Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive176

User pages apparently acting as articles, self-publicity, etc

User pages currently are indexed by Google. How far can a user go in using his userspace for self-publicity, sub-pages for articles, etc. Eg. User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin - his user page is literally, except for being in userspace, an article on himself, and his subpage User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin/Sinagogue of Satan is the recreation of a deleted article - [1] which was done over 2 years ago after a deletion review [2] - but how long can it stay there without being moved into article space? And why should he bother risking AfD when it shows up as number 5 in Google when you just search for Michael Margolin or Sinagogue of Satan? 3 more in sort of descending order - User:Georgeos Diaz-Montexano, User:Ccmehil, and User:Dhushara. It looks to me that these fall under WP:UP#NOT but I'd like some comments, especially as to what should be done about them, if anything. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the "article" indicates that there has been no activity on it since September 07, and before that March 07. I think there has been plenty of time given to have the piece improved by way of provision of independent reliable sources, and that it should be deleted forthwith. I would do it, but for the fact I have now commented here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it to XfD instead. Pretty fair reason to nominate. --Tone 22:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would usually just blank more obvious spam pages (non-notable companies and the like) since it's doubtful they'll ever come back to spam again but if they haven't edited in a while (and User:Ccmehil's edit history is particularly telling), agree with Tone on XFD. When in doubt, punt it to consensus to decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The content already has been XfD'ed as an article, but I suppose having the community re-affirm the decision will mean less potential comeback. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of putting up the sub-page User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin/Sinagogue of Satan at MFD for review. Looking at the MFD page, it looks like user pages in general are reviewable, also, so I may add the others if and when I have time. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"User pages currently are indexed by Google" To prevent that I put __NOINDEX__ at the top of articles I'm working on in my userspace. I hope that is sufficient. Perhaps all user pages should have this by default?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Old CfD needs closing

Could someone be kind enough to close this CfD? It has been open since October 28 for a total of 17 days. --Farix (Talk) 01:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Came across a suicide threat here [3]. Definitely not something I feel comfortable handling.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it from the page history. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We're now dealing with suicide threats by deleting and ignoring? Serious question; I'm not being sarcastic. I typically file a CU request to get the IP... contact the ISP... etc etc... Tan | 39 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SUICIDE. The edit came from an IP in Pakistan. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with that essay, and several times I have reported suicide threats to ISPs around the world. WP:SUICIDE states, "Once noticeboard threads have been responded to by appropriate parties, consider blanking them, possibly leaving a link to the last version of the thread for reference as needed." (Bolding my own). While I don't have a huge issue with what you did, I'm trying to determine if I've been going way out of my way for nothing. The gist of the essay is that we do not ignore suicide threats and take them seriously - or so I am interpreting. Tan | 39 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I just realized that that was talking about blanking this thread, not deleting the threat itself. Trying to work and Wiki at the same time. Anyways, I just always thought we take more action than merely deleting. Examples of my previous actions: [4](I was the one to contact the ISP in this oneTan | 39 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that it is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. You are, of course, more than welcome to pursue further action if you'd like, but no one is obligated to do anything specific (other than revert it). John Reaves 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can take whatever further action they think fit. Mind, WP:SUICIDE, which is indeed only an essay, says: Threats or claims should be removed from any relevant pages, and are frequently deleted from page history, which is what I did, since I can see no need for it being there (admins can see it as needed). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I wasn't trying to cause a ruckus; I was curious as to other people's mindset on this. Thanks for all your input. Tan | 39 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Tan, none of this is to say you've been going out of your way for nothing, it's wholly up to you, please carry on doing what you think is most helpful. Truth be told, I do think 9 out of 10 or more of these are hoxes and idle (yes, maybe sad) teens trying to see what gets stirred up. If I saw one I truly thought was worrisome, I'd likely do something. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why in the world would the revision be deleted from page history before it has been assessed and perhaps reported to the authorities. Indeed it should not be deleted in the case that the authorities need to see the revision in order to get the contact info from an ISP. Deleting a revision of intended threat or suicide at all is unwise but deleted it before it can be tended to is terrible. Bstone (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Is it just me? My attitude has always been "fuck 'em. I don't care" . I seriously don't understand why anyone bothers with this kind of attention seeking vandalism. I'm not quite at the stage of actually goading them into doing it but I'm not that far off it. If they need help this website is not the place to go looking for it. But then maybe I'm just a horrible person. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm essentially right behind on that. Of all the threats, suicide or otherwise, I've seen (note they seem to have proliferated over the past year or two), only one has seemed anywhere near credible (and when I saw that one I called the police, was on the phone for several hours, got some lucky kids out of school for a day and one unlucky one arrested). John Reaves 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen over the years, most of them are hoaxes or distraught but hardly suicidal teens stirring up the worries and fears most of us have about this kind of thing. I remember what it was like at that age, one way or another, they want to see what happens. I say follow the essay and delete the threats altogether (again, admins can see them anyway). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not quite at the stage of actually goading them into doing it but I'm not that far off it." Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan are thataway...please peruse Suicide#Suicidal_gestures_and_attempts and leave your bit at the door on your way out if you decide to go for it. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS- if this geolocated to Pakistan I wouldn't have bothered reporting either. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Either way, most of them are hoaxes and stir ups. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are. It's like a kid pulling a fire alarm; if it's real, the authorities are summoned and life is saved. If not, the authorities are summoned and the kid gets told, hopefully by the police, that crying wolf is unacceptable. Or you could simply RBI. Either option is a far cry from "goading them into doing it" for your own perverse amusement, which, like I said, is the mindset of an ED/4chan troll. Except now, since Megan Meier, if you successfully goad a child into committing suicide, you'll likely be arrested and prosecuted. Per WP:AGF, I simply assumed Theresa, as a long-time and valued administrator, was making a sick joke and would not consider actually trying to goad any Wikipedia editor (IP or otherwise) into committing suicide. It might be good if she clarified or redacted. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I say I would? Read my post again and don't be so bloody high and mighty. As someone who has had articles written about me at ED, and as someone who constantly deals with trolls, by revert block ignore, and as an admin who firmly believes that vandalising an article by threatening suicide as clear and obviously trolling I find you calling me a troll as really quite amusing. I have no intention of redacting my statement, and stand by what i said. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I say I would? Er, unless we want to get into Clintonesque explorations of what "not far off it" means, I'm not sure how else one is supposed to interpret "I'm not quite at the stage of actually goading them into doing it but I'm not that far off it." Like I said, I AGFed and assumed you were making a bad joke. And I'm sorry you seem to think I'm high and mighty for pointing out (politely) that attempting to goad someone into suicide (for whatever reason) is a favored and particularly amusing activity for ED/4chan trolls (which is a fact), instead of saying what I actually thought, which is that musing over trying to goad a stranger into suicide out of spite is a pretty friggin' sick and offensive thing for a human being to do to another. I'm not in the minority here, either, Theresa. Nobody's disputing your right to RBI every suicide threat if such is your administrative judgment, but you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who'd support your right to harass said users with the goal of getting them to actually kill themselves. Such is, frankly, beyond the pale, and I rarely find anything bothersome on Wikipedia. This is just the Internet, but you're talking nonchalantly about potentially being the driving force for the ending of a real human life. I understand you've suffered at the hands of the trolls, but so have a lot of admins here and if that experience has made you so bitter and jaded that you're prepared to start acting like them out of a misguided sense of justice, you'd best voluntarily hang up your spurs here before you do. Again, I respect you greatly as an admin and an editor but this is...well, beyond the pale. I'd ask you again to clarify exactly what you plan to do, here. I'm seriously worried. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For a moment I believed you were serious, but "clarify what you plan to do" is a bit over the top. Or are you serious? In that case I suggest that you leave the evaluation of the credibility of any other "threats" you may encounter on Wikipedia to others who are more qualified. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I think he is serious all right. But i don't think he is reading my reply in it's entirety and simply choosing to read the bits he wants to. Bullzeye I have no intention of telling anyone to go kill themselves and never had. Stop fussing.Theresa Knott | token threats 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, I read every word. Words have meaning, and it's kind of tough to ascertain dark sarcasm over the Internet; I ask others to take my words at pure face value when it comes to matters of life and death, no matter how far-fetched it seems, and I expect the same of others. But I thank you. That last post was all I wanted to hear from the start. Consider all of my previous statements redacted, and I will strike them out if you'd like. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 07:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for my eduction, Bullzeye, I noticed you and Gwen Gale both mentioned the IP being in Pakistan. Why does this make a difference? Not being snarky, just trying to learn. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Maybe it's just too hard to make contact with Pakistani authorities. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless it was a college or business IP, there's zero chance of inducing any kind of intervention. The guy's boss or teacher might care, but I seriously doubt the Pakistani national police would have any time to spare for this, for about 10 different reasons. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also doubtful about the likelihood of doing anything useful about a suicide threat from Pakistan, but concerning suicide threats in general, I'm going to repeat what I wrote in an earlier related discussion. If you don't feel like doing anything about a threat, don't do anything. But don't act in a way that prevents other people from doing something. If you aren't going to help, just stay out of the way. looie496 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe what I'm reading! If this is a cry for help (we can't view the threat now) it must be responded to. If it vandalism or a sick prank, that's life! But if its serious, we may be the last community he has contact with! Admin needs to disclose this person's identity!--Gazzster (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't know his IRL identity any more than yours or mine. All that could be done is a call to the Pakistani authorities, and if you'd like to give it a try you are more than welcome. It would probably help if you spoke Urdu. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

note they seem to have proliferated over the past year or two That's because we have started taking them here, and discussing them. Feeding trolls largely. Perhaps we could come to a sensible plan here. If you come across a suicide threat revert ( but don't delete), decide to take action or not, and leave it at that. Is that sensible? Theresa Knott | token threats 06:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also stipulate that if the reverter decides to take no action, then they post here or on the Village Pump so that someone else can if they like. The revision can be deleted once an attempt has been made to contact ISP, authorities, somebody. In my mind, the suicide essay, while not policy, is just common sense. It is easy to become very cynical about the people who post unencyclopedic content to our project, but it is important to remember that they are human beings, also. Sometimes just the knowledge that someone out there actually is listening is enough to bring you back from the edge. Without going into any personal detail, this is something which resonates with me personally. I am perfectly willing to set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Suicide Watch or something similar for others who are willing to spend their volunteer time responding to these things. Let me know if this is something others would pitch in for. This is important. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think setting up a whole project to deal with this is kind of the opposite of what Theresa was talking about - give them less attention, not more. And Wikipedia isn't therapy. We should, at most, contact the authorities. We ourselves should not be trying to "bring [people] back from the edge." Mr.Z-man 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

100% agree! I think any kind of suicide watch type project would simply encourage people to post suicide threats on wikipedia and may even open up us to legal problems. This is an encylopedia, and we are here to help write an encylopedia. Anything that is detrimental to that ( and threatening suicide certainly is) needs to be dealt with swiftly and without drama. Revert, block the account, deal or not as your own conscience dictates, and eventually delete seems sensible. If people need bringing back from the edge they should go to their friends, family, doctor, religious leader, teacher or even some other website. But not here. We are here to write an encylopedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly see where you guys are coming from. We are primarily here to build an encyclopedia, not deal with suicide threats, large numbers of which are probably fake. That said, and while still agreeing that we should WP:DENY recognition to these types of things, I can't personally ignore them. Anybody who finds something like this, and doesn't want to follow up, is free to post it to my talk page for further. I would also like, if not a WikiProject, then at least a list, similar to Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks, of admins/editors who are willing to deal with this sort of thing. Or is even that giving them too much attention? Any and all input is requested.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Christ! The milk of human kindness certainly flows here, doesn't it?!There must be a policy for dealing with threats of violence! Doesn't it occur to any of you, that if we haven't heard more of this, is possibly because the guy has carried out his threat?--Gazzster (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but highly unlikely. This has nothing to do with kindness, most of us worry about any threat like this, but some of us understand that most of these threats are hoaxes. Wikipedia is one of the most widely read websites in the world. Because the wiki software allows anyone to throw in content, these mostly empty threats, along with a very few, now and then, which have something to them, are bound to carry on with no end in sight, hence the notion of handling them through some take on WP:RBI. So what about the very few which may have something to them? If Wikipedia puts forth a set policy of dealing with or answering editors who are thought to be truly suicidal, Wikipedia becomes a suicide counseling/response service, with all the legal and administrative worries this would mean, never mind it would likely stir up even more hoaxes. Meanwhile I do think individual editors should always be free to handle these as they please, as individuals, even as the threats themselves, which are mostly hoaxes, are swiftly rm'd from the wiki. The biggest question I have is, where to post these? An WP:Administrators' noticeboard/threats of self harm would only make things worse. The most helpful thing I can think of is to keep reporting them on ANI or AN, remove the edits (by revert or deletion, whatever the consensus might be), block the user, protect their talk page (keeping in mind that any suicide threat is a kind of murder threat echoing back on the one who makes it) and let individual editors do what they think fit from there. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath, what would you think of a boilerplate pointer to a more appropriate forum, such as this one, with worldwide suicide crisis hotlines? On whole, I agree with Gwen and Theresa that we can't put ourselves in the position of being suicide interventionists--few Wikipedians are professionals or trained for dealing with suicide threats and could actually do more harm than good. I am also inclined to believe that many suicide notes to Wikipedia will be hoaxes. I did a brief stint with a local suicide hotline and found it disheartening how many people seemed to think faking suicide calls was fun (with their friends giggling in the background, no less). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. I do acknowledge Gwen Gale's point that most of these are probably hoaxes, and it's not our job to be suicide interventionists, I just don't think just dropping these is a moral option. The "boilerplate pointer" option you suggest sounds like something that could get consensus. I'll throw a template together tomorrow for comment. I'm not going to try to make it mandatory on everybody, but I think having a standard template around for people to use would help standardize our approach to these things.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so, too, and I also think it could help avoid some of the pitfalls of personal interaction with these individuals, where a communication misstep can precipitate the event we'd hope to avoid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think any boilerplate would need to be worded very carefully indeed, but it might work. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A draft is available at User:Aervanath/Suicide response. Contributions are invited. I would recommend that the revisions containing the threat and the response template be deleted after a reasonable period of time, say 24-48 hours.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple and to the point. I think it's good. Provides real help to those who are serious with their threat while keeping Wikipedia out of any potential legal hot water for attempting to provide help. لennavecia 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Theresa Knott | token threats 21:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Though I'd already tossed my support in at Aervanath's talk page, I'll "officially" note it here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Threat continued (a subthread)

Sure, it has of course occured to me that this may be a hoax. But Wikipedia, as a public forum, must assume the same responsibilies as any public organisation must. Those responsibilities include formulating and acting upon policies relating to public threats of self-violence or violence to others.It is not of course subject to local law- but still it must be responsible to itself and its members. I'm not trying to hop onto a soap-box here, but this issue does disturb me.--Gazzster (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And in the same vein, why are suicide threats deleted asap?--Gazzster (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What "responsibilities of any..." "public forums" or "public organisations" do you mean? Is this your own outlook or are you talking about a legal principle which defines public forums and organizations on the Internet along with lawfully mandated requirements to deal with this kind of thing? I ask this with a reminder that these threats do indeed seem to unsettle most of us (they unsettle me).

The threats are deleted because they're highly disruptive and also, starting up a conversation with someone who makes this kind of a threat (hoax or not) could tend to cause much more harm than help. Given that most are hoaxes, WP:Vandalism also fits, much more often than not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that. Any public organisation will say also, that suicide threats are disruptive, whether they are real or not. Still, they all have a policy for dealing with them. I don't doubt that these sort of threats, true or not, 'unsettle' you. As they would any right-minded human being. But why do we suppose that, being an international website, we are exempt from the basic duty of care?--Gazzster (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, as to basic duty of care are you talking about your own ethical and caring outlook or a legal principle which has sway over Wikipedia? Could you give some verifiable examples of "public organizations" which "all have a policy for dealing with them"? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm saying! If Wiki is not subject to any law in this regard it needs to formulate it's own policy! And it should model itself on the principles that govern public organisations.--Gazzster (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What public organizations are you thinking of? Can you name some, along with their policies about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like a list? We could start with the Police, Counselling Services, shopping malls, schools, the St Kilda Returned Services League, the Croyden Girl Guides Group?--Gazzster (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. How about websites? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably jumping in the middle of something here, but we have Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. Although it's an essay and not a policy, I've read it as a guide and found it very helpful, but have also found some editors don't agree with parts. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Which editor is threatening suicide? Killing oneself over not getting his/her edits accepted, is a bit dramatic. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

for those interested, there's also a (currently rejected) 'Threats of Violence' policy which if adopted could apply :-) Privatemusings (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this discussion, this page is for discussion the administrator's noticeboard, not subjects that would appear on the noticeboard. John Reaves 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am horrified that an admin on this project would delete a revision which includes a suicide of homicidal threat without letting it be reported to the authorities. Gwen, might you comment on why you do this? Bstone (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why are you horrified? Any administrator can see the revision and call/email local pd's if needed. And we really do have to weigh the possibility that threats are credible against the drama/trolling that comes from fake threats. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's irresponsible to delete the threat if you do not also report it to at least this noticeboard. If you are, for example, Huggling and you come across a suicide threat, revert and go on... I don't agree that such action is appropriate. If, however, same scenario, but instead of going on, you report the revision here, then go on... I don't see a problem with deleting it immediately. لennavecia 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. From what I have read so far, threats of suicide are treated merely as nuisances. Which is a totally **cked attitude. Everyone behind a computer is a person, not a problem.--Gazzster (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The threat had already been reported here, I then carefully reported here that I'd deleted it following WP:SUICIDE and any admin could and can still see it. Nothing about this stopped anyone from following up on it if they wanted to. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suicide_threat above. This thread is a fork which was mistakenly carried forward on the talk page, then moved back here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we move it back up to the previous thread?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea, if nothing else so that they are archived together. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Better wording

I agree with the template idea, but I would suggest different wording. The current "We are sorry, but Wikipedia contains no resources to aid those in your situation" isn't quite true and a bit harsh. We have lots of articles that could be of help. I would propose "We are sorry, but Wikipedia cannot provide personal assistance to someone in your situation" followed by the same "Please call the number listed..." sentence or perhaps "We suggest you call the number....--agr (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot (talk · contribs)

I appreciate that dates are often overlinked, but sending in a bot to unlink each and every wikilink to a date article is pretty radical. What happened to our healthy suspicion of bots doing the work of human editors? The relevant guideline, at Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Dates, has

such items should be linked only when this is demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic

now if somebody has written a bot capable of making that call on a reliable basis, I suppose we can announce the Turing Test has just been met. Meaning, I don't think so. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you read all three of the discussions that are linked to from the 'bot's user page, especially the third? Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot should not be unlinking any dates as understand it. BJ^Talk 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I take that back, why was that approved again? It is just as bad as removing all autoformatting which got denied.BJ^Talk 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that instances of a link that is "demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding" are sufficiently few as to make this bot good value, providing it can be reverted once and forever when an inappropriate delinking is detected. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For instance we already have bots removing certain links (of the myspace, youtube, blogspot type) on sight based on whether or not the editor adding them is autoconfirmed. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking a bot

I'm not sure if this is the right place or not. If it isn't please point me in the right direction. I would like to request that User:Lightbot be blocked. At least temporarily. If you view the operator's talk page, there are at least 2 sections (here and here) where other editors have pointed out that the bot is acting contrary to consensus, and the bot operator appears to refuse to stop the bot or change it. One example of this, is how the bot is changing text that breaks the depreceated autoformatting ([[July 4]], [[1976 in radio|1976]] for example) to "[[July 4]], [[1976]]". It is removing a useful link. More details of the problems with the bot can be found at the 2 sections linked above.--Rockfang (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like autoformatting but there are many articles that contain broken autoformatting due to these concealed year links. All the bot does is fix the error. I don't expect thanks for fixing the errors caused by other editors, but I don't expect to be attacked for cleaning up the mess and explaining how autoformatting works. Lightmouse (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, your bot is removing a useful link under the color of "fixing" broken autoformatting. While your stated dislike of piped "year in subject" links is clear, the consensus is that they are both permissible and useful. Your bot has been removing these links and replacing them with bare "year" links which leaves the autoformatted date links you purport to be removing while stripping hundreds of articles of a useful, on-topic link. I have requested a temporary halt to this behavior which is both destructive and against consensus but you have not only refused but at one point concealed the mechanism for halting the bot after restarting it. - Dravecky (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually on my way here to begin this exact discussion when I saw that it had started without me (and now I've been edit conflicted - urgh!). Luckily, we seem to have reached a detente on radio station articles, at least for now. However, that's not to say that I don't still have concerns.

The task approval for Lightbot is very broad with regard to dates, as follows:

I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing dates in a variety of forms.

A 'date' is any sequence of characters that relates to time, chronology, or calendars. This includes but is not limited to seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, fortnights, months, years, decades, centuries, eras, and can be in any sequence or format.

Edits may add, remove or modify the sequence or format of dates.

Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve dates.

Edits may add or modify autoformatting. Edits may remove autoformatting where it is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers.

Edits may add, remove or modify links to dates.

In that regard, the edits that are causing concern are within the bot's scope, per its broadest interpretation. So, at this point, I think it's the approved scope that needs to be questioned. Given that the current state of WP:MOSNUM is that autoformatting is deprecated, why should any bot be adding autoformatting to articles or, as has been happening here, fixing autoformatting that is broken? Why should broken autoformatting be 'fixed' at this point, particularly if the links being 'fixed' point to valid contextual information?

Lightmouse, for what it's worth, I will say thanks for the explanation you've provided about broken autoformatting. As I've told you before, I also think it's unfortunate that you've taken all the flack that you have for removing autoformatting from articles, whether via your bot or via script through your user account. Some of that flack has been rather personal, which is particularly regrettable. However, I don't believe that this discussion has contained attacks against you, and I know that I certainly haven't attacked you. If that's how you're perceiving it, then I'm sorry for that. What I have done is raise what I believe to be valid concerns about your bot's edits as it concerns existing policy and as it concerns the deletion of useful links. Now that you've stated you've tweaked the bot to steer around the radio station articles, we'll hopefully be able to get some third, fourth, etc. opinions.

So, here's the question I'd raise. I think it's a reasonable assumption that a piped link - whether it takes the form of [[October 5]], [[1976 in radio|1976]] or simply [[1976 in radio|1976]] - is intended to point toward contextual information. As such, would it not make sense to build logic into the bot to have it skip past piped date-related links? Mlaffs (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I felt the request was too broad at the time, and, I think that this carte blanche type task is beginning to cause problems now. However, for the time being, the bot appears to have stopped. SQL^{Query me!} 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only reason the bot has stopped is becuase of this.--Rockfang (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I saw that the bots owner and another party were having a bit of a fight over that page. SQL^{Query me!} 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And now the bot is running again, even while this discussion continues. - Dravecky (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE - to clarify, while there may be links such as these in various spots within an article, the particular ones that I'd like to see retained are those in the infoboxes. Other editors' mileage may vary ... Mlaffs (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Links like that are not good, since people will think they're year links and not click them. See WP:EGG. However, that link does suggest an alternative that might be able to be done by bot. --NE2 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise it might be a useful task for the human bot-net which has been doing most of the de-linking. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That page notes explicitly that "piped [year] links may be useful in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists); and in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sports biographies that link to numerous season articles." –xeno (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

True but auto-formatting concerns would not apply to a table cell containing

| [[1998 NBA Finals|1998]] || [[Chicago Bulls]] || [[Utah Jazz]]

or whatnot, so hopefully these links would not be affected by Lightbot. I agree that year links (and most others) should be de-obfuscated in prose context. As a rule of thumb I would say try to make the links point where they appear to if they are part of a complete sentence or part of an index which is expected to list articles by title rather than by function, etc. — CharlotteWebb 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot will not touch the example given by CharlotteWebb where the concealed link is on its own. It is only where the concealed link is preceded by day+month. You can't have autoformatting AND concealed links together. I did't make the rules for autoformatting and I think Wikipedia will be a much better place for readers when autoformatting is gone. If somebody adds a concealed year link to an autoformatted date, I have simply been undoing that error. If the consensus is that people want the bot to remove the day+month link and think the wording of the bot approval supports it, then I will remove the day+month. I just hope you guys are around when somebody complains about that. If the supporters of autoformatting were more active in making it work, perhaps we would not be having this discussion. Sigh. Anyway, which do you want:

• removal of the link to the concealed year
• removal of the day+month link

Lightmouse (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Using my first example in this subsection, if the bot changes anything, it should only be to delink the [[July 4]] and leave the in "year in radio" link alone. If the bot cannot delink it, it should leave both parts alone.--Rockfang (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As autoformatting is apparently deprecated by some consensus while the "year in radio" links and their ilk are explicitly permitted in most contexts, if some change must be made automatically then I feel strongly that the link to the useful content be preserved and the date autoformatting be defeated by removing the link to the month-day pair. - Dravecky (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped the bot's operation via the normal method again. If it resumes prior to a resolution of this discussion I will block it. I would also encourage the participants in this discussion to take into consideration the reams of discussion at WT:MOSNUM and see if some kind of real consensus can be generated regarding this recurring issue ... Shereth 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am astonished that I am being threatened with a block for fixing a defect. I have complained about these defects before but they lay unfixed and we would not be discussing these defects now if I had not started fixing them. If you like these errors so much, keep them. I am hereby making a formal complaint about abuse of administrator powers by Shereth. What is the next step in the complaint process? Lightmouse (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I threatened to block the bot, not you. I never have threatened any administrative action against yourself, Lightmouse, only to block the bot if it continued editing in the midst of a dispute over its use. Anyway, if you insist on crying foul, here or AN/I are as good a place as any. Shereth 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse has once again started the bot with an edit summary of "see user talk page" but no apparent explanation on that page. - Dravecky (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I hereby declare now that Lightbot not fix these errors anymore. The errors will remain concealed. That is a resolution of the discussion. I will restart the bot on the assumption that you have got what you wanted. Lightmouse (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sareth, I’m just dropping in and haven’t read hardly any of the above. You are in the thick of this and are familiar with the details. But I do notice that you have written of “continued editing in the midst of a dispute over its use.” As you already know, disputes very rarely completely end on Wikipedia. Most issues are never free of controversy. We need Lightmouse’s contributions here on Wikipedia. His Lightbot is extraordinarily prolific and does more work than a hundred ordinary editors. Further, emotionally, blocking Lightmouse’s bot would—from Lightmouse’s point of view—be received as if you blocked Lightmouse himself. I’ve always seen that Lightmouse has been extraordinarily quick to respond to any reasonable request. I encourage you to afford him the greatest possible latitude to determine on his own whether a general consensus exists for some policy and to revise his bot to implement the desires of that general consensus. More than most other editors, Lightmouse shouldn’t have to continually be looking over his shoulder just because a couple of extra-vociferous editors are willing to climb the Reichstag over some issue. Greg L (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of the logic of "Lightmouse's bot does such good work that we should allow him to do whatever he wants." The last bot that people argued was so valuable and whose contributor was so important that the bot should not be blocked was a mess. If the bot is so important, split its work into important non-controversial work and other projects; there isn't a logical reason why a single bot should be doing everything. People asked Lightmouse to stop the bot and he should have, until the issue was resolved. On the relevant issue, thanks for taking care of things Lightmouse. It's nothing personal, just a view I rather don't agree with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• My point is that if all it took to require that he stop his bot is because “people ask him to,” then we could rarely have bot assistance. Take the hypothetical example of a bot converting mebibytes to megabytes. This bitter conflict ended up with a clear consensus but it was also an instance where A) two editors were declaring there was no consensus, and B) would have no-doubt been as vociferous as hell about the point. Now, you know this is true, don’t you? There is rarely a controversy where everyone is in 100% agreement with the consensus view. We can’t let editors who’ve got bits of Reichstag imbedded under their toenails venue-shop until they find a sympathetic admin who finds that *There Is Conflict*.

  I’m making no judgements as to whether or not Sareth is improperly an involved admin in this instance (see Tony’s post below). If he is, then that would cloud his judgement. I’m just saying that he should cut Lightmouse the maximum slack to determine for himself whether there is or is not a consensus and operate accordingly. I’ve advised Lightmouse that all he should ever have to do is identify whether A) there is a general consensus for something, B) that his bot properly implements the gist of the consensus, and C) that he truly believes what he is doing is good for Wikipedia. It should not be any more complex for him than that. Greg L (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Potential breach of a basic admin rule: I'm most concerned that Shereth risks breaching the conflict of interest rule here in threatening to block Lightbot, when he is personally involved in the issues. This is a serious matter. Tony (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting worked up about here, Tony. I have attempted to make clear that my "personal involvement" is not a desire to see the discussion end either for or against the removal of links, but merely a desire to see the discussion come to a resolution. If attempting to ensure that a bot abides by community consensus is what you call "personal involvement" then so be it; I will not recuse myself from acting in a matter because I have added to the discussion previously, since my previous contributions have been merely to push for any solution, not a specific solution. Shereth 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I must concur, and ask that the bot be blocked. It is now revert-warring to reset its own stop button, which is an abuse; more seriously, the approval on which it is now operating is this one: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. It is vague; it is imposing an interpretation of WP:MOSNUM which is far from consensus, and the approval ignores considerable protest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa

Lightmouse, first off a block on a bot should not be perceived as a block on yourself. Any admin can should block a bot if it is misbehaving, and you as the bot operator needs to discuss the concerns without running the bot during the discussions. So what if the bot is delayed by 24 hours. This nonsense about a block on the bot being a block against yourself is just totally incorrect and goes against the point of WP:BOT. I'm telling you this as a past bot operator and as someone that has several scripts on toolserver.

Now, is this problem solved solved to the satisfaction of the general community? If it is not I urge any admin to block the bot in question until all issues are resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks. —— nixeagle 03:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved?

Further up in this section Lightbot said that the bot will no longer change "year in subject" links. As the original poster of the bot block request, I am satisfied with that promise. Shall we consider this resolved?--Rockfang (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on that, the basic MOS premisis that this bot is acting on is currently under hot debate as I can see on the history. I'm not sure if lightmouse wants to halt the bot while that is sorted out or not. I would take it as evidence of good faith. You guys need to remember that BAG only gives technical approval for things... if the community at large is not happy with a bot's operation, BAG's approval may need to be re-looked at and possibly have the scope narrowed. —— nixeagle 17:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true that discussion is still ongoing regarding the best approach to things over at the OVERLINK talk page. However, I'd agree with Rockfang - based on Lightmouse's statements regarding intentions for the bot going forward and after scanning some of the bot's edits earlier today/later yesterday, I'd !vote that this specific issue is resolved. Mlaffs (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it's become apparent that there are several issues with the behavior of this bot, as regards the "year in subject" unlinking that I and others found disruptive, if the bot is no longer making these sorts of edits then that portion of the discussion is resolved. - Dravecky (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I regard this as resolved too. However, User:Pmanderson keeps on stopping the bot but has yet to explain why. Lightmouse (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody persuade to User:Pmanderson to talk or persuade him to leave the bot alone. Lightmouse (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot is disruptive, and has no clear mandate; what Lightmouse is doing with it has no consensus even at WP:MOSNUM. Three or four editors there unconditionally dislike date articles; but WP:articles for deletion/March 1 should show that they are a minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a red herring, and programming the bot to stop doing the one thing it should be doing (removing links which say one thing and do another, whether they break date formatting or not) isn't a satisfactory result. — CharlotteWebb 18:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Anderson, Lightmouse is a highly skilled and diplomatic bot manager, and we should be pleased that he's willing to put in the time and effort to make HUGE improvements to the project, thereby allowing other editors to get on with their content editing. The critical role of bots (now and in the future) was one of the main themes of the address to the recent Wikimania conference by Dr Bill Wedemeyer, Faculty of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, who conducted an extensive study of the quality of (mainly) scientific articles on WP. We should be assisting and supporting, not obstructing; this is a long-term part of the project that we need to expand and refine. The recent spate of roadblocks appears to be at the behest of some individuals' pet peeves, rather than in consideration of the interests of the project. Tony (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proceeding from here

At this point, it should be obvious to any casual observer that no real conclusion has been reached. At best, we have a temporary patch. There are several issues here:

1. The bot need to be re-evaluated as to whether or not it really has consensus anymore. There needs to be an actual community discussion as to whether or not the bot should continue running, and if so, what, specifically it should be doing. This should be somewhere like the village pump, not WP:BRFA or some MoS talk page.
2. Revert warring on the bot's talk page is absolutely inappropriate, especially by the bot itself - a bot should not be turning itself back on after a user stops it.
3. Running the bot during this discussion is also inappropriate.
4. WP:BRFA approval is not like an ArbCom decision that one can wave around and use as justification to continue running while there's a discussion ongoing about the appropriateness of the bot. If there is a real community consensus that the bot should not be running, prior BAG approval does not matter.

If the bot continues revert warring to restart itself, or it continues running with no attempt to engage the community and determine whether or not it has consensus (there's always the possibility that the community doesn't actually care), I will block the bot and begin a discussion with regard to revoking its bot flag. Mr.Z-man 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As will I. Since there was (apparently) some confusion as to the precise nature of the problem before, I'll accept that the resumption of the bot's duties was not in blatant disregard for the discussion going on here. But as this is an ongoing problem, the bot's operation must be suspended until the above questions are both addressed and resolved. Shereth 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify something about which I think there's significant potential for confusion, because I think that the differentiation is important. The specific issue that Rockfang raised yesterday, and about which Dravecky and I both expressed concern, was a very narrow problem relating to removal of piped links within date elements in radio station articles. I think the three of us have agreed that this specific issue is resolved, insofar as Lightmouse has decided to avoid those particular types of edits via Lightbot. As I see it, the issue that PMAnderson is now raising, and which is giving rise to suggestions that the bot should stop its activities or risk a block, is part of a much, much broader discussion at MOS regarding the deprecation of date element links for the purpose of autoformatting, the true meaning of the term "deprecation", and the appropriateness of the automated removal of those links. In reading through various parts of that discussion, it's clear to me that there are some who feel that this discussion is fully and completely put to bed and that MOS reflects consensus as a result, and there are others who disagree, hence the further concerns raised here. For what it's worth, I have no dog in that fight. Mlaffs (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your evaluation of the situation is spot-on. Shereth 22:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I will address the points made by User:Mr.Z-man:

• 1. There needs to be an actual community discussion... This should be somewhere like the village pump, not WP:BRFA or some MoS talk page.
  • Fine by me. Start a discussion at either of those places.
• 2. a bot should not be turning itself back on after a user stops it.
  • I can't parse that. There are many bots on Wikipedia and they are all restarted by bot owners after they are stopped by users. Some users (e.g. PMAnderson) even stop bots without giving a reason. Sometimes reasons for stopping a bot are 'you have changed one of the pages that I own, please stop'.
• 3. Running the bot during this discussion is also inappropriate.
  • Who decides when the MOS is complete? There are many sections of the MOS that I don't like. I could claim that everybody must stop implementing those bits of the MOS until I have agreed to them. I could restart a discussion at any time claiming that there was not sufficient discussion or agreement.
• 4. WP:BRFA approval is not like an ArbCom decision
  • I agree.

Now several of you have issued the block threats I look forward to seeing the discussion mentioned by User:Mr.Z-man. If there are constraints on implementing the MOS, then there are many editors that need to modify their actions, not just me. Lightmouse (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit, and it is one of several, shows Lightbot removing the "stop" control from its own talk page. If this is the actual prggramming of the bot, that is unacceptable. If it were, for example, Lightmouse using the bot's account - well, there are other words for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well I can clear that up easily. It is just Lightmouse restarting the bot while still logged into the Lightbot account. What are the other words? Lightmouse (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You the bot operator needs to demonstrate consensus before doing automated edits. This is laid out in WP:BOT. If there are editors here doubting the consensus for the bot then it might be a good idea to make that consensus perfectly clear. As far as implementing the MOS, let me make it clear that the MOS is only a guideline, on top of that I should note that these changes your bot is doing (and I presume others as you mentioned) are not time critical (there is no deadline). It does no harm for you to pause the bot's activity while discussion is going on, what is 24 hours, 48 hours, even a week in the life of a program?

Finally I should note that if the community says (in a location public enough) that your bot is fine for operation, then that means all bots doing this task are fine. However if folks say it is not fine, then all bots doing this task are not ok. Frankly I don't care the answer, however I do think that any consensus is not very clear at the moment. While consensus is not clear, automated programs should not be running implementing one side's point of view. I think this is inline with what Mr-Z said above, and what I think some want. —— nixeagle 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot was started again this morning (see edit history) with an edit summary of "see owner talk" but no actual relevant comment on that page (see edit history). - Dravecky (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually all that happened was the "stop" was removed. Look at the bot's edit history; it has not resumed delinking articles. I'm not going to interpret the removal of the word "stop" as a flaunting of requests to pause its behavior here, as it has not resumed its duties. Shereth 16:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA

is getting very crowded. Thanks, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

See the thread below. --Elonka 05:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up regarding ITN

Update time has been and gone, and Talk:Main page has a big red banner. {{In the News}} needs to be updated. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Deceased wikipedian - Hankwilson (talk · contribs)

Hankwilson (talk · contribs) has died. An article about the - quite accomplished - activist is now forming at Hank Wilson. One of his ongoing campaigns was poppers awareness which resulting in some rather unproductive posting on that article. He seemed to have a lot of research but the level of discourse on that talkpage wavered in civility. And perhaps others. It might be good to clean and protect his user accounts but I have no idea what is the best approach to take. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rest In Peace, Hank :-( .DollyD (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there is a need to protect the pages, but I have placed {{User:Bobamnertiopsis/userboxes/isdead}} on his user page and redirected the talk page to it. لennavecia 06:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that helps quite a bit. I added a link to their article. Cheers. -- Banjeboi 16:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that a userbox saying "This user is dead" is quite tasteless? Why can't we use normal text instead? --Conti|✉ 16:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you might consider it tacky, but it's phrased a bit more tasteful then "he bit the dust, folks". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody place his name at Wikipedia: Deceased Wikipedians? I'm never good at those things. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not about the wording, it's about the fact that it's a userbox. Those that are usually used for statements like "This user likes pie" and "This user is silly". Having a userbox about someone's death just seems wrong to me. User:Asdfg12345 sums up my feelings nicely. --Conti|✉ 17:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict!] Hello. I don't know anything more about this than seeing this page on watchlist, reading this post, and clicking to see the userbox. I understand that no one meant to be offensive or boorish, and I can see that no one would go to the trouble of making a userbox like that, and then someone else adding it to the page, if they were not well-intentioned. I don't think anyone means to do wrong. But I think it's in rather poor taste. The man died, that's solemn. Userboxes seem to be mostly gimmicky, fun, or geekish things to highlight mostly frivolous information. In my humble opinion, a RIP userbox is in bad taste. I'll be bold and simply delete the userbox and copy the text. If I've done something wrong please post on my talk page, happy to discuss. it's funny, at wikipedia, there's no one running the show, so we just discuss things among ourselves. Please let me know if people think this should be handled differently, though, or if my comments were perceived as inappropriate. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Note: I made this comment before changing the page, but didn't see that it didn't go through.--Asdfg12345 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked for a banner, because I know I've seen it before, but I couldn't find it. It was like the retirement banner, but lighter colors, and it said something like "This Wikipedian has passed away." And that was pretty much it. I thought I had seen it on Jeffpw's page, but I suppose it was custom made and later expanded to what it reads now. It was really late. I didn't think about that last night. Sorry if the box seemed tasteless. I didn't really want to use it, but it seemed like a small token over text. Userboxes are sort of a Wikipedia thing, so it seemed appropriate. لennavecia 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Aside: Sjoerd Jongens died this week ([5]). I wish there were enough sources for an article. Some kinds of activist get more coverage on teh internets than others. The guy was a pioneer fo the use of the internet for activism, but was too modest to brag about it. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this tool exist?

Is there a tool to compare when two users were editing--for example, to show if two people ever edited at the same time, or what the difference in time-frames was between edits? Also, is there a tool to show the overlap between two editors as to articles edited? I have a suspicion of sockiness, but I'd like to have something more concrete than "spidey-sense" to go on. Thanks! GJC 02:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py Protonk (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• And this compares editors by timing. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Beware of using tools like that, especially if one of the editors you are checking is a serial vandal-fighter. According to the first tool, almost everyone on this site is a part of my sock ring. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha! See--now the truth comes out! (<--humorishness--in no way do I suspect J.del of having more than, say, fifteen or sixteen socks... (j/k)))GJC 04:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There was this great thread on WR where someone postulated that I was running a sock claiming to be an 17-year-old Norwegian woman posting racy images of "myself" on my userpage. They based this on me having ~150 pages in common. The thread moved on fairly quickly after they realized what Huggle does to that tool. For example, I have 269 pages in common with Deskana, 885 in common with Dr. Blofeld, 1230 in common with Raul654, 6259 with NawlinWiki, 7250 with Iridescent, and 10074 with Epbr123! Hell, I've even got 73 in common with God Himself! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just realized I break the second tool. "J.delanoy has too many edits to compare (over 10000)" Muahaha! You shall never find out the true limits of my awesomeness!!! *sees Luna casually clicking on Special:Checkuser and runs like hell... * J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My tool has no limits. β^_command 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I get a lot of spam like that, too. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS -MBK₀₀₄ 05:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't point it at OrphanBot's half-million edits, then. --Carnildo (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Voice_of_All/Specialadmin/monobook.js contains a script that adds a "Compare" tab to every user's contribution page. When comparing two users, it will list all articles they have in common, by date, with relevant diffs. - auburnpilot talk 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What an awesomely helpful bunch you are!! That timeline one alone has probably just saved me from making a finger-pointing ass of myself... Thanks, all!!! GJC 04:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just remember. If you need something done, there's a tool for it. :) Wikis are amazing in that respect. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't need a tool to make an ass of myself... or is that "I don't need an ass to make a tool of myself"? I come from the DIY (Dickery Inclined, Yup) generation... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• I also have a tool, example but it requires a authentication key to use. (to avoid abuse) if your interested either poke me on IRC or leave a note on my talk page see {{usercompare}} β^_command 21:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UAA backlog

There's a massive backlog at WP:UAA - it'd be nice if someone could pop round and hand out a block or two. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seven unaddressed reports. the skomorokh 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ in Compaartive Mythology

I made an edit to the topic on 'Jesus Christ in comparative mythology' and when I revisited the site, 3/4 of the section on 'History' had been deleted (not what I added, but what had been there before). This has not been re-inserted. Please put the section back, as now it is missing a great deal of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.58 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your additions were reverted by Dbachmann with an edit summary of "WP:DUE. this is not the "Jesus myth" article. It is not about the historiticy of Jesus. At least read the title please.". If you want it put back, talk it over with him. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And I strongly suggest you get an account if you want to be an editor on Wikipedia. You can still use the library where you are editing from, but that IP address came close to being blocked recently for vandalism and you might want to distinguish yourself from it. Also read WP:Citations to learn how to cite your sources. Thanks. - and by the way, I think the removal of text was correct. dougweller (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New blocking option

As of the software update a few minutes ago, its no longer necessary to unblock a user before changing block settings (see [6], [7], [8]). If the user is already blocked, it will give a notice (MediaWiki:Ipb-needreblock) and add another checkbox to the bottom of the form (MediaWiki:ipb-change-block), similar to the "delete and move" checkbox when moving a page over another page. Mr.Z-man 01:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks to all the devs! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, this might explain it. The helperbot at WP:AIV hasn't been working right this evening... The bot isn't down, but neither is it correctly clearing blocked users out of the list. My guess is that the new change has modified the expected forms in some way, such that the bot is no longer recognizing blocked users properly. I've left a note for Krellis (talk · contribs) to take a look at it. --Elonka 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The change is affecting WP:UAA as well, which means it will need manual cleanup until the bot(s) are updated. --Elonka 05:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. It *seems* that the problem was being caused by something as simple as an extra <span> having been added in an awkward position on Special:IPBlockList. I've made a tweak on Helperbot7 that appears to have fixed it (at least in the meantime until Krellis is around) :-) Will (aka Wimt) 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is appearing on the AIV page updates, so something is happening. I have noted its return on ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to let people know I changed MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext, since now you don't have to unblock to tweak the block settings. Feel free to revert/modify... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

One of these days I should spend the time to convert it to use the API. Chillum 22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

John Owen (author)

A quick query - is this article actually appropriate ? Although it states he's an author, it also lists details of allegations made against him before he committed suicide.... does this count as an attack page ? CultureDrone (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is backed by impeccable sources. Whether it is notable is the only question; I was not aware of the matter (FWIIW), and does the notability revolve around the allegations/suicide or Owens Welsh language television credits? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this too. I don't see that notability is established by allegations of crime per se, however lurid, and since none were in the event proven, nor are now ever likely to be, certainly not to criminal standards, I don't see any reason to have so much detail in the article. WP:BLP has repercussions beyond the article itself, by association, and I see every reason to take a cautious stance here. That he was subject of some allegations is beyond doubt; further than that we should not go. As to his notability as an author, my impression is that there is enough there to sustain an article. --Rodhullandemu 23:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The “Clywch Report”, being commissioned by a Government Department, is as good as a criminal court record - so it is as good a reference as is possible to get, and it is referenced by a BBC report. However, the base notability is as a Welsh language author and television writer. As the "accusations" are grounded in good verifiable sources I suggest that it is therefore not an attack page, and requires no futher admin input. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The report itself does not deal with the veracity of the allegations, for that could only be a matter for a criminal court; I see it as perfectly valid to report those allegations, although the article originally went wildly beyond that report, and I have retrenched it to a defensible position as regards WP:V there. But he remains notable as an author, and that, probably, is where it should remain. Suffice it to say that I now have it watchlisted and will defend against unsubstantiated material. --Rodhullandemu 23:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Committee ban review and motion

• The Arbitration Committee is reviewing the ban of Jack Merridew and voting on a motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:TheDumbening

I'm not sure if I am in the right place or not with this one and if I am not please redirect me to the right forum. Essentially User:TheDumbening has been making edits to the encylopedia that have been consistantly unconstructive at Freddie Mercury, singing, and related articles. Several editors have been placing kind remarks to him on his user page but he just doesn't get it. He has also been repeatedly uploading photos at the commons that violate copywrite laws. I guess the problem is that I don't know where this problem would fall. I'm not sure whether or not this person's actions are simply misdirected energy/not understanding wikipedia's guiding principles or a case of vandalism. The one action that might constitute vandalism is that he edited my user page today. Regardless, he doesn't seem to be responding to any effort to talk with him. Any help or advice you all have would be appriciated.Nrswanson (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reporting a possible vandal

Iamthenew!! (talk · contribs) acts like a vandal. Many of his recent edits need revert. Please consider reviewing his activities. huji—TALK 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any vandal behaviour from this user. Some of their edits are a bit muddle-headed, but this user seems to be acting in good faith. Reyk _YO! 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the history behind the original !!, are we sure there's not something a bit trollerific going on here? It just seems hinky to me, claiming to be "the new" incarnation of a user whose block led to one of the most contentious ArbCom cases in WP history, and an equally-controversial desysop...they might as well have named themselves "ArchtransitsBabySister" or something like. Just one user's opinion, of course....GJC 16:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to refer to User:!!. They might just be ordinary exclamation points tacked onto the end for emphasis.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Problematic website...

I have come accross a website that displays wikipedia and adds ads. http://www.juz2u.com/WP:AN The evidence is linking here on this noticeboard. There's even a list of mirrors! What's the next step? --Mixwell!^Talk 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. But I do know that the Firefox ABP absolutely loves their site... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: http://www.juz2u.com/Special:MyTalk. Can someone go to m:Live mirrors and fill out a report? I don't have time, I really have to get to bed. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Report made - sleep well ;) Skier Dude (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't sleep too well. Live mirrors aren't blocked or anything... WODUP 08:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with live mirrors? Theresa Knott | token threats 18:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Live mirrors like that steal our bandwidth just to serve ads—while we may be committed to produce a free encyclopedia, no one said we had to give away bandwidth for free. The server admins tend to block this kind of stuff on sight. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 06:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I came across Minicalc and couldn't find a criteria for speedy deletion it would go under. A7, which excludes software, seems to be the closest one. I searched through the muck of the internet and only came up with a Yahoo widget link with under 100,000 downloads. So my question: What speedy criteria does this fall under? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not everything that doesn't belong here qualifies for speedy deletion. In fact, most doesn't, which is why we have an elaborate policy. The speedy deletion process is only meant for the few obvious, undisputed cases where a discussion would be a waste of time. Minicalc is not such a case. Owen× ☎ 19:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I honestly figured Afd would be a waste of time for this article; but there it will go. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You could always just prod it and see if anyone actually responds first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed WP:PROD is a good middle ground. It gives involved editors the chance to improve the article where deletion (not speedy deletion) is fairly obvious, but where any AFD is likely to, given the current state of teh article, result in a snowball delete... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The only downside is when the author does a kneejerk de-prod (which is in accordance with policy), thus sending it to Afd anyway.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Resolved

 – Being cleared. Guest9999 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion seems to be developing a bit of a backlog, nothing massive but 50+ speedy taggings to be reviewed. Guest9999 (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

50 is as small as it ever gets. 150+ is on the low side of a backlog. BJ^Talk 05:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of depressing. Guest9999 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would that be depressing. This is a large site with plenty of admins to do the work. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not enough if 150 speedy candidates is considered a small backlog. Guest9999 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Err...check out CAT:BACKLOG, if you really want to see some truly impressive backlog totals. 150 is on the high side for the speedy deletion category, but not overall.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What you need to consider is the size of the backlog compared to the number of deletions occurring over a given time. The number on its own means nothing. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the backlogs in CAT:BACKLOG could be cleared by any user, they don't require administrator attention and a lot of them aren't necessarily that vital to improving and maintaining the encyclopaedia (e.g. copying images to Commons). The quick assessment of speedy candidates is (in my opinion) one of the things that stops the content of Wikipedia being reflective of the content of the internet as a whole (i.e. 99% crap - apologies for the language). Whilst you're right that - to an extent - the number itself is less important than the rate at which articles are being deleted given the typical rate of speedy tagging it should not be necessary for a backlog of 150 to build up on - as you say - "a large site with plenty of admins to do the work". What lead me here initially was not specifically the number of the backlog but the fact that an article I'd tagged (pretty standard A7) did not appear to have been reviewed by an administrator for several hours, longer than I find is typical. Guest9999 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of block of 84.102.229.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) requested

I have enacted a 1 week block of the above account following two edits today to Rotary International. My rationale is that the ip is editing an article, and referring to another editor, in a manner that is consistent with that which prompted an earlier sanction. Given that all previous edits by this account are related to the same subject, and over an extended period, I am confident that the sanction now imposed will not effect other potential editors. However, since no warnings were provided prior to my enacting this block I am placing it up for review and would comment that I need not be consulted further should the decision be that the sanction be varied in any manner. I shall, of course, answer any concerns raised here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block Seems reasonable.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I don't see any big problems here with the block. Xclamation point 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing red-linked images

Those links should really be addressed if anyone has a few spare moments. Those are our articles, not some WikiProject subpages, and it's embarrassing that so many have so many obviously broken links. Any help in cleaning up the mess would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok can someone help me out here, i was having a crack at this list, and somehow broke the infobox's image section on this page, Blackpool Seagulls and cannot for the life of me figure out how to sort it. Cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Template:UKIceHockey team template is broken when there is no logo. A note to this effect appears on the discussion page for the template dating from Sept 2007, but nobody has fixed it. looie496 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick fix to hide it if no logo is provided. --Amalthea^Talk 19:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MZMcBride, I was just attempting to do it like you did. :) --Amalthea^Talk 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes if nothing else it will avoid encouraging users to re-upload images which were probably deleted for a good reason. — CharlotteWebb 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I can run the list through ImageRemovalBot -- that should get most of them. --Carnildo (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The list I made there is actually only some of them (about 1,000 out of 16,000 (with duplicates)). Let me know if you'd like the full list. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would. --Carnildo (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

tools:~mzmcbride/wantedfiles.txt.gz. Apparently the list has some false positives because Commons doesn't keep a clean house... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of those seem to be people trying to embed offsite links, which of course isn't possible. Wouldn't it be possible to get the bot to automatically remove any image whose filename begins with "http://"? Would there be false positives in that case? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot can handle removing them just fine. The problem is finding them in the first place, which basically requires direct database access: there's no log of images being added to articles. --Carnildo (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start going through links to Image:none and there are probably some other frequently used names that could be worth checking. hbent (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, can someone take a look at Template:Infobox_DRCongo_Province? It's forcing images for the flag, seal and map. I'm concerned that I'll break something even more if I try to fix it. hbent (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's got two problems: it's forcing images, and someone thought that putting "none" for the parameter would hide the image. --Carnildo (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As to how to find links to off-site images, I've just added the string "Image:http" to User:Lupin/badwords. All edits matching any string on this list can be monitored in real time at User:Lupin/Filter recent changes by any user who has installed User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

Bringing an issue here for further review.

For the last several months, WP:MOSNUM has been the site of a protracted edit war. After this sequence of reverting in early November, I protected for a week: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]

Following unprotection, the edit war resumed among:

User:Tony1: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]: warning

User:Locke Cole: [25], [26], [27], [28]: warning

User:Arthur Rubin: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]: warning

I proceeded to warn them that further warring would result in blocks being applied. Subsequent to that, Tony1 called for me to "resign immediately" for warning them.

Later, Kotniski (talk · contribs) [34], [35], [36] and Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) [37], [38] resumed the edit war. I warned (Kotniski warning, Pigsonthewing warning) them both, taking into account that Pigsonthewing had never commented on the talk page and had 10 prior blocks for edit warring. Kotniski accepted the warning and agreed to not war further on the page.

Pigsonthewing has demanded I apologize and User:UC Bill has insisted I apologize to Pigsonthewing to stop embarrassing myself.

As I believe I have acted within policy here, I bring it to the wider community for further review. MBisanz ^talk 16:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse warnings. An extra note: the warning was modified in Pigsonthewing's case, and this was necessary. However, following the modification, the demands and commentary by both Pigsonthewing and UC Bill were unreasonable and utterly inappropriate. Given his history, and the recent disruption caused at WQA, he's indeed very lucky that he wasn't blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• You continue to behave in an inappropriate manner. I demanded nothing; my wording was "You have just made a false accusation on my talk page. Kindly withdraw it, together with your unwarranted threat; and post an apology"; and later "I ... note that you have slightly modified, but not withdrawn, your false accusation. Please do so now". You also give a misleading diff for the warning you placed on my talk page; the correct diff is this one. I have participated in no "edit war"; and you fail to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I also note that you have not notified me or any of the other editors who you slight here of this "review". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Whoa, if the guideline is under a protracted editwar and had to be protected... then can someone tell me why on earth bots like User:Lightbot got approved by bag? (I also note that there are some other users that are also running manual scripts that do this same thing) Part of running bots is having community consensus as well as approval from BAG for what modifications you are doing to a page. If there is a general clear consensus (meaning somewhere public with input from multiple editors...) would someone please show it to us? —— nixeagle 19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed this is the heart of the issue, and the one I find myself having the hardest time dealing with. There's no clear consensus for deprecating full date links, and yet a handful of editors (including Lightmouse (talk · contribs)) insist on updating their JavaScript files to remove these links in the course of other (perfectly normal) edits. I've warned multiple editors about the lack of consensus and the disputed nature and all of them either ignore my warnings or tell me there's consensus (without actually showing me where this community consensus was reached). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just for clarity, can we have a diff where Tony1 asks you to "resign immediately"? D.M.N. (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  Here you go [39]. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, OK. The warnings seem completely justified, and you've given clear evidence for the edit-warring. Have you informed the users of this discussion? D.M.N. (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   Done MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Noted, although I think those who edited immediately before the protection should have been warned, as well. I can't say I liked the tone of the warning, but it seems appropriate.

  However, I think the guideline needs to continue to note that the consensus is disputed, so that discussions can continue on the talk page. That's most of the changes I was making. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The pet peeve of the same few editors who are loudly complaining about a change after the fact should be seen as just that, and not distorted. The change gained consensus after two years of intermittent debate at MOSNUM talk, and intensive debate there and elsewhere during July and August, plus VP notification of the proposal, plus apparently easy acceptance at FAC and FLC by nominators, plus a groundswell of acceptance/favour more widely in WP. Several people, including some represented here, are doing their best to disrupt the project to push their agenda. This should be ignored. Concerning the "warnings" by MBisanz: I believe that you are breaching several tenets of the policy concerning the behaviour of administrators (have you read it?), and I believe the call to resign was reasonable. I'm quite willing to discuss the details if you wish. Tony (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The only distortion going on here Tony is from you. A small number of editors at WT:MOSNUM do not get to force their idea of how Wikipedia should be on the larger community. I've seen discussions with hundreds of editors over smaller changes than this, why should this be different? Why should it be enacted with such a small amount of input from the community? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
      • LC, how helpful do you think your edit summary "Tony you're delusional" is to this discussion?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
        • About as helpful as Tony insisting I should "do some work" when the work he'd have me do is the very thing I'm arguing against. And truth be told, he must be delusional if he thinks this change had "wide community consensus" when the straw poll at WT:MOSNUM involved twelve editors. Yes friends, twelve editors are pushing this change on the rest of the community, often in protracted edit wars. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need for any more drama over this particular issue, but maybe we can take an important lesson from it. It is clear to me (having been involved in and witnessed a number of such situations) that the procedures (or rather absence thereof) that we have for changing our "rules" (policies and guidelines) are not working. There needs to be a properly thought-out process ("meta-rules", as some call it) for the making of substantial changes to the rules. We can't have a situation where reams of virtual paper are used up arguing circularly about whether some rule has consensus, should be marked disputed, etc. We do have a kind of procedure described at WP:Policies and guidelines, though it deals mostly with new policy/guideline pages rather than changes, and I don't know if it has yet been put into practice. Whenever I raise this issue it is met with silence or dismissals about "instruction creep", "against the Wiki spirit" and so on, but I raise it here again in the hope that the issue being discussed will serve as a good example of why such change is badly needed. If anyone's interested we can perhaps set a separate discussion page on it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A sensible structure would have technical stuff like this handled by a committee along the lines of ArbCom, not by any random editor who wants to "volunteer". looie496 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of agree. Non-admin closure of discussions is problematic even in other areas (AfD, RM and so on). For big and complex discussions, I wonder whether closure shouldn't be done by an ad hoc committee (and with dialog first) rather than a single admin who happens to come along. But these are issues to be discussed elsewhere. As far as policy changes go, I'm inviting comments on my recent bold edits at WT:Policies and guidelines#Recent changes re changes.--Kotniski (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, what I meant is that MOSNUM policies should be decided on by a special committee. looie496 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why MOSNUM specifically?--Kotniski (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with having policy changes in general (and MOSNUM changes in particular) finalized by a special committee. I still think MBisanz owes Pigsonthewing an apology since (regardless of previous, unrelated actions) he didn't do what he was accused of doing in this case. --UC_Bill (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre edit attribution

Please would a patient admin look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Canterberry.2FOlana_North and note the bizarre edit attribution which may or may not be some form of attack on a user "Pigsonthewing". If there is something to "do" about this, please can it be done? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they were both by the same IP.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I earlier this evening anon-blocked for a month. --Rodhullandemu 23:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See this debate on WT:RAIL. This is a simmering fight that's been going on for over a year now following an IMO very harsh indefblock on User:Canterberry. (Short version: two users were creating sock accounts to votestack a trivial debate in opposite directions; one was blocked for three days and told not to do it again, the other was indefblocked. The original sockfest that sparked it was here.)

If nobody minds, I've "unresolved" this thread; given that there's already a discussion on WT:RAIL about whether to appeal the block, now's as good a time as any to canvass opinions from outside the somewhat incestuous "writers of articles on rail stations" world as to whether this block should be overturned. – iridescent 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've no strong views on this except that ascribing one's edits to another editor, for whatever purpose, seems prima facie dishonest and disruptive, not least for the false positives it can raise. That's the reason for my block. Full disclosure would be helpful, but in the murky world of the politics of railways in the UK, who knows what danger may lurk?</sarcasm> --Rodhullandemu 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the IP is Canterberry/Olana North – looking over its history, if it is then he's been having a number of conversations with himself. (The IP is Network Rail's server, so its having an interest in trains isn't particularly surprising!) While I wouldn't rule anything in or out, in my experience it isn't Canterberry's style. – iridescent 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no view on the actual identity of the IP editor; it is enough that s/he sought to represent themselves, although clumsily, as an established editor, hence the block. I checked the WHOIS before blocking, but as you say, there is little forensic information to be gained from that. --Rodhullandemu 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock?

Seems to me there's only one way to settle the issue, and that's to ask the thorny question - should either Canterberry or Olana North be unblocked? The block is an indefinite block, not a permanent block. It has been in place for over a year, which some editors think is excessive.

Proposal either Canterberry or Olana North is unblocked, and allowed back into the Wikipedia community. If unblocked, then a period of probation should be served, and if the behaviour which led to the original block should reoccur, the block is to be reimposed.

Other conditions may be proposed and discussed. Let's discuss the issue and reach a decision. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When was the last activity (proven, admitted and/ or suspected) of this user's sock puppets? The most recent I'm aware of are: admitted: 6 October 2008; suspected: 14 November 2008 (a sockcheck shoul probably be run on the latter). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As the initiator of this thread over at WT:RAIL (and the original filer of the SSPs back in 2007), I obviously support this unblock on the proviso that he'll be reblocked if he gets disruptive, and that Canterberry and Lucy-marie steer clear of each other (shouldn't be too hard as Canterberry in all his incarnations only works on transport articles, and since the original incident L-m has steered clear of transport and now works in TV and politics articles). Yes, Canterberry's a block evader, but under his sock Olana North account he by-and-large made uncontroversial improvements to rail transport articles, not editwarring or POV-pushing. – iridescent 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the block being removed on one of the accounts. Canterberry/Olana North can be a good editor when he wants to be. I think it is time that he was given another chance. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Canterberry was originally blocked for making personal attacks on another editor using multiple sockpuppets - it was the personal attacks that led to the block, not the sockpuppetry. So I think the issue should be whether Olana North was engaging in personal attacks. I agree with others that the Wikiquette alert in early October wasn't about a real personal attack.

The block was indefinite in the sense of having no fixed end date, and I quote myself from last November "Indefinite does not mean "forever". Indefinite means "without a pre-determined end date", and can generally be lifted when there is reason to believe that the problems that led to the block will not be repeated." [40] The user has had bad timing; one night while commuting home I'd decided to lift the block only to go online and discover the use of a new sock puppet. So I said we should talk again in December. Instead of taking a break, the user abused the unblock template enough that another admin choose to protect their talk page. Last I knew (sometime in Q1) it was suspected but not proven that Canterberry was editing under a new account and I didn't bother to investigate - so long as the personal attacks weren't occuring I didn't care. I still feel much the same way - so long as personal attacks on editors are not occuring I really don't care whether or not this user is editing. If the Olana North has not been making personal attacks, then there is now reason to believe that the problems that led to the block will not be repeated. Since I'm mostly inactive and have therefore resigned as an admin I won't be implementing whatever decision is reached by the currently active members of the community. GRBerry 14:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussions and accusations

I have been recently been involved in a couple of extensive discussions with User:Gwen Gale regarding some deletions she carried out. These discussions have not gone well, and have ended up with me being accused of breaching quite a few policies. An outside view would be appreciated here. The main discussions can be found here, here, here and here. TigerShark (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's unwillingness to discuss what seem to be reasonable concerns raised by TigerShark is unsettling, and even more so is accusing an editor of harassment for continuing to discuss something in a civil way. Regarding the accusations of wheel warring, whether it was or it wasn't seems rather trivial given the nature of it, and regardless Gwen Gale could have at least attempted to discuss it with TigerShark; it does not seem helpful to demand someone undo an action before you will even discuss why. 4I7.4I7 16:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

At a glance, it appears that TigerShark is harassing Gwen, stalking their deletion log and refusing to take simple answers at face value, then wheel-warring on it. Gwen stopped responding, which is what we recommend people do when they're being harassed, so the harassment has spread here. TigerShark, when someone tells you they don't agree with you but you're welcome to take the matter to the appropriate forum, is it your normal practice to leave post after post after post after post on that person's talk page, wheel war and then come running to AN? If so, do me a favour and stay off my talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion carried on over at my talk page (here) may be relevant. Or it may not. Those looking at this should be aware of it, though. _TalkIslander 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to concur with Redvers, TigerShark. You appear to be picking nits over Gwen's deletion history because you disagree with her (and many other editors') interpretation of A7; and badgering her over them. If you feel that the policy is vague or misinterpreted, take it to the appropriate forum, don't harass a colleague over her reasonable interpretation of it. — Coren ^(talk) 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Redvers as well. It looks to me like you (TigerShark) are hammering Gwen and refusing to accept her responses. I don't think there's any problem with what she has done or her declining to restore the pages and instead referring you to an appropriate forum. I feel you should leave her alone, go focus on something else for a while and then take the pages to DRV/AFD if you still feel strongly about it. Sarah 23:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Redvers; if you had taken the same path with me, you'd have been discussed on AN long before it got this far. Gwen has been exceptionally patient with you. Horologium (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:DRV first. Or just undelete and send to AFD. Anything other than complaining on a personal basis. — CharlotteWebb 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Sarah's summary above. TigerShark, you were within your rights for about the first hour of your discussion with Gwen. After that, you should have taken the discussion to DRV, not continued to try to continue a conversation she clearly had no willingness to continue.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV Ringing Up Reports

Looks like we're going to need alot of extra eyes on WP:AIV today. Its ringing up reports like no tomorrow and backlogging nonstop :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lutz Heilmann

Slashdot has a story about the German Wikipedia having some legal trouble with a member of the Bundestag (Lutz Heilmann) over the content of his article. More eyeballs on the en version of his article would be appreciated. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My very limited German suggests that the sources for what we've got seem to check out. But a competent German reader should be asked to check our article and its sources as a matter of urgency. The lawsuit against de.wp looks correct - see [41] and it is even mentioned in our wikipedia article too. I'd also suggest that we semi-protect this article as a precaution. This story will break and certain trolls will stir it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They're going nuts over this at de.wikipedia.org… Last version of the article that I saw (diff) looked O.K. Semi-protection would be a very good idea IMHO.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd fully protect, I can't see any harm in doing so, per WP:NLT. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why WP:NLT suggests to lock down the article? But I'm not an admin, glad I don't have to worry about that. So far, Lutz Heilmann seems to be moving, in fits and starts, towards better comprehensiveness and accuracy. Sure has some people riled up, though. Most of the "He is a mean %&$§" comments came from IPs, most of the constructive edits came from registered editors.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Danish, French and Norwegian Wikipedia entries on Lutz Heilmann have not been updated to reflect his temporary injunction against wikipedia.de, German also does not show it (but did at several points in the article history -- article is now locked following a humongous edit war and wheel war between several admins centering on BLP policy), only Swedish shows the latest information.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's deja vu all over again: Tron_(hacker)#Naming_controversy.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for 24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently, more than 50% of that article are taken by a section detailing his lawsuit against Wikimedia Deutschland and editors. Why? This seems to be a most absurd case of recentism and navel-gazing. In other words, is this lawsuit such a defining moment in this politician's career that more than half of the article should be about it? Where's our sense of proportion? 131.111.223.43 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's thus far not a defining moment and deserves at most one sentence. He allegedly (in German) said that he is satisfied with the article now, so it's going to be old news pretty soon, and all we're left with is an increase in donations. :) --Amalthea^Talk 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone from an IP address recently deleted the article (and I put it back). It might be worthwhile to keep an eye on it again and/or protect it, in my 'umble hopinion. Scbarry (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

user:Arthur Rubin, user:Guyonthesubway, user:Prebys

Resolved

 – Resess blocked as a sockpuppet bibliomaniac15 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A number of editors keep deleting things from the Paul Pantone article and continue to insert wrong information. The archive reflects non of them have made constructive contributions to the article. Pantone was locked away in 2005, there cant be any doubt about this, I'm not confused about the date, I've also added sources. Pantone was refused his right to have a lawyer, he was hospitalised indefinitely without any sentencing. This happened in 2005, the drive-by editors want to change this into 2008. Looking over the archive everything added to the article seems to get deleted.

• user:guyonthesubway put the wrong date on the article,

• I corrected it,

• It was immediately reverted by user:Arthur Rubin,

• I asked for a 3rd opinion[42]

• The reviewing editor put the wrong date up again.[43] and deleted my request.

• No explanation was given.[44]

• I again ask for an explanation,[45]

• The response was that I should use the talk page to discuss my dispute,[46] There is no dispute, the sources are correct.

• In stead of an answer I get accused of edit warring.Talk:Paul_Pantone#Edit_warring_and_possible_misunderstanding

In my opinion this is an important article in the days of recession. Pantone is an American inventor and hundreds of GEET engines exist. here is a video see what we are talking about here. here are hundreds of engines just like it Trucks, cars, generators, mowers and tractors all running on a mixture of water and old oil, petroleum, alcohol and just about everything else. (see the video)

Last time I checked cited sources are not overruled by anything. The editors are not contributing anything, all they do is delete things. All I did was correct a date. I ask what was wrong with having the correct date on the article over and over again. Eventually Arthur Rubin says he agrees to have the right date on the page, then he changed it into the wrong date again. The date is wrong, I added the sources. More I cant be expected to do.

I've made a few additional edits just to be sure, indeed all of those got reverted. They deleted things like Paul Pantone's own homepage, the building plans, the news coverage then put the article up for deletion. It's like they are playing some kind of game. Resess (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples:

• user:Prebys: Delete reference to open source project: "This is not a commercial for GEET" [47]
• user:Arthur Rubin: Deletes external links to building plans and TV news footage while claiming: "remove bad links" [48]
• user:Arthur Rubin: Deletes everything I did on wikipedia and calls it "Delete nonsense": [49]
• user:Prebys: Deletes news sources and the mention of 1000 Pantone engines in France. Reason given: "Tried to restore neutrality and removed commercial links" [50]
• user:Scott MacDonald: Attempt to delete article [51]
• user:Arthur Rubin: drive-by templating [52]
• user:Arthur Rubin: Change court ruling http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Pantone&diff=prev&oldid=252023303]
• user:Arthur Rubin: Tagging links for deletion [53]
• user:Arthur Rubin: Remove cited facts: [54]
• user:Guyonthesubway: Delete reference and lies. [55] and lies again[56]
• user:Arthur Rubin: Deletes building plans and French TV news footage: "remove links, per WP:ELNO" [57]

Sources confirming Pantone was locked away in 2005:

• SLweekly: The fuel injected lunatic
• http://www.cafebabel.com/fre/article/25165/le-moteur-a-eau-de-pantone.html
• Paul Pantone Defense program
• December 12, 2005 Court Hearing

• Instances of inserting the wrong date to make it look as if Pantone didn't spend the last 3 years waiting for his sentence.[58][59][60][61][62]

Then say on the talk page "I have no objection to the date of the start of this incarceration appearing in the lede, but I think it's after his guilty plea in 2004."[63]; next thing they change 2005 into 2008 again and say: "You don't have my permission to add incorrect BLP violations to the lede".

As if I would need Arthurs permission to change something that is clearly wrong? I remember the date! If I'm not mistaken here is the court recording????? Here is a news article and here is the Pantone defence program. End of discussion! I don't need permission from Arthur Rubin in any way. If he claims it was in 2008 he should prove it? or not?

• Deletions, deletions and more deletions.[64][65][66][67][68][69]

All this deleting and obstructing while not contributing anything constructive to the article. In stead of accepting it happened in 2005 not in 2008 the original author of the lie made up another lie:

• user:Guyonthesubway: "The spanish article cited mentions nothing about water being used as a fuel" [70]

• Article:"Con él, los coches podrían funcionar con una mezcla de agua y de un hidrocarburo."[71]

• This translates to:"With it, cars could run on a mixture of water and a hydrocarbon."

The editors user:Arthur Rubin, user:Guyonthesubway and user:Prebys have nothing constructive to offer to the article. They edit the article numerous times, non of their edits are constructive contributions in any way. You can compare their version of the article to my version here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Pantone&diff=252171421&oldid=252166153

I don't see any reason to delete everything I added. There are thousands of GEET engines, Pantone has been waiting for his sentence for 3 years. user:Arthur Rubin, user:Guyonthesubway and user:Prebys want to make it look like his lives work was nothing but a marketing stunt. This is disgusting but that is besides the point. It is clear they lie and haven't contributed anything constructive. All they did on this page was delete things and lie about it. A new excuse was made up with every deletion. There is much more nonsense going on on the page, but I will leave it to this. At this stage I would like to learn what this show is suppose to mean. Thanks, Resess (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing all this detail, but I'm pretty sure you're in the wrong place. There's nothing for an administrator to do (we can't judge on content issues). You may like to visit dispute resolution and perhaps copy over what you've put here to any of the avenues available there. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I understand why you think that. I've changed the title to better reflect the purpose of this posting. Let me try to explain. This isn't about Pantone you see. This is about the editors. The editors are clearly being dishonest. They've deleted all my contributions to this article without so much as one valid explanation, then they also insist upon having unsourced lies in the article. It misrepresent the person.

Lies are not content disputes. Changing dates, deleting citation and deleting sources is clearly vandalism. Insulting me, deleting 8 references, citations and insert a lie all in a single edit?

There can be no doubt about this group of editors. They very obviously want me to leave the article alone so that they can continue to misrepresent Paul Pantone, Arthur Rubin stated I need his permission to edit the page. His reason was that my contribution would be a BLP violation. This is nonsense.

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Basic_human_dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.

Arthur Rubin clearly has no respect for the person or his rights. The great mis justice done to Paul Pantone should go in his biography if the sources are sufficient. The page should not have imaginary evidence against it. It cant be that this group can add unsourced lies to the page while disallowing sourced facts. That's not how wikipedia works. I'm posting this so that Administrators can put a stop to their game. Perhaps I should look a bit further and see what other articles they have under their control. That would help clear up the confusion. This is not about the content, it's about misrepresenting the inventor.

But I thank you for your insight, Resess (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This still appears to be a case of edit-warring over content, and I've protected the article. dougweller (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but there seem to be some comments that fall foul of the BLP policy on the AfD for this article. Could someone who knows better please take a look. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some statements that fall foul of the BLP policy in Resess's version of the article. Use of audio transcripts of a court hearing, posted on a Pantone supporter's web site, doesn't seem appropriate, especially since the claimed reason the judge gave for declaring him incompetent is legally incorrect, and hence the statement is a BLP violation against the judge. As for respect, I have none left for Resess, but I believe Pantone to be a (former) fraud (as found by the court) and a loon, as found by the judge and the institution in which he is presently committed. The statements Resess is adding have no justification, although some of the statements he removed also have no justification. As I noted at the AfD, I'm sure he's notable, but I'm not sure we can say that he's notable without violating WP:BLP.

And it's not about Pantone. It's about Resess's blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP and WP:3RR. I think this article needs to blanked if it's protected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Per a recent checkuser, Resess has been indefinately blocked as a disruptive sock puppet. Can we mark this resolved? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman case

In a continuation to the above, perhaps a further note will explain things better: In this case, they claimed that I blocked Matthew Hoffman in the middle of a content dispute with him. Finding of Fact #4 states this bluntly

This is an utter lie: I had last edited the page where Hoffman was active 7 months previously, and had had no other contact with him. This was pointed out on the evidence page itself, where Carcharoth discovered the 7-month-old editing. [72]

It is possible this was in error, but the problem is mentioned several times on the talk page for the proposed decision, in one case even getting a reply by an arbitrator to a different point in the post.

That having expressed a view 7 months previously was a content dispute will, I am sure, be news to everyone here, but FT2, who claims to have carefully reviewed all aspects of the case, is right now claiming the accuracy of said finding of fact has never been in question, and so there is no reason to look at the case's procedural aspects.

I have actually spoken to Jimbo about this case, but in August, he got busy, and in his own words, "dropped the ball", unable to continue.

I do not ask for my adminship back, I simply ask that the arbcom remove a case that included grossly unfair behaviour by them and a strong attempt to blacken my name without concern for the facts of the matter, to the point of making up a content dispute that never happened, then defending their wording on the case's talk page.

The Arbcom have been traditionally allowed to act without any monitoring or accountability, and this culminated in the Matthew Hoffman case. I would ask that the community re-reviews this case, and makes it clear that gross incompetence and harassment by Arbcom will not be tolerated. should the arbcom continue down this route, they shoould be disbanded. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In Finding of Fact #9, *UNPROTECTING* a page I had edited, after another admin, evidently unaware of the protection, nominated it for deletion, was cited as evidence of conflict of interest on my part. Even in the revised 9.1 (only revised after two months of about a dozen editors protesting its unfairness), I am accused of protecting a page on November 30th, citing vandalism, when none occurred between 27 and 30 November, and the arbcom concludes that clearly my intent was in fact to furrther my position in a content dispute.

Had they looked at 25 November, they would have discovered multiple IPs vandalising the page, and people tripping over themselevs in efforts to fix this that consistently failed to revert back far enough. The page was very poorly monitored at the time.

This is in addition to all the other problems mentioned above, but these two small incidents will demonstrate why this case needs reviewed by the community, and why Arbcom are probably incapable of reviewing it fairly.

The arbcom needs to gain some accountability, and the community reviewing what is widely agreed to be its worst-handled case with the exception of the Orangemarlin one is, perhaps, the best way to insist on this accountability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading through your own statement about the protection, I see you admit having protected a page due to vandalism, despite the fast that the page hadn't been vandalized for 4-6 days (depending on the relevant times of day). If the wave of vandalism is over, I fail to see why protection is necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been a year. As best I can recall, there had been waves of intermittent IP vandalism for some time, and the page was already having trouble with edit wars, so a little precaution seemed in order. I don't seem to have edited it between the time of the vandalism and when I protected, so I probably put the semi-protection in when I noticed.

It is possible the semi-protection was unneeded. But this is not what the Arbcom claims, they claimed it was specifically used in an effort to push my point of view. There is no evidence of this, unless the arbcom claim the ability to read minds, and this example was part of an apparently exhaustive list of every questionable admin action I had ever done, part of which appears on the evidence page, and the page protection checks seem to have been done by Kirril. If any relatively new administrator could withstand an exhaustive check of his actions, with the presumption being bad faith, without anything coming up, I would be surprised. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So a finding of fact said you blocked during a content dispute, but the diffs clearly show this to be false; you pointed this out repeatedly, and the arbs ignored you, or else replied but didn't address the point. Huh. I wonder if anyone else has had a similar experience with arbitration. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we're a pretty dense lot. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, it did happen simultanious to the Arbcom elections and their aftermath, but, you know... The whole thing is full of mistakes, many of them quite possibly made in good faith, but which went uncorrected when pointed out (possibly because no arbitrator bothered to read the commentaries, presuming other people would - the controversy this case arose at the time created some of the largest talk pages for a case ever.) However, even after the case, I've found the rbcom highly resistant to any sort of productive discussion on the case, so I've kind of been forced to come to the community. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbs presumably are partly human and sometimes what they write in their findings and decisions will be at least partly mistaken. We do need to have a way of dealing with those past cases if that happens. Or do we have one? :/ Sticky Parkin 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In theory, they can be appealed to the arbcom, in practice, the Arbcom almost never does anything once the case closes. Perhaps we should set up an ombudsman committee to deal with reviews of Arbcom cases? Independence from the Arbcom might make corrections easier, as it would be fresh eyes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The community can give the greatest number of fresh eyes, more hierarchy seems to just lead to more people who can be buttered up or influenced. All it needs is for arbom to be more approachable and amenable, to strike out or remove things they've said that are in error or excessive. Sticky Parkin 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick summary might be, that the request, acceptance, opening, and final remedies are all completely within usual norms. The persistent misuse of admin tools from October 2007 right up to the day before the case request on Nov 30 2007, was serious and repeated. Discussion is ongoing at WT:RFAR. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that answers my question. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe within the norms but some of the findings were false. That is an unwarranted slur against someone and those bits should be scored out or annotated as being found to be incorrect. Saying anything they want against people and not correcting it in a proposed decision or decision page if it's found to be untrue might be the occassional norm for arbcom- to be able to have a go at people and leave it to stand as a judgment against them even if incorrect- but that doesn't mean it's ok. Sticky Parkin 18:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2, after your behaviour in the Orangemarlin case, you might want to be a bit more careful. The only one from later than october was a semi-protection of a pafge trhat had underwent heavy IP vandalism a few days earlier. The finding, written by you, claimed there had been no vandalism in the two days previous, and accused me of therefore clearly doing to further my position in a content dispute. Your conclusions were a gross assumption of bad faith, and I'll point out that Wikipedia:Protection policy does not give a number of days after which semi-protection can be presumed unnecessary after a heavy vandalism attack that had editors tripping over each other for hours before getting it set right. If you do believe that errors of judgement made in good faith are worthy of the most strenuous persecution, perhaps you would care to resign over the Orangemarlin incident, to prevent appearance of hypocrisy? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment this case is subject to a request for arbitration appeal AND is being discussed on the talk page of RfArb. Given that parallel discussion are usually unhelpful, could we archive this thread? I see no specific admin action required here - this is for arbs.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • With all respect, I'd be much more comfortable if this case is handled in the light of community scrutiny. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • With respect, arbcom is the FINAL stage in dispute resolution. You are appealing to them, this feels like forum shopping. Do I have a seconder to archive this? There is no admin action required, or even requested here, this is not a general community discussion board.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Shoemaker wishes to notify the community through AN of his appeal, and extend his arguments here. That argument has been taken up. While I am concerned about the discussion spreading across Wikipedia chaotically, this discussion seems to be destined to run its course naturally anyway.--21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think archiving this now would be unwise - better to let the thread run its course. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It loosk liek this thread will probably turn out to be unneccessary, but, you know, it was very hard for me to start the appeal int he first place, and this does keep down the stress a bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me give a quickl summary of the way this case proceeded:

• October: Reviewing some of the pages related to intelligent design that I didn't have on my watchlist, I notice a problem on the Irreducible complexity page. Several pages of discussion have sprung up around a single user. Reviewing the user's contributions, I find a lot of incivility towards other contributors to the page, and a strong POV-pushing element. I fail to notice how heated the argument was among the other contributors, and thus see Hoffman's actions in a more negative lighted. I block Matthew Hoffman for a short period to stop the disruption, and take it to ANI. On ANI, it's suggested he's probably a sock puppet, and, as the disruption was severe, I'm perhaps a bit too willing to believe this, and up it to indef.

• November: Charles Matthews contacts me about Matthew Hoffman. I fail to realise Charles is an arbitrator, he never says, nor does he give any real reason for the unblock other than things on the lines of "I think you should. He e-mailed me, and I don't think he's a sock". I suggest he suggest a review, and am told I should handle it myself, so I start a review.

Review starts, becomes rather heated, but I eventually unblock.

• December: Arbcom case initiateded against me, by Charles. There has been no dispute resolution, nor have I ever been the subject of so much as an RfC. It is now two months since the block, and the person is unblocked. Within twelve hours, before I have made any sort of statement - and based solely on this single two-month-old block, that has already been undone, Uninvited company proposes I am desysopped.

• December to January: During the case, every single one of my blocks is reviewed on the evidence page. Every single page protection will be reviewed by Kirril as well. I was one of the admins active in attempting to clean up the Creationism and Pseudoscience sections, which very few other admins covered. Kirril lists five things where he felt I used admin tools to further my position in a content dispute, however, major controversy arises, with dozens of people speaking up against this finding, as it included such thigns as protecting a page on the version I was not advocating for the end an edit war, and unprotecting a page that had entered AfD. After 2 months, and an arbcom-initiated RfC that condemned the finding as completely inaccurate, FT2 rewrites the finding, keeping most of the content, but with more description.

• January: I leave Wikipedia. Durova contacts me and encourages me to join commons. I reluctantly do so.

• February: Decide commons images not that useful if unused, set up Shoemaker's Holiday account for adding them to Wikipedia. Do nothing else on Wikipedia, and suspect I will abandon account soon enough.

• April?: Make a few tentative edits to Wikipedia. Feel dirty about letting myself be drawn back onto the site that had treated me like that, but eventually get drawn back in.

FT2, you claim this case was well within Arbcoom norms. Can you give a single comparible example, where a two month old block, already lifted, leads to calls for desysopping, and Arbcom enters into the spirit within twelve hours, and harasses a productive contributor off the site, searching through the editor's admin tool use with a fine tooth comb in order to find more evidence against him, and voting down any finding that might mitigate his actions - like the strong evidence of Intelligent design promoters having organised campaigns against Wikipedia, dismissed as irrelevant in a case over the blocking of a intelligent design promoter? Several times during this case, the Arbcom claimed I didn't need admin tool use, I could continue mny productive contributions to content without them, and thuss dclared all my content production irrelevant at the same time s driving me off the site. Did I mention that at the same time they harassed a prerson with dozens of FPs and, I dunno, maybe five or six FA credits off the site they were talking constantly about how they needed to protect newbies, our future contibutors?

If FT2 can show a case at all comparable to this one, I will be shocked and surprised, and we probably all will be shocked at the content of the case FT2 has found. Or is the similar case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages

I keep noticing that there is a quite large number of indef semi protected user talk pages of administrators and active vandal fighters around, in violation of WP:SEMI. Some examples:

• Enigmaman since 25 July 2008, following three heavily vandalistic edits by a dynamic IP
• MBK004 since 26 July 2008, following four vandalistic edits by two IPs
• Arbiteroftruth since 22 August 2008, following one vandalistic edit by an IP
• Shapiros10 since 24 August 2008, following three nasty vandalisms in a seven day period
• Krimpet since 18 October 2008, following ten heavy vandalistic edits in a ten day period, with two shorter semi-protections.
• PMDrive1061 since 19 October 2008, following two threats by a dynamic IP
• Alison since 21 October 2008, following two vandalisms by a dynamic IP
• Dbachmann since 1 November 2008, following a rant/trolling (in three edits) by a static school IP
• NawlinWiki since 13 November 2008, following heavy vandalism

Those are just some names of over 800 pages (some of the archive pages though) that I recognized. I only had a quick look at the page histories around the time they were protected, but none of them warranted the indef protection. The two that were hit the hardest are from admins, and those should at least offer some other on-wiki way for non-autoconfirmeds to reach them (a scratchpad).

There are also a number of IP talk pages in that list. Now I really can't think of any justification for that, even an indef blocked IP who abused his talk page should get a chance for a block review every couple of months.

I suggest that all protections in the list be reviewed, and unless the user is inactive or the block log or the editor can point to "heavy and persistent" vandalism, the protection should be lifted (or reduced to at most a week if it was protected recently). I can help by talking to editors and looking at histories and contributions, but would need assistance to actually lift those protections. There are just so many that I can't go around and request unprotection for each one by myself.
Amalthea^Talk 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't say on the rest, but Alison is semi-retired and probably doesn't watch her talk page enough to catch the attacks--I think protection is a good idea for her page. GJC 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, if an editor is inactive then it usually makes sense. --Amalthea^Talk 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this thread (There wasn't any). The reason I protected mine is more than just minor vandalism. I received an email via emailuser from a vandal that I am still dealing with stating that as long as he was able he would set my talk page to auto archive rapidly after each post. I do not use a bot to archive my talk page and the clean-up from that takes too long for my liking. Because of this, I have remembered to set-up an unprotected talk page for those at User talk:MBK004/Anon. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't send any notifications since I in no way intended to complain about any of the editors above, they were really only meant to serve as examples. IIRC most didn't protect the page themselves. And I don't really want to discuss the specific reasons for the protections here, or summarily unprotect them, that's why I indicated that the editors in question need to be consulted.

What I'd like to discuss is the ongoing practise to indef protecting user talk pages in the first place. Unless there is really heavy long-term vandalism or an editor retires I'd think they don't ever need to be protected for over a month. Apparently those protections tend to be forgotten. --Amalthea^Talk 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I protected Shapiros10's talkpage mentioned above, after a particularly nasty piece of IP trolling. I indeffed because I didn't particularly want to set an end date, given the situation. However, I have to admit I forgot about it, and the editor never came back to me to ask it be lifted. Given that, I'll lift it now. Black Kite 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as Black Kite. I protected Krimpet's because of some off-wiki drama that was sparking some nasty, heavy vandalism over a couple days. She wasn't around, and I didn't set a time, as the off-wiki stuff tends to carry on for a while. She may not have even realized I'd protected. I'll go lift it now. لennavecia 23:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(after multiple ecs)I think admins whose pages are not being vandalised and are engaged in blocking and deleting pages should unprotect their pages or at least have a separate page for IPs and new users to leave them messages, ask questions etc. I don't really think talk pages should be protected unless targeted by vandals and then generally only for a limited period. Longer protection could be used in certain cases of long term abuse and harassment but otherwise I don't think it's a good idea. A couple of years ago I protected my own talk page several times due to long term vandalism and harassment from a banned user and after a few weeks I was prompted by another admin to unprotect it...its possible some of those people just need to be reminded that their page has been protected for a long time. Sarah 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(de-lurk) I can explain my talk page. While I'm loath to leave it semi'd indef, I'm basically retired now (or on break, whatev) and my page was a daily target for vandalism. This had been going on for months and was not a simple case of "two vandalisms". There is the concept of a "personal army" where a vandal can go to somewhere like /b/chan, and ask /b/tards to vandalize a page with the same message. Basically, blocking can't do much about that as each vandalism comes from a different IP address. When this happens day after day, it just becomes a time-waster. I'm checkuser on the English Wikipedia and myself and other checkusers are constant targets; I'm thinking of Rlevse, Luna Santin, Thatcher, Avi - all the busiest checkusers. And folks like Nawlinwiki and Tiptoety. All get daily onslaughts from /b/tards. As I'm not here now, I'd rather not have others waste their time reverting vandalism every single minute for hours on end. Hence the semi-prot. Having said all that, I'll lift it now, go away again and see how things go ;) - Alison ^❤ 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I think those are examples of appropriate protection. I don't think there's a problem with people who are being targeted in this way having their userspace protected. Sarah 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Aargh, I shouldn't have picked any examples, I really didn't want to put anyone on the spot, sorry. As I said above, if an editor is inactive then semi-protecting it makes absolute sense, an anon won't get any help or answers there in any case.
Also, I'll keep your page watchlisted and will request page protection myself if it gets ugly, to try and contain the spirits that I called ... ;)
Cheers Amalthea^Talk 23:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with userspace/usertalkspace being semied---though a scratchpad would be an important addition for users who intend to leave their pages semi-protected indefinitely. The rationale for limiting protection in articlespace doesn't hold up for user talk pages. Open editing as a project goal doesn't mean open communication. If a user feels that reverting vandalism on their own talk page isn't worth the effort, I'm happy to endorse an indefinite semi-protection. If WP:SEMI says otherwise, we should think about tweaking WP:SEMI. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the argument against semi protecting talk pages, especially of admins, vandal fighters and deletion-taggers, is that they are supposed to be the first contact for editors if they get warned, or their pages get deleted or nominated for deletion. In particular (and that's how I got alerted to that), if a speedy deletion tagger has his talk page semi-protected then a new user who created a page with his first edit and finds his page deleted, with nothing left but the warning on his page, has a hard time figuring out what has happened if he can't talk to the person who left the warning.
    There needs to be some obvious way to get into contact with them. --Amalthea^Talk 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

By "scratch pad" I think Protonk means a separate unprotected page for IPs and new users to use, which sort of removes the issue of being able to leave the admin/editor messages. I agree that admins blocking and deleting need to be willing to accept messages from people but I think a separate page is okay if it is clearly linked from the main talk page. Sarah 23:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me too. --Amalthea^Talk 23:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah is correct. Part of me says that admins shouldn't semi their own pages--the temptation to semi everything and be done with it is too great. I would, however, be amenable to protecting someone's talk page at length upon request. That seems like a small distinction, but it is important. Likewise, if an editor plans to deal w/ new/IP editors heavily, they should have a scratch pad. But I don't think that we should treat their talk pages like we treat articles. The primary distinction is that we have a public interest in open editing of articles where the benefit from open editing of talk pages is small by comparison. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Concur with Sarah and Protonk here. At least 80% of the pages on the list are user talk archives that nobody should be editing anyway. All of semi-protected IP talk pages I looked at were either blocked open/zombie proxies, IPs of known banned users, or school IPs associated with extensive vandalism. More than half of the main user talk pages on the list belong to editors who are known targets of vandalism, and those were just the names I recognised. I don't see this as a big deal, generally speaking. Risker (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • 362 of the 810 pages currently listed there are normal user talk pages. I didn't filter if there are any that don't belong to an existing account though. Less than I expected, but more than 20%. Cheers, --Amalthea^Talk 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• I have no objection to semi-protection being lifted from my talk page. I requested semi-protection a few months ago and Krimpet kindly obliged, but didn't set an end date. I should have asked another admin to lift it after a few weeks, but I simply forgot about it. Enigma ^message 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

NawlinWiki's talk page is almost constantly under attack by grawp's band of /b/-tards. If the page history isn't showing much, it's only because he regularly deletes & restores to remove the garbage.. I suppose now that regular protection & move protection can be set to expire independently - that would be the way to handle it, but I usually just let him unprotect when he's up to dealing with the nonsense. --Versageek 02:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My talkpage gets unprotected occasionally, and I tend to re-sprotect it the next time it is being trolled. This is really a question of WP:UCS. It does no damage, it helps keeping the project sane and avoids wasting more time than necessary over trolling - it serves the project hence it's a good thing. I had a rather immature exchange over this with AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) in the past, who seemed to be thinking admins sprotecting their talkpages were immoral, licentious bastards indulging in luxuries denied to the common man. In reality, the people who need to sprotect their talkpages in the first place tend to be those doing the more thankless and tedious jobs of dealing with disruptive editors. This really shouldn't be an issue, and perhaps WP:SEMI should be modified so that it stops being brought up on a technicality. --dab (⁳) 06:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally more curious about the large number of user talk pages that are fully protected (excluding archives, of course). A number are indefinite vandals doing some nasty death threats and like but it's a little extreme for a lot of them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirected page to I am going to rape your children and mutilate their dead bodies with my penis. - Well, I guess that didn't take long :/ - Alison ^❤ 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC) (thanks, Versageek ;) )

• Yeah, that turned out to be a great idea. Krimpets looked the same. :|
  Those pages surely qualify as victims of persistant, heavy vandalism, per WP:PP. --Amalthea^Talk 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to give these pages a chance every so often (in the case of Alison's, it has failed within 8 hours); however, I also think that the semi-protection should be indef - this would prevent vandals from waiting until the moment of expiry and immediately vandalizing it. I see no problem with such semi protection, provided:

1. It is clearly necessary at the time of protection.
2. There is some other clearly designated page for anons and new users to post to the user in question.
3. Protection is terminated within a reasonable amount of time; what's considered reasonable depends on the amount of vandalism, the likely need for new users and anons to contact the user, etc.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with indefinetly protecting serious vandals' talk pages - if they've demonstrated that they have nothing to contribute, why enable them to waste more time through asking for block reviews which won't be granted? I also don't see anything wrong with editors being able to request that their talk pages be Indefinitely semi-protected - given that it's OK to remove any messages you want from your talk page under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, what's wrong with giving people the option to not be harassed by IP editors and people who've only been registered for a few days if they so wish? - if IPs and new editors want to complain about them they can use the relevant article talk pages or something like ANI, or just wait a few days until the semi-protection doesn't apply to them. I've seen good editors leave because they feel that vandals are given too much leeway, so why protect the 'rights' of unproductive editors at the expense of people who are trying to do the best they can? Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that we are also losing potential new editors with the semi-protected talk pages. A non-autoconfirmed user will typically not find ANI. If all he knows is that the page he created is gone and that the talk page of the admin who deleted it can't be edited, then that might be it. And I don't think the indef protection is necessary in most cases. As shown above there are a significant number of cases where it is, but most of the vandalisms and talk page threats come from vandals who aren't persistant, and who won't deliberately wait until the protection is lifted. Maybe an escalating protection time (30h - 10 days - one month) is a good alternative to indef protection. I'm sure that every active editor here can muster up the patience to test the waters every month, and protect/request protection again if needed. --Amalthea^Talk 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

One way to solve all of this is to ensure that all users are getting a welcome message. In that, they've got the links they need to get help no matter what. It gives them the helpme template, links to various help desks and noticeboards, and of course various pages of info. As far as the semi-protection of admin talk pages, perhaps it would be best to tweak the policy and recommend an unprotected scratchpad/talk page for IPs, though in some cases, I think such pages will just end up being vandal sandboxes. Alternatively, a note at the top of the talk page recommending users who are unable to edit the protected page to instead use the talk page of [whoever], perhaps the protecting admin (some people also have mini-directories of "helpful editors", which could be linked to). I do, however, agree with others that in any case where I would use indef semi-protection, setting a time would be rather unwise, considering the circumstances of the vandalism for editors like Alison, Krimpet and NawlinWiki. An even better remedy would be to lock editing of the wiki down to registered users, but that's a whole 'nother debate. :) لennavecia 13:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My talk page is protected as well, after I been harrassed for months by ED trolls earlier in the year, in cases of harrassment, user talk pages should be semi-protected. Also note that I agree with Sarah and these editors should have a nononsense seperate talk page in which IPs and new users can comment you. I created one right now. Secret ^account 15:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a relatively easy solution if semi-protecting user talk pages is necessary (which it clearly is for some users). Just create an editnotice for your talk page (Special:Mytalk/Editnotice) and that will automagically appear when someone tries to leave you a message. You can then link to an unprotected talk page, and watchlist it for messages. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I say, set an expiry sometime in 2027. No one using Ctrl-F will notice, since it's not indefinitely protected. :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, edit notices won't appear if can't edit the page, but only view the source. Try it at George W. Bush. --Amalthea^Talk 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I see consensus here

It seems like pretty much everyone here is under agreement that it is ok to semi-protect the talk pages of editors who are receiving constant IP/new editor vandalism, as long as there is an unprotected page available for IPs and new editors to post to, and that page is clearly linked to from the talk page. It is also accepted that full-protection of a blocked user's talk page is acceptable to avoid vandalism. This second one is already enshrined in WP:PROT, and I will alter the policy page to reflect the first item. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bsrboy and Plymouth

Banned User:Bsrboy keeps evading his blocks and editing Plymouth. In the last few days, he's made a number of reasonable edits as User:Vittel Salt and User:Samuel Anthony Davidson, till blocked. His last action was to put the article up for Peer review in accordance with his earlier stated aim of getting GA status for it. I don't imagine that he's going to stop, so is there any alternative to just letting this /new account→edits→CU→block/ cycle continue, with the likely end result of a GA that's been mostly optimised by a banned user? Does that matter? (For reference, an earlier discussion about his behaviour is here).  —SMALLJIM  12:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If he's doing good work, why block him? --NE2 22:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well he's already been banned by the community, and a ban applies to the person, so any sockpuppets are banned too. That's the position according to policy. But you've raised exactly the point that I'm trying to clarify. If he could somehow prove that he'd given up the vandalism, incivility etc., I, for one, would be in favour of eventually rehabilitating him. But that's not yet the case: [73][74].  —SMALLJIM  23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:3RRBot

I've recently programmed a bot that monitors the RC feed and attempts to detect editwars and disruptive behavior. You can see it's current reporting page at User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations. It has already found one editwar/problem and is likely to find more at a rate of about 1 per hour. I would appreciate it if admins would keep an eye on the bot's reporting page and deal with the cases as they come up.

I have plans for the future to have the bot automatically spot blatant violations of 1RR restrictions, and monitor pages under probation and report incidents. (probably to a different reporting page then the current one) —— nixeagle 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful and reduces need for report. As long as there is a level-headed admin monitoring the page, it is ok. --Tone 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a great idea! Maybe the reporting page should be moved to a subpage of WP:AN3, just like how cluebot reports vandals to AIV? Just a thought. Tiptoety ^talk 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Try make the page archive every day instead of every 2 days. Otherwise the page will be way too long. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki, all ya gotta do is change the template to 1 day... however as you requested I'll do it for ya. :). By the way the bot was down today due to a utf8 encoding error which I did not find out about until now. I've fixed it and the bot should be back up and running. —— nixeagle 04:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good idea, provided of course that an administrator makes the final call, so an innocent user won't be blocked for undo-ing a couple of n00b edits or vandalism. Also, maybe it would be a good idea to program the bot to place a templated notification on the involved users talk page, in case it hasn't already been done. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tudor Rickards

Hello.

I have some concerns regarding this article but am not really sure where to start Tudor Rickards ?

While Tudor Rickards could be notable enough for inclusion his article reads like an advert for his business and methods and is not properly referenced. I would appreciate it if an admin could take a look at it if you get chance. Thanks. Ponty Pirate (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Too long, too promotional. The subject himself may be notable, but it's not a very good article. Do you have some time to improve it? WP:EAR might be more helpful than this noticeboard for questions regarding the content of articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. Ponty Pirate (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:3RRBot

I've recently programmed a bot that monitors the RC feed and attempts to detect editwars and disruptive behavior. You can see it's current reporting page at User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations. It has already found one editwar/problem and is likely to find more at a rate of about 1 per hour. I would appreciate it if admins would keep an eye on the bot's reporting page and deal with the cases as they come up.

I have plans for the future to have the bot automatically spot blatant violations of 1RR restrictions, and monitor pages under probation and report incidents. (probably to a different reporting page then the current one) —— nixeagle 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful and reduces need for report. As long as there is a level-headed admin monitoring the page, it is ok. --Tone 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a great idea! Maybe the reporting page should be moved to a subpage of WP:AN3, just like how cluebot reports vandals to AIV? Just a thought. Tiptoety ^talk 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Try make the page archive every day instead of every 2 days. Otherwise the page will be way too long. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki, all ya gotta do is change the template to 1 day... however as you requested I'll do it for ya. :). By the way the bot was down today due to a utf8 encoding error which I did not find out about until now. I've fixed it and the bot should be back up and running. —— nixeagle 04:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good idea, provided of course that an administrator makes the final call, so an innocent user won't be blocked for undo-ing a couple of n00b edits or vandalism. Also, maybe it would be a good idea to program the bot to place a templated notification on the involved users talk page, in case it hasn't already been done. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tudor Rickards

Hello.

I have some concerns regarding this article but am not really sure where to start Tudor Rickards ?

While Tudor Rickards could be notable enough for inclusion his article reads like an advert for his business and methods and is not properly referenced. I would appreciate it if an admin could take a look at it if you get chance. Thanks. Ponty Pirate (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Too long, too promotional. The subject himself may be notable, but it's not a very good article. Do you have some time to improve it? WP:EAR might be more helpful than this noticeboard for questions regarding the content of articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. Ponty Pirate (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Hectorian and User:The Cat and the Owl disruptive editing, revert wars, pov pushing and vandalism

Resolved

 – Situation dealt with by User:Moreschi.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The last consensus from 12:10, 12 November 2008 of the page Macedonia was interrupted with the POV edit "term mainly used by Republic of Macedonia"[75], with no evidence/sources submitted about this personal User:The Cat and the Owl opinion. Since then this page has been a target of very well known Greek nationalist editors trying to push this POV not supported by a single evidence. Can something be done about this disruptive editing? Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, User:Alex Makedon has broken 3RR on the Macedonia dab page ([76], [77], [78], [79], plus previous revert-warring on 12/13 November). Note that he is currently page-banned from a closely related page, the Macedonian dab page, for similar reasons, under WP:ARBMAC. User:The Cat and the Owl, User:Hectorian and User:Avg are tag-team revert warring against him. The over-the-top style of accusations here (false "vandalism" charges, again) is nothing new, we had similar disruptive complaints from him during the last few days. Somebody got a good supply of salmo macedonicus handy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

there are three POV pushers disruptive reverteditors, and you find relevant naming something, how was it' only a page ban from one single page after all., and one revert and three edits between 16/11 and 17/11. Talking bout objectivity...Alex Makedon (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm working through this. Makedon is now blocked 48 hours for 3RR. Moreschi (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hectorian is blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. Moreschi (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The Cat and the Owl is also blocked 24 hours. That will be all for now, I think. Avg, please don't stir the pot on the talkpage: BalkanFever, please don't just revert next time - try thinking outside the box and consider whether the revert-war is actually necessary, as very often the content being fought over can just be removed (as FPAS has done). Moreschi (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Revert wars are never necessary, especially in this box, since they're all so very, very lame. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they'll stop. BalkanFever 02:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What are "rate limits"?

Apparently, you are not affected by them, and I was just wondering what they were. Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a way of limiting edit speeds for certain classes of editor to reduce the potential for damage, e.g. by massively numerous page moves in a short time period. Seems to work, too. --Rodhullandemu 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with User:Yachtsman1

Resolved

 – 81.139.76.64 (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Yachtsman1 keeps leaving warning messages on my talk page, and fails to WP:AGF. He has repeatedly reverted by good-faith efforts John McCain, and has left warning messages telling me to "Do not remove protection labels" when they are clearly incorrect (I'm editing as an IP, so the article is clearly not semi-protected). Can someone please at least remove the protection template on the article on my behalf so it won't get reverted by him? Thankyou. -81.139.76.64 (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note at Yachtsman's talk page; hopefully that will be the end of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, I see you have clarified the pp status of this article. I, however, do not find linking a food company with a U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate to be anything but vandalism. [80] I also find the editor in question's comments on the talk page to be less than civil.[81] Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

ADMIN NEEDED AT WP:AIAV - 5 VANDALS REPORTED

Resolved

see subject line - WP:AIAV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikify567 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The list is currently empty. Pedro :  Chat  09:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He posted it wrongly, hence noone noticed. Neverminding it, none were warned correctly anyway. SoWhy 10:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

5 is not a panic? seemed more often than not looking at recent changes at least one edit would be vandalism. Also, what does null edit mean? Had no intent to disrupt, jus ttrying to get an admin's attention. Wikify567 (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Five is not a panic and is no reason to post this in multiple places and disrupt AIV with multiple null edits. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit of an overreaction, 5 reports, even if correctly filed, are not enough to disrupt. Please be faithful that vandalism reports, if made correctly, will be dealt with in a matter of minutes and there is no reason to alert admins of them. The {{adminbacklog}}-template does that already. Regards SoWhy 10:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Libro0 Removing discussions from talk pages

Resolved

 – No issues here, other than the sockpuppet who has been blocked. either way (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Libro0, who appears to have been inappropriately using talk pages of Talk:1950s Topps, Talk:1960s Topps, and Talk:1970s Topps as dumps for potential edits has removed warnings from the talk section of the aforementioned pages and removed the discussions contained therein [82] and [83]. I undid this vandalism of removal leaving the inappropriate use of the talk pages as it is so it can be properly dealt with. I hope this is the proper forum to report this. The Almighty Bob (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A. Archiving is perfectly acceptable on stale discussions. The discussions Libro0 was archiving are stale. B. The Almighty Bob appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Baseball Card Guy and has been blocked. either way (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970s Topps, User:Baseball Card Guy sock festival, should be watchlisted along with all the Topps related articles. Secret ^account 12:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles Wrongly SALTed!

Need unprotection of several articles wrongly SALTed - see WP:RFP such as my first article - getting no response there Wikify567 (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please...relax, have a cup of tea. We are only volunteers here, we do stuff when we have the time to do it. Spamming here will only make people less willing to help you... SoWhy 10:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You posted the requests to unsalt only a few minutes ago. Wikipedia does not work at the speed you believe it works at (as per your previous posts about backlogs in AIV). I've declined the unsalting and deleted the many redirects you have created from the mainspace to Wikipedia project pages. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Admitted Sockpuppet needs ban

User:Ron_Paul...Ron_Paul... is suspected of being a sockpuppet of two different banned users. (Neither of us reporting seem to have reported elsewhere and frankly reporting sockpuppets very difficult and my attempt to present evidence on User:Sarsaparilla didn't take.) Here User:Ron_Paul...Ron_Paul... states: "I have not used sockppts simultaneously. Only after an unjustified ban. I've got a great one coming up, if you do want to ban me." Carol Moore 16:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Well it's a username block in the first place, so I blocked him because of that. I'll revert his edits. Secret ^account 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:122.105.43.130 I blocked for a month, seems clear that it's a sock of a banned user. Secret ^account 16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, likely User:Karmaisking we dealing with. Too simlar intrests, will ask for checkuser. Secret ^account 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Brainpower Triangle AfD broken?

I attempted to use Twinkle to generate an AfD for Brainpower Triangle but it appears to have been unsuccessful and generated a strange template message. There is an AfD now, but it's not linked from the article page. Any help in resolving this would be appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it worked fine to me. What are you having trouble with, specifically? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an AfDM or oldafd template on the article page that is preventing the AfD template from linking to the current AfD page. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's working for me as well. I find that if I use Twinkle to create an AFD, I sometimes have to go back and replace the AFD tag manually so it links to the page instead of immediately opening to the edit function. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bug in tracing trees of redirects

• At 19:01, 28 October 2008 User:Paste changed page Stelliot into a redirect by inserting #REDIRECT [[Sarah Chalke]] at the start, without deleting its previous text. As a result, it works as a redirect to Sarah Chalke, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Scrub&limit=500 thinks that it redirects to Scrubs, since the (extra) text in Stelliot contains a link to Scrubs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• I have now changed Stelliot to a plain redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That is because of bug 7304/. Graham87 04:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

End run round an AfD

On 15 November, an AfD deleted an article about a future music single. On 13 November, when it was clear where the discussion was going, the author of the article copied it en masse (and obviously, still in English) to the Nahuatl Wikipedia, where it still remains - link here. He then created an interwiki link between the two - [84] - which I have now had to remove twice. Questions - (1) while interwiki links can often be valid, this is clearly an end run around an AfD; but do we have any specific policies against it? (2) Is there any way of checking for further links of this type? (3) Should an English language article exist at nah.wiki? Black Kite 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As to (3), I don't think it should but can we do anything about it? I doubt it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there's not much we can do about it (bar finding a nah. admin) - I was wondering if it was actually valid to have an English article there under the pretence of "pending translation" or something similar. Black Kite 10:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but not our jurisdiction. Same as copying it to any other place on the Internet as far as en-wp is concerned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the interwiki that troubles me, as clearly the target page looks (a bit) like a valid en.wiki page, and the blue link looks internal. Still, we can clearly remove ones that aren't valid - question is, how many similar ones are there out there? Black Kite 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You could say that for any interwiki. Who can verify that John Seigenthaler isn't being implicated in any criminal conspiracies on the Zulu Wikipedia? Presumably if there is a WikiProject or task force which looks after things like that, they'd be the ones to ask about other questionable content being given the privilege of an interwiki link. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...And, using my amazing power of language translation, I did this--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The solution, I think, is a polite note to the offending editor pointing out that, since Perfect Symmetry (song) and Perfect Symmetry (Keane album) are not the same article, an interwiki link between the two is not appropriate. When this single is released, of course, things will change. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Even better, I think this shows that the user is an admin over there. You'd think s/he would know better. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

/facepalm. Black Kite 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lovely to know our donations to the WMF fund worthy projects like that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Freddyboytoy

Resolved

 – User:Freddyboytoy blocked for 1 week by User:Slrubenstein--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can someone check this and that? I've attempted to explain everything, without effect. I don't want to look after disruptive users. Is it possible to do something with this? Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it's probable that WP:AIV is the correct forum for this matter, Vejvančický's right, Freddy's not in any way a helpful contributor. I came across him/her from the accusation of vandalism against me in this edit summary. Three times Freddy has changed a date to May 15, despite the source clearly saying May 16. Elsewhere, I'm only seeing one or two of his/her edits that have not been reverted on sight. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest something needs to be done with Vejvancicky who reverted info on Prokofiev, comparison to Stalin's death on March 5th which is true!

!!!: Wrong, last fighting ended May 15, all books will tell you, your sources are wrong, even wikipedia article says so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_World_War_II_in_Europe

No, you are not right, adding little information under Chile's situation is not wrong, as it has been explained many times! Freddyboytoy (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but since nobody has yet given this editor a serious warning, and it is clear that action is going to be necessary, I have taken the liberty of doing so. looie496 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So you want to be proven wrong as well? Ok! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyboytoy (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, the editor had been given serious warnings, and chose to erase them here, a cavalier attitude that has continued in the case of your most recent remarks here. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because nobody can approach people properly on wikipedia, your norm!

I just posted a serious explanation to Freddyboytoy on his/her user talk page. Let's give it fifteen minutes or so to see if it gets through to him/her. I am not so concerned abouot trivial arguments s/he may make here, but if s/he returns to disruptive editing then I or another admin should block, long enough to give time to read carefully all the important policies that cover this range of disruptive behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And the response is…this! looie496 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

S/he has been blocked. S/he did not take it well... Slrubenstein | Talk 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bug in tracing trees of redirects

• At 19:01, 28 October 2008 User:Paste changed page Stelliot into a redirect by inserting #REDIRECT [[Sarah Chalke]] at the start, without deleting its previous text. As a result, it works as a redirect to Sarah Chalke, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Scrub&limit=500 thinks that it redirects to Scrubs, since the (extra) text in Stelliot contains a link to Scrubs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• I have now changed Stelliot to a plain redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That is because of bug 7304/. Graham87 04:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

End run round an AfD

On 15 November, an AfD deleted an article about a future music single. On 13 November, when it was clear where the discussion was going, the author of the article copied it en masse (and obviously, still in English) to the Nahuatl Wikipedia, where it still remains - link here. He then created an interwiki link between the two - [85] - which I have now had to remove twice. Questions - (1) while interwiki links can often be valid, this is clearly an end run around an AfD; but do we have any specific policies against it? (2) Is there any way of checking for further links of this type? (3) Should an English language article exist at nah.wiki? Black Kite 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As to (3), I don't think it should but can we do anything about it? I doubt it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there's not much we can do about it (bar finding a nah. admin) - I was wondering if it was actually valid to have an English article there under the pretence of "pending translation" or something similar. Black Kite 10:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but not our jurisdiction. Same as copying it to any other place on the Internet as far as en-wp is concerned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the interwiki that troubles me, as clearly the target page looks (a bit) like a valid en.wiki page, and the blue link looks internal. Still, we can clearly remove ones that aren't valid - question is, how many similar ones are there out there? Black Kite 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You could say that for any interwiki. Who can verify that John Seigenthaler isn't being implicated in any criminal conspiracies on the Zulu Wikipedia? Presumably if there is a WikiProject or task force which looks after things like that, they'd be the ones to ask about other questionable content being given the privilege of an interwiki link. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...And, using my amazing power of language translation, I did this--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The solution, I think, is a polite note to the offending editor pointing out that, since Perfect Symmetry (song) and Perfect Symmetry (Keane album) are not the same article, an interwiki link between the two is not appropriate. When this single is released, of course, things will change. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Even better, I think this shows that the user is an admin over there. You'd think s/he would know better. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

/facepalm. Black Kite 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lovely to know our donations to the WMF fund worthy projects like that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Freddyboytoy

Resolved

 – User:Freddyboytoy blocked for 1 week by User:Slrubenstein--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can someone check this and that? I've attempted to explain everything, without effect. I don't want to look after disruptive users. Is it possible to do something with this? Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it's probable that WP:AIV is the correct forum for this matter, Vejvančický's right, Freddy's not in any way a helpful contributor. I came across him/her from the accusation of vandalism against me in this edit summary. Three times Freddy has changed a date to May 15, despite the source clearly saying May 16. Elsewhere, I'm only seeing one or two of his/her edits that have not been reverted on sight. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest something needs to be done with Vejvancicky who reverted info on Prokofiev, comparison to Stalin's death on March 5th which is true!

!!!: Wrong, last fighting ended May 15, all books will tell you, your sources are wrong, even wikipedia article says so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_World_War_II_in_Europe

No, you are not right, adding little information under Chile's situation is not wrong, as it has been explained many times! Freddyboytoy (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but since nobody has yet given this editor a serious warning, and it is clear that action is going to be necessary, I have taken the liberty of doing so. looie496 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So you want to be proven wrong as well? Ok! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyboytoy (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, the editor had been given serious warnings, and chose to erase them here, a cavalier attitude that has continued in the case of your most recent remarks here. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because nobody can approach people properly on wikipedia, your norm!

I just posted a serious explanation to Freddyboytoy on his/her user talk page. Let's give it fifteen minutes or so to see if it gets through to him/her. I am not so concerned abouot trivial arguments s/he may make here, but if s/he returns to disruptive editing then I or another admin should block, long enough to give time to read carefully all the important policies that cover this range of disruptive behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And the response is…this! looie496 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

S/he has been blocked. S/he did not take it well... Slrubenstein | Talk 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit of advice, from admin to admin...

If a deletion discussion on (for example) a company is started, and a group, say, Wikiproject Companies throws their entire weight behind 'keep' - what is there to stop all the other contributors being overwhelmed by the sheer number of 'votes' ^{(I know they're not votes, but a 90-10 split is going to win, good arguments notwithstanding)} from Wikiproject Companies members? Is there a policy which prevents groups of related contributors from 'ganging up' to save articles? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit: this has nothing to do with the AfD I'm currently involved in, before you ask! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote policy and guidelines, and hope for a sympathetic closing admin? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Who is to say that the members of Wikiproject companies would all vote keep though? I would think that the members of a Wikiproject would have views on deletion as diverse as any other group regardless of the article. If such a group were to rally to the cause however, part of adminly duties is to weigh canvassing accordingly. Icewedge (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot hold belonging to a group against a user - this requires us either to abandon AGF, or to get rid of groups. That said, a wise admin would look at the reasons and not just the numbers. If 90 people poll one way with the same reason, and it is a great reason, well, there cannot be anything wrong ith that. If 90 people poll the same way and do not provide reasons, I'd say they aren't taking the process seriously. The reasoning, and the degree to which it engages issues raised in our policies, is the ultimate issue and anyone who votes should bear that in mind if they want their vote to mean anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the dangers of WikiProjects. If they do not include people who are not fans of foo then you get the situation we have with ice hockey, where a pile-on will happen in any deletion debate for a third level amateur team whose only coverage is the occasional mention in the results pages, and for which zero non-trivial independent sources exist. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So the moral is, that if there is a project doing things you do not like, join it. Increased participation solves many problems. I've done that a few times, once when I thought a project [86] was keeping too much unencyclopedic content, and an added opinion to what was at the time a minority view there helped change things a little. DGG (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It can be a pretty depressing affair when a project canvasses all its members via a newsletter, and they all come trooping in to "KEEP" an utterly nonnotable exemplar of the subject matter of their project, responding to ad terrorem arguments that "If the deletionists knock off this one, then nothing will be safe." AFDs are so thinly attended that 10 canvassed proponents of something generally overwhelm the usual AFD participants. Edison (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why we count arguments against policy rather then heads when closing AFDs. A good closing admin should be able to handle the multiplication of arguments to avoid and jusde the rest against policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In an ideal world, yes. But vote counting is what actually happens, and taking all but the most egregious cases of poor admin judgement to DRV make you look like a tool, so... HiDrNick! 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy is what we do, after all. --NE2 15:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

During my RFA, there were admins that were dead set against my nomination because I said I would evaluate arguments when closing AFDs instead of counting votes. So much for calling it !voting.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This comment made me curious enough to look up your RFA. Only one person (yes, an admin) mentioned AfD in the opposes, and the comment given was a concern that you would ignore consensus. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't the largest factor in the trainwreck that was my RFA, but Casliber seemed pretty explicit in saying that evaluating arguments instead of evaluating counts (my quote was "A list of keeps with strong arguments for delete may well be a delete consensus, just as a list of deletes with a few strong arguments for keeping may well be a consensus for keeping") was what he considered to be "ignoring consensus". I don't see much of a distinction between what I said and what is being said here.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, in answer to CML,ITC that it depends. But that is should be the guiding rule when making decisions on Wikipedia: it depends. Some thoughts:

• Most WikiProjects consist of only a few -- as in 2 or 3 -- active members. If that few people can swamp a deletion debate, then there aren't enough eyes on the matter.
• If the WikiProject has more active members than that, it will undoubtedly consist of factions. Individuals who are in competition with each other for respect & influence; a bit of research ought to reveal who belong to these factions. If the individuals in disagreement however agree over keeping an article, then that should be persuasive.
• (This last point was more obvious in earlier days, when there were fewer active Wikipedians: we knew who fought with whom, so when they agreed...)
• The problem with evaluating arguments & counting "me too"s is that one persuasive argument may lead a dozen other people to find themselves unable to do more than simply affirm that argument.
• The worst that can happen in keeping "an utterly nonnotable exemplar of the subject matter" is that we have an article or two no one cares about; articles that are truly not worth attention will eventually be purged. On the other hand, sometimes an article that is worthy of coverage is eradicated by AfD; when in doubt, we should always keep.

Trying to write an interpretation of any policy that will apply to every situation might be an excellent way to learn the intent of a given policy -- but if taken too seriously leads to quashing imagination. And Wikipedia needs much more imagination than it currently has. Keep in mind that we are all human, struggling to find the best way to present what we believe is useful information. -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Title blacklist request

I'm trying to create Talk:(+)-cis-2-Aminomethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid but the blacklist doesn't let me. I think it may be because of one of the rules for "excessive punctuation". This is not the first time I've seen false positives for chemical names. Is there any chance that the rule can be relaxed? If not, can someone at least create the talk page for me? Thanks. --Itub (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Created.. feel free to remove my silly comment from the top of the page :) --Versageek 07:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Itub (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as we are using the title blacklist rather than the abuse filter, it is possible to set it up so that rollbackers are not affected by the list, rather than admins? Just a passing thought. HiDrNick! 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible (yet), but it sounds like a really good idea to me. --Conti|✉ 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

After a little research, it looks like all it would take is a developer adding the "tboverride" permission to the rollbackers group. Here's the current configuration. If there's consensus to make the change, we could also add "unwatchedpages" (access to Special:Unwatchedpages) to the rollbacker package as well. HiDrNick! 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed on the Village pump. HiDrNick! 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I remember that the title blacklist (or username blacklist?) used to tell the users about which part of the blacklist they just violated, but as I tested the above term I just got MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit instead, which does not contain the regex that was triggered. Is there a way to change this? --Conti|✉ 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing not disclosing the regexes is a way to keep regex-savvy vandals from circumventing them. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What about whitelisting creation of a talk page (and associated subpages, like archives?) when an article already exists? Would that be possible and not foolish? If I am reading correctly, the (+) page was created by a non-sysop, but the extra colon in the talkpage activated the blacklist. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sixtycurves

Can anyone please check this user s/he has done a very bad attempt trying to impersonate me just compare the user pages. Alexnia (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look terribly nefarious at first glance; they've made no other contributions other than to their userpages, so may just be using your page as a template for their own. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any other problematic behavior, it is safe to assume that, as often new users do, Sixty found a userpage he/she liked and simply copy-and-pasted the code. You are welcome, to be sure, should you not like to see your userpage appropriated by another, to ask Sixty whether he/she might be inclined to credit you for the design or to make such changes as you might think to be necessary to avoid confusion (retargeting, for instance, the top links, which continue to direct your user, user talk, and contributions pages). Joe 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I probably should have seen this, which, although not really problematic, isn't very promising. It may, though, be a one-off instance of bold experimentation, so we are probably best to continue to AGF. Joe 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But who doesn't like to dig up and mutilate corpses? seicer | talk | contribs 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that yesterday. Did you notice the link for the image? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

New sock of User:Yorkshirian?

Through Blue (talk · contribs) has a name and user page remarkably similar to that of confirmed Yorkshirian sock True as Blue (talk · contribs) (see old user page here. Thoughts? Kafka Liz (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This may be conclusive [87] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And the Through Blue account was created (Oct 11) the day after the True as Blue account was blocked (Oct 10). I've blocked the user as a sock. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for checking it out. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet another, User:Puny Yooman, also blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone may also want to check Vivid Skittle (talk · contribs), whose contributions to Ripon are taken from the sandbox [88] of confirmed sock Blownaparte (talk · contribs). Kafka Liz (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Abdominal Migraine page

Hi, I tried to created a wikipedia redirect page for Abdominal Migraine to point to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migraine#Abdominal_migraine

The page Abdominal migrane page has been blacklisted, but I see no reason why the page couldnt be created to redirect, then locked from editing if there is a problem with vandalism.

Please add the redirect link to the above address. Russthomas1515 (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The pages Abdominal Migraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Abdominal migraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are not protected from editing. As far as I can tell, nothing prevents you from adding a redirect to them (#REDIRECT [[Migraine#Abdominal_migraine]]). What is the error message that you receive?  Sandstein  06:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not on either the local or global blacklists, and I appear to be able to create it just fine with my non-admin account. --Carnildo (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

move

Hi, can I move pages or do i need an account. Ta. 78.145.176.85 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You need an account. And there's a delay before the 'move' function kicks in once you've got one. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dumb n00b admin loses template link, finds...well, this.

Resolved

 – nice little disambig page created with suitable hat-note and wikitionary link

So the other day, I went a-looking for the template by which a blocked user could request unblocking. Being tired and not-utterly-functional at the time, I went to the search bar and typed, instead of "wp:unblock", just plain old "unblock" and clicked "go." Now, I know we expect a bit from our new editors, but to expect them--especially the blocked ones--to know enough to type "wp:" in front of a search term may be a little on the esoteric-knowledge side--so I'm wondering: if a user is looking for an unblock, and types in the first, most logical search term, do we really, really want them to end up here? (Yes, I know, sofixit--but I'm bringing it here because it seems like a bad idea to be moving things to point to policies, without obtaining a consensus first...)GJC 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That is actually quite funny! I don't think that it's a real issue however because I'm pretty sure a link to the correct unblock template appears in the block message doesn't it? Theresa Knott | token threats 21:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Who decided on that redirect? Oh wait, User:MZMcBride did, and recently :P[89] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CNRs are BAD because they point readers to our annoying policy pages! MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A self-reference hatnote should be OK - {{selfref|{{otheruses4|laxatives|instructions on requesting an unblock from Wikipedia|WP:UNBLOCK}}}} makes:

Dendodge Talk^Contribs 21:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the hatnote. MBisanz ^talk 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha! That's priceless. Nice find, Gladys. GlassCobra 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the sublime quality of the redirect, it would simply be easier to create Unblock as a disambig with a variation of the above hatnote and some further mainspace links to, as examples, plumbing, Cesspit and DVD region code Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I liked Dendodge's idea so much that I put into immediate action. Kingturtle (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you direct visitors to the laxative page to WP:UNBLOCK? I mean, funny and all, but... I've tagged Unblock as R3. Avruch ^T 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think unblock should be speedy deleted. Kingturtle (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, someone deleted this? That's an odd interpretation of this thread. I'd say that Pedro's solution is much more appropriate. GlassCobra 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it was just a redirect to Laxative, and the hatnote solution was implemented on the article Laxative. If we want a self reference on Unblock someone can put it back, but in the mean time it seemed strange to keep it as it was. Avruch ^T 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I can to create a sorta legit disambig page. If someone wants to add the hatnote they are free to do so.Geni 22:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Looked fine. I added a wikitionary link and putting this thread resolved. Pedro :  Chat  11:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeong Yoo Mi

Please delete her birthyear. She requested for removal of personal information on ko.wikipedia. (see this request entry.) She claimed that she is being injured about personal information. Best regards.--Kwj2772 (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Regards, the skomorokh 11:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Resolved

 – clean again for a few more minutes

Could a friendly passing administrator take a look at AIV? Those reported, are continuing to vandalize. Thanks, --Flewis^(talk) 12:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Any help would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 20, 2008 @ 12:37

 Done nearly empty now. Pedro :  Chat  12:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 20, 2008 @ 12:45

Moving an article

Hey guys, could someone help me redirect Brooklyn streets (West Streets) article to the West Streets section of the Brooklyn streets article? I'm trying to streamline the street articles and am at a loss on how to accomplish that. Thanks. Tom Vazquez (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If the content of Brooklyn streets (West Streets) is identical to that of the West Streets section of the Brooklyn streets article, you can just replace everything in the former with #REDIRECT Brooklyn streets#West Streets. If this is a wide-ranging or long-term project, you may want to get in touch with the folks over at WP:NYC for assistance and discussion. Please read Help:Merging and moving pages as well, if you haven't already. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir, Tom Vazquez (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

3RRbot needs your help

Are you an administrator? Do you have a few minutes to spare for your wiki? Good. Watchlist this page please: User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting for a protected article List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines‎

I've been watching and maintaining the article for over a year now, and this user User:TriskelionTarantula always reverts it. I'm requesting for a protected page for the said article, and perhaps block the user for vandalizing the article.

best regards,—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernz1973 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:RPP thats where your request should go Alexnia (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked for 31 hours for editwarring... (not by me) so page protection is not required at this time. Based on the edit comments by one of them... I think the two of them were just doing it for "fun", as one left this amusing comment about his revert: sorry it took so long..i have to take a leak. —— nixeagle 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Article nominated for deletion as it fails WP:LINKFARM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Because of the large number of anon accounts edit-warring at the article, I have semi-protected it for a few days as well. --Elonka 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The protomen

Resolved

 – Moved.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

When I try to move The protomen to The Protomen, I get an error message: "You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation". Can somebody either make the move or remove the lower case version as an attempt to get around a salted title? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it for you as a courtesy. While this version looks like it might pass an Afd, I should note that articles on this band have been created many times before (about ten times), and been deleted every time, twice by Afd (here and here). Both of those were in 2006, though, and you've got sources this time, so I'll WP:AGF. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not my article, I just wanted to put it in the proper spot.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightning Thundercat

Resolved

 – Blocked by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs).

This unabashed sock of User:Sarsaparilla is going around requesting that the articles his other sock accounts created be deleted, proposing that the articles on editors who oppose him be deleted and generally making a nuisance of himself. I request that an admin block the account as a ban-evading sockpuppet and that we let natural process take care of his legacy. the skomorokh 15:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I forgot to add pointyness to the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen, I appreciate it. the skomorokh 15:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested unblock has been declined. GlassCobra 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano

Discussion of block, which was reversed, and is at RfAr

Resolved  – Block swiftly reversed, arbitration filed against blocking admin Those of us who have been around a while understand the long, convoluted history between the two users mentioned in the subject. They will also know that Giano has been closely related to the account User:Catherine de Burgh, who would invariably show up and make a silly comment from a supremely hoity-toity faux noble british point of view. Recently, the Catherine de Baugh account decided to run for ArbCom. It was obvious to any onlooker that this was not a serious campaign for ArbCom. I am standing as the direct result of so many of you kind dear people begging me on your knees to stand. So I stand here before you, erect and proud, ready to do my duty to Wikipedia, its King and God. What of my multiple edits I here you all asking? My "piece de resistance" is here a page on women's suffrage, a matter close to my heart, as it should be to all our hearts. I implore you all not to nominate for FAC, as I consider writing pages etc. to be completely unnecessary. That is the job of those too lazy and unable to rule. I am not an admin as my family have never indulged in middle-management. As a member of the British ruling class, you can be assured of my patronage doing my duty at all times. When elected I will preserve the sanctity of IRC and the prestige of the Admin class and rigorously enforce complete civility upon the writing editors. God save our King! (Catherine de Burgh's ArbCom statement.) Apparently, David Gerard thought this harmless bit of tomfoolery was Giano trying to run a "good-hand" account (if he's calling CdB a good-hand, does that mean he thinks Giano is a bad-hand account?) and blocked CdB indefinitely and Giano for 24 hours. I asked him if he was going to block User:Bishzilla for being a good-hand account for User:Bishonen, something that was ignored. Apparently the fact that it was fairly well known that CdB was Giano's alternate account, and that it wasn't ACTUALLY running truly for ArbCom didn't matter. Instead, this looks like an attempt to "win" a vendetta. Even if David Gerard's actions were right (and they are NOT, in any way, shape, or form), he was not the one who should have done it. I'm calling for this to be immediately reversed, and I think Wikipedia should seriously consider if David Gerard's continuing use of the administrator tools is something we really want. SirFozzie (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Any chance of us dealing with this without maximum drama and grandstanding? .....OK, I didn't think so, but it was worth asking.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Well, if Giano was sockpuppeting, and CU confirms it... Are we suggesting unblocking Giano, and condoning sockpuppetry? Disclaimer: I know very little about all this, other than whenever Giano's name pops up, there is drama. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) It was a legitimate sockpuppet, used for humor purposes. The account has been around for months. You, and clearly David Gerard, indeed know very little about this. Watch this thread; drama coming. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Known socks are generaly accepted although idealy people are very open out them.Geni 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC) This block strikes me as being like someone blocking their parents on discovering they're not Santa Claus. I was under the impression that Lady Catherine and Giano being one and the same was common knowledge. If someone was concerned that voters might be misled, Lady Catherine's candidate question page was available to ask her to disclose alternative accounts. Had the connection not been declared in response to such a question, there would have been cause for concern, but a block without prior discussion was outrageous. In particular, given their history, David Gerard is a totally inappropriate person to be blocking Giano. WJBscribe (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Recommend unblocking. Experience has shown that blocks of Giano are never sustained. The sooner this one's undone the less trouble it will be. Tom Harrison Talk 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (ec)I would support a community ban of David Gerard at this point. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Suggest you are in a minoritory of 1.Geni 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC) WJBscribe, I've had the honour of quoting you in my unblock rationale. Unbeatable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (ecx6) While I'd like to know David's rationale for this block, right now I'd say it's not a good one at all. I saw the CdB ArbCom entry and shook my head, but didn't see anything to indicate it was anything but someone having a lark. Unless there's some underlying problems here that we don't know about but David does, then there's definitely a problem with the block. As for sockpuppetry, as noted above, other admins are doing similar things; has David turned up evidence that Giano and CdB are working together on certain issues in violation of the sockpuppet guidelines? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC) account has under 1000 edits it cannot run.Geni 22:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) It can, the discussion showing why is at User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_5#Could_you_be_my_knight_in_shining_armour MBisanz talk 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Bishzilla's user page explicitly says she's an alternate account of Bishonen, and has for a long time [90]. Is there a similar diff for the de Burgh account? I don't find the argument that the arbcom candidacy was only in jest to actually resolve the problem. At best, that argument just shifts the issue to WP:POINT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) It's not like there's ever been any intent to hide it, though. It's a well known alternate "joke" account. And quite why it needed a checkuser fishing expedition to work it out is beyond me. Black Kite 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Did anyone not already know this? I had been aware of this for some time, and I'm sure others have too. As far as I was aware, this "sockpuppet" was only as well concealed as my sockpuppet User:Blatant sockpuppet of WilyD. WilyD 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Giano & Catherine are the same person?? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Well I didn't know but this isn't something I've been paying attention to of late.Genisock2 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (ec X lost count) I've unblocked CdB, per what I interpret as the clear consensus here. Really, anybody could have made a mistake like that, but defending the block at this point is just silly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC) We don't block for sockpuppeting, we block for disruptive use of sockpuppets. The fact that everyone knew CdB was Giano's alternate account, and it had never been blocked before or even warned that I'm aware of, suggests that there isn't a history of disruption there. So the question to David Gerard (with no assumptions as to the answer) is this: What was the disruption which was the source of the block? I think David, and anyone who has spent more than a moment around ArbCom or the noticeboards, is aware that blocks of long term (vested) contributors and particularly Giano require a detailed explanation to prevent the maximum dramatic effect. Anyway, before we desysop David, we should hear what he has to say (and what he should have said prior to the block, in some public forum where his reasoning could be examined). Avruch T 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC) When I brought it up with him on his talk page, he refused to discuss it and stated that if we had any problems we should take it to ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) No violation of sockpuppetry at all. Just a long-term editor having a bit of a lark with a fun account. Indef-block was well overblown, and 24 hours for Giano seems like punishment - what for, I've no idea. As for whether David should have blocked or not - can someone elaborate on that point? I'm unfamiliar with the history. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC) This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while. Not sure if you were in on the joke, David, but either way, well done. All talk of ousting David should be disregarded- he is the best parody of himself we could ask for. Friday (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC) As well, what was the rationale behind disabling the CdB's ability to edit her own talk page? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I don't understand the need for joke accounts, and putting joke accounts up for ArbCom is disruptive. That applies to Bishzilla as well. Editors who feel the need for a joke account should label it clearly so there won't be any confusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC) How slowly would you like them to type up the template? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Huh? Does anyone object to marking the user page as an alternate account of Giano II? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Re Will Beback: I agreed agree that setting up fake arbcom candidacies is a no-go. Bishzilla is very clearly labeled though, and I believe her candidacy was serious. And, re other people, I also never followed Giano closely enough to know the names of any of his sockpuppets. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) There are more? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, geez. So this "good hand account" is reason enough to run a Checkuser? I wonder if the ombudsman would agree? Tex (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Apparently, several other CUs were involved with this. Any CU watching care to say who? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Count me as the last idiot who didn't previously know exactly whose sock the lady was, but that she was one was blindingly obvious. Now, to round off the fun, have any of the "multiple checkusers" who seriously wasted their time on doing a checkuser on it come forward for their public humiliation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Much ado about nothing. DurovaCharge! 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Hmm, disagree very much. We've just had a good contributor blocked, his legit sock blocked indef, and possible misuse of CU tools. There's very much ado. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Humorous sock-puppetry is troubling here.--Santa (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I am struggling to even imagine the grounds for unblocking either account, and failing miserably. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Did you support a 24 hour block of Raul when the Ceiling cat account came to light? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I would have to know anything about that to have an opinion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Huh? Are you saying these were good blocks? – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Yes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC) This would be a great opportunity to clarify our guidelines on "joke accounts," which are usually horribly unfunny anyway... given that these accounts are such a gray area at the moment, though, this was definitely an awful block. krimpet✽ 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I've taken a stab at it here. krimpet✽ 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Not just joke accounts, but all alternate accounts. Has there ever been a truly worthwhile use of undeclared socks by a legitimate user? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I think declared sockpuppets for "wacky" purposes are in the same boat. krimpet✽ 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) This account, while not "declared" was pretty much an open secret. I've never interacted with Giano, but I knew it was a joke, and that it was him. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC) And how did this account help, in any way, the building of an encyclopedia? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I could ask the same about your userpage, this very page, WP:RFA, etc etc. There is more than an encyclopedia on Wikipedia. There's a community as well, and regulars are allowed to have a little fun, as long as they aren't disrupting anything. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC) The difference is that nobody is running WP:RFA for ArbCom. If this was just a joke that didn't further the purpose of the project, why are folks so upset that it was blocked? If the account was doing no good, then blocking it caused no harm. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Another thing, given that the joke has presumably turned a bit sour now, should the candidacy be de-listed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC) My only comment on this is that this mess shows that joke accounts are funny, but never the way they were intended to be. --Tznkai (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC) This might as well be marked resolved now. I've requested a temporary desysop at RFAR, so discussion should probably move to that forum. Moreschi (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I was unaware of this duplicity, and remember the MFD for CdB's userpage being largely based on lack of mainspace edits by CdB. Fair enough I suppose, but it's a poor project that cannot tolerate a little creative wit from time to time. --Rodhullandemu 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) See no violation of WP:SOCK here. Giano and Catherine did not edited the same articles, nor voted together, nor received two positions of trust, etc. I am not sure about usefulness of jocking on the arbcom elections but I was under imperssion that jokes in Wikipedia space are allowed and even welcome (as oppose to the article space). Unless I see any valid argument for blocking Giano, I intend to unblock him in 1 hour Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I have not noticed he already unblocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (copied from G's talkpage) Just to say that it wasn't common knowledge to me, most normal users who don't know the dramatis personae on wiki I imagine, and several others I know too. So I could have decided to vote for Giano/CdB, as may others, and I would have been misled into doing so. Giano made it clear he was not going o run this year due to an Arb/jimbo possible veto if he were to get in. I presumed he was telling the truth when he said thhat and didn't have another account going on. Sorry if this seems gormless, funny or naive to the rest of you in the loop but I doubt I was the only one (not that I mind horribly, but it is a bit deceptive to run for arbcom and not make who you are/your other account clear in your statement etc. Boring I know!:) Sticky Parkin 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) But you would have been aware of it if David Gerard had instead asked questions about the connection or opposed Lady Catherine's candidacy due to it being an alternative account of Giano. Accepting that there might have been an issue with lack of transparency, there were steps short of a block that would have solved that. WJBscribe (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC) WJB puts it very wisely again. Sticky Parkin: you may not have been aware who exactly it was (I wasn't either), but that it was a joke candidacy was patently obvious. Come on, I can't imagine you (or anybody else, for that matter) could have made such a fool of yourself as to actually seriously vote for her. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC) While it was fairly obvious to anyone who has any experience of Giano's "humor", it may be worth noting that Giano has used his sock to ridicule and insult (albeit in a Giano-esque, tongue-in-cheek way) other, less experienced editors who were trying to be serious. See, for example, [91]. In jokes are funny only if you are in on the joke. While I certainly wouldn't endorse this block, I do think those editors who use these sorts of accounts should be very careful of WP:BITE. Bishzilla a one example of how to do it, CdB is not. I don't think using a sockpuppet account to run for ArbCom is clever either. On one hand, this process is confusing enough for those not in on the joke without this sort of distraction. On the other, the current ArbCom is beyond satire. Rockpocket 00:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) What you are all forgetting is that to be an Arb Lady C would have had to give her name and adress, it wcould not have happened, As it does happen two arbs and three checkusers and literally 100s of admins have known who she was for months, so the only reason for "multiple checkusers" to pile on this was fishing, to find out my private information and for what purpose. I now strongly advise anyone thinking of giving their names and adresses to Wikipedia to think very carefully. Who has Gerard and his multiple friends passed my name to and why, in fact Gerard himself has known for 2 years - so why, jusr why exactly - multiple checkusers? Giano (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Another checkuser asked me about Catherine de Burgh possibly being a sock of a banned user and running for Arbcom. I ran a check and found she was not a sock of the banned user but of Giano. I emailed the checkuser, Jimbo and Newyorkbrad, asking if this was an open secret, and whether anything should be done. I also attempted to contact "Catherine" privately [92] but "she" flipped me off [93]. Thatcher 05:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Thatcher, you have some explaining to do here. (1) Who was the other checkuser who asked you? (2) Why didn't they do it themselves? (or did they?) (3) What was the basis for the initial "suspicion" that this was a banned user? (never heard anything this nonsensical.) (4) Why didn't you check for the nature of the account, including its open-secret status, before you ran the check? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1) That's up to him or her to say. 2) It never hurts to ask for a second opinion on the reasonableness for a proposed check, if one has doubts or concerns. 3) See #1. Additionally, I previously had had concerns about this accounts Troubles editing, note that Troubles articles are under Arbcom restriction. 4) See [94] and [95]. What more should I have done, and do you propose that I do the same for every account I check? Thatcher 06:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC) To (3): no, no "see #1" here. You must have had some grounds for that suspicion, you are responsible for your checkusers. (3b) What "Troubles"-related editing? (4) Your attempts at contacting "Catherine" were after you ran the check, I suppose? What I meant was: everybody could see she was a joke account, and at least see what circle of editors she belonged to. If you knew enough about her to notice some "Troubles"-related editing of hers, surely you were also aware what user talk pages she used to frequent? You recognise a true Lady by the company she keeps, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Indeed, a joke account running for Arbcom to make a point is behavior entirely consistent with the banned user in question. I no longer recall why I checked the account in June other than that the checkuser log notes concerns about Troubles articles. (Do you really expect me to remember the details of the hundreds of checks I have run, especially ones where there was no useful finding?) I do not edit or watch Troubles articles myself, so it is most likely that I was asked by someone else or that I saw a complaint about her on some user talk page that I do watch. Thatcher 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Wait a moment, so you checked him already back in June, because of something relating to the Troubles, and then you checked him again yesterday when somebody thought he was "possibly being a sock of a banned user and running for Arbcom"? (He wasn't running for Arbcom in June, for sure.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I checked User:Catherine de Burgh in June, I no longer recall why, but the logged reason is concern over editing of Troubles articles. There were no findings at the time that I recall; there are a number of possible reasons for this which I would prefer not to speculate about. I checked Catherine de Burgh again yesterday. I never checked User:Giano II until yesterday, as a confirming check when I had already discovered Catherine and Giano on the same IPs. Thatcher 07:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC) In June of 2008, Her Ladyship had been inactive for three months (no edits between 20 March and 4 July). And the only contributions I can find that bring her even remotely in the neighbourhood of the troubles is a humorous exchange with User:Major Bonkers and User:Kittybrewster on a user talk page. Is that enough to get a lady stripped and searched down to her private parts these days? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC) <-Good question. I was looking over the account and noticed the same thing. After reviewing the entire checkuser log around that time, it appears that some edits have been oversighted. I believe that an account or IP made a personal attack that included personal information that has been oversighted. I do not recall for sure, but I think "Catherine" either came to the defense of the attacked party, or was herself attacked, in a manner that made me suspicious. (Recall that the Troubles articles have been plagued by sockpuppets on all sides.) I checked the attacking account, and I also checked Catherine. Catherine's most recent edits were too stale to return any result, which is why I did not discover in June that she was a sock of Giano. But the check was still recorded in the log. (That's one of the problems with the checkuser log; it shows what data was requested but not what data was returned. Similarly, if I ran a check on User:Grawp today, it would return no result, since the edits of that account are much too old; but the log would still show "Thatcher got IPs for Grawp".) And I think this is the last I can comment on this matter. Thatcher 08:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC) (ec) Am I correct that the checkuser who asked about CDB being the sock of a banned user was not David Gerard, who has indicated that he was aware of CDB's identity in 2006? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Right. Out of 1500+ admins, I guess there were only two of us who were not "in" on the open secret. Thatcher 07:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I think you misunderstood me: I'm well aware that not everybody knew it was Giano and I've said at RFAR that I think the checkuser was understandable (assuming the existence of the sort of evidence you'd normally check on, which I am assuming), because not all checkusers can be expected to be aware of all such open secrets. I keyed in on David Gerard specifically because he has acknowledged that he knew the account's identity in 2006. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) You are correct that it was not David G. who contacted me for an opinion as to whether Catherine warranted a check as a suspected sock of a banned user. Unfortunately neither my fellow checkuser nor I were in on the joke. I sent an email to a few people expressing concern, one of whom was in on the joke but was away from his computer (therefore I blame his girlfriend). Another of whom was David G.; he expressed that he previously knew about the Catherine account and was content to ignore it but that "her" Arbcom candidacy crossed a line. But David can certainly speak for himself in this regard. Thatcher 07:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC) So as I understand it: CDB was exhibiting tendencies that made her appear likely to be a banned user, Two checkusers who weren't aware that CDB was Giano checkusered CDB to determine if she was the banned editor in question, Finding out that she was instead Giano, they consulted with other trusted users as to how to proceed. I don't see any problem at all with the above. It's what happened next that I find problematic, but the checkusering looks to me to have been above board. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I planned to vote for a few joke or slightly ironic candidates as well as 'proper' ones as they usually had sort of a point to make too or are funny, and might even stand a chance of getting in, you never know.:) I expect she would have garnered a few votes, and some of them from people who didn't know who it was. She's been here a while and presumably edited a bit. Giano- no-one has passed on your details, just your IP or that you are CdB, which people are saying was known to some anyway. Everyone standing from arbcom I think has considered that they have to give the WMF their details- if not, thhey should, depending who will get to see the names etc. Sticky Parkin 00:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC) This beggars belief. Even assuming the unlikely event that such a block would stick, why would DG think Giano would be bothered by receiving a 24 hour block? At some stage most humans beings learn from their mistakes, why has DG not learned blocking Giano is daft? There has been more than enough opportunity. Besides this, it's such an insanely stupid miscalculation of power it is almost unbelievable, though as it happens so often it really shouldn't be. It is also preposterous in claimed excuse, as the alternate account was making itself highly visible claiming to be a dead woman ... and everyone who mattered knew it was Giano (or was theoretically capable of being, and likely to be, informed). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Next, let's get Little Stupid. Jehochman Talk 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I don't support letting any editors have joke accounts to indulge in foolishness, and I'd be perfectly content to see the sock account blocked (and that goes for User:Ceiling Cat, User:Bishzilla, and any others). It is, however, unacceptable to block the main account for something like this, and even blocking the sock account was an obviously controversial action that should have been considered on this page before anything was done. Everyking (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Good morning everyone. So it now appears Thatcher checkuserd Lady C/me in June, when she was not editing, so a total (to my certain knowledge) of 4 checkusers knew in advance. So why last night's antics - sounds to me like someone was pretty desperate to shut me up - perhaps they thought I was about to expose something, or was drawing attention to something. Giano (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Nope, see above. At the time I checked Catherine in June, her most recent edits were too stale so no result was returned, but the check was still logged (the log records what requests were made but not the result). The reason I checked Catherine has to do with an attack account that popped up about that time and some edits that have been oversighted. Thatcher 08:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Please see my comments on the requests for arbitration page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Giano should be kicked off the project. He trolls; he is disruptive; he is unprofessional; he behaves in a manner unbefitting a serious encyclopedic project; he brings the project into disrepute. Begone! 86.156.83.149 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Oh bugger, I missed the drama. I can't believe this, really, since in my experience both David and Giano "get it" at the most fundamental level, it being the reason why we are all supposed to be here. I do hope Giano is not embarking on a flame-out, that would be most regrettable. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC) This sort of silliness is why it's bad to try to edit and encyclopedia from within IRC. Really looks to me like a bit of egregious axe-grinding. I guess it will be worked out in ArbCom. Nandesuka (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Who on earth said anything about IRC? What an odd thing to say. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Pokes his head in and looks around... oh still showing re-runs, I will look back later* Chillum 13:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Sigh. This again. Giano is a gigantic untouchable troll who can get away with murder on this project, we all know this, we've all heard his conspiracy theories before about how everyone is trying to "shut him up" or out to get him, or whatever. If we're not going to ban him for his inexcusably poor behavior we certainly have no right to be considering anything against David Gerard. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC) I think it would be a good time for an uninvolved admin to take this off the transcluded subpage, stick it back on AN and then manually send it to the archives. Giano has been unblocked, and is making the rounds of the talk pages of those involved. There is also a listed RFAR case. There is certainly no pending need for admin action here. Thatcher 03:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC) History of subpage For GFDL reasons: * (cur) (last) 00:23, November 21, 2008 Avraham (Talk | contribs | block) (empty) (moving back per thatcher's request) (rollback | undo) * (cur) (last) 00:23, November 21, 2008 Avraham (Talk | contribs | block) (36,265 bytes) (Prep for detransclusion) (undo) * (cur) (last) 22:12, November 20, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (36,172 bytes) (I think it would be a good time for an uninvolved admin to take this off the transcluded subpage, stick it back on AN and then manually send it to the archives) (undo) * (cur) (last) 20:53, November 20, 2008 Swatjester (Talk | contribs | block) (35,764 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 08:51, November 20, 2008 Chillum (Talk | contribs | block) (35,112 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 07:55, November 20, 2008 How do you turn this on (Talk | contribs | block) (34,926 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 07:47, November 20, 2008 Nandesuka (Talk | contribs | block) (34,691 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:50, November 19, 2008 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) (34,411 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: comment) (undo) * (cur) (last) 16:56, November 19, 2008 86.156.83.149 (Talk | block) (34,025 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: Begone!) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:55, November 19, 2008 Newyorkbrad (Talk | contribs | block) (33,701 bytes) (comment) (undo) * (cur) (last) 03:23, November 19, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (33,543 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: clarify) (undo) * (cur) (last) 03:19, November 19, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (33,122 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: reply and explain) (undo) * (cur) (last) 03:09, November 19, 2008 Giano II (Talk | contribs | block) (31,891 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: sounds to me like someone was pretty desperate to shut me up - perhaps they thought I was about to expose something) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:49, November 19, 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs | block) (31,442 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: June and the Troubles?) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:43, November 19, 2008 Sarcasticidealist (Talk | contribs | block) (30,915 bytes) (looks above board) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:33, November 19, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (30,265 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: clarify) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:28, November 19, 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs | block) (29,732 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: in June??) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:27, November 19, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (29,306 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: reply) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:18, November 19, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (28,624 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: 'nother reply) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:11, November 19, 2008 Sarcasticidealist (Talk | contribs | block) (27,981 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: I think you misunderstand my question) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:07, November 19, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (27,419 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: Right. Out of 1500+ admins, I guess there were only two of us who were not "in" on the open secret) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:06, November 19, 2008 Sarcasticidealist (Talk | contribs | block) (27,249 bytes) (can you confirm that it wasn't David Gerard?) (undo) * (cur) (last) 02:05, November 19, 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs | block) (26,956 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: re) (undo) * (cur) (last) 01:50, November 19, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (26,250 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: revised) (undo) * (cur) (last) 01:49, November 19, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (26,048 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: replies) (undo) * (cur) (last) 01:41, November 19, 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs | block) (25,567 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: to Thatcher: please explain) (undo) * (cur) (last) 00:26, November 19, 2008 Everyking (Talk | contribs | block) (25,054 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 00:19, November 19, 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs | block) (24,517 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: CU comment) (undo) * (cur) (last) 00:00, November 19, 2008 Jehochman (Talk | contribs | block) (23,864 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: Next, let's get Little Stupid.) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:09, November 18, 2008 Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk | contribs | block) (23,713 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: fix) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:08, November 18, 2008 Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk | contribs | block) (23,645 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: fix) (undo) * (cur) (last) 21:07, November 18, 2008 Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk | contribs | block) (23,586 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: comment) (undo) * (cur) (last) 20:18, November 18, 2008 Will Beback (Talk | contribs | block) (22,870 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: no harm caused by blocking) (undo) * (cur) (last) 20:03, November 18, 2008 Durova (Talk | contribs | block) (22,476 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: rm pic) (undo) * (cur) (last) 19:34, November 18, 2008 Sticky Parkin (Talk | contribs | block) (22,581 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 19:30, November 18, 2008 Giano II (Talk | contribs | block) (21,753 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 19:23, November 18, 2008 Rockpocket (Talk | contribs | block) (21,022 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: comment) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:49, November 18, 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs | block) (19,989 bytes) (to Sticky parkin) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:44, November 18, 2008 WJBscribe (Talk | contribs | block) (19,557 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: comment) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:42, November 18, 2008 Sticky Parkin (Talk | contribs | block) (19,093 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:32, November 18, 2008 How do you turn this on (Talk | contribs | block) (18,157 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:31, November 18, 2008 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs | block) (17,735 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:31, November 18, 2008 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs | block) (17,461 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: Sorry, I have not noticed he already unblocked) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:29, November 18, 2008 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs | block) (17,303 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: See no violation of WP:SOCK here) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:28, November 18, 2008 Will Beback (Talk | contribs | block) (16,773 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: no help to the encyclopedia) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:20, November 18, 2008 Rodhullandemu (Talk | contribs | block) (16,550 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: re) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:20, November 18, 2008 Will Beback (Talk | contribs | block) (16,106 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: paste in current version) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:19, November 18, 2008 Will Beback (Talk | contribs | block) (16,544 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: just declare it) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:18, November 18, 2008 Sumoeagle179 (Talk | contribs | block) (16,304 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: no idea) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:17, November 18, 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) (16,106 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:14, November 18, 2008 How do you turn this on (Talk | contribs | block) (15,803 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:12, November 18, 2008 Krimpet (Talk | contribs | block) (15,483 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Joke accounts) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:11, November 18, 2008 Will Beback (Talk | contribs | block) (15,047 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: alternate accounts) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:10, November 18, 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs | block) (14,769 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:10, November 18, 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs | block) (14,562 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano: de-list?) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:01, November 18, 2008 How do you turn this on (Talk | contribs | block) (14,334 bytes) (→User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 17:59, November 18, 2008 Sarcasticidealist (Talk | contribs | block) (14,116 bytes) (Do you want to block Raul now?) (undo) * (cur) (last) 17:59, November 18, 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs | block) (13,918 bytes) (User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano) (undo) * (cur) (last) 17:58, November 18, 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs | block) (13,874 bytes) (save) (undo) * (cur) (last) 17:57, November 18, 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs | block) (1 byte) (create)

Western Culture

There is a dispute on the Western Culture article regarding the inclusion of an image depicting a breaking wheel as a lead image in the article. I have brought the matter here as to not start an edit war. Please see the Talk:Western culture page to see what has been said on this matter. Usergreatpower (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From the notice on the top of this noticeboard: "These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content." Chedorlaomer (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Images displayed on the Main Page

Resolved

The images Image:Triforce.svg, Image:Felix Pedro.jpg and Image:NASA Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle.jpg displayed on the Main Page come from the Wikimedia Commons and are not protected. Please upload them here. Thanks, Korg (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BEANS! FREE BEANS! --NE2 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've protected these three images on Commons. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Korg (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NE2, I considered the risk to be small. :) By the way, is there a better way to quickly draw the attention of an admin (without using IRC)? Korg (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you can run for adminship. Then you just need to alert yourself. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix my bad move?

Hi there,

I unthinkingly moved JAD (Joint Application Development) from 'Joint Application Development', to 'JAD (Joint Application Development)' in the process of making the main page for Jad a disambiguation page. Can someone move it back? Thanks!

Zzthex (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, also cleaned up the redirects (such as JAD). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks so much! Zzthex (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoax or vanity?

Does anybody know whether Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso is a hoax or a vanity article? Article has no references and the single editor (User:Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso) removed the no-refs-tag at least once. --Túrelio (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a hoax, surprisingly. With an alternative spelling, Lalith Aponsu, he turns up in Stirrat's "Power and Religiosity in a Post-colonial Setting" - in some detail, as well. That aside, the article would need to be completely rewritten to be even faintly encyclopedic, and would probably need more than the one RS. - Bilby (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been axed under A7. I was going to delete this article as a redirect under R1, only...where is it in the speedy menu? All I saw was R2 and R3. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

R1 is now listed under G8. Fram (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised it was deleted - from what I can tell it was reduced to one line and then speedied, as the one line didn't assert notability, while I think the original did, (which would normally call for AfD). But given how bad the original one was, I don't think there's much call to question the decision. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Administrator that does not understand BLP policy

I am worried about Administrator Nightscream that does not understand BLP policy after many discussions and advise from Jimbo Wales even. IP banned for lots of violations now like BLP and socks and using proxy and published password, put blp violations at AIDS denialism and other places about scientists like [96], [97] I moved it in history like WP:BLP says, the stuff was potential libel, the source was very bad and selfpub, the comments also were soapboxing. Administrator Nightscream restored the blp violation, WP:BLP says source burden is on people that add or restore blp violations so Nightscream was doing a blp violation there. Then there was a big long thing about how I am censoring Wikipedia at Nightscream talk my talk, lots of other peoples talk. Nightscream went even to Jimbo Wales talk page and Jimbo Wales totaly said I was right to delete blp violations, totaly said Nightscream was not understanding what censorship means what blp means.

So then here is weeks later and Nightscream goes back to original talk page and adds comment on discussion that is closed, it says do not modify and Nightscream adds a link to original blp violation so it is easy for people to read the potential libel there.

I reverted but I am worried this is bad for Wikipedia it is bad when administrator does not get a basic thing like WP:BLP, when a person says a bad sourced blp violation about some one it can be bad for Wikipedia, the policy says trash, do not wait for discussion and do not keep adding it back and adding linnks to it and saying it is a big free speech thing, that is Nightscream's mis-understanding of policy. I do not have personal problem with Nightscream, they are probably a good editor but do not understand a policy. Jimbo Wales all ready tried can some one pls help Nightscream here bc this is not good. Thx RetroS1mone talk 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If (if) this is libel, why not have it cleared out of the history? That way it cannot be linked anymore. There are many with the oversite ability (well, not that many, but yeah). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it is someone saying a scientist is a fraud and falsified documents et cetera, I can't do oversite, why does administrator keep restoring possible blp violations and then linking to it, is my question. RetroS1mone talk 03:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OS. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx I will look at OS, I did not know about it! RetroS1mone talk 04:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I think you're giving bad advice here. As Jimbo said, this is not a case for oversight -- the allegations in question don't belong in a Wikipedia article but they have been published and are pretty widely known. RetroS1mone is trying to interpret BLP to mean that a claim can't even appear on a talk page unless it is well sourced. But that's absurd: how can any consensus form about the quality of sourcing if it is impossible to mention something on the talk page until sourcing has been established? Jimbo's suggestion was that if something is presented in a particularly inflammatory way, it may be okay for somebody to replace it with an "executive summary" (my term) that states the gist as neutrally as possible. looie496 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just pointing him in the general direction that he would want. They can always deny him there. Hence the whole "if" statement. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This (or much of it, at least) doesn't require administrator intervention. You have raised with Nightscream your concerns about his understanding of BLP, and others partook the related discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Should Nightscream act qua administrator in a fashion to which you object, you might then return here or pursue an RfC or an RfAr, but there is not at the moment anything more that need be done vis-à-vis Nightsream (at least relative to his acting in his capacity as an admin). The issue of the addition of the link to (apparently) problematic material at Talk:AIDS denialism is, should it persist (if Nightstream or another editor, that is, reverts your reversion), probably best addressed at WP:BLPN, although I don't suppose that our discussing the issue (if one exists) here should be all that bad. 68.249.2.140 (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496 I am not trying to interpret BLP, i am reading BLP where it says delete without discussion. "a claim can't even appear on a talk page unless it is well sourced." that is blp policy near wordly. Jimbo said I was right to take the blp problem out, that is exactly what blp says and he also said you can replace with a summary, he did not say you should revert to the violation like Nightscream did or link to the problems like later Nightscream did. RetroS1mone talk 13:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie, I think you may have misread the text in question. This isn't a discussion of whether book B is a reliable citation for the allegation by author A that scientist S is a fraud. It says "S is a fraud". That's pretty straightforward, as I read BLP. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection page needs to be fixed

Resolved

 – Purged. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, i think the protection page needs fixing and i dont know where else to post it, thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks right to me (assuming you mean WP:RFPP). What seems to be the problem? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy all i see on this page is [[ with no other text. Thats the page i get sent to when i click any of the padlock icons on locked wiki pages BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The page was vandalised like that a few hours ago, but was fixed within a minute (see [98]). If you're still seeing the vandalised version, you may need to purge your cache - see WP:PURGE or just click here. Hope that helps. fish&karate 11:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou the purge worked, sorry for my mistake. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not your mistake at all, just a quirk of how web browsers work. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

block appeal

User:Googlean, recently blocked by me as a bad hand sockpuppet account of User:Avinesh has made a number of appeals, and in my opinion, poorly reasoned requests for a lifting of the block, generally relying on accusations of bad faith. I have elected not to engage anymore. If another admin would please review the appeal and use their own discretion, that would be nice.--Tznkai (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by admin

I found the tone and substance of this edit very disturbing and saddening. It is an unwarranted interference in the normal give and take of editorial discussion, based on a gross misinterpretation of the language used in that discussion. In my many years editing Wikipedia I have not encountered this kind of heavy handed behavior, and it seems to me to be against the principles and ethics we should be following here. It raises for me the question of whether this person has an axe to grind in this particular discussion, and if so, why he is taking advantage of his admin tools to attempt to influence that discussion. Haiduc (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

'I also want to commend you on your speedy response. You made that change less than four hours after I threatened to initiate the RfC. Next me we have a disagreement I will know what to do. *COUGH* HalfShadow 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An admin telling editors making attacks and being uncivil to stop or be blocked? The horror. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Halfshadow hacked up the point I was trying to make quite nicely. --Tznkai (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And I don't mind saying that was a hell of a lump to cough up. Anyone have a Halls? HalfShadow 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"The normal give and take of editing" includes threats? And it's heavy-handed for an admin to tell people to stop threatening? Have I entered the Twilight Wiki-Zone?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Tznkai was right to warn, no administrative intervention needed as long as Haiduc heeds the warning. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the best Wikipedia administrators can come up with is this kind of immature razzing. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, you are dragging this forum in the dirt. The real threat and only threat was the one made by Tznkai, it was wholly without justification, and its effect can only be to chill discussion, whatever is left of intellectual discussion that is, which is not much. You are all in need of adult supervision here. --Haiduc (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Now now. In your many years of Wikipedia, you should've spotted that coming to this board to complain groundlessly because you didn't like a justifiable general warning to stop doing something you shouldn't've been doing in the first place will not be well received. And then people will take the piss out of the complaint, because that's what happens in life. As for "adult supervision", well, admins are not your mummy and will not protect you from the bigger kids. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Administrators, if they are worth their salt, would do well to have some rudimentary sense of ethics and evenhandedness. Neither was apparent in this latest hamfisted and gratuitous attack. Better to pay attention to the rampant homophobia that infects the article and the talk page, instead of indulging in schoolyard bully tactics. And no, you are wrong, the admistrators are here precisely to protect bona fide editors from bullies, and it is especially perverse when they themselves become the bullies. But that has always been the fundamental problem with people who seek power and authority, has it not? --Haiduc (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this before Haiduc, do not accuse other editors of homophobia. That accusation is bullying. You are not the victim, you are the perpetrator. Cease and desist.--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• If I'd been an admin, you'd already have at least a 24 hour block. Gaming the system to get what you want? No, I don't think so. HalfShadow 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

<---(unindent) Haiduc, you and I have previously had this conversation about calling people homophobes because they disagree with you.[99] The fact that you are being held to the same referencing standards as others in the encyclopedia is not homophobic. Given the fact, of which you are well aware,[100] that there are many sockpuppets who have added questionable information about pederasty to many articles, it is entirely reasonable to insist on top-quality sourcing of all information. Please take the rhetoric down several notches. If you feel a content RfC or third opinion would be helpful, please institute it rather than threatening it. I see that Ottava Rima has continued to research and add improved referencing to the article in question, and encourage you to do the same. Risker (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, I know your comment was well-intentioned and in good faith, but I believe you were wrong. Blocks are meant to help resolve disputes, and must not be punitive; bans are punitive, and should be effected only when there is a clear and serious breach of policy or community consensus. Admin's should not threaten blocks or bans unless there are very specific conditions that warrant it. And in this specific case, with respect, I do not think the conditions warrant it. I do not see a personal attack on Haiduc's part, and the "threat" I see is a threat to call for an RfC. Well, we should never block someone for "threatening" to issue a request for comment. That is a normal progression in a dispute resolution process. If the conflict on the talk page in question turns out to be intractable, an RfC is precisely the next thing to do. Now, I have reviewed the section of talk in question and it seems to me that all people involved are indeed as Haiduc puts it involved in the sometimes rough give-and-take when people with diverse views work on an article. The conflict stems over different editors' readings of certain sources, and their explanations for their interpretations of the sources. If the conflict gets so heated that a cooling-down period is called for, then the others participating in this argument should be blocked as well, so that everyone has time to reflect on one another's arguments, and reflect more on the sources. I could see value to a block that might give people time to get actual copies of books and articles, rather than rely on google books, and thus be able to do the more serious research a complex issue may require. These would be blocks that would serve good purposes - not punitive, but clearly meant to encourage people to take positive steps that may help resolve the dispute. That said, I do not think that the conflict has reached this point. Not yet. An RfC may be called for. I do not know anything about this topic, but I do know academia and the world of academic book reviews and I know that while it is legitimate to quote book reviews from major journals, critical book reviews do not make a source (the book reviewed) unreliable and thus unacceptable for Wikipedia. This means that both sides of the argument have reliable sources for clearly significant views and thus both sides' views have merit. There is no call for an admin to take one side over another. I do not see Haiduc being uncivil, certainly nomoreso than anyone else involved in the discussion. I do see a real argument over the use of sources and we cannot pick on one side and say they are being uncivil because they disagree with the other sides. Arguments are by definition about disagreeing, and we should let this argument play out, it may leads to a real improvement in the article. I see no sense in a block right now, I do not see how it would help resolve the conflict. And a ban is utterly unjustified. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, these lines by Otava Rim constitute an attack, or come damn close: "By "queers studies scholars" you mean people with a fixed point of view who look at an issue in a very one sided way that is controversial? Douglass makes it very, very clear that Crompton's study was extremely biased and came under attack for it." First of all, the fact that many disagree with Crompton does not make it an unreliable source; academia is full of controversy and if we rejected sources because many disagreed with the view, this whole encyclopedia woudl be evicerated ... indeed, the whole reason we have an NPOV policy is to ensure that views that have been attacked may be included in this article. Douglass's review certainly makes it very clear that Crompton's view is significant which is the NPOV standard. So I am concerned about Otava Rim's apparent disregard for NPOV. Moreover, the first sentence quoted seems to suggest a categorical rejection of a major movement of adacemic scholarship. The logic is, Crompton is an example of Queer Studies, Queer Studies is bad scholarship; therefore Crompton, and perhaps any work of Queer Studies, should be excluded from the article. Aside from the fact that this would violate NPOV, I do not know what the basis is for deprecating Queer Studies which is a heterogeneous and changing field of study. What exactly is the fixed point of view? What is the controversy? Without any reasonable argument based on reliable sources (Douglass does not dismiss Queer Studies) I have to wonder, maybe Otava Rim just doesn't like queers? Maybe that is not going on, but it sure comes close. If Otava Rim wrote "Jewish Studies" or "African American Studies" I bet others would be a little concerned that OR is violating our civility policy. Look: there are at least two sides to this argument, and if an admin wishes to help resolve it, the admin better look at both sides. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, it's long been clear that the primary dispute on the page is about quality of sources, which sources to select over others, and whether or not the sources used actually say what they are reported to say (as opposed to a synthesis of what they "mean"). That's a pretty run-of-the-mill content dispute. A content RfC or third opinion would be entirely appropriate; in fact, I think it would be a very good idea. It is problematic how difficult it is to obtain independent viewpoints in this subject area; whether it's because many editors steer away from sexually-oriented content, have had negative experiences in working in this area before, or are aware of the fact that there's a phenomenal amount of socking within the topic, I am not sure, but I've had difficulty myself in the past to get uninvolved editors to take a look, too. It is not acceptable, however, to start using pejorative labels like "rampant homophobia" when the issue is content and sourcing. If, however, Haiduc is referring to an intention to issue a user conduct RfC, and doing so on an article talk page, then I think it is reasonable to interpret that as a threat. Risker (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it is an act of disruptive editing to dismiss an entire body of scholarly research as unacceptable, and it is offensive when the group is identified as Queer. Perhaps at this point no one wouold consider me neutral but I would be happy to comment on the conflict and do my best to be even-handed if diverse people thought it might help. But the first thing I would do is to remind people to stick to NPOV which means including views other than our own, including views that are critical of other views - and views that are criticized by others too. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No interpretation required. Haiduc used the term "threatening" to describe his own actions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I can't see how you can block someone when what they are "threatening" is to seek conflict resolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, when Haiduc said he had "threatened" to bring an RfC, he simply meant "indicated that he would," or "suggested that he might," or a thousand other phrases that mean the same thing. I might threaten to paint my house today, by which I don't mean the house is in danger. It's just a turn of phrase. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I read it, he was gloating about having successfully intimidated somebody (as he saw it), and stating his intention to use the same intimidation tactic in the future. The precise wording isn't really the point. looie496 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny, the way I read it was, he (or she?) was expressing relief that s/he had fended off a previous personal attack or attempt to bully by declaring an intention to make the conflict more public and seek the views of a wider range of editors. I guess different people can interpret all this subjectively. Maybe we should stick to, you know, policy. An admin should not block someone for making an RfC. And if you shouldn't block someone for making an RfC, a fortiori you shouldn't threaten to block them let alone ban them for indicating their readiness to make an RfC. Let's leave feelings and interpretations aside. You cannot block someone for seeking conflict resolution, period. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As one of the victims who has stared down the barrel of Haiduc's "Everyone who disagrees with me on content issues is a homophobe" gun, I will simply say that Tznkai's interpretation of Haiduc's statement is more consistent with his past (and ongoing) behavior. Tempers have certainly flared on that talk page on both sides, but over the course of the past few months Haiduc has thrown a nearly constant stream of invective, accusations, and personal attacks at his fellow editors. This incident has to be evaluated in light of this ongoing behavior problem. Nandesuka (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have given Haiduc a clear message that any attempt to intimidate other users to win a content dispute is unacceptable. That is the issue here. You can read it however you like, but my intended message, and I message I'm sure Haiduc has gotten, is that he stepped way out of line. We can apologize for what he could have, or should have meant or said, or we can accept the obvious conclusion that Haiduc was caught red handed gloating about bullying another user, got trouted for it, and decided to look for support on AN. By the way, when he didn't find it, he decided to whine about further admin abuse by completely outside admins who saw, without a word from me, that Haiduc was gloating about threatening another user.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Administers - like editors - can disagree in good faith. In fact, they ought to, it is a sign of a healthy community and one reason why we have lots of administrators (just like we have lots of editors). I do not at all question the good faith of anyone who has commented here. I presented my view, along with my reasoning, and I tried to be thorough about my reasoning in part out of respect to the many administrators with whom I - in good faith, and assuming their good faith - disagree. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>First of all, a thank you to Slrubenstein for reminding us all what Wikipedia is all about - dignified discourse and the pursuit of impartiality. I say "pursuit" of course because no one can claim absolute objectivity, nevertheless we can all strive towards it together.
Yes, Slrubenstein, your continued input and oversight of this discussion at the Nicolo Giraud article would be very welcome. I am at a bit of a disadvantage at the moment, as I am traveling overseas and will not have access to my library for several months, nevertheless we can still accomplish a great deal, and time is on our side.
As far as the comments by the others, let me respond here in brief to each of you. Risker and Tznkai, you are certainly free to express your opinions about my pointing out homophobia when I encounter it, but you are not free to try to muzzle me. I do not recognize your authority to do so, and I find you attempts to do so inappropriate and corrosive of the environment of free speech and elementary fairness in which we operate here. In this particular case, as you can see, I am not the only one to read OR´s deprecation of Queer Studies as a homophobic attack. As such things go, it is about as blatant an attack as can be.
Nandesuka, it is not clear whether, in the long and less than pleasant history of our exchanges, you are the victim or the perpetrator. It may be wise to leave that determination to others.
Looie496, an editor should never be intimidated by the threat to have his work examined by others. However, it may be that he will be forced to reconsider extremist or indefensible statements by being reminded that they are subject to scrutiny by the whole community, not just the handful of supportive editors with whom he may have collaborated. That is all to the good, and is wholly within the bounds of our work here, and can only result in a better article. Being threatened with blocking and banning for calling for public review, however, is an intimidation tactic, and is not appropriate.
Which brings me to my last comment, to Tznkai, whose actions precipitated our gathering here. I can only hope that the airing in this forum of your inappropriate threat has been instructive. As you can see, intelligent people can disagree about such things, and I can only hope that by being clearly shown how others view your actions, you in the future will think twice before acting in that manner, rather than cling to a one sided view that you are right and others are wrong. --Haiduc (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to point out what you think is the truth on homophobia you are welcome to do it...somewhere else. There is a time and a place, and Wikipedia is not the place, and a content dispute is not the time. I have no control over your free speech on the internet or in the real world, but the community at large, of administrators act as an agent has mandated a certain level of respect, decorum, and civility. Using personal attacks on the integrity of others is not within our policy, our norms, or our acceptable practices. I also note that you have casually ignored that the response to your complaint about me includes, and is probably weighted by, rebukes to your behavior. In addition you have still not even attempted to explain this edit I also want to commend you on your speedy response. You made that change less than four hours after I threatened to initiate the RfC. Next me we have a disagreement I will know what to do. While you have every right to use process fairly, you do not have the right to abuse it. Dispute resolution processes (with steps like third opinion and informal mediation which you seem to have skipped right over or ignored when presented) are tools for solving problems, not bludgeons to win a content dispute, or to cow or bully another editor. It is for those purposes you threatened to use RfC, and there is no more reasonable or obvious conclusion based on your behavior in this incident or in aggregate.

So, to summarize: You were threatening to abuse process, many others have noticed it as well, and you are asked to abide by community rules and cease.--Tznkai (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of homophobia on Wikipedia, and some admins do not appear to find it a problem (to the extent that I do not edit some article which I otherwise would). I do believe that the dismissal of queer studies by one editor quoted above to be a homophobic remark - whether it is acceptable to describe someone who makes homophobic remarks as being homophobic is an interesting question. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Attacking an entire line of scholarship as narrowly focused and one sided is not a particularly new, or a particularly homophobic occurrence. From an outside perspective, literature studies can be roughly described as a room full of brilliant scholars who turn into gibbering masses of hate when they look at anyone outside of their cubicle. Replace "queer studies" with "Post modern studies" and see how the sentence reads. Familiar, no? The line of attack is valid, although many will say it is not correct. (I make no declaration of opinion on what I think of queer studies) Is homophobia a problem? Certainly, and a major one. Homophobia, like any other attack creates a hostile editing environment. But using the accusation in a content dispute, especially repeatedly and on shaky ground, makes dealing with genuine homophobia much more difficult. This is too frequently a case of waving the bloody shirt, which the political scholars reading will remember, lost its effectiveness due to its over use as well.

Perhaps a better analogy is to think of sexual harassment. Does sexual harassment happen? Yes, and its a major problem. But accusing someone you work with of sexual harassment is an attack, and one that had better be justified. It certainly shouldn't be used during normal workplace disputes about who has to clean the break room.

tl;dr Homophobia is a problem, but this ain't it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I am really not willing to pursue this argument with you Tznkai, I have said what needed to be said and as far as I am concerned the matter is closed. But you wanted to know what I meant by my threat to expose Ottava Rima to public scrutiny in future disagreements. I will tell you.
As you should have noticed from my work here for the past four years or more (I have lost count), I am extremely slow to invoke the conflict resolution process. I have great faith in human reason and good will, and I imagine that most disagreements can be resolved by open and honest communication. If I announced my original intention to initiate an RfC it was because I had come to the reluctant realization that reason and discussion had failed in this instance.
Then lo and behold, one of the problematic passages to which I had objected at great length with no effect was suddenly removed by OR. That led me to the conclusion that I had been taken advantage of, that he had imposed his version of the article over my objections because I was alone in expressing those views while he had the backing of several supporters – not because he did not see the value of my arguments. It suggested to me that the editing process had been reduced to the level of a political power play.
Well, I have been played long enough. If you oppose me just to oppose me and only relent when I announce that I will throw the debate open to the community, then next time around I will overcome my reluctance to use the conflict resolution machinery and will call for the oversight of the community much sooner. (As I have done here, to resolve my disagreement with you.) So that was the reasoning behind my actions.
If I may give you a bit of advice, the next time you get the impulse to "trout" someone at Wikipedia, try talking to them first, on their talk page preferably, to get some sense of where that person is coming from. You are not here to "trout" people, Tznkai, you are here to serve other editors, since you have asked for and received the tools and authority to do so. It is a responsibility, not a privilege. Don´t let it go to your head. --Haiduc (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this simpler, then: You've lost this one, Haiduc. Stop wall-of-texting everyone, we're not that easily impressed. Give it a rest, already, 'kay? HalfShadow 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I question Tznkai's reasoning behind the claim, "Attacking an entire line of scholarship as narrowly focused and one sided is not a particularly new, or a particularly homophobic occurrence." This seems to me disingenuous. If someone attacked post-structuralism as narrow and one-sided, and I responded "Homophobe!" well, yes, then Tznkai would be right. If someone attackec African-American studies as narrow and one-sided, and I responded "Homophobe!" well, again I think Tsnkai would be justified. But when someone attacks Queer theory as one sided and narrow, yes, I think homophobia is a valid concern. Why? Because every academic discipline is narrow and one-sided. This statement is well-understood and non-controversial in academia and simply parallels the way other professions like law and medicine have become highly specialized. Aside from the fact that the typical engineer has generally little or no training in say comparative literature or social theory, even among engineers there may be great differences between say civil engineering and chemical engineering and aeroneautic engineering. It is precisely because most views are narrow or one sided that we have an NPOV policy, which demands that we include many such narrow or one-sided views. Given that this is how Wikipedia is supposed to operate normally, I find it very easy to believe that someone singles out Queer studies as a view that should not be included in an article a sign or homophobia, especially when the only reason given is an absurdly irrelevant reason. Not only do I think homophobia is a valid concern, I think it is an important concern we administrators should share. Wikipedia's future depends on its ability to provide NPOV articles that are informed by a diverse set of views, and to do this well we need a diverse set of editors. Diverse means that any set of editors has knowledge, expertise, another set lacks - it means we all complement one another. Here we seem to have an editor with expertise in Queer Theory and that very expertise is being used to justify excluding his/her edits? Hasn't anyone read the essays bemoaning Wikipedia's loss of expert editors? This is a serious threat to the project. Bottom line: admins should warn editors making homophobic comments that this is a form of disruptive editing that has no place in the project. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate for a moment. Within literature experts, and the reams of material they produce, you see them constantly attacking eachother's fields as one sided, narrow, and useless, pointless, biased, or otherwise worthless. Attacking say, Feminist theory as a discipline, does not necessarily make one a sexist any more than attacking multicultural studies as a discipline makes one a racist imperialist, or attacking abnormal psychology as a bunch of pseudoscience makes one a misanthrope. My point is that attacking an entire field or their methodology does not mean you are demeaning the subject of that field (women, LGBTQ?I and whatever initialisms I've forgotten, and people) Now, there are sexists who attack feminist theory, but not all those attacking feminist theory are sexists.

Yes, editors who make genuine homophobic comments are disruptive. It is incredibly disruptive, and creates a hostile editing environment. Genuine, persistent and unrepentant homophobia deserves a one way ticket into community exile. Ditto for racism, antisemitism, sexism, sexual harassment and so on. I'm not at all gun shy about booting these people out the door. At the same time, accusing someone of racism, antisemitism, sexism, sexual harassment and so on needs to be done on solid grounds. Otherwise it is an extreme poisoning of the well, and a vicious attack on the reputation and dignity of another editor. It is far too serious a matter to be used in a content dispute.--Tznkai (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is utterly ridiculous to claim that I have no right to point out how Crompton's "work" is inaccurate even though I have quoted other, reliable sources who are experts in the field who have stated the same exact thing, as even pointed out on the talk page. Its hard to miss-interpret Michael Lynch when he writes: "'Crompton is willing to assume that Kinseyan categories apply retrospectively - he even uses 'modern statistics' to determine the size of the 'gay male minority' in Georgian England!." Crompton misstates many passages about Byron's life. He makes up statistics. He makes it seem as if Byron's life was dominated by sex and ignores the fact that Byron spent most of his time writing poetry. Crompton isn't wrong because he is gay. He is wrong because he isn't a real literary critic and lacks all training necessary to know how to write a credible biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I have already pointed out on the Nicolo Giraud talk page that you have completely misconstrued all of my arguments. It is troubling that I have to do it twice. My comment to Haiduc was pointing out that he tried to legitimize Crompton's bad critical interpretation and faulty use of evidence by saying that he is part of a larger critical community. I pointed out that he is a bad critic regardless of any kind of attempt at legitimizing him could take place. The fact that you think that a critique on a critical movement could be "homophobic" is extremely troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I am afraid that it does not matter that you consider Crompton to be a bad critic. Douglass at least agrees that his work is significant, and Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that we include all significant views. Remember, Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth." I get that you do not think that Crompton's views are true or good or justified, but none of these are reasons for excluding them. Saying that Crompton is part of a larger critical community is not an attempt to legitimize, it is a good way of providing context for the given point of view, something we should all be doing to comply with NPOV. Ottava, you clearly have strong feelings about this and I respect that but I urge you to read our WP:NPOV policy because all changes to an article has to comply with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, stop trying to twist my words. You are doing exactly what Haiduc does, which is very troubling. Have I removed Crompton from the article? No. Am I the one that put together the article? Yes. Am I the one that found all of the sources? Yes. The article is neutral, and your critique of it is absurd. You are acting as if I have removed Crompton as a source. That is a directly false statement and a violation of civility. Ottava Rima (talk)

Hi Ottava! I am sorry you think I was twisting your words and appreciate your making this clear so I can explain myself better. It is my impression that in calling Crompton a bad critic, you are also suggesting that his views are fringe. Below you attack Haiduc as pushing a minor view, and here you are associating my defense of Crompton with Haiduc. My only point is that Crompton's view is a notable, significant view and should be presented in the article as such. I thought you were saying it should not be presented in the article as such, and it was only that with which I was taking issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, fringe views are those that are not accepted by the majority. As you can see from the page, the majority says that there is not enough information to determine if there was a sexual relationship going on. To characterize this as being included in a category for "history of pederasty", which is what the whole argument is about, based on one individual whose book has been critiqued by mainstream academics as being misleading, one sided, and containing factual errors, some how legitimizes the inclusion in a controversy category is rather absurd. Crompton's views aren't leaving the page. I never said that they would leave the page. However, they do not justify including Giraud in the category that Haiduc keeps pushing for. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I find this line by Haiduc absolutely absurd: "Then lo and behold, one of the problematic passages to which I had objected at great length with no effect was suddenly removed by OR." If anyone is willing to look, I reorganized the structure of the paragraphs and added more content. I didn't "remove" anything. I kept in Douglass's quote which states that Crompton's study is flawed. I added in another quote as the final say to say that there is no evidence and that everyone is just speculating. My additions do not do anything to support Haiduc, but actually do far more to prove that Crompton's view is fringe. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic banning Haiduc

Added per Moni3 - Propose to topic ban Haiduc from editing the article page of George Gordon Byron and Byron related articles, especially in relation to introducing categories that associate said pages with "pederasty" as currently undefined and without appropriate discussion on the talk page with clear, overwhelming consensus that said category would be an appropriately descriptive of the evidence as provided on the article page. Right now, there is no true definition of pederasty, no inclusion restrictions, and only a tiny minority of critiques even willing to rely on the term "pederasty", let alone apply it to Byron. The persistance towards inclusion in said categories and with said POV has so far led to problems with Verifiability, Consensus, Edit Warring, NPOV, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, can we move to topic ban Haiduc already? He has removed directly quoted material. He has tried to push a minor point of view. He has edit warred. He has misquoted sources along with missattribute them, and he constantly twists what other people say. The fact that people are defending Haiduc (as he defends himself) by claiming "homophobia" for people who are trying to uphold NPOV and Verifiability is very dangerous and destructive to the project as a whole. Furthermore, it is obvious from Haiduc's user page that he has only one purpose on Wikipedia, which is to promote a fringe POV, i.e. support of Pederasty as somehow socially acceptable, whereas most psychologists see it as the equivalent of child abuse and define it in ways completely different than he wishes to portray it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, can you provide edit diffs? That would make it much easier for us to assess your serious accusations. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting here as a content editor and a member of WP:LGBT. However, I don't speak for the entire project, obviously. I stepped in and defended Haiduc when Historical pederastic relationships came up for AfD. I believe it's a worthy article to have, but saw it as poorly written and cited. Haiduc's chosen topic of interest is pederasty, and I have commented to him before that he should surely know what a hot-button topic this is, with or without the homophobia. Such topics should be cited to the hilt, with the blindingly obvious noted clearly in the article. However, despite the fact that Haiduc has taken these suggestions amicably, I have not seen him follow through in the articles. Defining pederasty in terms of the era and as class distinctions remains muddy, and there are too many defensive posts by Haiduc where a plain offering of the source should suffice. I don't know what is going on. I've posted a suspicion that Haiduc either does not have these sources at hand (because I post mine immediately when called into question), or he rather enjoys the froofraw from all the arguing. I would not enjoy it. I don't know how I feel about a topic ban, because as soon as Haiduc is banned from these articles I fear they will be deleted without someone to watch over them. As I said, I believe they are valuable to have, if they are written and cited properly. It is not my particular area of interest, and I feel like I would get sucked into writing them when I have no interest in doing it, just to save them from deletion. But I would be exhausted with the constant reverts and bickering that goes on all these articles' talk pages. But the fact remains: someone needs to write and cite these articles as if they were trying to get an FA. Complete with footnotes, disagreement among historians, whatever has been written about these topcis by scholarly studies. --Moni3 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The only topic that I am proposing Haiduc to be banned from are Byron related topics, in particular Giraud. I have been trying to restore citations and notes to the Byron page for a very long time, and this controversy makes it impossible to put together something stable. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. You might want to make it clear that you're requesting a ban on Byron issues only in your statement up there. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project and will work only if different editors make up for one another's deficiencies. If Haiduc is a single-purpose editor, and the purpose is to push a fringe point of view (and in this specific case we mean a fringe point of view within cultural history or literary criticism, not within the US Congress!!), perhaps a topic ban is justifiable. If however Haiduc is adding verifiable material representing a significant view, then we need to have faith in the Wikipedia process in which different editors help fill in the gaps. Moni3, you make it sound as if Haiduc leaving the project would mean no one would be adding such content. IF such content is as I said verifiable and notable, this is very hard for me to imagine ... of the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia editors, no one else has expertise in these matters? Even if Haiduc remained, I would think other editors may have better access to good libraries, or better research skills, or more time, and could fill in the gaps in Haiduc's contribution. It sounds like this is a good example of where Wikipedia has significant gaps in its own expertise, and we ought to be recruiting more editors who have knowledge in areas that are underrepresnted. Moni3, if you are right it makes me take Haiduc's concerns about homophobia more seriously, for reasons I explained in the above section. Here hoever the only issue is, is he adding unverfiable material expressing fringe points of view within academia? We need specific edit difs to assess this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence for Haiduc's actions: this shows Haiduc removing a directly quoted excerpt that points out Crompton's bias in order to instead put in a miscited and missquoted excerpt that makes it seem as if two other people agree 100% that Byron was in a pederistic relationship with Giraud. As pointed out at the bottom of this section, the quote comes from page 23 (not 22 as Haiduc put in twice), and says that these two were equally influenced by Marchand and other biographers, which makes it completely uncertain that Douglass is claiming that they agree with the "pederasty" interpretation. Furthermore, Douglass is saying that they rely on Crompton to create a "much more sombre picture", and sombre probably does not relate to the idea of having sex with a 16 year old boy, let alone classifying said sexual relationship as pederastic. Furthermore, as you can see from the bottom section (the critiques on Crompton and on Eisler), both aren't relying on factual evidence, but are speculating, which further de-legitimizes any claims that Giraud should be put into a controversial category. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I am traveling and will be away from my office and library for several months. Therefore it is difficult for me to start citing chapter and verse here. However, I will mention that I have a number of problems with OR´s approach. In the exploration of the hoimosexual and pederastic relationships that Byron had with his various boys we should recognize that we cannot give equal weight to very old sources, from periods when homosexuality really was an un-nameable love. Yet OR is dragging in souces close to a hundred years old, like Mayne, and using them as counterweights to more modern and more detailed sources, like Crompton, Eisler and Grosskurth.

The quote that OR is so fond of, that I removed, was removed because it is presented out of context and used to make Douglass sound like he is dismissing Crompton when in reality he is acknowledging him and his influence on subsequent scholars.

I also have a problem with OR´s (and others´) attempt to erase all traces of pederasty from the article. Let´s see... we have a man in an erotic relationship with a teenage boy, Losey and Brewer have specifically invoked the term (not that it is necessary for us for a categorization) and there is even published mention of the rumor that he took the boy to a doctor for an anal fissure (not that anal sex is in any way a prerequisite for such a categorization). But for some reason of his own, OR would like to deny students of pederasty access to all these juicy facts by means of the most elementary categorization scheme. Why?! And why not mention in the article the rumor about the anal fissure, as a rumor of course?

Me promoting pederasty as socially acceptable?! You have to be joshing. I have no public opinion on that topic. It is true that in some places (really, in most places) pederasty is perfectly legal, and in a few it is not. We are talking here about relationships with teenagers above the age of consent, of course. But that is none of my business, and frankly my personal opinions on pederasty have not been the driving force behind my edits. If you had examined my work here you would have seen that I reported the seemingly benign relationships with every bit as much verve as the really pathological ones. If I could promote something here, I would promote lawful AND ethical love relationships. I think you will agree that all too often we discover that what is lawful may not necessarily be ethical, don´t you think?

Most psychologists see it as child abuse?! Have you a survey for that? And exactly which definition of pederasty are you using here? You have repeatedly tried to impose a very narrow and particularly offensive definition, but scholarship does not support that.

Topic ban?! I don´t think anyone should be topic banned, not even you, Ottava, even though your objectivity leaves a lot to be desired.

Moni3 wants me to document my edits better. I improve with time. My edits of three and four and five years ago leave a lot to be desired, as in those days we were not really using references the way we do now. The newer edits are pretty much all documented. I am sure that will continue to improve further. But I have to say to you that this whole "bad references" thing is exactly like the Acorn controversy whipped up by the Republicans to derail Democratic voters. You can be sure that had there been a systematic gaming of the system I would have been out on my ear a long time ago, considering how vehement and driven my oponents have been. As it is, they are reduced to lamenting about my alleged sins, but really all they have been able to drum up have been typos, a sloppy correction to a misleading translation (a correction that has withstood inquiry and that now is incorporated in the article) and . . . what few others I may have forgotten. --Haiduc (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"In the exploration of the hoimosexual and pederastic relationships" That the vast majority of critics claim that there is just no evidence to even speculate on the very nature of those relationships!!! The fact that so many critics overwhelmingly say that, and only a few critics who are blatantly pushing a view NOT based on evidence only verifies why Haiduc should be topic banned. He keeps pushing blatant speculation that is constantly pointed out as such as fact. That is not what Wikipedia is. "Most psychologists see it as child abuse?! Have you a survey for that?" I have already put up tons of evidence on the talk page that has pederasty as a sub-category of pedophilia, which is child abuse pure and simple. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I refer anybody who is still swayed by the "gee, no one knows nuttin" storyline proposed by OR to the review of MacCarthy in the GLR by Lauritsen. He declares the work "the finest Byron biography ever written. Fiona MacCarthy was given full access to the Byron archives of the John Murray publishing house, the largest in the world" which "had previously been opened only to Leslie Marchand in the 1950's (on condition that he not allude to Byron's pederasty)." Ooops! Did I say the P word again? Or was it a notable queer studies scholar writing in one of the most reputable GLBT publications around. And is the Marchand he talks about the same Marchand you were waving around as a counterexample to the pederasty of Byron???

Relax, OR, I may concede your point in the end – it may well be that no one knows exactly what took place between Byron and his boys and his men. The bad news for you is that we don´t have to in order to discuss things here. This is not the Exactopedia. Much biographical information is somewhat vague. Homosexuality is still homosexuality, even if we do not know who was top or who was bottom. Pederasty is still pederasty even if the boy is no longer a little child and the man does not plant his carrot you know where, as you keep on trying to insist here and here and here and here and maybe elsewhere too, but I tire of scrounging through your writings. --Haiduc (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) OK, I am confused here, but is it possible that Compton is a Notable, significant, but minority opinion?--Tznkai (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

When I write articles dealing with literary topics, I try to include all professors/critics unless there are over 40. Only then do I try to find only the ones with a lot of scholarship behind them. Regardless, hes a professor, so his opinion should be notable enough to have him included, especially when there are three pop biographers without any real training in the field included. It is important to see that a discussion has taken place over Giraud to establish his notability. However, very few were truly critical enough to be included in the actual biography section (seeing as how most tended not to care about Giraud's actual biography). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai raises the only important question here, in my view: is Compton's view a minority view? I do not myself know the answer, but I do know that Douglass identifies his view as significant. It certainly is worth more discussion to see if anyone can establish whether Compton's view is a minority or mainstream or fringe or whatever view. I appreciate Tznkai returning our attention to this question.

But I have to point out that I do not find Ottava Rima's apparent interest in debating whether pederasty is or is not a form of pedophilia - perhaps a question relevant to some psychiatry article - constructive or relevant. In fact, it appears disruptive. To return to the original issue in this thread, all I can say is that if Haiduc has at times been a contentious editor, this is not always the case, and if Ottava Rima has made important contributions to Wikipedia s/he has also engaged in contentious behavior on the talk page of this article. I'd love to see some kind of mediation to resolve the conflict between these two, but I do not think the fault for a lack of progress in improving the article falls entirely to one side.

Ottava Rima accuses Haiduc of having deleted a properly sourced quote, and s/he is right. Haiduc answers that the quote is taken out of context and, as used in the article in question, misrepresents the author of the quote. I have read the source cited and I think Haiduc is right about that. I have made what I thought was a constructive suggestion: According to Ottava Rima, Douglass refers to people who reject Compton's claims that Byron had an erotic relationship with Nicolo Giraud. My suggestion is, instead of pasting in a quotation from Douglass, taken out of context, it would be better to quote and cite those scholars who specifically and directly disagree with Compton's specific claim. I think this would be a better way of complying with NPOV and V, and would make the article better. I still think this is the solution to the edit conflict. Certainly no more invective! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Slrubenstein, your view that I took the quote out of context has not been upheld by anyone else but you and Haiduc. 2. Your claim that my attack on the definition and use of pederasty is disruptive is preposterous since this is all about the inclusion of the term as an appropriate label, especially when Giraud would have been 16, making him too old according to the definition that I have provided, 3. I posted Douglass's excerpt on the talk page. You can generalize and make attacks on my editing, but the proof is there that I did not miss quote or take out of context anything. 4. You can say that I am contentious as much as you want, but being called homophobic repeatedly because I want actual sources used, with a fringe view not portrayed as the dominant view, really undermines your whole claim. I have bent over backwards since day one to save this page. I built the page. I fully cited every single aspect and I am the one that provided his notability. That includes putting in all the views based on their weight, and to be called homophobic because I did not privilege one view from a work that has been challenged for its academic integrity by multiple literary scholars? That is completely uncalled for, and your continued defense of Haiduc and his practice here is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, please focus on the positive forward looking parts of Slrubenstein's comment. Lets just move forward.--Tznkai (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is impossible for the Byron page improvements to move forward, seeing as how Haiduc has put up these controversies and started edit wars over pederasty on multiple pages and has pushed a fringe view. I have a lot of work waiting until a time that I know Haiduc will not be continuing his edit warring on these pages. As I stated to Haiduc on the talk page, WP:WEIGHT would limit how much is put into an analysis of Crompton, especially seeing as how his view is not the majority, and it would not be discussing Giraud. I told him to create a page on Crompton if he wishes. My concern is only with Byron, and he is making it impossible to fix that page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bouncehoper

This user has had a long-term abuse of swearing at other members and being uncivil. Look at this recent rant, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABouncehoper&diff=252886571&oldid=252556324. The fact that this user hasn't been penalized for this is surprising, given his history of incivility. Marcus2 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the user of this thread, and suggested that he might want to cut back on those seven words and their various permutations. Hopefully the advice will be taken in the spirit in which it was given.GJC 09:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is total crap, and you both know it. "Long-term abuse"? This guy came at me months after an argument was dead, and while refreshing my memory, I noticed that he is the one who has been more uncivil in any case. It pissed me off that this guy could fly off the handle himself and not be penalized. Hypocrisy.

Also, Gladys, you are not an administrator. So you can "warn" me 'til you're blue in the face, but you really have no reason, nor power to step into this mess that Marcus has created.

Both of you, please leave me, and my page alone. I'm done with this childish bullshit.

PS The thing to do, actually, Marcus, is if you're posting here, you're supposed to alert me. Not someone else. And if you have a problem with me, you're also supposed to seek a third opinion and not instantly whine to ANI.

Bouncehoper (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Gladys j cortez is an admin. See user rights log. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Had no way of knowing that, as it's not apparent on her page. I figure she was just some random chick.

Bouncehoper (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's illustrative of a problem right there--do you only have to be respectful to people who could block you? If I was just "some random chick", how would that make perfectly valid advice--not even hostile ranting, just calmly-phrased, helpfully intended advice--any less valid? GJC 08:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Bouncehoper is of the opinion that the concept of collaborative editing, and respect for all fellow editors, does not apply to him. One should not require the threat of punishment to behave in a collegial manner. "Some random chick"? And what would that make me? A non-random chick, since I have a link to my RFA on my page? Or would I still be random, but perhaps not be identified as a "chick" because my username does not sound particularly feminine? Bouncehoper should realise that a significant number of male editors including administrators have "chick-like" names, and assumptions along those lines could well backfire. Risker (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I should create a sock User:BabyBird. Bouncehoper, you're out of line, and you are expected to treat everyone on this wiki with respect, male, female, other-gendered or dinosaur.--Tznkai (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop by and comment, as all the other "chick" admins appear to be doing. XD Seriously, thought, anyone can issue warnings. Although admins are the only ones than can actually enforce them, "random" editors are still welcome to warn as appropriate. لennavecia 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, as I told Bouncehoper, any good faith editor can leave a warning (over which an admin may later block if it goes unheeded). This happens all the time with straightforward 3rr, civility and vandalism warnings, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have a hunch here re: what happens now...we'll see if I'm right. GJC 16:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And what was your hunch, hon?

Seriously, are you all pissed because you think I'm a dude? Ah well. *shrug* It's just funny, you know, since you all make points about someone's gender, especially pertaining to a username, and yet instantly assume I'm a man. (Guess what--I'm not! :-D)

And honestly, GJC, I thought you were one of Marcus's cronies who would jump to his side should his valor be questioned. My bad; it was an honest mistake.

Bouncehoper (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

LukeTheSpook cleanup

Now that User talk:LukeTheSpook has been fully protected and several different admins have declined an unblock, should the page be redirected to the user page and should his archives be deleted? I'm not sure what the protocol is here so I thought I would bring it up. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it can just stay as it is. The content of the archives may prove useful some time in the future, and if given a few weeks to calm down, LukeTheSpook may decide to apologise and come back to editing productively with one account. I did remove the annoying kaleidoscope, though. fish&karate 11:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on his talk page, he was free to e-mail me. He did, although I cannot validate his claims moreso than what he provided on his talk page. The evidence he provided was unverifiable. seicer | talk | contribs 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

IP talk pages unprotected

As of this week I have finished unprotecting all of the IP talk pages that had been semi-protected by former admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (see the original ANI thread on this topic). The only talk pages I did not unprotect were those of still-blocked open proxies and indefinitely blocked IPs. As best I can tell, CSCWEM had protected upwards of a thousand IP talk pages during the 2.5 years he had the `bit, with some of the talk pages having been protected since mid-2006 (often a year or two past when their blocks expired). Other admins who have helped clean this up include Netsnipe, Nlu, Risker, WJBscribe, Xaosflux, and especially Zzuuzz who single handedly did several hundred of them. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

British National Party needs admin attention and probably semi a while

Some admins will want to watchlist this. Apparently (and I know nearly nothing beyond what I've read in the past 30 minutes) this is the UK equivalent somewhat of the United State's Klu Klux Klan if the Klan were a political party. It appears (all over the news like MAD) their entire or nearly entire membership list was leaked all over the internet. People in the UK can it seems be legally fired, among other things, for membership in the party. Please watchlist this, and probably semi it. Relevant background for quick catching up:

• Talk page discussion on article, sections around there.
• Wikipedia Review thread - just read it, it's a super-fast overview if you need to see the significance of this event. Some of the links to blogs and UK news sources details just how insane this is quickly growing.

I have no opinion on whether the link should be suppressed from WP, but we don't follow UK law here. If a reliable source reports where to get it, then sure, I guess, but that's something to cover when it comes up. For the people still going WTF? imagine if the KKK's membership rolls were leaked online, and had home addresses, phone numbers, names and professions of 13,500 Americans (including police, politicians, judges, high profile businessmen, etc.). rootology (C)(T) 07:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the article history, there's currently no indication that normal editing processes are unable to deal with this developing issue. I assume that no reliable web source will host the leaked list, and any external links to this list being hosted somewhere on the internet should be editorially removed, on account of unreliability if nothing else. Notable people's membership in the party may be reported in their articles if confirmed by a reliable source.  Sandstein  09:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

More like the French Front National than the Klan, but the membership list is certainly sensitive. I don't think you can be sacked for being a member, but the group has racist connotations so would not exactly help the career of a serving police officer, for example. The BBC is likely a better source than Wikipedia Review, here's the latest from them on the subject: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7736794.stm Guy (Help!) 10:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Police officers, and people in various other jobs, are actually contractually banned from membership and would be subject to sacking - see [101]. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "The membership list includes police officers, who are banned from being in the BNP" I believe a Liverpool police officer is the first to siffer recriminations, but that is nothing to do with Wikipedia. I will keep an eye on the article and occasionally check the external link search to see if the members list is showing up on there. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it has been semi-protected since Sept 2007 so no need to worry about that. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, and to quote from one of these sources, "Any officer found to be a member of the party will face disciplinary action and is likely to be dismissed". So, I don't think it is legally mandated, but I think that most forces would regard it as unacceptable, and rightly so. But it matters not, really. Incidentally, the reaction of one spokesdroid for Teh Gubmint was that any breach of privacy is regrettable, but she is not ashamed of being a member of NuLabour and rather wonders what it is about the BNP that makes its members ashamed of their membership. Tee-hee :-) Guy (Help!) 16:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's an open MedCab case here about the issue. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoax or real?

Could somebody check whether article Wanda Lynne Crouch is real or a made-up story and, if it's real, whether it is appropriate to have such an article with many details eventually violating personality rights. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's real or a hoax, because it's speediable under criteria A7, which I have done. I have also left a note on the creator's page about creating autobiographies. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Geithner

The fun has begun...can a few more admins watchlist it? We've already got a few editors (at least one known around these parts already) who want to use blogs (one Pakistani) as sources.  Frank  |  talk  21:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I blocked New York City for anon?

I've got an IP-hopping blocked user who's irritating me. He seems to be jumping around a number of IP addresses - all with the same provider, all in the same geographical area. But new addresses every day.

Would anyone be greatly worried if I just blocked all the CIDR blocks he's coming from, for a reasonable period of time? I think it amounts to a bunch of /17s - fairly big blocks; it's a big provider. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How many IPs does it cover? You should ask a checkuser about collateral damage. Enigma ^message 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Each /17 takes out 32.000 addresses. So I guess I'd have to block around 100.000 addresses to be effective. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.175.131 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Relax, you're not in one of the blocks I've found. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As much as I would be incredibly amused by it, I think that's a lot of collatoral damage. Is the IP's vandalism really that bad? L'Aquatique[talk] 22:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, it's just a banned user seeking to continue the "discusson"; I don't know if he's really done any vandalism yet, but this looks vaguely threatening. What I dislike about those blocks is tha the operator seems to make it VERY easy to get new IP addresses, which means that it's exactly the same as a dialup bank, and almost as bad as an anon proxy - more detail on the IP ranges involved at User:Alvestrand/DeFrancis notes. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

what i meant was, i would return to what the normal vandals you see the huggle reverting people revert do, the kind of vandalism that gets reverted right after you make it by cluebot because its so ridiculous... its amusing to see the warnings piling up like c*** on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.156.23 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

i will stop because i found vandalising spanish wikipedia is more fun then here. i was accused of being molested in my house lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.133.253 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please only use rangeblocks in extreme circumstances, especially ones as far-reaching as the ones you're proposing. I see no reason in this particular case to take such an extreme action. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your advice and not do anything more about him. Is there a way to watch contributions from all anons from an IP range? --Alvestrand (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You could use Huggle for this if you created a queue with a regex matching the IP ranges you want. That would give you a live list. Alternatively, playing around with the javascript-enhanced contributions page, or the API (list=usercontribs), would allow you to see past edits from broad ranges, like 123.12* . Hope this helps  —SMALLJIM  15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it feasible to semi protect the affected pages for a while? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the proper response for this should have been: 'NEW YORK CITY'? HalfShadow 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Or "100,000 addresses!?!" --Kralizec! (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Srkris - Persistent uncivility, wikihounding and disruptive POV edits

User:Srkris has been:

• Uncivil in the talk page with a WP:CIVIL warning issued.
• Uncivil edit comments
• Doing POV Content forking (WP:POVFORK)
• Using clear Peacock/Weasel edits
• Most recently disruptive edits and ALL of this without leaving any edit comments on the talk page.

Please look into this. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And he continues,

Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)

• ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (#56435;) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Wikipedia policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Wikipedia has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Wikipedia by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Wikipedia has been completely within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.

User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Wikipedia, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It continues here. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies.

Also, User:Dab(Dbachmann) recommending his 'newfound' invention, 'cool down' block, is immature and outright silly. I don't know why I should be blocked because User:Dab(Dbachmann) thinks that an edit war with a blatant POV troll with a miserable edit history in Wikipedia, requires also the other editor, with a two-year clean record, to be blocked for 'equality' reasons. I have heard of 'equality', but this is nuts! Maybe he thinks that one user has to be blocked for every troll who is blocked or warned.

User:Srkris is a classic example of someone getting away from all the hue and cry by cleverly posting an 'inactive' status message in his userpage while at the same time being hyper-active and removing ALL warning messages and hiding traces of his bad behavior by occasionally taking breaks from Wikipedia. All necessary information pertaining to his current behavior has been listed very clearly with diffs. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 10:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• And he continues, for the fifth consecutive day, to stalk me wherever I go. Also, please note that I understand the difference between edit wars and wikihounding. He continues it here, here again and also here. User:Srkris sneaking under the system of policies and guidelines and continuing to be a previously blocked five times, uncivil, wikihounding POV troll is, simply, just a problem with the system, seriously!! Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This got archived, I am putting it back in here, awaiting a response. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The blocks of srkris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all from 2006, which is a long time ago. Since there is no nice crisp presentation of the right diffs, I'm tempted to suggest an WP:RFC/U on Srkris. But that would take a lot of time, and it would require that you format the issues in the best way for administrators to digest, which not everyone knows how to do. Srkris's side of the case should be included as well, and most likely the views of User:Dbachmann on the content issues. That sounds like a lot of work. It might be quicker if you would choose one of the articles where you and Srkris have disagreement, and you could open an article WP:RFC. (You'd be getting comments on what should be in the article, rather than making criticisms of Srkris). Let other editors weigh in on that specific article issue. Ask for assistance if you don't know how to do this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring, see WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I blocked New York City for anon?

I've got an IP-hopping blocked user who's irritating me. He seems to be jumping around a number of IP addresses - all with the same provider, all in the same geographical area. But new addresses every day.

Would anyone be greatly worried if I just blocked all the CIDR blocks he's coming from, for a reasonable period of time? I think it amounts to a bunch of /17s - fairly big blocks; it's a big provider. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How many IPs does it cover? You should ask a checkuser about collateral damage. Enigma ^message 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Each /17 takes out 32.000 addresses. So I guess I'd have to block around 100.000 addresses to be effective. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.175.131 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Relax, you're not in one of the blocks I've found. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As much as I would be incredibly amused by it, I think that's a lot of collatoral damage. Is the IP's vandalism really that bad? L'Aquatique[talk] 22:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, it's just a banned user seeking to continue the "discusson"; I don't know if he's really done any vandalism yet, but this looks vaguely threatening. What I dislike about those blocks is tha the operator seems to make it VERY easy to get new IP addresses, which means that it's exactly the same as a dialup bank, and almost as bad as an anon proxy - more detail on the IP ranges involved at User:Alvestrand/DeFrancis notes. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

what i meant was, i would return to what the normal vandals you see the huggle reverting people revert do, the kind of vandalism that gets reverted right after you make it by cluebot because its so ridiculous... its amusing to see the warnings piling up like c*** on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.156.23 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

i will stop because i found vandalising spanish wikipedia is more fun then here. i was accused of being molested in my house lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.133.253 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please only use rangeblocks in extreme circumstances, especially ones as far-reaching as the ones you're proposing. I see no reason in this particular case to take such an extreme action. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your advice and not do anything more about him. Is there a way to watch contributions from all anons from an IP range? --Alvestrand (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You could use Huggle for this if you created a queue with a regex matching the IP ranges you want. That would give you a live list. Alternatively, playing around with the javascript-enhanced contributions page, or the API (list=usercontribs), would allow you to see past edits from broad ranges, like 123.12* . Hope this helps  —SMALLJIM  15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it feasible to semi protect the affected pages for a while? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the proper response for this should have been: 'NEW YORK CITY'? HalfShadow 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Or "100,000 addresses!?!" --Kralizec! (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Srkris - Persistent uncivility, wikihounding and disruptive POV edits

User:Srkris has been:

• Uncivil in the talk page with a WP:CIVIL warning issued.
• Uncivil edit comments
• Doing POV Content forking (WP:POVFORK)
• Using clear Peacock/Weasel edits
• Most recently disruptive edits and ALL of this without leaving any edit comments on the talk page.

Please look into this. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And he continues,

Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)

• ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (#56435;) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Wikipedia policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Wikipedia has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Wikipedia by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Wikipedia has been completely within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.

User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Wikipedia, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It continues here. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies.

Also, User:Dab(Dbachmann) recommending his 'newfound' invention, 'cool down' block, is immature and outright silly. I don't know why I should be blocked because User:Dab(Dbachmann) thinks that an edit war with a blatant POV troll with a miserable edit history in Wikipedia, requires also the other editor, with a two-year clean record, to be blocked for 'equality' reasons. I have heard of 'equality', but this is nuts! Maybe he thinks that one user has to be blocked for every troll who is blocked or warned.

User:Srkris is a classic example of someone getting away from all the hue and cry by cleverly posting an 'inactive' status message in his userpage while at the same time being hyper-active and removing ALL warning messages and hiding traces of his bad behavior by occasionally taking breaks from Wikipedia. All necessary information pertaining to his current behavior has been listed very clearly with diffs. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 10:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• And he continues, for the fifth consecutive day, to stalk me wherever I go. Also, please note that I understand the difference between edit wars and wikihounding. He continues it here, here again and also here. User:Srkris sneaking under the system of policies and guidelines and continuing to be a previously blocked five times, uncivil, wikihounding POV troll is, simply, just a problem with the system, seriously!! Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This got archived, I am putting it back in here, awaiting a response. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The blocks of srkris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all from 2006, which is a long time ago. Since there is no nice crisp presentation of the right diffs, I'm tempted to suggest an WP:RFC/U on Srkris. But that would take a lot of time, and it would require that you format the issues in the best way for administrators to digest, which not everyone knows how to do. Srkris's side of the case should be included as well, and most likely the views of User:Dbachmann on the content issues. That sounds like a lot of work. It might be quicker if you would choose one of the articles where you and Srkris have disagreement, and you could open an article WP:RFC. (You'd be getting comments on what should be in the article, rather than making criticisms of Srkris). Let other editors weigh in on that specific article issue. Ask for assistance if you don't know how to do this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring, see WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Text entry for Genelec - Why removed?...

Resolved

Dear Sirs,

As technical editor for Genelec, a Finnish company manufacturing active loudspeakers since 1978, I edited the on-line description, history and technology section on Wikipedia some weeks ago. Today I have noticed that the new text has been deleted and the old and quite incomplete text is now back in place?... Why this?...

We would like the company description to be correct and complete. We should have the right to make such corrections and that they appear on-line properly. Also, a section about Directivity Control Waveguide was added and it seems it will be deleted. I am sorry to say but this technology is a Genelec breakthrough in the audio pro industry and is now widely copied. We should be entitled to have an article on this matter under our name (the DCW technology is a trademark of the Genelec!).

Please , let me know how to put the right info on Wikipedia in a way that it stays there! Thanks in advance.

GENELEC Christophe ANET Technical Editor / Acoustic Engineer Email: [email protected] --Camusic (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• You have a severe conflict of interest and appear to be attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your company. That your text, which was not freely released under an appropriate licence, was removed shows that our procedures work. I've left you a note - and a warning - about this on your talk page. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 07:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)