributing writers have attempted to follow wikipedia written polices in contributing and adding to an existing article or creating one. Yet there are double standards beings upheld by wikipedia’s own editors and administrators. As with Blackpearl14, who clearly believes that wikipedias polices don’t apply to her, and with other editors who uphold double standards. Then when challenged to the double standards, including Blackpearl14's violation of wikipedia’s own written polices and reckless authoritarian rule and control, other wikipedia editors and administrators then support each other when one of them continues to violate wikipedia’s own written polices. “Lessheard vanU” had then wrongly and deliberately calls the contributing people who writes back and flags the issue at hand a “harassing the editor”, outright agreeing with Blackpearl14. Then in addition to IP address being blocked, all “talk & discussion” are deleted leaving only one sided bias and reckless claims against the contributing writers. Even though wrongly deleted by wikipedia editors & administrators, all of this has been recorded, including that Blackpearl14 having repeatedly writing in both correspondence and her bio page (copies have been secure) that the articles belong to her and they will continue to be own and controlled by her. These statements alone proves that she is in violation of wikipedia’s own written polices and purpose. Yet you have ignored that.


As previously written in discussion, per wikipedia’s own written polices, but immediately deleted by Blackpearl14 and then sanctioned by “Lessheard vanU”, Blackpearll4. She celebrates on her official wikipedia bio pages that she did many pages and articles on the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean for wikipedia. Why would someone devote so much time to 24/7 check the site and on these pages, and then recklessly calls anyone who doesn’t follow her bias views vandals, attackers and such. Has her judgement become impaired? Her goal to fuse her love and fantasies with the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean is very clear. That is a conflict of interest and that is not being neutral and is against wikipedia’s own written polices. Sorry, but if one purchases products, such as Pirates of the Caribbean posters, toys and Walt Disney merchandise and also using emotional love and fantasies for wikipedia / wikinews articles, doesn’t make the articles neutral and it causes a conflict of interest. As recorded, Blackpearl14's pages regarding this issue are one sided, not neutral, are bias, in conflict of interest and are all promotional tools promoting the causes and products of the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean. Yes, Pirates of the Caribbean and similar wikipedia articles are not neutral, they are a series of one sided promotional pages including links to products and causes of the Walt Disney Company. Following wikipedia’s own written “neutral” policy, entire articles would have to be deleted. Yet Blackpearl14 continues to violate Wikipedia polices and purpose.


Then with IP’s being deliberately blocked and contributing writers having been wrongly accused and falsely called various things, if anyone then attempts to generate a new article related to Pirates of the Caribbean following wikipedia’s own written polices, editors and administrators gang up and generate false reason upon reason, to delete those articles and ban the IP user. They use a countless list of double standards and twisted logic to justify their reckless acts. It’s a total lock out by the editors and administrators, abusing their trust tools, acting like a private monarchy. To date, Blackpearl14's has proven she has ultimate control, has repeatedly stated that is her purpose, and had even sought to have the articles locked. Then you “Lessheard vanU” wrote that you don’t want to lock these articles, stating it goes against company policy, but yet you added that you are preparing to possibly lock the articles in some capacity and do other acts against those who have been falsely branded and wrongly labeled as “vandals” and “harassing the editors” etc...


Other editors and administrators who have proven their practice of bias and manipulative and outright double standards practices include “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” and “Chris Mann”. We have documented that they say one thing, yet practice another. We have documented that they enforce one set of wikipedia polices yet discard and ignore those same policies when it applies to themselves or their selective circle of peers. We contributing writers also wonder just how many editors and administrators have a conflict of interest to various articles. So since you “Lessheard vanU” have personally chosen to block IP addresses and made false allegations against me and other contributing people, we are requesting clarification. When did Blackpearl14 become owner, controller and self judge of certain wikipedia articles? If you believe that Blackpearl14 owns and has absolute control over Pirates of the Caribbean articles, then please state that is the policy. Why is Blackpearl14 allowed to violate wikipedia’s own written polices and purpose? Why are other editors and administrators upholding double standards? For you can’t have double standards, as the wikipedia written policies detail a cooperative community effort for articles and, it’s suppose to be neutral.

Meanwhile like Blackpearl14, Whoville and SVTCobra both continue to delete any critical fact or information, stating that it doesn’t meet their requirements, claiming it’s not newsworthy, not being current, or some other bogus excuse. But these reasons are actually double standards, because other information in the same article which does not meet those always changing requirements are allowed. Even if your contribution is neutral and has been in the news, both Whoville and SVTCobra will generate yet another reason to delete it. Yet they don’t delete other critical facts or information using the same standards. Instead those are allowed. Hence Whoville and SVTCobra continue to apply double standards. When challenged, they bring in their peer who immediately deletes, and bans IP addresses etc..


Furthermore, there is no way to discuss nor talk about the reckless actions of Blackpearl14 without saying and describing what they are. Yet, immediately, Blackpearl14 has wrongly and irresponsibly calls anyone placing anything critical or changes to certain pages she had appointed herself as self controller of, as “vandals” and outright claims that she is being “attacked”, and then goes to her peers with which to delete the talk and discussion, leaving only the editors and administrators’ comments and self bias online, while blocking IP’s. What is shocking that you don’t know who I nor other contributing writers are. Why are Blackpearl14 actions being upheld? Why is her emotional state, calling herself various names in fantasy as she selfishly promotes her personal cause to glorify and promote a cause for her love for Pirates of the Caribbean and it’s people, all to go unquestioned? Blackpearl14 has proven she is not able to be neutral, is completely bias while preventing other contributing writers to adding facts and information to the wikipedia articles she claims she owns and controls. “Whoville” and “SVTCobra” have also proven their bias and double standards practices. If Blackpearl14 owns and controls those articles, then why does editors and administrators prevent and block other contributing writers from creating their own articles of the same subject, and why are we held to different standards than Blackpearl14? Why are double standards being used against contributing writers who follow wikipedia’s own written policies and purposes?


Then following wikipedia’s own written rules, as recorded, discussion “talk” was created to confront these issues and serious charges and threats against contributing people. Yet Blackpearl14 simply gets you to immediately block IP addresses and threaten more. Then she gives you an award saying that she is thanking you for protecting her from being “attacked”. Are you aware of wikipedia’s own written polices about communications? Us contributing writers are well aware of them. Have you read this one “when in doubt, don’t delete”? Proper and detailed wikipedia communications procedures were followed yet you “Lessheard vanU” have followed her reckless actions, giving her more unchecked power, control and validation. This is both reckless and dangerous. There are written policies that you broke when you outright deleted the “talk” and “discussion”. But evidently you don’t care. Either there are the written policies of Wikipedia to be followed or by the actions of wikipedia’s editors and administrators have proven it is overrun by double standards, corruption and recklessness. Wikipedia’s purpose isn’t to create kings, queens and monarchies, upholding double standards, and playing power trip games, unless that is the editors and administrators purpose. Wikipedia solicits itself as a free public forum, and details it’s own written polices, yet some editors and administrators have shown that they have seized control of wikipedia, deliberately using it solely for their own personal agenda and causes, while wrongly blocking the public (other contributing writers) from using it, and continue to falsely solicit that it’s a free public forum. Thus if you yet again plan to delete this talk and discussion, continue to uphold double standards and generate more false claims with which to wrongly block and threaten against us contributing writers of whom follow wikipedia’s written community policies, then first notify wikipedia’s owners and lawyers of your actions. For this is still a free public community cooperative forum for everyone, that is until wikipedia formally changes it’s published written polices and solicitations. It can’t have it both ways. We await your respected reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.4.182 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup, this is an example of what I was talking about. He makes things up and says that we do not follow policies. Check our contributions: we are the ones following the rules. Mr. Mathew is not. Monarchies? And where on earth did I say I owned articles? Wikipedia owns articles. You may check my page history/contributions for sure. Unless Mr. Mathew has tampered with my history/contribs, I'm sure his "secured copies" will agree with what I am saying. As for blocking IP's? I asked to do that only for my talk page, that way IP's such as Mr. Mathew couldn't harass me on my talk page. I don't see anyone except Mr. Mathew complaining against me. Mr. Mathew's is the first problem I've had, considering we usually work things out with IP's (and other contributors) peacefully, something Mr. Mathew does not like to do. Okay, wow. I'm having issues with this harassment and I'm seriously going to take this forward. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 01:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this to the bottom as it was once a resolved issue but no longer is, an admin help would be greatly appreciated. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 01:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) WHOA there, this isn't the 5 paragraph PSAT essay test. Please make your comments short and sweet or literally no one will read them. I certainly didn't. --mboverload@ 03:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason your stuff kept getting removed was because you're (a) attempting to use Wikipedia as a billboard; (b) being unreasonably demanding to see a "supervisor", nevermind the fact that Wikipedia *isn't* a formal company and none of us are paid to edit here, and (c) trying to use Wikipedia to air legal threats. Do yourself a favor and drop the coats; all you're doing is giving the "supervisors" a reason to block you. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing AFD's about foreign topicsEdit

  picture popups 15:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC): The article in question undeleted, the general issue hopefully considered by everybody. Zocky

I just happened to stumble across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambina (Idoli song). It received only !two votes, both were generic ("fails WP:MUSIC") as was the nomination. Wizardman closed is as delete and deleted the article. I realize that this was well within the mainstream, so this isn't a comment on Wizardman.

The problem here is that this is one of the more important singles by one of the most important ex-Yugoslav bands, released at a time when releasing a single was not easy, and not just any band got to do it. The single's notability in its context far surpasses that of tens of thousands of singles from English-speaking countries that we would not delete. Of course, it's hard to expect !voters and closing admins who are not at least from the general area to know this (though reading Idoli might have helped).

I would therefore suggest that in cases like this, when (a) the article is about a verifiably existing thing/person/phenomenon, (b) the thing/person/phenomenon is from a small country/culture and is therefore not likely to be known/understood in depth by the average editor, and (c) there is no explicit reasoning on why the particular topic is non-notable (as opposed to generic !votes), it would be more appropriate to at least re-list, if not outright keep, the article. Zocky | picture popups 14:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is true foreign articles should not be treated as "less" than those from the English-speaking, Western world, they should also not be treated as "more". Significant coverage from independent and reliable sources is still a requirement, citing and using such coverage is still the most bulletproof way to prevent deletion. Any admin can look at "Could anyone find sufficient reliable sourcing for this subject or not?" Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This article was one in a series, and is now the only red link among the singles in the discography section at Idoli. We now have the ridiculous situation where we have the B-side of this single as an article, but not the A-side. It would have been appropriate either to delete or merge the whole series, or to keep them all. Yet neither the nominator, nor the !voters, nor the closing admin noticed this.
The default at AFD is to keep the articles, and this case is a good illustration why. The fact that it's about a foreign topic just increases the likelyhood that an article will be deleted in error. If an article is missing appropriate sources, but nobody has made an argument that the particular topic does not need an article, the appropriate action is to tag the article as missing sources, not to delete it. Zocky | picture popups 14:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Two people are hardly a quorum. In this case my advice is to undelete it, add sources, and move on. Also you can keep a closer eye on AFD. Preventing errors is not interpreted as hostilely as correcting them. Regards. — CharlotteWebb 15:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Charlotte. BTW, I know you don't mean it in a bad way, but "move on" sounds condescending even to me, let alone a random newby/excitable person we often see around here. It's what police say when they want to get rid of annoying onlookers, and what Tony Blair had the habit of saying all the time. None of those gives me pleasant associations ;) Zocky | picture popups 20:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, what phrase should I use instead? — CharlotteWebb 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing, I guess. Most people don't need nudging to know when an issue is resolved, and those that do aren't likely to respond well to the nudging. Zocky | picture popups 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
But it's not exactly resolved yet as the article remains deleted. What gives? — CharlotteWebb 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I never know what the current definition of wheel-warring is, so I'm talking to Wizardman about the actual undeletion. Zocky | picture popups 15:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel like deleting deletionists, for creating a hostile atmosphere on Wikipedia and contributing to the huge problem of systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
some of us "deletionists" are very careful about closing CSB related AfDs. I have probably Kept items in the past that would've been deleted if they were about Western topics, purely because I wasn't 100% sure about notability. Black Kite 15:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now talked to Wizardman and have undeleted the article. Zocky | picture popups 15:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See also the important essay at WP:BIAS, always worth keeping in mind. 86.44.24.159 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a a reason that an article which had no one in favour of keeping it at the AfD is undeleted through WP:AN and individual discussion instead of going to deletion review? And if people felt that only two or three opinions weren't enough to validly close such an article AfD, why isn't it relisted? It has already been redeleted as a G4, which is the "logical" reaction for anyone seeing the article being created and noticing that the AfD closed as delete, without any DRV or whatever to overturn that decision. The article, by the way, stil has no sources indicating anynotabilioty, all we have is the word of one editor for it. While what he or she says may very well be true, we don't just undelete articles like that. It can always easily be recreated once sources are available, just like any other article. IAR is good when it clearly improves the encyclopedia, but I fail to see how this improves Wikipedia at the moment. Fram (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Kid real name controversy againEdit

Despite preexisting consensus that WP:BLP1E and human dignity argued that we leave the real name of the Star Wars Kid off the article, admin User:Seraphimblade has pushed the talk page for that article into a new, local consensus to put it in (see Talk:Star Wars kid#Request for comment on real name. I believe that this is subverting the standing wider consensus to exclude the name, and we need more admin eyes on it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Chillum 22:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Noone seems to have noticed that the name has been splattered all over the talk page. WP:BLP applies on these as well so I've removed all mentions from the talk page. Exxolon (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to those who notified me of this discussion which mentions me. </sarcasm> That aside, I do seem to have noticed it, so I'll happily note here that given that GWH has seen fit to post here, I'll be posting in other areas for those who posted in the discussion before, regardless of their side. As to "more admin eyes", I would note that I am far from the only administrator to stand behind the position I support. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
How did I become a "the"? Chillum 05:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, thought I'd seen you on the talk page. Thanks for catching that, I edited it accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Making block of 58.161.0.188 anon-onlyEdit

  Resolved.

A request was made by a user to edit (while logged in) via 58.161.0.188. A check of the block log showed a year long block from May, as a "vandalism-only account". The blocking admin, EncMstr, isn't a checkuser. I would like to make the block be anon-only. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request made where, by whom? Nothing visible on that talk page... They need to make a IP block excemption request / unblock per Wikipedia:IPBLOCKEXEMPT, from their registered account... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Request made by Rob Lindsey on his talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Luna Santin has asked the blocking admin, User:EncMstr, to review and consider changing to AO. If EncMstr doesn't respond in a reasonable amount of time, re-flag it here in this section and someone can take a bold action (I would turn it AO, account creation blocked personally - we do that usually with schools, which is what Rob says the IP is at...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this should be a normal {{schoolblock}}, anon only, account creation blocked. In the meantime, though, I've solved Rob Lindsey's problem by giving him IP block exemption. Mangojuicetalk 14:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, with several in agreement, and no comment from EncMstr, I've changed the block to anon-only. Mangojuicetalk 13:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Epistemic Theory of MiraclesEdit

Could someone in charge with half a brain get this idiot off my back please. Peter Damian (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the "idiot" in question and have been trying to nominate that article for deletion. However, the reporter has violated 3RR in removing the AFD tag 4 times and I have reported him for same. I am not taking any further action regarding that page or user today. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You are an idiot for nominating an article on that subject, with an 'in use' tag, for deletion. Go back to garage bands. Peter Damian (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Stifle, you gave an established editor 15 minutes before placing a PROD tag? Somewhat hasty I would have thought and not conducive to an environment of collaborative editing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • And I closed the AfD. Don't nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created; it screams of bad faith. In addition, your rationale -- albeit consisting of only a few words, was weak at best. seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you. Sorry for getting angry, but article creation is stressful in itself and v stressful to see that 'deletion' tag. Simple rule: if the 'in use' tag put on, leave for an hour or two. I can't write an article of that size and complexity in less. The admin in question should have been struck off for his abusive and unhelpful behaviour. Peter Damian (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • And can someone get the fool to put back Adrastus of Cyzicus, and Dion of Naples in the state I left them. The fact a historical figure has only one reference IS AN IMPORTANT FACT IN ITSELF. Now the links are red, editors will try and locate the subjects. I have already established that Varro was the only person to reference them, please replace these, Stifle. Peter Damian (talk)
The article Dion of Naples was a circular redirect to itself, which is why it was deleted. It had no content. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason for the accidental circular redirect was it was the second time I had done it hence made that mistake. It is extremely stressful working in these conditions, trying to contribute scholarly content, with this abuse and bullying going on. Peter Damian (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That was a rather unreasonable assumption, action and accusation by you, Seicer. I would take it to DRV, but I'd rather not generate even more drama. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's not. Piling on his talk page with a succession of notices and PROD's and comments about his article being non-notable, etc. in a matter of minutes is not constructive. seicer | talk | contribs 14:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • May I suggest that Peter Damian uses his userspace to work on articles? {{in use}} is for use when someone is, for example, doing a copyedit through an entire article and wants to avoid edit conflicts. Articles in the mainspace should meet some minimum requirements. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to head away, but if Peter Damian wants to DRV Adrastus of Cyzicus he's welcome. I didn't delete Dion of Naples. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The tag, Peter, you have in mind is "underconstruction", which I think should allow a grace period of 7 days or so when used in good faith--though it does not specify any particular time. As for the articles, if you think you can make it more than one sentence just write it again. Frankly, I can see why someone might reasonably speedy an article saying only "Adrastus of Cyzicus and Dion of Naples are mathematicians mentioned in the book De gente populi Romani but of whom nothing else is known." At least say how they are mentioned and in what context. DGG (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Somewhat open to gaming, though. The suggestion of some userspace workup is a decent one (I have some under construction in my userspace). Still and all, this does appear to have been quite unnecessarily bad-tempered. Most admins will cheerfully userfy deleted content if asked nicely by someone who is obviously a good-faith contributor. Speedy nuking is really a way of dealing with the three Vs - vandalism, vituperation and vanity - so it would be fair to expect a more measured approach to a historical subject where it is not an obvious case of novel synthesis or reposting. I don't see that here. The amount of cruft in the more scholarly corners of Wikipedia is strictly limited by comparison with, say, footballers who once ran on in a single second-division match. One final thought: the article Peter asked to be userfied is at User:Peter Damian/Adrastus of Cyzicus; even allowing for systemic bias, "Adrastus of Cyzicus and Dion of Naples are mathematicians mentioned in the book De gente populi Romani but of whom nothing else is known" - the entire content of the article - looks very much like it fails any rational test of notability. If we know nothing about them other than their names and that they were once mentioned in a book then, and the cited source says just that, I would suggest they are probably not going to get much of an article out of it. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Let me try to explain again why a short article on a person mentioned in classical literature is important. We only have a limited amount of information - primary sources in the form of old manuscripts, many of them copies of the original primary sources - on classical times. Sometimes it is useful to know that a person was only mentioned once. Why? If a Wikipedia editor comes across a red link, he or she will try and find information about that person. They will eventually find, as I did, that they were only mentioned by Varro. Perhaps they will leave it. But it might occur to them that other editors will then do the same. Perhaps as a politeness and a help to the project, they will create a short article about this dead-end, as a help to others. This is what I did. Second reason: it took me some time to find out (in an obscure book on Augustine) that there are no other references to these guys. Once I put this in the encyclopedia, it is easily accessed in Google, and then you go to Wikipedia and you find the obscure book on Augustine has been referenced. That is an aid to scholarship on the Internet, and a useful thing. Does everyone now follow that reasoning? Peter Damian (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is why we have lists and redirects. You really really don't want to open the Pandora's box of allowing an article on every single individual who was once mentioned in a book but of whom "nothing else is known". I must have deleted thousands of them. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, the definitive, all-encompassing paper reference for classical studies is Pauly's Realencyclopädie, a wall of books in over 100 tomes. Its policy is to list biographical data of 'every single individual mentioned in the original sources, no matter how notable the person was or how much is known of him. This is for very much the reasons that Peter gives. This project aims to be more encompassing than Pauly-Wissowa. Please restore. 74.67.113.167 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to request another uninvolved admin to go over Peter Damian's contributions today to consider whether he should be blocked for personal attacks and incivility, despite the numerous warnings he has received from me and others. There is a limit to how much I am willing to accept. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    •   I would like to request this Martian to stop putting that hand sign on my talk page. Likewise, there is a limit on how much I am willing to accept. Peter Damian (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Damian blocked for 31 hsEdit

Enough. I've blocked Peter Damian for 31 hours to stop this now. Stifle: please step away and don't look back. — Coren (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok... let's see.
  1. Peter Damian tries to create articles on encyclopedic topics most of us wouldn't be able to write about.
  2. Our administrators, instead of helping him in any way possible, thanking him for his contributions to the project and encouraging him to continue this work, try to delete the articles within hours minutes of being created.
  3. Peter Damian gets angry about it, as would I, and insults our administrators, as most likely would I.
  4. Peter Damian is blocked for "incivility", content-creation be damned.
Did I get this right ? Is it really so ?
Why shouldn't I unblock Peter Damian right now, begging him to forgive our collective stupidity ? And at the same time, why shouldn't I block Stifle right now for disruptive behaviour (i.e. hampering the work of a knowledgeable article writer improving the encyclopedia with new articles on topics few of us could write about). - Ev (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Correction: hoursminutes, made by Ev at 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC) after the conversation below.
11:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC): "Epistemic theory of miracles" created by Peter Damian with {{In use}}.
11:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC): {{dated prod}} added by Stifle. "Notability and verifiability in question."
11:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC): Nominated for deletion by Stifle with the rationale "Unreferenced and questionable notability."
11:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC): "Adrastus of Cyzicus" created by Peter Damian.
11:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC): deleted by Stifle. (A7): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person.
11:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC): re-created by Peter Damian.
12:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC): deleted by Stifle. (A7): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person.
End of timeline added as correction after the conversation below. - Ev (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I get a very strong feeling I should agree with these points. I’m curious as to why I should not actually, please tell. --Van helsing (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have the greatest sympathy for peter in his response to what does appear to be harassment, but even or shall i say especially the most learned and philosophic should avoid insulting those who are less so. We will get an increase in the number of academic content creators here when the people who are here now react temperately. The objection would have been the much more effective without the insult. I suggest howevr that a shorter block would be effective enough to put a quick end to the exchange, and propose to shorten it to 12 hours. DGG (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
DGG, I do give great importance to civility. But, is it really that important to be polite at all times, in all circumstances, even in the face of such behaviour as Peter Damian had to endure ? Shouldn't we put more value in the contributions of encyclopedic content than in a few less-than-polite comments ?
I think that Peter Damian was civil enough given how he was being treated. It was not him the one disrupting the process of creating valuable encyclopedic content. He merely reacted in the most human of manners to appalling behaviour.
We will get an increase in the number of academic content creators here when they are not forced to react gracefully to such treatment, but allowed to react as a normal human being would... and when they are supported by us administrators instead of blocked for calling "idiot" someone who clearly deserved it.
There is much greater incivility in deleting someone's work and templating him for not being happy about it, than in calling someone an "idiot" for doing all that.
He should be unblocked right now. - Regards, Ev (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I tend not to regard a single burst of incivility as a blockable offense. The fact that Peter came back over and over and over was a problem. The short block was meant strictly to stop the escalation, and I was quite prepared to unblock him the second he agreed to stop (the AfD, after all, was quickly speedy kept).

Frankly, Peter comes off a little strong as I-Am-An-Academic-Damn-It-I-Know-Better-Go-Away. His dismissive attitude ("go back to garage bands") and his aggressive stand certainly do not show the maturity and demeanor I expect from a fellow academic. Actually, I kinda left academia because of some of those attitudes but that's besides the point now. Also, the cries of "Pull the Funding! Pull the Funding!" that resulted make taking his original attitude in stride all the much harder. Nevertheless, I stand by my original rationale and am still willing to unblock with as little of a "Oops, blew up. Sorry. Won't do it again." Or Peter can simply wait out a day for the dust to fall and resume where he left off. — Coren (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a moment to reiterate that blocks are not set in stone to Peter on his talk page since he had blanked the original discussion. — Coren (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

< - - - - reset tabs
Glad you're still with as, Coren. Yes, he was upset, and quite rightfully so. But wouldn't it have been better to simply ask him to calm down (with normal words, not templates and citing wikiprocesses)... and wait a few minutes -or a couple of hours- for the matter to be sorted out to something as close to his satisfacion as possible ? To offer him help to solve his problem... to work towards keeping a valuable content contributor happy... to make his work creating articles as easy as possible :-)
I see nothing of that sort in his talk page or anywhere else for that matter. Just warning after warning, and people explaining the mechanical inevitability of the deletion process. And then the block, which is inevitably percieved as something rude.

Maybe it's just me, but I do think that especially in the case of good article writers we should go the extra mile. We should try our best to make their Wikipedia experience as easy and frictionless as possible. — Of course Peter Damian could have reacted better, but he was reacting to appalling behaviour towards him. The way to stop him from complaining was to solve his problem, to remove what's bothering him... or at least promise to solve it in the next couple of hours. - Not to apparently punish him (for a block, although preventive in theory, will be percieve as unjust punishment by him, especially after being the victim of all that).

I feel that this is a block for complaining too much -and rather impolitely- for being very badly treated himself. I feel that we're blocking the victim for complaining too much. - Removing the block now could help to keep a good article writer with us... help to mend relations, and perhaps he may continue to improve our encyclopedia with his valuable work.

After all, it goes both ways: it would be good for him to say "sorry" and "not do it again", but we have to do our part too, apologizing to him for not helping him as much as we should in his work for the encyclopedia, and trying "not to do it again" ourselves. - Regards, Ev (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly share that sentiment about extra miles; in my opinion much strife is caused by our collective willingness to overlook bad behavior because of good contribution to mainspace. No matter how valuable an editor is, this is a collaborative endeavor which, well, requires collaboration. Having someone contribute valuable contents is, of course, highly desirable; but it must not come at the cost of destroying the work environment.

Regardless, given the poor reception he seems to have gotten I suppose a flared temper can be forgotten. I'll unblock. — Coren (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it very much, Coren. I fully understand -and to a certain extent share- your point about the requisits for collaboration. I should have added a looooong qualification about which cases I think merit going that extra mile (like this one :-). It was for brevity only that I left it as a blanket statement. - Again, thank you for unblocking :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

COMMENTEdit

 
At Wikipedia, To be accused of "incivility" is akin to 16th century heresy. For political reasons, it is open to biased interpretation, it can be wilfully encouraged and will ultimately be used again you.

It is the problem with the Epistemic theory of miracles that I am concerned about (the other two were merely an aggravation).

The full story. I start this as a NEW article. Check the contribution history here.

I start the article at 11:22. This is on the theory of miracles proposed by St Augustine, later modified by Spinoza, later by Huxley and others and is quite important in the discussion of what distinguishes the natural from the supernatural. The first thing I slap on is an 'in use' tag. I then get to work and as you can see I can work quite fast on an article, by 11:37 it is looking like this. Then at 11:37 the appropriately-named User:Stifle slaps on a 'notability and verifiability' tag here. I.e. exactly 15 minutes after the article is started, he tries to delete it, without so much as discussion or warning. Several things anger me about this. First, it is rude and impertinent to do this while I am actually working on the article (I was looking for appropriate references at the time as it happened). Second, the piece was already referenced to a discussion by Augustine from a piece that is electronically on the net. Stifle could quickly have checked this, had he bothered (or he could have asked me). So I simply removed the template and moved on. I can't work on an article with that thing hanging there. Then Stifle kept replacing the tag, with increasingly rude messages and STOP signs on my talk page. The rest was simply escalation of the same problem.

I remained relatively polite - see here for the first half hour of this nonsense, then I lost it.

So, I'm not coming back without a full apology from Stifle. And I am NOT going to apologise. Slapping a 'removal' ban on an important article merely 15 MINUTES into its creation is unreasonable and rude, and community acceptance of this practice implies a widespread dysfuncion of the project. As said on my talk page, I am carefully preparing a file of many similar incidents to this, where academic editors have been hounded off the project. There have been many more disgraceful incidents than this. It should be on the desk of the Sloan Foundation in a month or two. Enough. Peter Damian (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Just in case some clarification will help, the first tag Stifle added was a prod. In a sense, prods are warnings of an intent to delete, but they give you some time to fix the article. The second tag Stifle added (three minutes later) was an AFD. Removing an AFD tag is a different issue, as it only serves to tell editors that the discussion is underway elsewhere. Thus it shouldn't have been removed. That aside, I agree that not only was Stifle mistaken, as the article was clearly notable to anyone with knowledge of the topic, but that the tagging was far too hasty. I think Ev summarized it pretty well: 15 minutes from creation to prod, and 3 minutes from prod to AfD. And no attempt to discuss anything with the editor during that time. - Bilby (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure. But the sheer volume of junk that gets created can swamp the good-faith efforts to create valid articles. A small amount of civil discourse (on both sides) would have fixed this. I believe it is fixed now, sp perhaps we should simply encourage both parties to live and learn at this point. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
An apology is all I want. I will apologise back, for sake of the good faith thing. Peter Damian (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
An observation I have is that someone with more patience and less temper than Peter Damian would probably not have blown up here, yes. However, unless someone's crazy or faking, it takes two to escalate a situation like this; Stifle was equally as stubborn and unwilling to compromise as Peter Damian, although less angry it seems. Stifle, just because the rules say you can do something doesn't mean you should. You didn't need to escalate this either.
Also, even if this had happened to a better tempered individual, harm to the encyclopedia is done. Biting well-meaning article contributors is counter-productive, EVEN IF the article really shouldn't exist. A lot of new editors would simply shrink back, run away and never contribute again when subjected to the steamroller of the Wikipedia Deletion Process.
IMO, the attitude of "We don't have the time to be nice to people" that seems to so easily set into the minds of those who patrol new pages, vandalism, etc etc. is highly counterproductive and highly damaging to the project. Furthermore, I often find, taking on this mindset is an early symptom of Defender Of The Wiki Syndrome, which has claimed many and caused a lot of collateral damage on the way. Down that road leads burnout, bitterness, and alienation from the project. Don't do it. You are not essential. Wikipedia will survive quite well without you; it's much bigger than any of us. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes well thank you for sort of acknowledging a bad thing has happened here. But perhaps I am missing something, I asked for an apology, that means saying sorry, the sort of thing Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman eventually gets when the rude SNOBBY ladies wouldn't help her in the boutique. I'm not seeing that right now. Peter Damian (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Peter, have you tried running this past the "honest mistake" filter? Stifle is only human, and most humans will be more inclined to be helpful if you approach them with at least the appearance of assuming good faith. You will always catch more flies with honey than with vinegar on Wikipedia, just as anywhere else. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well if it was an honest mistake, he can say 'sorry, it was an honest mistake'. Not difficult. Peter Damian (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
So you are going to sit here insisting on an apology? That's lame. No actual damage is done here, the article has not been deleted. I don't think insisting on ritual humiliation is going to help any. Guy (Help!)
He just has to say 'sorry it was a honest mistake'. Peter Damian (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm wondering how, exactly the presence of a prod or AfD tag on an article, taking all of one line at the very top, makes one "unable to work while it's hanging there". You overreacted, Peter, and badly. Both the original proposed deletion and the following AfD were processes that gave several days to finish, tweak and defend the articles. Both would have concluded that the article belonged and would have not affected the article beyond bringing a couple of extra pairs of eyes on it.

Our "cult of civility" is nothing more than an attempt to prevent what happened next: frustrated, you started throwing insults around (and no, the behavior of others cannot and does not justify or excuse that behavior). Could Stifle have handled this better? Yes. Perhaps you should take some time away from complaining on WR to acknowledge here that you behaved improperly. — Coren (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be ridiculous. It's a threat, hanging over your own work, like a sword of Damocles. For your information, it looks like this. Your attitude, combined with some of the other people here (though many have been supportive) simply reinforces my feeling that I have no place here. All I am asking for is an apology. Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And yes, as you say, it is YOUR cult of civility. Read Giano's article. Peter Damian (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see how placing an AFD tag on an article that looks like this [45], without bothering to perform any basic checking can be anything other than trolling or monumantal ignorance. Whether the former or the latter should such an editor be running around loose on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] And as far as acknowledging or admitting things goes, just think for a while and perhaps you can acknowledge that there is a serious problem regarding how content contributors (or should I say 'discontented contributors' are being treated here). It is an utter disgrace. Peter Damian (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No. In isn't. It's not an utter disgrace. It's an AfD tag. nothing more nothing less. The article was nominated, and, since it was so self-evidently notable, speedily kept. The tag wouldn't have been slapped on there by someone who knew about the content, but shit happens. Stifle messed up on NPP and tagged your page by accident. HOWEVER--this thread, littered as it is with accusations and hysteria, should stand as a sign that the blame is not all on his head. 24 hours ago it would have been reasonable to ask for an apology. Now, with all of the vitriol tossed out in this thread, it is wholly unreasonable to demand an apology as you have been. I see a bunch of people trying to help you by bending over backwards to assume that Stifle's actions were so coarse as to merit the response from you that they did. I'm unwilling to strain myself to see his actions as "trolling" (although I'll accept ignorance). that's all. Protonk (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It is of course highly unreasonable to expect an apology now I have complained about it in a thread such as this. Of course. And where is FT2 in our time of need, to sort out these things? Peter Damian (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

book burning breakEdit

 
Apologies to Mr Godwin

.


You aren't "expecting an apology". that is a passive state. You are demanding an apology, repeatedly. That's different. and the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how wikipedia policies regarding civility are akin to accusations of heresy doesn't help. Nor does adorning your talk page with a painting insinuating that RPP's are book burners. Your page got nominated for deletion by someone who didn't know any better. You edit warred over the tag and they fell down on the job by not assuming good faith and trying to help you understand the situation (or trying to understand it themselves). After that point, an apology might have been forthcoming. But now it seems pretty unlikely to me. My suggestion is that you put this behind you and try not to make it into a bigger deal than it really is. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
'Your talk page got nominated for deletion by someone who didn't know any better'. And the people who burned the books didn't know any better. And I have put it behind me. Note my mainspace contributions have fallen to zero. I am not putting my copious document to the Sloan Foundation behind me, however. They do need to understand how this place is currently run by book burners and hooligans, and is not the sort of place they should be writing large cheques to. Peter Damian (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
See now, that's not cool. But you do what you've got to do. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
'Not cool' with a link. Oh right, it's a personal attack now. Right. Peter Damian (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure people don't appreciate being called book burners and hooligans. No one is burning books here. No one is suppressing information. One of your pages got nominated for deletion and it got kept. The significance of this event is basically nil. My suggestion is that you let this go and not try to make it into something it's not. Also, that image doesn't really do anyone any good, can you remove it (mostly because it is messing up the comment threading)? Protonk (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Your summary is that one of my pages got nominated for deletion and it got kept? Peter Damian (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. In regard to the content (the book burning business), that is what it boils down to when it is all said and done. The other stuff was and remains avoidable personal drama. There is no need to make this into something it isn't. There is no need to blow this out of proportion. Stifle was wrong for nominating the article and for continuing down the course he did without talking to you. YOU were wrong for removing the AfD tag and for going on a tear about "this idiot" at AN. As this discussion continues the original event (the page itself) becomes less and less prominent, but the original impetus was a common event. Again, stop this book burning nonsense. Leave your desires to write to Wikipedia's donors off-wiki. Stop conflating your behavior with a content dispute. If you really are "retired", then just leave. If you aren't, I'll be the first to welcome you back and thank you for your mainspace contributions. However, this thread doesn't add anything to the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well then you agree it was not a very good summary. Peter Damian (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. If I did, I would not have started my response with "yes". As regards the "book burning" allegations you are throwing around, my summary was spot on. I will repeat my admonition. Do not deliberately conflate content disputes (about which there are many good faith disagreements) with your actions in response to that content dispute. The article's place in wikipedia doesn't impact your behavior and shouldn't have anything to do with people responding properly to your uncivil action. The content dispute is solved. the page is clearly notable, no AfD is forthcoming and it was incorrect of stifle to tag the article for AfD. The conduct problem remains. You clearly don't think it is a problem to call other editors idiots, refer to their conduct as "bullshit", refer to admins in general as "hooligans and bookburners" and call this place a "craphole". This despite the fact that your issues are being entertained on a high traffic noticeboard and that several editors and admins in good standing have come to your aid or offered neutral advice on the subject. Please just let this go. It is a REALLY vanishingly minor problem and you are ballooning it into something it's not. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Do not admonish me. I will not let this go. You are just escalating this and making it worse. Just get him to apologise. Peter Damian (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies are highly over-rated. You should know better than to ask for one, or expect one. Deletionism annoys me too, but I try not to dwell on it. Just move on, please. — CharlotteWebb 16:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And I know better than to contribute to this craphole again. Thanks for confirming my opinion of the lunacy of this place. Btw 'move on' is an English expression used by the police a lot. Considered highly offensive in England, at least. Peter Damian (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
In some ways, as with almost any org I've ever seen, Wikipedia will spew forth what seems to be (and may indeed be) the daft side of our clever species, or worse. As can happen in daily life, civility is often the only thread by which this wiki hangs. We're all volunteers here and putting up with the messiness of open editing can be nettlesome, as almost any admin will tell you. Never mind when feelings get stirred up it's so easy to mistake the hoped-for meaning behind some bare shred of text. Almost any metaphor, from book-burning to the lighthouse at Alexandria guiding seekers to its fabled library, will canny fit what happens here. Dealing with it is both an outlook and a skill and we each have our own weaknesses and strengths in doing so. Meanwhile civility is one of the resins which hold these many and sundry volunteers together. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As usual here is everybody shouting and screaming at the wrong person. Where is Stifle who caused this mess? Probably off doing damage elsewhere. That he needs to be de-sysoped is beyond doubt. His actions were wilful trolling and baiting. Even when not doing this, his admin actions are ludicrous as this sad incident here proves [46]. Instead of shouting at the aggrieved why not remedy the source, send Stifle off for a course or retraining - or is this just another case of birds of a feather. Giano (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If you thought I was "shouting at the aggrieved" you were very much mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is Stifle? Hopefully somewhere else in Wikipedia, not being incivil, not adding to drama, and not making mistakes. I think we should all make an effort on all three counts. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes right, he can do what he likes and get away with it. I can't, right? You treat editors like SHIT. Peter Damian (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this so many times, and it's always lots of heat for very little result. Instead of arguing with Peter (who is indeed overreacting somewhat, but is obviously a good editor that we want to keep), we should be telling the new page patrollers to think about what they're doing - if a mechanical process was all that's needed, we would have a bot do it. In this case, a bit of investigation of the page's history and the author's contrib page would have made it obvious that this was a constructive contributor writing an article. The "treatment" was completely uncalled for. Zocky | picture popups 19:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You might get them to apologise for their apalling rude behaviour. I'm not overreacting. I've been editing here since June 2003, more than most of you lot. I have never been subjected to anything quite so bad as this. The fact that most of you are apparently condoning this or calling it harmless just compounds the offence. Peter Damian (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You indeed are over-reacting. It's not like your family's honour was publicly slandered. A random person on the internet, whom you don't know in real life, was unnecessarily nasty to you for a while. While that's unfortunate, it did not leave any long-lasting consequences on your work. If you ask me, an apology would still be in order, but apologies are given, not taken. Your insistent demands to get one are making you look unnecessarily emotional and as a result, your relevant complaints are open to being treated as whining.
I would suggest that you think for a bit and try to get some perspective - yes, there are some admins who consistently behave badly, and there are a lot of admins who occasionally behave badly. Every so often, you might run into one that treats you worse than you deserve, but I'm guessing that you're not participating in Wikipedia to win admin approval. Zocky | picture popups 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If we need more books to burn, may I suggest starting with these? Thanks! Badger Drink (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Invoking right to vanishEdit

I asked Coren to do this, but if he does not, can someone have the decency to do it for him. That is my right. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a hard one. I haven't read the discussion throughly but isn't a better idea to take a week or two of Wikibreak and let the negative spirits go away? Usually it helps... It would be a pitty to lose a great editor. --Tone 21:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to see you leave, Peter Damian. I do understand your decision however. I just answered your message at my talk page; I hope you see it. I wish you better luck in what you do next :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to deny him RTV if he invokes it. The userspace of both of his accounts has been deleted. —kurykh 22:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
All of the above could and should have been avoided - Stifle knew exactly what he was doing. Such hehaviour should have brought down the wroth of his fellow admins upon him. Instead, there was a half hearted "well perhaps he made a mistake" and "I don't think he meant any harm" and to Peter Diamian "It matter's not, it's only your work - get over it." As a consequence Stifle is still able to troll and make absurd blocks as he sees fit - a good editor has left - and the rest of the admin community shrug their shoulders with indifference because none of them can see or care about the progressive damage their lazy attituted and reactions cause to the project. Giano (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a terrible outcome. Peter's work was very valuable, and providing a comfortable editing environment for content contributors like him is something we must take seriously. Peter overreacted, but he should have never have been placed in such a frustrating situation to begin with. Everyking (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, hopefully he will come to his senses and continue editing. The article in question was not deleted, and with any luck it never will be. However, short of banning incorrigible deletionists from the AFD process I don't see what more could be done. — CharlotteWebb 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's fair to deletionists to say that Stifle's behavior stems from a deletionist philosophy. This problem stemmed more from Stifle's laziness/carelessness/incompetence, and I don't think there is any philosophy which supports lazy/careless/incompetent administrative work. 207.237.194.69 (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The hell there isn't. — CharlotteWebb 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Crap, I come back from backpacking in the wilderness and we lose a valuable contributor :( Sorry this wasn't resolved in a much more meaningful and polite manner. seicer | talk | contribs 22:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I thought that we didn't delete user talk pages, even with WP:RTV. Isn't it better to simply blank the talk pages, since they have contributions from other editors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to this discussion, I've asked the same question at WT:CSD. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of the dysfunctional behavior that is becoming more common here at Wikipedia -- & made me stomp off in anger a couple of weeks ago. I don't know when this started, but the current trend appears to be to focus on policy, not on content. The result is that people argue past each other, long-time & experienced users (like me) get insulted & leave, new members are baffled by intricate & inconsistently enforced rules, & Wikipedia suffers.

Take the conflict that led to this thread: Peter Damian wanted to add articles on 2 individuals he felt needed an article; however, the information on these individuals is so slight, & likely never to be improved on, that I, frankly speaking, would have a hard time justifying their existence. I don't even think there is enough information on either to justify having them combined into a general article, say Lesser ancient mathematicians. This is one example of a problem Wikipedia will encoounter with increasing frequency: there are numerous placenames & personages which appear only once in the written records, & nothing more can be said of them. Including all of them is not a reasonable thing to do, but there are some cases where these unique names meet Wikipedia's assumptions of notability. For example, we would expect every person mentioned in the Bible -- even once -- is notable.

Now in this case, Peter Damian wanted to include a pair of names mentioned in Augustine's The City of God; see the passage quoted in Epistemic theory of miracles. Once I saw this article I immediately saw the problem. Veteran Wikipedians just don't make -- & vigorously defend -- unusual contributions because we have our own secret WikiMeetups & pass a crackpipe around. Has it ever occurred to anyone here to try and see the issue from the veteran editor's perspective? By this, not only ask the editor, but perhaps look at the relevant edit histories, how the articles fit into Wikipedia, & so forth. Often one party (or both) assumes the other is thinking the exact same way the first does.

Anyway, that is my take on this clusterfuck. Consider my words or ignore them -- but there'll be many, many more of these unpleasant incidents which end with important editors deciding to bail. -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry folks, I thought this AN thread had closed off — the first I knew was when John254 notified me of the RFAR about it. I wish to apologize to Peter Damian and to the community for the trouble that my editorial actions have caused, and for not doing this sooner. I promise to be less short-sighted in the future on NPP. But I also ask you to please accept that this was an honest mistake — we all make them. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    Just to note that Peter Damian has left me a message accepting my apology and confirming that his decision not to return is for different reasons than this issue. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy arbitration caseEdit

Maybe I am missing something, but shouldn't Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision have an evidence page that is not a redlink? --Filll (talk | wpc) 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • According to the log the evidence page was deleted
    • 11:58, 26 May 2008 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence" ‎ (Personal information concerns. (ArbCom can still see the deleted content; please keep this deleted until they decide how to deal with the outing.))

Exxolon (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Shoemaker's Holiday asked for a clarification on 18 July 2008 about this issue. FloNight responded, but as of now they still have apparently not socured the pages of personal information and restored the /Evidence subpage. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we should stop their pay until they get on with it. In the mean time, it is not oversighted so there are about a thousand active users who can answer any questions needing access to the evidence page. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:BigDuncEdit

  Resolved

Can someone please look at the history page at Ulster Defence Regiment. Three times today I have had to revert spurious edits by User:BigDunc who seems determined to change the synthesis of the article by ignoring inline citations, deleting cited materail and latterly tagging material as reliant upon one source when it is apparant that three or more sources are being used. Any admin investigating please be aware that there is a long history of disputes on the page between this editor and myself over content which he will claim is POV on my part and I will claim the same of him. Third opinion urgently requested. The Thunderer (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Article protected, see talkpage. Black Kite 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - very quick response and a fair decision. The Thunderer (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi JohnstonEdit

  Resolved.

Loathe as I am to fuel the ZOMG DRAMA surrounding our newest Vice Presidential Candidate and her family, I have just deleted a redirect from Levi Johnston, the name of the father and presumtive fiance of Bristol Palin, the daughter of VP Nominee Sarah Palin. The redirect was to Shotgun wedding, which did not seem appropriate - and not a great search term, either - but I think we should have something here, as the kid's name is likely to end up as a search term. Bristol Palin redirects to a section of Sarah Palin's article dealing with Family; this might do the same, given the circumstances. Posting here due to the subject and the high scrutiny it's getting around here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Until that poor kid becomes notable on his own I think we should salt it or protect it to make sure it points there. Too much potential for abuse. =( --mboverload@ 03:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have protected the redirect. The subject himself is not inherently notable, but the redirect target is. Keegantalk 04:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course we should unprotect if anyone has a decent proposed article to show with some sources discussing him. I think its pretty obvious that it's just a matter of a day or two till there will be enough RSs. Unfortunately. Ditto about BP. DGG (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know we don't have an article on Henry Chase Hager who married Jenna Bush.Geni 19:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources may verify that the man exists and is the baby's daddy (colloquial). That does not make him notable in any significant encyclopedic context. There need not be an article on him just because cnn.com reports on him. Keegantalk 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archiving problemEdit

  Resolved: without yelling at anyone, although MBisanz should be closely watched........ Keeper ǀ 76 22:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't archive my talk page by the usual means (I prefer moving). The target title User talk:MER-C/archives/23 is supposedly protected from creation. I suspect the title blacklist is at fault - I can edit the target page fine and there's nothing in the logs. (I'm not posting this at WP:RM because that doesn't solve the underlying problem). Thanks in advance. MER-C 12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to work for me (I created and deleted the page). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is I can't move my existing talk page there. And it should work for you - you're an admin. MER-C 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I completed the move. Yell at me if I broke something. MBisanz talk 13:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I yell at you regardless? Keeper ǀ 76 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can yell at me, I've probably done something else wrong :( MBisanz talk 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

MickaëlG user and unified loginEdit

Hello, I don't know if this is the right place to post, but this is the best I found...

I am registered as MickaëlG on french wikipedia. I tried to set up my unified login account, but there is already a MickaëlG account here. His user page doesn't exist and no edition has been made by him. How can I contact this user ? Is it possible to delete this account if unused ?

Thank you. Mickaël —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.103.187 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL has general information on how to deal with changing usernames for the unified logins, and I think the specific instructions that you want are at Wikipedia:Changing_username/SUL#Instructions_.E2.80.93_partial_usurpation. -- Natalya 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Mickaël —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.103.187 (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


User:BigDunc - 2nd incidentEdit

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

Would an admin be kind enough to examine Ulster Special Constabulary. The User:BigDunc who has already been spoken to today about spurious editing practices at Ulster Defence Regiment has now decided to disrupt a second article with POV. I am feeling hunted. The Thunderer (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


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

I'd Like To Report Vandalism, Similar to The Kind I Have Seen On the Sarah Palin PageEdit

The Sally Perdue page currently contains unproven nonsense, that a Republican startegist could have even edited. It says that Miss Perude "revealed" she had an affair with former president Bill Clinton in 1983. The clear definition of reveal is to make a hidden fact known, and Mrs. Perdue revealed absolutely nothing. There is absolutely nothing to back her claim as a fact, and to say that she revealed this is vandalism.YUIP78 (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not helpful to categorise what appears to be an unambiguous content dispute as "vandalism", no matter how much you feel the ";wrong" version of the article misrepresents the facts. The use of the word may well be problematic, and I wouldn't have used it myself, but this issue has not been discussed much on the article's talk page, so I suggest you try to thrash this out over there before further steps are taken. Maybe suggest a tweak to the wording to avoid use of "revealed"; something like "Perdue claimed" or "Perdue disclosed". If agreement can't be had between the two of you, perhaps a request for comment or a request for an uninvolved opinion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography would be more appropriate than attempting to get administrator attention on the issue; I'm not sure what they can do with this. All the best, Steve TC 21:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The fact is that she did reveal it. Whether or not it is true is a different story, but she did reveal the allegation of it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This is User:Kevin j, avoiding his block again, so I suggest people don't waste too much time arguing with him. --barneca (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If it wasn't for the minimal notability of being a Miss Arkansas, I think it would have failed WP:BIO as being only notable for the affair claim - which doesn't cut it. I've templated the See also section, as it is a list of women who have allegedly had affairs with Clinton - giving a WP:COATRACK appearance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User signatureEdit

  Resolved: Blocked, unblocked, signature shortened, inappropriate pages deleted. GbT/c 10:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not see a RFC appropriate to discuss a users signature. So here it is. I am looking for a little guidance on User:Andy Bjornovich. You can see his signature on my talk page. I do not see a strict guideline in the WP:Sig page other then over 255 char is truncated by the system. If this is the wrong place for this please point me in the right direction. Thanks all. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks a little excessive to me but I'm biased against fancy and extra long signatures. You can list it on Wikipedia talk:Username policy or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's way too long, to the point that it's disruptive. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names isn't the right place, as it's not the username that's excessive, just the signature. Have you tried simply asking him to tone it down? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I did notify them. You can see their response on my talk page. He deletes everything from his talk page. Essentially he said I was the only person to complain about it. I think his account is 8 days old. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is a new editor. On the other hand, he looks like a good faith contributor so far, and he says he isn't deleting things from his Talk page but archiving them to sub-pages. I've sent a polite note with my opinion of the sig. Let's see what happens. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree it's excessive; but probably just asking nicely from more than one person would do the trick. — Coren (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert on foreign languages, but it appears that his "signature" is his full name, if that's the case, the sig looks to be okay. His userpage, however, is a different story. Big time WP:NOT goin' on there! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 12:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
...and restored. I'm trying to talk to him about the sig issue, so someone else should drop a follow-up to KoshVorlon's friendly message about userpage content. — Satori Son 12:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No luck. In fact, his response here seems simply WP:POINTy to me. Thoughts from other admins on next steps, if any? — Satori Son 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Account created 8/19 [47] yet seems to be navigating very well. Placed protection templates on his own user page [48]. Does not even act interested in what others are trying to tell him. Shuts them down quickly. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else it seems to violate WP:SIG#Length, which states that "long signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution." Unfortunately, there's little in the policy that actually prevents this. Also, that the software will automatically truncate both plain and raw signatures to 255 characters suggests that this is the maximum allowable number of characters, and indeed, the user seems to be aware of this. You could try asking for comments on the WP:SIG talk page, but it seems that RFC might be the only other recourse. Just as a side note, the user's behaviour seems rather uncivil. He's a tough call; mostly edits his own pages, although has made some apparently constructive edits elsewhere. Interestingly, also appears interested in becoming an admin. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

His response on my Talk page is not encouraging... not least because it's shorter than his sig. RfC? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Might need some additional eyeballs on his page. I have reverted his family tree a total of three times and will not revert further, his response was to revert back and respond with rather pointy messages as well. I have also reverted his protection template as it's deceptive. If you think I'm barking up the wrong tree - let me know and I'll stop.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the family tree and posted a message to his talk page explaining why. GbT/c 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
And he deleted it saying you are a vandal. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed. I've been called worse... GbT/c 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that did not work User:Andy Bjornovich/Family tree. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of his other subpages are... interesting as well. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I assure you all I am not going to shorten it. If anyone can, do they mind actually semi-protecting and move-protecting my userpage. Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your incivility surrounding the clearly problematic issue of your excessively long signature aside, it has already been explained to you that such protection applies only if the page is being vandalised, which it isn't. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed blockEdit

I'll be the first to say it: a short block is in order. This "new" user is continuing to make uncivil and disruptive edits. Numerous editors and admins have left them extremely polite messages asking them to please comply with our community guidelines. In return, there has been defiant and antagonistic conduct, including name calling, edit warring, creating inappropriate pages, and selectively deleting ongoing conversations. I will not block without support from others here, but I don't think a separate RfC is required to effectively deal with this. We should have very little tolerance for this kind of behavior. — Satori Son 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support- His actions and responses show he is not willing to work within the community guidelines or even engage in dialog. His comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhíannon Thomas shows his willingness to defy consensus. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - I'm involved, of course, however, I support blocking. He is showing incivlity, edit warring, and if I'm not mistaken, he's now socking this ip address. It's sole edit is to his page! I think a nice cup of tea is in order for him.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Sig is not negotiable and this user must understand that. MBisanz talk 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose with a reasonable approach progress has been made over the family tree issue. He's refrained from describing good faith edits as "vandalism" for at least ten contributions. Blocking won't serve any particular purpose, as it would seem to be primarily punitive in nature. Let me continue talking to him to try and work things out. GbT/c 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Without supporting or opposing, I disagree that a block would be punitive. If an editor refuses to change a signature that multiple editors have described as disruptive, then a block is very much preventative. As soon as the disruptive signature is changed, the editor would be unblocked. Quite some time ago (likely over a year ago), I blocked an editor who refused to remove images from his signature, despite multiple editors asking him to do so. The second he removed the images, another admin unblocked. - auburnpilot talk 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Incivility and tendentious edits continue, as does inappropriate use of subpages. User is a curious combination of brand new and very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. On the other hand, I would also support postponing the block to give Gb a chance to work with him. If the user demonstrates that he can remain civil; edit something other than his own user pages; and abide by our policies and consensus, a block may not be needed. If he continues as he's currently behaving though, he clearly needs a block. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If Gb succeeds in convincing them to change their signature, request deletion of the inappropriate user pages, and commit to adopting a collaborative and civil attitude toward contributing here, that would help alleviate some of the serious concerns I have with this user. But if the behavior continues, a block would clearly be preventative in nature. — Satori Son 20:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


BlockedEdit

I've actually went ahead and blocked. Looking into the contributions of that user showed little but willful disruption and agressivity, and dismissive comments to attempts to guide them. With luck, Gb could be able to coax better behavior and unblock, but in the meantime I see no reason to let this continue. — Coren (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me, obviously. I was willing to wait, but was not hopeful much would come of doing so. I will also note that discussions on the user's talk page are not affected by the block, and unblocking can occur if significant progress is shown. Indefinite is not permanent. Thanks to Coren for acting decisively. — Satori Son 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, nice to see that the above completely ignores the facts that (i) they hadn't edited for an hour and a half, (ii) their recent edits had shown a movement towards "behaving properly", and (iii) not forty minutes before the block was imposed I'd left them a polite message about their userpages for which an answer was still awaited.
I was slowly coaxing better behaviour. The block and the (totally unnecessary) 3RR report have, I suspect, made that now nigh-on impossible. GbT/c 07:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) Scratch that, then. Pass me my hat, a plate, and a knife and fork. GbT/c 08:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice job. Looks like my diet includes a little headwear as well. Sincere thanks for your efforts, and let's hope they are reformed for good! — Satori Son 12:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeay Gb. Epic win! — Coren (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Celebrations may have been premature. Recent edits are less than promising, to say the least. — Satori Son 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some problematic edits continue. In particular, please see the following edits from today: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. I've left a warning on his talk page, but propose he be re-blocked following his next disruptive edit. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this does not bode well. His "sense of humor" seems to be constructed in such a way as to attract negative admin attention; I'm definitely blocking indef if he disrupts again. — Coren (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
He's just this side of being blocked right now. This edit is fairly rude, but the user he directed it to has given him a warning. At this point, any further incivility and I think I'm going to block him. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocked 1 week by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject secessionEdit

Summer's overEdit

Starting tomorrow, the U.S. public school year starts again. Within the next two weeks vandalism will go up. Just reminding everyone to be vigilant. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, it's started already -- but you are correct, directly after Labor Day (US) is the traditional start of school. Such is the case here in NYC. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 05:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
For some of us, it never ended some time back :) - Alison 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Gee, I've been online since '85, and I've never heard that expression. Thanks! Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Summer? What summer? The weather in .uk has been atrocious all year, and today was worse than ever. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here in NYC, it's already starting to feel a bit fallish, several weeks earlier than usual, and I've heard that the trees upstate are already starting to turn. Still, I had a very pleasant day at the beach today. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In the USA, some public schoools start in August, but they have ALL, AFAIK, start no later than the day after Labor Day. RlevseTalk 10:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, for some reason, it'll be two days after Labor Day, not sure why. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
California used to not start the school year till the day after Admission Day, which is September 9, but it's been changed so that most schools start in August now. Corvus cornixtalk 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird hole in my experienceEdit

I have just discovered that, despite having been an admin for over a year, I have no idea how to do the technical part of closing a deletion discussion.

I've just given Caution dog a fairly obvious speedy deletion, but there's also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caution dog. Digging around in the deletion process pages gives me a lot of advice on how to interpret the !votes made in such a discussion, but nothing about what code to put where. Some of it I could guess--I can see the templates other people are using--but I'm not sure if there's more to it than just archiving the discussion, or what.

Any advice? Also, is this process actually recorded anywhere? If so, we should link to it from more places, like WP:GD and WP:DGFA. --Masamage 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I usually follow the process here, and keep a link handy in my userspace. --Rodhullandemu 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Aha, there it is! Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. :) --Masamage 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
For most of the more technical pages, like 3RR, there is a small link in the upper right of the page with "Administrator Instructions." Took me a while to find it at first too :)
Is there an automated script for this, per chance? seicer | talk | contribs 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry I can't be of more help. Look on User:Steve Crossin/monobook.js - I think there's something in there. --mboverload@ 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD (the extra tabs only show up in the edit mode) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Codename: Kids Next Door: the Movie (2009 film)Edit

Is the subject of this single-editor article real or is it a hoax? --Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, the MS Paint quality of the movie poster title suggests that someone has an overactive imagination. And weak knowledge of which studio KND is produced by (that would be Warner Bros., not Universal). Nate (chatter) 07:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Nuked from Orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Could be our least favorite vandal/hoaxer, but I think a CU would be declined for fishing. SirFozzie (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Still need Image:KND Movie 5.jpg taken out, which is a faked version of Image:KND_Movie.jpg. I was unable to put a speedy tag on it because the page was never created in the database. Nate (chatter) 07:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It will be nuked on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No way did that poster come from anything having to do with Universal or Warner, even as a leaked, quickly dashed off draft. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Great conversation about content / copy editing, and how to help craft fantastic articles.....Edit

There's some great advice, insight, and information in this podcast recorded by some of wiki's finest! - If you feel you're one of those admin.s who has been drawn away from contributing content, or has become a bit distanced from the 2 million (and some!) reasons wikipedia actually exists, I think this should be required listening! I feel smarter already, and I've only heard it once. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Some of Wikipedia's finest? I don't really think so. That would be people like Giano and Geogre. Interview them and I will listen. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been told that the above is less than helpful. Here, then, is the message I was trying to convey: please do be a good chap and not use the admin noticeboard to spam things not requiring administrator attention, and while you're about it the use of hyperbole is not really appropriate here as there are many very well written guidelines and essays on the subject of writing great articles which have much wider input and from editors with much more glorious editing histories than the few you chose; beware of Wikipedia:Recentism. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Guy, didn't you once use this noticeboard to start a section regarding the Scots Wikipedia, merely because you found it amusing? Yes, you did. Not only was it an entirely frivolous post in need of no admin attention, it was also found to be "borderline offensive" by at least one user. 86.44.23.226 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Point is, this gets spammed every episode. But I believe that PM's friends are now counseling him on this, so I apologise to everyone for being snarky about it. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I grumbled a bit at Lar privately, and he mentioned to me that AN/I isn't a good fit for notes like this, and I've no problem not posting such things there.. Guy's grumpy and not-so-accurate comments notwithstanding, folk should feel free to drop me a note if they feel posts like the above are distracting or annoying - I guess I'll just have to see Guy next tuesday... Privatemusings (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)now go listen folks! - I'm neither on this podcast, nor was I involved in making it, and I can honestly say it's much better than most of my driveling efforts :-)

(outdent) Although this falls slightly outside my purview as comentor, the general idea of Privatemusings taking an interest in content should be pleasant news to the admin community. I agree that the community portal would be a better place to take this because it would reach a wider audience. DurovaCharge! 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

IP adding frivolous talkpage bannersEdit

I've encountered an IP from the 88.105.X.X range adding a bunch of frivolous talkpage banners to a number of talkpages.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61] I have reverted some of these edits, particularly on Talk:Lolicon, as talkpage clutter and frivolous however the editor has restored the banners on a couple of articles. --Farix (Talk) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They all look at least potentially valid to me. Why not try discussing it first, instead of slapping a vandalism warning on the editor's talkpage? – iridescent 12:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Data (Star Trek) article already had a picture, and the tags over-wrote one of the project tags... The "heated debate" thing shouldn't really be added unless there's a history of heated debates (imo), but I haven't looked into that too much. The project tags could do with a banner shell. As for the economic crisis...not sure what photo could be found to represent that... –xeno (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah oh, didn't realise the Data one already had a picture. (I can think of plenty of potential "economic crisis" photos – empty shelves, queues at soup kitchens/unemployment offices, hyperinflated banknotes with a string of zeroes...) – iridescent 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well stop talking and get searchin' ! ;> –xeno (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking... on reading that article, it's in a very dodgy and US-centric state – the highest profile casualty (at least, from where I'm sitting), Zoom Airlines, was based in Canada, which isn't even mentioned. (No, I don't intend adding it myself; I know nothing about Canada or airlines). – iridescent 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
bah...touche. –xeno (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
{{talkheader}} shouldn't be randomly added to talkpages unless there is an preexisting issues that {{talkheader}} address. That is part of {{talkheader}} documentation. Also, one shouldn't random add {{todo}} templates either unless one is going to create a todo list for the article. The same goes for {{reqphoto}}, especially when the articles already have images on them, or including a image is like to result in POV pushing (ie Economic crisis of 2008) in an already bias and weaselly worded article. And the tmbox "notes" the editor leaves are entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. But the IP range needs to be watched since he or she has already ignored warnings about adding frivolous takpage banners twice. And for the record, while I did leave two of the three warnings the editor has received. Neither of my warnings were generated by a "warning template". I completely wrote them on my own. But the editor showed no interest in discussing the matter after my first warning. --Farix (Talk) 13:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of year again, more college classes to keep an eye on...Edit

  Resolved: Transwiki-ed to Wikiversity. Thanks for the help everyone. MBisanz talk 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed a couple users and after a closer look found what appears to be two college classes, see here and here. Not sure yet what their goal or focus is on. Just an FYI. KnightLago (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I left notes on what looks to be the main accounts asking what they were doing and offering any help. KnightLago (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A couple of those accounts have been blocked for username violations--looks innocent though. See User talk:Eas4200c.f08.vandal.a. Chick Bowen 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the courses are both at the University of Florida and are EGM 4200C Aerospace Structures & EML 4500 Finite Element Analysis and Design. Both are being taught by the same person. Personally, given the nature of the courses, I'd be surprised if they did any damage to speak of, but it is certainly worth watching. - Bilby (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
They've created over forty accounts so far that we can trace: one for each student, plus professorial accounts, class accounts, "team" accounts, etc. The clear intent is to use us as their webhost, in lieu of software products such as those offered by Blackboard and its competititors. I'm willing to assume it's been done in good faith, but I really feel the whole thing needs to come to a grinding halt, and all the pages be deleted, the accounts blocked or renamed to something not proclaiming abusive use, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Have we managed to get any comunication going with them to confirm what they are up to?Geni 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing much yet. I just left them a note yesterday. This to me appears to closely resemble the Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project. Groups assigned to learn about WP and then create articles. If this is the case they can only be an asset to us. If not, then we can deal with them. But to shut them down when we don't even know what is going on doesn't make sense to me. KnightLago (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we have. From the already-deleted User talk:Eml4500.f08.bottle.vitello/Lecture 3: "This page is part of an ongoing course assignment for the University of Florida's course on Finite Element Analysis. We are required by our professor, Loc Vu-Quoc, to maintain these pages throughout the current Fall semester. If you have any questions, his email address is" and the prof's e-mail. As I've said, we're being used as a webhost, and I think it really does need to be stopped. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
That is still not very clear to me. If they are just using us as a host, then I completely agree we should shut it down. But "we are required to maintain" doesn't really indicate what they are doing. Are they going to create articles? Some of their initial work, learning about redirects, linking, etc., doesn't seem like simple hosting. KnightLago (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We should ask the instructors of these courses to look at Wikipedia:School and university projects. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) They seem to be using it as a host to me - as stated above, they're creating "team use" accounts (strictly prohibited by WP:U), various pages of links to class syllabus and other course resources, etc. I have no issues with the use of Wikipedia as a classroom tool, but they should not be using Wikipedia user space as a classroom communication/collaboration device. Shereth 16:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we're in the process of making a mistake here. According to the talk page of Eml4500.f08 "some goals related to wikipedia are (1) introduction to the use of wikipedia for learning and research, (2) to train future contributors to wikipedia, and (3) to create and develop open course contents for wiki sites such as wikiversity." That does not sound like they're using Wikipedia as a webhost. As long as they're willing to restrict themselves to one account per user, it sounds like exactly the sort of thing we should both allow and encourage. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, in lieu of more info. If the intent is to teach people to use wikipedia properly then it should be a net benefit, so long as they don't do the mess where the students all have to write their own articles which they try to keep separate from the rest of wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
indeed there is the potential for this to go wrong which is why we really need a line of communication but for the time being this remains only a potential problem.Geni 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am working on trying to figure out the situation and have started communicating with somebody. See here and my reply here. KnightLago (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Note that as users do their work, they may be able to contribute and improve wikipedia's existing articles, or that they would find certain topics that are not covered by wikipedia to create new wikipedia articles in the future. Eml4500.f08 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The lecture notes and the HW are starting points for open course notes such as those in wikiversity. This point had been clearly explained in both courses. See also the points in the above paragraph regarding potential immediate short-term contributions to wikipedia by these users, in addition to the long-term goals mentioned in [62]. Eml4500.f08 (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Even this discussion among wikipedia administrators would be already a good learning experience about the administrative structure and the working of wikipedia for these new users (the majority did not even know how to open a wikipedia account and had to be walked through step by step in class), in addition to getting new information through the above discussion. Eml4500.f08 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes but is this going to dirrectly result in new articles or improvment to existing articles. There are far better platforms around for other tasks.Geni 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am still not sure yet of the exact nature of the classes. If Eml4500.f08 could explain a little bit more it would be greatly appreciated. Are the students simply using Wikipedia to host their homework assignments? Are they going to do any actual work on creating or improving articles? Or are they just learning how Wikipedia works?
My feeling is that if the students are being taught how to use Wikipedia, even if they don't actually contribute much to actual articles, then it is a net positive as a whole. Some of the students will undoubtedly stay and become contributors. But we shouldn't rush to judgment here and exclude a large number of potential editors. The accounts will obviously have to respect the username policy. This means one account per person. Each person's account should be unique to them. No group or shared accounts. KnightLago (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This sounds rather like the "Global Economics" affair, about the end of April, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics and its talk page, and a long thread on AN/I here. Two problems there were: (a) an expectation that students could "own" their articles and ask others not to edit, and (b) lack of understanding of the difference between a student essay (where original research and synthesis are the name of the game) and a Wikipedia article (where they are forbidden). JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not simply a web site to post their HW reports, but rather a medium for collaboration, not just among the students in a team, but also a collaboration of the whole class (i.e., among the different teams), and more than that, the work is a collaboration between the professor and the whole class to develop online open course material, as mentioned. Each student has an individual user account, no share accounts, but they can edit in each other's user namespace to collaborate on the lecture notes and HW problems in a given HW report.

There are no team accounts; the account of the team leader serves as a focal point for all team members to contribute their respective part to the team's HW report, using their own individual account. Each team member wants to use his/her individual account to edit so that the history of a wiki HW report will be used to evaluate his/her participation in the team to determine his/her final HW grade. It is imperative that each user use his/her individual account so to show his/her work.

The best HW report of the whole class (i.e., of all teams in the class) would serve as the spring board for the next HW report, i.e., each team would use the best past HW report as a starting point to construct their next HW report, instead of using only their own work all the time. This way, weak teams will learn from the strongest teams, and the whole class thus collaborates together. (Without this measure, mediocre teams remain mediocre throughout without having the opportunity to learn from the best to improve themselves.) Since the team work starts with the professor's lecture presentations and HW problem assignments, the work is actually a collaboration between the professor and the whole class.

Finally, recall the long-term goals already mentioned. Eml4500.f08 (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What you have described would probably be far better met by a localised mediawiki instalation or on a free wiki host. Wikipedia is neither.Geni 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me as if any benefit to Wikipedia would be entirely ancillary, and totally out of proportion to the resources used. Think of the floodgates this could open if this is allowed, and the additional burden on the servers. I'd say there's little indication that we need to wait for any more information, the course is not "How to Edit Wikipedia 101" -- this should be shut down. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed that does appear to be the case. However it would still be best to be diplomatic.Geni 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems the intent is to use Wikipedia to post team based homework; using the accounts system to allow lecturer to see who did what. I can't see anything in the aims that fits in with Wikipedia's core principles - the only collaboration mentioned is within the class. As geni says, far better on a localised wiki. Oh, and lecturer getting smacked with a cluebat. Minkythecat (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Geni and Minky have said almost everything I wanted to say. We need to thank these folks politely, then gently but ruthlessly clean out all these accounts in their current forms and offer guidance on how to get your own wiki software. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Mediawiki can be downloaded through http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki but it would really be an issue for local it techs though.Geni 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We have a long tradition of driving away editors from academe through over-zealous policy-wonkery. Thank god we aren't trying to do anything whatsoever that would benefit from having a bunch of intelligent, educated people around. That's called sarcasm for those of you having difficulty DuncanHill (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It is extreamly well established that wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you think that is "over-zealous policy-wonkery" then your position is somewhat at odds with wikipedia norms. If they want to include editing wikipedia as part of their course we can provide plently of advice on how to do it but both the students and wikipedia will be better off if they use some other wiki (either localy hosted or on a free webhost) for what is appears they are currently proposeing to do.Geni 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I am certainly profoundly at odds with the established Wikipedia norm of assuming bad-faith of new editors. I am at odds with the established norm of discouraging attempts to find new methods of collaborative working. I am at odds with the established Wikipedia norm of discouraging bright young people from learning how to contribute effectively to this soi-disant encyclopædia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
there is no bad faith being assumed (although you do appear to be running rather close to the line) in fact there is pretty much nothing being assumed we have been very careful to find out what is being planned before doing anything. Teaching people how to contribute effectively to wikipedia is not even a side aim of the project and it's structure tends against that being atchived.Geni 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The assumption that has been made about these accounts is that they will not contribute to the encyclopædia, and should therefor be blocked. That is as clear an assumption of bad-faith as it is possible to make. I think you have misinterpreted my comment about teaching people to contribute effectively - I meant that that is a responsibility of more experienced editors, and that in order to encourage effective contribution we should be more welcoming of new editors. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hopefuly we can resolve the situation without resorting to blocking. We shall see.Geni 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I normally would agree with you about process-wonkery; however, what we have here is coursework relying upon in-team collaberation - would "outsiders" be allowed to correct any mistakes? Would that mess their course marking up? Anybody finding Wikipedia interesting and wanting to contribute naturally benefits all parties; the issue is however is such insular work the best way to achieve it? that's a realistic view for the one of you having difficulty Minkythecat (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe this kind of usage would be welcome over at wikiversity. Friday (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think these guys will cause any huge messes, per se, it's more just a fundamental issue of using Wikipedia - and particularly the user space - in a manner that is not acceptable. Shereth 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm a student in one of these two courses and I seem to have quite the grasp as to what my professor is trying to achieve. If you have any further questions about this, shoot away. I'll start by saying that much of what you all (those opposed to allowing this endeavor to progress) have said is true. It would largely (perhaps entirely) be us students using our namespaces to communicate to each other and the professor and for the submission and evaluation of homework and notes. It was also communicated to me in class that we would not be advised to edit true Wikipedia articles in that in doing so we might attracts 'vandals' seeking to destroy our work.

Needless to say, although some users may stick around after the course, most of these names will probably be abandoned. Certainly, during the course, there will most likely be no contribution to WP articles--although the possibility of contributions upon course completion are entirely left up to the users themselves.

So in all, I believe this comes down to a rather interesting dilemma. As of now, you have at least 80 potential editors on your hands to further the cause of WP. But none of these people (under these class usernames, at least) will be doing anything to benefit WP itself during this ongoing semester. After the semester ends, however, there is the possibility that, since all these students were warmed up to the WP system over the past semester, many will stick around and choose to contribute--but this is only after the semester ends. Not to mention, throughout the entire semester, our user namespaces will be used for the sole purpose of class participation, and will not see the "outside world"--aka the rest of WP. Further still, and on the other hand, the information generated via these two classes may truly contribute to WP articles on similar subjects--especially once the course is over and students are free to use said usernames to integrate the course information into current and new WP articles.

The choice is yours, I hope I have explained things clearly. If you have any more questions, I'll be here. And this is my real WP username (one that I will use to contribute to WP), it has nothing to do with this course. Thanks. IntaminAG (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

thing is, this is an encyclopedia and class notes on a topic are not necessarily going to be good articles. You mentioned Wikiversity earlier, so you know about that project, and it sounds to me that this would be the place for what you are doing. We'd love new academic oriented editors in technology ,but do you all realize that based on past experience many of the topics may not be suitable for articles--and we have no mechanism to maintain them intact for you during the course if they get deleted. Nor can we restrict who might want to edit the articles. This sort of project needs considerable thought and planning. I or Ed would be very pleased to help your professor with it. DGG (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
wikiversity is looking to devolope course materials not carry out actual sources onsite.Geni 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Getting warmed up to Wikipedia's software (since they won't be touching the processes) can, as we've said, be done via a local installation of the software that runs Wikipedia, MediaWiki. While new editors are appricated, such work on done on Wikipedia itself is not within the project scope, would create bad precidents, and would use resources allocated for running an encyclopedia. ffm 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit: At DGG. Thanks. I didn't mention Wikiversity, haha, I believe my professor did, though. So I'd imagine he has some sort of an idea of what that is about. I'm not aware as to what it is about however I'll look it up very soon, for sure. I totally get what you're saying, I am neutral either way, honestly. I just wanted to provide the information for you all. I do have a question, though. What do you mean when you say "we have no mechanism to maintain them intact for you during the course if they get deleted?" If what gets deleted, the information on our namespaces? Just curious as to what you meant by that. IntaminAG (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
hewas probably thinking about stuff in the article namespace but stuff in the namespace is also at a fair risk of being deleted if it is outside project scope and not put there by a regular user.Geni 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as students are beginning to create a large number of homework pages, some are requesting unblock for username blocks, I really think someone needs to contact this professor directly and explain to him in detail about WP:NOT, this is going to generate a large number of odd-looking userspaces, some of which are already at MfD. MBisanz talk 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've politely explained the situation to the professor and have given him some other alternatives at User_talk:Eml4500.f08#Class_project_on_Wikipedia. MBisanz talk 01:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your discussion, suggestions, and cooperation. I just created the following pages in wikiversity: User:Eml4500.f08 and User:Eas4200c.f08. It seems to work without having to create new user accounts; I used the same user accounts under wikipedia. Hence the wikipedia accounts that students already created can be used under wikiversity; they can move their work to wikiversity. Please keep these accounts, and give them some time to move the content of their user namespaces to wikiversity.

For students who could not create their own account because the operation was blocked, I'll ask them to create their accounts on wikiversity.

There are only 3 weeks until the first exam; the class should focus on the course material itself, instead of wikipedia matters; it was a good learning experience though.

Is it possible for administrators to prevent the posting of the current content of these user namespaces on wikiversity as wikiversity's formal articles? The reason is to avoid potential problems such as copyright violation, plagiarism, etc, without prior checking and verification (even then, it may be difficult to detect all possible violations; so another aspect of class collaboration is that the class will scrutinize the best HW reports for any possible violations). It would take a few "generations" of the same course to bring the course material to a reasonable quality before making it into formal wikiversity articles. Eml4500.f08 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed what my student wrote above at (IntaminAG (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)), and want to make a clarification: While students were not allowed to use the "class" accounts to edit wikipedia articles, for the reason that IntaminAG mentioned, they can edit any wikipedia articles they like, provided that they use their own personal wikipedia accounts, i.e., accounts that do not begin with eas4200c and eml4500. In fact, students should not use these "class" accounts to edit wikipedia articles at all, even after the semester is over, since the idea is for future students to use the same system and avoid vandals following the links to the course material. I will make a note to mention to the two classes about this point, even in wikiversity. The total number of students in both classes is close to 200; some students take both classes, so the number of actual individual accounts is less. In any case, I think we can do exactly what we set out to do in wikiversity. Thanks. Eml4500.f08 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Response from WikiversityEdit

Someone asked Wikiversity to respond to this thread. In short, welcome. Experimental uses of Mediawiki, especially in the context of real world educational courses, are very welcome over at Wikiversity. If there are any issues about what can and cannot be done, I'll be happy to coordinate with the course facilitator and assist/advise as things go along. --McCormack (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much. Eas4200c.f08 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So. The teacher is planning to move things over to Wikiversity and Wikiversity is welcoming them. Is there anything more to be done with this? Any cleanup here on WP? Or can this one be marked as Resolved? - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikiversity. --JWSurf (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was my edit to an article removed?Edit

  Resolved: Just a hum-drum BLP violation, no reason to get excited... EVula // talk // // 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just edited an article about Dave Gilbert (footballer) to state NEWS that he had recently been arreseted & charged with two counts of assault. This is the truth.. so why was it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.38.134 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Per our policy on biographies of living people, all unsourced, contentious material is to be removed. Since your edit was not accompanied by a reference to a reliable source, it was removed. Resolute 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Yeah cause a reliable source isnt the person who he assaulted, you idiot. :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.38.134 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks when replying to editors. A reliable source is something like the BBC, a quality newspaper, CNN or similar source. If you can find one, the information can be re-added (in a neutrally worded fashion) and a link to the source appended to the end of the section (the easiest way is to place the URL of the source between square brackets). Personal testimony from the alleged victim is original research and can't be used. Exxolon (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you aren't a reliable source. Certainly not in a contentious BLP. Calling me an idiot won't change Wikipedia policy. Resolute 00:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Resolute. Unreliable/no sources must be dealt with, so there's no reason for this case to be given any "special" treatment. Also, I have doubts regarding edits such as these. If you think you can get away with silly edits like that, think again. ~ Troy (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have had a bit of a news trawl (I sometimes have access to extra resources of this sort), and I can't find any sources at all for this claim. Brilliantine (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Marius FeketeEdit

Marius Fekete is pure nonsense. First of all, I'm inclined to think the person doesn't even exist. Second, after translating the Romanian profanity in it, you get that his parents are named "Dick" and "Pussy" Fekete, that he was born in the small town of "Blowjob", and that his grandfather's name is "Sticky Ass". Furthermore, the second section provides information on how he had sexual relations with Romania's current prime minister (which I'm sure would have been a big news item here in Romania if it had really happened, or at least rumors of it). Google doesn't really turn up anything on this purported "Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister" (a position I'm not sure exists). The article seems like one big hoax. Rimush (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate it for deletion. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedied GA7. I will provide a copy to any editor wishing to provide WP:RS, but my research tells me this should go. --Rodhullandemu 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
That's actually a rather clever piece of vandalism, if I may say so myself. To your average US Wikipedia user, it would look legit. Jtrainor (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to unblock another editorEdit

The following discussion has been moved from Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block - I would welcome any other admin's view on this  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeremy Bolwell has been blocked by User:Tivedshambo for violation of WP:overlinking. The discussion is here. Although Jeremy Bolwell - who is a prolific editor and valued contributor to articles - has been guilty of overlinking and other stylistic transgressions in the past (a point raised by me and others on several occasions - see his talk page), he has now agreed to abide by guidelines, and punishment by a temporary block seems extremely harsh for what is, in essence, a difference over the interpretation of a stylistic guideline. Can someone please look at it with a view to overturning Tivedshambo's decision? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The decision to block Jeremy was not a decision I took lightly. I had hoped that it would not come to this, but Jeremy was warned, by another admin as well as myself [63], that he would be blocked if he persisted in overlinking. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption - persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive. Although I believe that Jeremy is acting in good faith, he persisted in making edits like [64], in which, while adding some good links, he also continued to add unneccesary links. I took the decision that another warning would not make any improvement, since he seems to think (incorrectly) I'm bullying him, so I took the decision to make a temporary block. I've also suggested that he looks at other ways he can improve Wikipedia when his block expires, rather than merely linking words, and have stated I will unblock him if he agrees to this. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"I will unblock him if he agrees to [do what I want]" sounds pretty close to bullying to me - or at least over-interpretation of an admin's proper role. Any cursory examination of Jeremy Bolwell's record would reveal that his contributions to articles (while sometimes misguided) have been far greater than simply adding square brackets to words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Violation of WP:overlinking? This is taking the MoS way too far. Quote by the blocking admin prior to the blockYou have already been warned about this, and if you continue to carry on, I will have to consider your actions as vandalism - Please read WP:VAND before making any more blocks. Not adhering to the MoS is explicitly stated in the "not vandalism" section. This is definitely excessive. Mr.Z-man 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"I took the decision that another warning would not make any improvement, since he seems to think (incorrectly) I'm bullying him, so I took the decision to make a temporary block" - if you feel that a warning from you would be ignored because the editor in question feels that you are bullying him, then perhaps it would be better to leave any decision about a block to an uninvolved admin? DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Ok - I'll admit I shouldn't have used the word vandalism. But the block was not for vandalism, it was for violation of guidelines. I was extremely reluctant to do it, but eventually something has to be done beyond a sequence of repeated warnings. Be that as it may, if the general consensus of admins is that I was incorrect to make this block, feel free to overturn it (I'm going off-wiki for the night now), but I'd welcome suggestions of how I could have handled the situation better, whilst persuading Jeremy to conform with the MOS. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) I don't think Jeremy's edits were vandalism at all. He has many useful, constructive edits, but he does have a propensity for overlinking, apparently based on a philosophy about learning. I am a bit sad to see him blocked, but looking over his Sep 2 edits, some of them do seem to be overlinking despite his agreement to stop doing this. I count about 9 editors who've spoken with him about this via his user talk page, so the community clearly views it as disruptive. I might have blocked for a shorter period, given that it's his first block and that the guideline is somewhat open to interpretation, but it does seem a block was warranted; perhaps Jeremy should just avoid adding inline links for the time being, and perhaps Tivedshambo would consider shortening the block. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Just my two cents - that's not a good block. I looked at the version he created and it definetly not vandalism, it doesn't drag down the article, it's just links for pity sake. I really don't belive the block was warrented, but then again, that's just my two cents.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO Jeremy's contribs were not vandalism, however his decision to go back and continue to overlink after agreeing to stop is tendentious and borders on being disruptive. But becuase the behaviour is borderline it might have been better to seek community consensus for sanctions rather than blocking unilaterally. A block for an MOS violation will always come up against the worthy counter-argument of WP:IAR--Cailil talk 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Long term, slow, BLP edit war on Mark KimmittEdit

I'd previously notified WP:BLP/N of this issue, but didn't get much input. Two editors have been engaged in a ~1x/day revert war on this article for a couple of weeks. I tried to intervene as a 3O, but I did not seem to have any luck at coaxing the editors into modifying their ways. I have no doubt they could benefit from intervention from someone with the admin bit and a strong BLP background. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Civility restrictions and other questionsEdit

I have started a RFC, available at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC, about the questions the community and the ArbComm has raised with regard to civility restrictions. Comment is appreciated there. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP backlog building up againEdit

Every little bit helps. Enigma message 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for an easy one, the case I reported is nice and short ;) justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Would this block be justified? (Rusty admin asks)Edit

I am an admin, a long-time one, but inactive over the last little bit. My question: does this guy qualify for a block? He's been uploading non-free images non-stop, and deleting the warnings against doing so, off his talk page. Obviously, he has too much time and no plans to stop. Block? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Warn then block. You are correct. Be sure he knows that he has to justify why those non-free images are needed. See WP:FAIRUSE for the templates. —— nixeagle 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes on WP:SOCKEdit

(Copied from the village pump)

I am a bit afraid of the way the sockpuppet and multiple accounts policy might turn out. I see many users being blocked, not because they are using those alternate accounts to canvass, vote or vandalize, but because they just have multiple accounts. Take for example, there's a user, who wanted to change her username. She is a novice at Wikipedia and doesn't know about WP:CHU, so she chooses to create a new account in ignorance. Satisfied with her new username, she wakes up the next day to find herself blocked. Rather then a complete block, a notice on her talk-page about just why did she create the new account will be more appropriate. Thus, further action will be taken after the rationale is found. (e.g. blocking, or advice)

Not only does this apply to the situation I described, but it applies to every situation where the user has multiple accounts. Should those multiple accounts be blatantly used for cavassing, voting or vandalizing or any disruptive behavior, then no further questioning will be needed. However, should the user have multiple accounts for non-controversial and non-disruptive purposes, then those accounts should not be blocked. (e.g. accounts made for use in public areas and accounts made because of ignorant mistakes, such as the one I described above.)  Marlith (Talk)  04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

such accounts if used over the same period should be declared, & I would would favor the rules to say so. Obviously we shouldnt block unless someone refuses to close them after advice to do so, or unless its clearly abusive. The best way of preventing abuse is to require declaration, except for right to vanish. DGG (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it should only matter if the accounts are being used in the same area of discussion, and not matter if they're being used in the same timeframe. I pretty much agree with what Marlith says here, and share his concern. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
We can add such a notice (about WP:CHU) to the create-an-account page. ffm 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarified restrictions for BetacommandEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Restrctions now in effect. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

CBM, Ryan Postlethwaite and I, as part of an ad hoc committee, proposed the following clarifications to the restrictions on Betacommand (talk · contribs). As seen in this discussion, the proposal has been endorsed. The updated restrictions are:

  • Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
  • Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
  • Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
  • Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

Regards, Jennavecia (Talk) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Before there's any dissent or opposition, Beta himself said he had no problem with these binding restrictions to Jenna in IRC. rootology (C)(T) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Without commenting on the specific terms here, I think he should make that commitment on-wiki. RxS (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • These look like excellent, well-worked proposals. The original restrictions were vague because they were intended to be, because I didn't expect everyone to suddenly adopt my wording! Point 2 is the crucial one, of course. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The first bullet may be naive and overly restrictive. Little goes through on VPR without some objections and the group rarely arrives at a well defined consensus on anything. (sideitem:)*Even currently approved tasks on other bots frequently come under heavy and unproductive criticism from a select minority (somehow silently absent when the task was approved)*. Without assigning blame to anyone, proposal by Beta would likely degenerate into a threaded unproductive shouting match. I propose changing the item to 'notifying at WP:AN/B; A consensus of posters there would decide if the task should go forward, procede to VPR, be revised/clarified/defined to a smaller subset, be tested, be canceled, or is WP:SNOW' --167.181.12.95 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The Betacommand complaint notice board is more productive and less likely to become a shouting match than the Village Pump? I don't believe that. Mr.Z-man 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
All notice boards should be exclusively used as notice boards. If they are being used as complaint boards by the community at large they should be shutdown and retooled. If a user specific notice board is being used as an attack board it should be blanked and protected; then an oversight investigation should be conducted. --167.181.12.95 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The Second bullet should be dependent on the first. Should he gain approval for a task, he should conduct a test, review the results carefully, amend the results to the request and if no issues are found, he should precede to running the remainder of the approved subset. If he's given approval to run a task he does not need to carefully check every single edit on that task as it would be impractical. He should however review any reported issues, stop the task, correct the edit and the logic that caused it, all while interacting civilly. --167.181.12.95 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Lets see what people that are logged in on their accounts have to say. rootology (C)(T) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Could I suggest that this is likely to become a lengthy thread, and that everyone interested in Beta and his behavior is already going to follow the See Also link, so could someone move this announcement to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand preemptively? MBisanz talk 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It was actually moved here to announce that there was consensus already and that Beta had agreed to the terms without a problem. Until the IP derailed it... rootology (C)(T) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Pesky 'anyone can edit' clause. Sorry to intrude on your 'private consensus' with my 'may be' suggestion. --167.181.12.95 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I agree all the way with the first two. I'd suggest rewording the third for clarity; how about Beta may make no more than 40 edits in any rolling 10-minute period? I believe it achieves the same effect and removes the material about averages and single-minutes etc. The fourth point I make no comment on, as nothing will come of it... ╟─Treasury§Tagcontribs─╢ 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To help clarify an issue from the previous events (and thus prevent issues in future), do these restrict the use of semi-automated tools, such as Twinkle or the like? Yes, restricting edits to average 4 a minute will help make his edits not look like automated ones, but this doesn't mean he cannot use such tools if they are effective, and all the other points stated seem to suggest that such tools aren't a problem as long as they fall into the outlined steps. --MASEM 18:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably just fine to leave as it is. If someone were a good enough programmer they could edit their hearts out and we'd never know. This is just a safety check as I read it. rootology (C)(T) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • TreasuryTag, that seems reasonable to me, if others agree it should be changed.
  • These restrictions allow for the use of semi-automated tools, such as TW and AWB, however, Betacommand must check every edit to ensure it is not creating one problem while fixing another, for example. The restriction on edits per minute is to ensure he's taking the necessary time to check the edits. I also spoke with him in IRC, letting him know not to game the wording (i.e. making 40 edits in one minute and resting for nine); he agreed not to do so. He understands that the "in a 10 minute period of time" is simply some padding in case he should accidentally make 5 edits in one minute during a run where he otherwise remains in the restricted limits, for example. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good restrictions, well done.ViridaeTalk 02:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I suppport this proposal, with the ferverent hope that it keeps betacommand, his supporters, and his detractors away from notice boards, irc, and such pages ... and focused on encyclopedic activities. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    Amen. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

High level / long term vandalism problemEdit

  Resolved

There is a consitant high level of consistant vandalism on the Man article. Article was semi-portected once for 2 weeks but when semi-protection ends vandalism immediately starts again. The vanadalism is so bad on the article almost all edits to it are vandalism. As few non-users contribute to this article and 99% of those non-users who do are vandals I think an indefinate semi-protection is required such as that on the woman article. The nature of the subject of the article unfortunately gets the attention of a lot of kids/teenagers, people who just haven't grown up repeatedly vandalising the article. Usergreatpower (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
From now on all vandalism to the Man shall be called Mandalism. It is here so decreed.--mboverload@ 04:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  This decree has been approved by the cabal. GlassCobra 04:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we call vandalism to Van? -- lucasbfr talk 09:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Van2dalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
How are you admins going to handle vandalism to San, considering this? Iafrate (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You laugh at person who commits that. --Tone 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Estimating rangeblock collateral damageEdit

So over at the Ref Desk we've got a fun fellow who drops by occasionally, usually to tell us the latest rumormongering to come out of Fox News (it's always on RIGHT NOW! if only we'll go and watch), and as such, I've come to think of him as the Fox News Guy. For the desk itself, this isn't a big deal, but he's usually then off to add his random speculations to article space too (often interspersed with out-and-out vandalism), and that necessitates cleanup. He's acknowledged and then ignored warnings time and again, so I've concluded that, when I see him actively resume his nonsense, it's time to just block. So now the meat of the question:

He's in a couple of pretty tight IP ranges most of the time. Is there a way I can pull recent changes for a range in total to estimate what the collateral damage to helpful IP editors might be? Alternately, do I just need to be talked down from the ledge of precipitous action? — Lomn 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know, but you may want to change the sub-page name you are using. :) Protonk (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a tool [65], but it's currently disabled for the English Wikipedia for performance reasons. However, a limited amount of collateral checking is something that CheckUser can do, so if you let me know the ranges, I can check them for you. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Troy 07 showed me this one that works via your monobook: [66] caknuck ° is geared up for football season 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Or instead of importing the gadget into your monobook, you can just turn it on in preferences. Mr.Z-man 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

schoolblockEdit

  Resolved: Schoolblock endorsed. –xeno (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked anon account user:66.210.75.2, but am requesting input. The user is a persistent vandal who had received a final warning several edits before I blocked. The block history reveals that the ip has been blocked several times before, the last couple being schoolblocks, the most recent for 6 months. Based on the block history, I schoolblocked as well, for 7 months, and placed the schoolblock tag on the user talk page. I've never done a schoolblock before; is some sort of additional check needed, or is the previous block history sufficient? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as it was anon-only/account creation blocked, you're fine. For next time feel free to bump it up to 1 year if they've already served a 6 monther. You might want to pipe in a comment and add a signature, i.e. {{schoolblock|Blocked for 7 months}} ~~~~ –xeno (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with a one year block in this case given the track record of abuse. Enigma message 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the tag. Think I'll leave the block as it is -- 7 months is long enough that it's unlikely to be the same individual(s) using the ip next time, and it doesn't really seem worth unblocking and reblocking. to add a few more months. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, that's what I meant - no need to tweak this block, but for the next one, you can consider a year-long. –xeno (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Now you're making me look silly. ;) Enigma message 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
lulz sorry about that, being all unclear and all =) –xeno (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Labor Day has passed and most US schools are back in session, so I expect that there will be more schoolblocks before the week is out. I’ve made two myself today. —Travistalk 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Imposter of SceptreEdit

Just come across this vandalism to Kmweber (talk · contribs)'s userpage. Looking at the account contributions, the strikes me out immediately as Sceptre (talk · contribs) (due to his past with Kmweber) under a new account. Although it's blocked indefinitely, this may need further looking into. Kmweber's page history recently shows that the Sceptre IP is the only person that has vandalised it. This also makes me think that it is Sceptre under the Petulant little shit (talk · contribs) name. Although Sceptre has "declared" he is retired, it may be worth checking this out, even though the "Petulant little shit" account is blocked indef. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Most likely an imposter. Majorly talk 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Given that both Petulant little shit's and Sceptre's IPs have triggered autoblocks in the same 10 minute period, they probably are not on the same IP, and not the same person. MBisanz talk 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. Just double-checking in case Sceptre had created a new account. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was asked in IRC to check... It is   Unlikely these are related. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, not unless he grew wings and flew 3000 miles since his last edit. Thatcher 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Its not like Sceptre is the only person who dislikes Kmweber... Mr.Z-man 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the internet connections I use living in California routine resolves to New Jersey when using geolocating packages. So anything is possible. That said, I have no reason to believe Sceptre is active in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Good chance that 78.105.113.152, vandalizing Weber before Petulant_little_shit, is banned User:Fredrick day, even though that isn't his primary IP range (87.112-87.115); he uses neighborhood wireless routers, and other means of alternate access, and this could be in his neighborhood. He's currently vandalizing from the 87.112-87.115 range; vandalizing Kmweber has been common for him, and, as I recall, Fredrick day has had an interest in Dr. Who, hence the IP's edit to The Trial of a Time Lord. --Abd (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely indeed, but it is certainly true that the trolling from 207.112.43.3 is the same as Petulant little shit, and has been blocked for a month. There are various other bits of trolling from the same user on that /24. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to defer to a checkuser. My comment referred, not to Petulant, but to the IP 78.105.113.152, which was acting in a similar manner to Petulant and the 207.112 IP. Hence I'd have some suspicion, still, that Fredrick day was using some kind of proxy (since Fredrick day is in London and 207.112.43.3 is in Canada); however, of course, Fredrick day is not the only highly knowledgeable and entrenched vandal, plus he has attracted some significant sympathy. We should be so lucky! --Abd (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the "unlikely indeed" was a reference to Lar's comment. You will see here a positive identification of those edits with Sceptre, which I absolutely confirm to be the case per lengthy CU inquiry prior to Sceptre's admission. This isn't Fredrick day, with whom I am, as you are aware, familiar. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam. --Abd (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in london, no idea why you think that. --87.112.5.23 (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Plus.net is in Sheffield. But I don't know what territory they cover. Why London? Possibly some other IPs used, maybe, or just bad memory. In any case, Fredrick day has indeed been active in the last week, as User:Procutus. Whack-a-mole. --Abd (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, IP 87.112.*.* appears to be from the same range as many Fredrick day socks. Jehochman Talk 02:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Right. And he's not in London, as he said. Speak of the devil. Procutus was revealed as Frecrick day because of his support for the IP above in an edit war. It's obvious that 87.112-87.115 is very convenient for him. He's frequently used other IP, and quite likely has multiple ISP access going at once. It's going to be tricky to find the true puppet master; for Fredrick day clearly isn't the original account, and he's claimed so a number of times; Fredric day was a bad hand account for.... for whom I either don't know or can't say yet, not enough proof. What I find fascinating is that Fredrick day gives voice to what some editors and administrators think, but don't usually say, because it would be uncivil. But his days are numbered. Or at least named. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If you check edit histories carefully, you may find additional slip ups where the user forgets which account they are using, or is logged out, and connects two or more of their identities. Given the volume of editing, the evidence is probably there for the finding. If there is another master account, still active, it would be good to find it. But please, do not make any accusations until there is solid evidence, preferably reviewed by an uninvolved party to help avoid confirmation bias. Jehochman Talk 03:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is really isn't the thread to start such a discussion, but it seems I was out of town when the fun was happening.. Anyone else feel that Spectre's current block is a major over reaction? For someone who's never been blocked before (besides test blocks, which don't count), this is absurd. From what I've read, the only reason he was "indef" blocked was to get him to apologies, which he did, and then it could go to the community to decide if he should be blocked. Seems that didn't happen, and he retired instead. Regardless if someone has "retired" or not, I think that block discussion should still happen. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He couldn't believe he was held to certain levels of decorum, which is why he overreacted from having any kind of block, and then claimed retirement in response.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Bedford, go troll somewhere else. A two month block for an editor who has never been blocked before is in very bad taste. I've probably done worse, and I've never been blocked that long. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
See --> Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sceptre_2. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've already seen that, and it's not a blocking discussion. Two months is extreme over-kill, and is nothing more than a form of punishment, rather than a realistic attempt to protect the Wiki from harm. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the block length is academic now as he has retired. I suspect had the discussion on mentorship proceeded then a comback would have been negotiated fairly readily. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think he retired out of frustration over the block itself, so had he not been blocked he likely would not have "retired". I think we owe it to him to say "if you want to come back, you can do so in less than two months". I would even go so far as to say that no block is needed at this point, at least according to our blocking policy. Having a block discussion even after a user has "retired" is important. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(<--) A reminder in relation to comments further up this thread: Geolocation in the UK is virtually meaningless. ISPs generally serve the whole country. It is however extremely uncommon (but not impossible) for the same person to have two different broadband ISPs at home. </stating the obvious> Brilliantine (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

hahahahahahahaha so far you've spent 2 pages talking about a 2-edit account and congratulating each other for the great job you're doing. Sam Korn likes to publish the IPs of random accounts with no contributions, and hand out punishment like candy. Are the checkuser rules supposed to be a bad joke? Do you have any standards at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.39.99 (talkcontribs)

I'd like to suggest, not for the first time, that you stop treating all new users like shit, as a strategy for reducing vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.39.99 (talkcontribs)

We don't treat new users like "shit", however if new users vandalise, that's a completely different kettle of fish. D.M.N. (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright questionEdit

A question has come up related to copyright of an article that, on closer examination, could lead to the deletion of dozens of other articles. I had already asked for feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#list_of_top_singles, but given its broad-reaching implications, would like to publicize that question here in the hopes of inviting knowledgeable participation there. Feedback appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan SchneiderEdit

Just to note that I am revisiting Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Dan Schneider (writer) now the dust has settled a bit - there is an issue of vanispamcruftisement to sort out and also some WP:BLP issues with the sockfarm on the other side of the debate.

WP:SPA's listed in that report as promoting Schneider and spamming his site:

That's more than enough for a cross-wiki spam search, which turns up more links but I've not yet found if they were added by the same IP range. Mathemaxi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a good example; note the way good and bad are intermingled and sometimes two links are added at once, one of which is to one of Schneider's reviews. Oh, and "correcting" to US spelling in articles about British and Aussie subjects gets up my nose a bit :-) Example of the kind of thing: inserts link to a review, www.theyshootpictures.com/review_seventhseal.htm, which is now 404 but the goo 'ol wayback machine reveals was a review written by (surprise, surprise) Dan Schneider. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I've found a couple of articles with a dozen or more cites to a single interview with Schneider, all the content and cites added by one of the sockfarm. Feel free to look over my edit and block logs and review. I'm leaving a standard message to choose one account and request unblock. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well its good to know that my tracking down wasn't ignored - I feared all the silliness on the discussion page might have just made both sides look as bad as eachother and nothing would be done. I know its unproven, but just have a look at the discussion and then at one of the articles. I think the similarity in style is too close to be looked over. Also, what is up with that Ovenknob guy? He seems to be so over-the-top I wouldn't be surprised if its just another sockpuppet designed to make me and other editors look unreasonable. Tmwns (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And:

Plus NormalGoddess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a possible. How best to identify this sockfarm and tie them together, without violating WP:BLP? Guy (Help!) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one * Harikawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) It looks like the only editors arguing for DS's notability are socks of DS. I have seen other editors community banned for less then what this prolific sockpuppeteer has done to self promote on wikipedia. MarnetteD | Talk 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • This game of whack-a-mole is getting a bit tiresome, are there any Checkusers who wouldn't mind looking over this one and perhaps helping with other sleepers or a rangeblock? Guy (Help!) 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Images in George W. Bush articleEdit

I see that all the images in George W. Bush have suddenly gone red-linked. Could somebody experienced with images please take a look at what is happening? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Images look fine to me. Must have been a hiccup. - auburnpilot talk 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
That is really strange. Must be a weird problem with my browser. When I use internet explorer, I still get red links for images and even a red message "Error: image is invalid or non-existent" displayed at the top of the page. But when I view the page using safari, the images are there and everything looks fine. Must be some strange bug in my internet explorer.... Sorry for the false alarm. Nsk92 (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
They were redlinked, and now they're OK. Just one of those little techie mysteries. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Nsk, in IE, hit Ctrl-F5 to purge your cache. I suspect the images will magically reappear. --barneca (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to have been a bit of a hiccup with images this morning. Ctrl-F5 should sort it all out. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an intermittent issue with Commons images at the moment, I think - some svgs from templates were red yesterday. PUrge the cache, that worked for me. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! When I got up this morning, everything looked fine and I did not even have to purge the cache. Nsk92 (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock finder toolEdit

Just so you guys know, I've finally got annoyed enough today to write a tool to find autoblocks. You can find it at http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php. Basically you give the tool the user's name and it will list any and all autoblocks that are on the user. The tool has been added to a few templates and mediawiki pages by Rjd0060 and Hersfold.

An example of the tool is for User:HappyRapids who was blocked. That user also triggered an autoblock, so any admin would have to also unblock the autoblock id as well. You can find this id by clicking http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php?user=HappyRapids.

Again this tool has been added to the standard {{unblock}} template among others so that you can just click and see if there are autoblocks. —— nixeagle 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Eagle. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has missed the old tool since it's been down. Much appreciated, WJBscribe (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
PS. Your username is misspelled on the tool - it says "This tool is written by User:Nixagle"... WJBscribe (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, at least it links to the right talk page >.> I'll fix my typo later. —— nixeagle 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image captionEdit

Could an administrator please change an image caption on the protected page User talk:Jeffpw? The current right-hand image caption doesn't identify which one is Jeff, which is kind of a nice thing to have given the subject. Copy/pasting the caption on User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam (identical photo) would be ideal. Orpheus (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  Done --Rodhullandemu 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unabated unWiki behavior continuesEdit

Wikipedia Administrators are requested to input views on the RFC on user Goingoveredge HERE. This user is still continuing choking other editors by deleting their views from Discussion Board of article Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity so that greater wikipedia does not read other editor's views and reads only his/her.--Roadahead (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism on BP?Edit

  Resolved: Figured it out and fixed it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone check out that page? I am pretty sure there is vandalism involving the infobox template, but am not myself familiar with their working intimately, certainly not of that particular one. Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which template, but it's the Zodiac vandal. D.M.N. (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, fixed. D.M.N. (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I figured it out and warned the IP. Don't know about this Zodiac thing, so maybe I shouldn't have. Oh well. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Main pageEdit

The article on the main page has been vandalized! That's not why I'm here tho. :P There is currently a contest going on with proposals to update the main page. Although this isn't admin-related, wide community attention is needed on the contest. So please check out the page, look over the proposals and leave comments for the semi-finalists. Thanks, Jennavecia (Talk) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

erm...linky? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I liked it to "contest", but here's the full link: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Jennavecia (Talk) 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah PalinEdit

Hi, all - I've spent a lot of time over the weekend on the above article. As I'm sure everyone knows, it's probably our highest-traffic article right now. Serious issues keep popping up there - everything from really bad BLP violations, to POV-pushers from both political sides, and lots and lots of good-faith people who don't have a good grasp of neutrality or sourcing or the Manual of Style. There aren't many uninvolved or neutral people helping right now, though there are a few - Jossi is one standout. Rootology was really helpful but I think gave up.

I really need to take a break from working there; I think I started out pretty neutral but I may be losing my objectivity, as some of the poison I've seen going into that article has given me a lot of sympathy for the Palin family, especially the children. Also, I've been getting a lot of accusations that I work for the McCain campaign, so maybe someone should check back over the work I've done. :) I would be very grateful if some neutral people would make an attempt to keep an eye on things on that and related articles, like Political positions of Sarah Palin and Todd Palin. It can be hard to keep up with due to the editing volume. Thanks, all. Kelly hi! 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need someone with a neutral point of view watching over this article as those who have currently claimed ownership (not going to name names) have taken us down a slippery slope of partisanship.zredsox (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly might be Republican. I'm a Democrat, and I'll be voting for the Obama ticket. This is a bi-partisan effort. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Possibly tri-partisan - I'm libertarian. Kelly hi! 02:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that's not Palintarian? zredsox (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
<sigh>Just as an example, the beginning of Political positions of Sarah Palin is now once again pushing that she is a secessionist. This is a meme circulating in certain blogs. I'm too tired to deal with this anymore. There are many other of these issues that keep coming up over and over again and there aren't enough people helping. Kelly hi! 06:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The secessionist claims are now once again back in the main article, along with vague insinuations of some kind of prenatal wrongdoing for traveling before the birth of her youngest child, another blog meme. All this stuff has been exhaustively discussed on the talk page (which is now accumulating some kind of libel about her daughter's fiance being underage, another blog meme) but the previous discussions are disregarded and attempts to enforce policy are simply reverted. We're going to get a big black eye over these articles. Kelly hi! 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin BarnstarsEdit

Kelly, you and several other admins and senior editors deserve a special barnstar for having tirelessly shepherded the article through the mass waves of partisan POV pushing and rampant rumormongering that have assailed it all weekend.

THANK YOU. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Two more barnstars for Kelly. I think the article is shaping up and the locking is an excellent idea. Many thanks for your calm, neutral sanity in a blizzard of vicious insanity. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Seccession editsEdit

Can we please get someone to step in on the repeated insertion that Palin supports the succession of Alaska from the United States and is a member of this party? We have one user repeatedly inserting this fringe belief. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey, Sighted versions, or some of the other associated proposals, would be real useful in a case like this.Just some random canvassing.--Bsnowball (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place to bring up a content worry, even more so when it looks like she has indeed belonged to at least one Alaskan secession group (which is hardly a fringe "belief"), maybe two, reliable sources on this are likely to pop up sooner rather than later. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
/me ponders who is next in succession to the throne of Alaska. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that people are checking out information before deciding its either true or a fringe belief. Part of the problem is that in the United States there are government admissions of manipulating the media for propaganda purposes.
For one example the accustions that the White House lied the United States into the war in Iraq with false claims of WMD's. This involved having pentagon spokespeople appear regularly on Fox News and other cable media to present government spin as news. It continued with Scooter Libby and the Plame affair and the use of guest commentators from think tanks. These are now counts of an indictment for impeachment presently in front of the judiciary committee.
For other examples we have the government and industry attempts to muddy the waters regarding Global Warming and peak Oil. In this sense Wikipedia is part of the media
As it happens there is a video of Sarah Palin addressing the American Independence Party in which acting as governor of Alaska she officially addresses their convention, mentions that she considers them an important political influence, says she shares the parties vision of the constitution and otherwise which makes it clear she is more attracted to fringe groups than merely being a supporter of Pat Buchannan indicates... 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This stuff has gotten pretty well sourced, now. It doesn't rise to the level of BLP violation at all, and seeing as the AIP is Alaska's third largest party behind Republicans and Democrats in that order (about 2%, 2.5% of the population) it's not fringe locally there. Everywhere else, maybe, but relative to her bio, early history, and Alaska, it's totally notable. rootology (C)(T) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Da I don't know how things work in the US but in europe politicians frequenty have ah less mainstream political views in their youth.Geni 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This wouldn't be her youth, if true. It would be when she was in her mid-late 30s and already in public service. rootology (C)(T) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: User I originally complained about was blocked by Moreschi for 48 hours. This users disruption could have been resolved HOURS beforehand had anyone bothered to try. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told, when you spelled it succession, called it a "fringe belief" and gave neither any diffs nor a username I took it as a content dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I typoed the second time, but didn't typo the level 3 header. *shrug* As Kelly requested, more eyes would have been helpful but it does not seem to be a high priority, ya'll would rather point and laugh at my spelling error. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't laugh. Please do provide a username and some diffs next time, you'll see a much quicker response (all the more on an article like Sarah Palin where changes sometimes blaze by at a few dozen each hour, making things much harder to dig through). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol PalinEdit

Anyone else think that the redirect from Bristol Palin ought to be pre-emptively protected? Dragons flight (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin volumeEdit

There are a few new users/SPAs here[67] that are starting to get into edit war territory. Could a couple more people watchlist this? rootology (C)(T) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, this fellow's blown past 3rr despite a warning from me and shows no letting up.[68] rootology (C)(T) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

48 hours for him. Thanks, Root. Moreschi (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah damn. I tried to block him myself, Moreschi. Lightning fingers McGee I'll call you from now on....Keeper ǀ 76 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Politics + Religion + Drama = FailEdit

For those of us watching the Palin article, you'll want to keep an eye on Wasilla Assembly of God as well. I've stubbified the article from a lengthy list of controversial positions of its pastor (Ed Kalnins, whose article is currently at AfD), but - given the attention that Gov. Palin's speech on the Iraq War is receiving, it's probably prudent to watch this article as well. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin ControversyEdit

This article was created yesterday, then later redirected to the Sarah Palin article. I've gone ahead and protected the redirect per BLP concerns, just as we've done with Bristol Palin. - auburnpilot talk 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages worth watchingEdit

It's worth periodically skimming the list of 1000+ pages linked to our Sarah Palin article, in particular checking the list of several hundred in our article space for new POV forks.

Here are some pages on that list that were of particular concern:

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Add Milton Kapner to the mix as well. I also suggest that the activities of EricDiesel (talk · contribs) and Elan26 (talk · contribs) be watched since both appear to be WP:COATRACKing. --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone make any sense of this?[69] Best I can make of it is that EricDiesel (talk · contribs) is complaining about the application of WP:NOTE on the Wasilla Bible Church and Wasilla Assembly of God related articles and arguing that notability is inherited. --Farix (Talk) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Now theology: several attempts to add Palin based on -- what else? -- a Kos diary. A.J.A. (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ACC BackloggedEdit

  Resolved: No longer backlogged —— RyanLupin(talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Any available admins want to tackle the backlogged requests over at ACC? Would be appreciated, —— RyanLupin(talk) 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, it's not letting me (as an administrator) create the accounts, I get the "too similar" notice. John Reaves 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a little checkbox at the bottom of the creation screen that says "Ignore spoofing checks" or something, you need to select that to create the name. MBisanz talk 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
...making sure of course that the accounts the desired name is too similar too are inactive... –xeno (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with the new features apparently. John Reaves 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

changes to the templates for Birth/Date ageEdit

Recently and editor named RockMFR deleted [[ and ]] for Template:Death date and age and Template:Birth date and now dates of birth and death appear unlinked - for example March 27, 1482 (aged 25) instead of March 27, 1482 (aged 25). He did so citing WP:Dates and although in good faith I believe these edits to be in error. WP:Dates cites among other things that linking dates should be avoided unless there is a reason and I believe that this template qualifies. I would have reverted them myself but the templates are protected and although I requested to be an admin in the past, my request was DENIED and I do not have access. I recommend someone fix these date templates. --Kumioko (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, on Template talk:Birth date and age I have requested that the default setting for this template use the international date format rather than American date format. I can edit it as an admin, but don't know how to code it. Can someone help? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - there would be a HUGE problem of going back and fixing items already entered under these templates if this switch were made since they have been around for sometime and 1000's of entries have already been made. If you wish to have the date come before the month all you have to do is add |df=y after the month. MarnetteD | Talk 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It already is a HUGE problem that thousands of non-American articles using the birth date template now appear as using the American dating format, as a lot of people didn't bother using df=yes when the dates were linked as it autoformatted. There should not be a presumption towards using a minority dating system. пﮟოьεԻ 57 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Check the MOS. There has been a change in wording on linking of dates. One of the articles on my watchlist had almost 300 bytes of linked dates stripped out by a well-known and conscientious editor, and I was ready to squawk until I checked the link he provided in the edit summary. Horologium (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Dates are no longer being linked, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date autoformatting. - auburnpilot talk 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Though I can't remember if linking birth and death dates is an exception to this? Probably not, but if anything was an exception, this would be one of them. We do have categories for birth and death years, so linking to the years seems wrong. Possibly the birth/death year produced by the template could be linked to the birth/death year categories, so people reading the infobox can click through to the category of, say, 1833 deaths, instead of scrolling to the bottom to do that. On the other hand, the year articles do tend to contain sections with births and deaths (eg. 1833), so linking from the pages of people who were born and died that year would be a legitimate way to bring traffic to the year pages. Delinking all the year links wasn't the intention, I don't think. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I see where the changes where made to the date text however I do not see any evidence that it was done based on a majority decision. Rather it looks as though 1 individual felt it wasn't right and made the change. I believe that a change of this magnitude should be presented to the mob and then a decision reached as to whether it should go forward.--Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, there are several bots that do date changes as well as edits built into AWB. If the intent is that we will no longer link dates then we will need to remove all this logic and undo tens of thousands of linked dates.--Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the death date template, can someone please change the grammatically improper "aged" to "age"? Putting "(age 79)" after a death date is short-hand for "at the age of 79", while "(aged 79)" would be short for something like "having aged 79 years". Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn, I appear to be wrong about this, and "aged" is the correct usage. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cascade protection on Sarah PalinEdit

Cross-posting from Talk:Sarah Palin

Just so everyone knows, I copy/pasted Sarah Palin to User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin and cascade-protected that page until September 8. J.delanoygabsadds 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Have there been problems with templates on Sarah Palin? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to save me trawling through megabytres of talk pages, why have you made this fork? Guy (Help!) 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Not a fork, he is using it to protect the templates. BJTalk 11:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I see. The article itself is protected now, isn't it. Perhaps cascaded semiprotection when the full protection ends? Guy (Help!) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You cannot enable the cascading option with semi-protection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Request block reviewEdit

I've just blocked User:115.130.2.169 for 24 hours for repeated, unrepentant edit warring on Homophobia. I hesitated to do it since I edit the article, but after 11+ reverts and no response on AN/3RR he needed to be stopped. He was warned several times on his talk page, in edit summaries and on the article talk page. Requesting review. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on your block, but you probably should have simply posted to WP:AN/I to avoid the potential conflict of interest as you are (admittedly) in the dispute. Its great you are asking it to be reviewed, but honestly when you are in a dispute, its best not to play admin and editor at the same times. —— nixeagle 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good block. As clear-cut as it gets. Next time though you could post on AN/I to avoid any accusations of a conflict of interest. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I had also posted it on the 3RR noticeboard to avoid COI, but we're having trouble with this user coming back with a variety of ips and one sweet li'l sock. Could one of our tech-savvier friends take a look and see if a brief rangeblock would be helpful? It is getting just a teeny bit irritating. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If you've got more IP addresses, we can check. I only see the two on 3RR, and that's not enough to justify a rangeblock. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a few more at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WesternPacific; just added another one a moment ago. But we can just keep up with WP:RBI if that is the better strategy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If it is a previously-blocked editor just block socks and IPs on sight. There is no need to go to a noticeboard if their edits are clearly recognisable. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that semi-protection of Homophobia should be considered, due to the high recent volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. The article was rather quiet until the last couple of days, so two weeks of semi might be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Protection... why didn't I think of that? Yes, that would work just as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Wouldn't ordinarily have stepped in myself in that type of situatino, but it was getting ridiculous. As long as no-one objects to the block... Exploding Boy (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent block - firstly, this is a new ip picking up from where a same general range editor left off, and, secondly, this is very sophisticated POV emplacement (the distinction between "Fear" and "Disgust" responses reconciling an anti homosexual viewpoint was quite clever) that could easily be lost in a pre sanction discussion. Other than the pseudo technical language, it was also simple 3RR violation/gaming. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Royce Mathew's Legal ThreatEdit

  Resolved: Mountains, mole hills, etc. Also WP:DFTT. —Travistalk 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP of the previous user Disneysuit, none other than Royce Mathew. He has been giving legal threats (he has surely sent one to Wikimedia Foundation) against me for asking him to abide by policies, concocting false claims against me. He has been blocked, several times, but he won't stop. I don't want to lose my position at Wikipedia as an experienced editor; the only reason this is happening is because he is not willing to accept that he isn't following policies! A little help would be greatly appreciated. The link I gave you for "Royce Mathew" above has the IP address he is using. Here is what he has written, and what he will probably send to Wikimedia Foundation against me: [70]. It has been deleted, but I'm not sure if he got the link the following commenter gave him against me. I don't mind a checking of my contributions, but I do not like it when someone is willing to take something so far as a legal threat and my possible blocking when all I've done is try to enforce the rules with both myself and others so as to make Wikipedia a better place! BlackPearl14talkies!23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this back to BlackPearl14's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
My message has been carried on to George's page. BlackPearl14talkies!23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple admins editing protected pageEdit

Could someone take a box of clue bats to the admins who have decided to continuing reverting each other after Sarah Palin was protected? I don't want to see more arbcom cases today. Chillum 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Grr. I'll up the count of those I've notified about the first arbcomm case again. GRBerry 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OH DEAR LAWD. Someone get Kelly to smack some sense into these people. Admins should not be editing the page - only on behalf of consensus reached by editors on the talk page. I am going to be pissed if this shows up on the 40+ papers that have had articles dedicated to the Wikipedia page itself. The second that happens I am going to come back here and trick someone into deleting the main page. --mboverload@ 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
From Sarah Palin (cur) (last) 11:58, 4 September 2008 TimVickers (Talk | contribs) (73,362 bytes) (Blank edit - I'm going to block the next Admin that edits this article with no talkpage consensus.) --mboverload@ 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Tim Vickers. John Reaves 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm very serious. Acting like that is completely unacceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Tim. Protection status for the article has changed 10 times today --mboverload@ 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I made this clear on the editnotice, MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Sarah Palin. Cenarium Talk 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, though the edit summary of the last admin to revert is fairly ironic: Protection Warring is not acceptable RxS (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain are all full protected. Sarah Palin should remain full protected at least through November 4 as well.Travistalk 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
None of those pages is fully protected, and none has been fully protected for a some time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ach! This is, I guess, the type of hurried editing I do after the wife announces that the bread pudding is ready to eat. My apologies. —Travistalk 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oi vey. Sometimes passion gets the better of us. Let's start TALKING before doing stuff such as this. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Temp unprotect a template pleaseEdit

Can an admin temporarily unprotect {{ArticleHistory}} please? This is needed to fix a problem with the way Featured articles are counted at Wikipedia:Featured_topics/count. In a nutshell, some categories have incorrect page counts stored in the database so we need to temporarily depopulate them - this will force a recount. A little time will be needed to let the template update the various (130 or so) pages get through the job queue, then I can notify again once the category pagecounts are rebuilt.

For the longer story, see the initiating question, the current discussion, test page showing the problem and my followup VPT question. Or just unprotect the damn page for a few hours :) Thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The damn page has been unprotected. Please request protection here or at WP:RFPP when you are done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A little strange that the issues wasn't raised at the talk page of the template in question, where Gimmetrow would have dealt with it. I hope the edit doesn't break other pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for that Sandy, I'd been in discussion with some people who were chasing the problem and I just wanted the first available admin. In any case, the operation was a (partial) success and the patient is recovering nicely. I'll check around to be sure I didn't leave any swabs inside the incision. This was strictly about depopulating and repopulating some broken FT categories, you might want to read the threads I linked above - we're going to need lots of help to figure this out. (PS I asked for re-prot at RFPP) Franamax (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Devunia and User:CicaneoEdit

These two users appear to be using their userpages as some sort of chat system. While I assume this is some sort of violation of WP:NOT, I'm not entirely sure what should be done. I have warned them on their talk pages, but they seem to have ignored it. Horselover Frost (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gone where the woodbine twineth. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock 85.214.74.80!Edit

My bot (User:Numbo3-bot) runs on a Strato server, and it took me forever to find out why my bot seems blocked on en.wp!

I finally found out that User:Spellcast did uniformly block the whole Strato IP range, what is pretty rude!

My bot was/is doing good work, so please unblock at least User:85.214.74.80! --- Best regards, Numbo3 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that IP range should be blocked or not (that is, whether it qualifies as an open proxy), and that can be discussed separately, but in any case I've made the bot IP-block exempt, so there shouldn't be a problem anymore. Chick Bowen 06:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) --- Greetings, Numbo3 (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

InsultEdit

Hi. The User:Babakexorramdin who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language in this article, has started to insult me on my talk page for reverting this act with regard to what sources say. Can anybody to something about these insults?--ماني (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)--a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as insults go here, it seems fairly minor to me, however, you can always raise it at Wikiquette Alerts if you wish. There seems to be no need for Admin intervention just yet. --Rodhullandemu 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a clear example of personal attack. I'll surely raise it at Wikiquette Alerts. Thanks for your attention.--ماني (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the text of my post on Wikiquette alert. I hope you admins here also do something about it:

Hi. I posted this on admins board and they sent me here: The User:Babakexorramdin who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language in this article, and states his reason for this as "not giving ammunition to the "separatists"" has started to insult me on my talk page just because I try to adjust the fact with regard to what sources say. He supposed that I come from Afganistan and a place called Tafresh and used those names as (in his clearly racist opinion) deragatory terms for humiliating me. And continued with "shut your big mouth" and called my corrections "vandalization". All because I asked him if he speaks Persian? In other wikipedias where I'm active such an insult surely is faced with banning for a long time. I ask you to do something about this personal attack. Not doing anything about this user has boldened him to chase me in another Wikipedias and blindly reverting my edits without any reason or discussion. This is a clear case of harrasment.--ماني (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The User:Babakexorramdin just goes on with his insults and nothing helps to stop him calling other users "childish" etc. Nobody here to do something about it?--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)