Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

WP:3RR against User:Jossi

I invoked WP:IAR and common sense to No Action this 3RR report against User:Jossi. As far as I can tell, Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. I therefore declined to take the rather drastic step of blocking an admin in good standing. This is a fairly contentious issue right now. Does anyone else want to chime in? Ronnotel (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This brings up 2 questions:

i) Does WP:3rr apply to pages other than wikipedia articles? In my opinion, no, thus Jossi should not be blocked (or punished). The reason for this is that, articles are important because they are the only content read by the public. In fact, everything on wikipedia exists for one main purpose, that is to improve articles. Thus it is important that articles be stable.

ii) Are admins and users in good standing exempt from WP:3rr? Certainly not. Infact, if anything, good users, as members who represent wikipedia interests, should be held to higher standards than edit warriors who violate the rule. (In this case, though, as already stated, 3rr doesn't apply). Bless sins (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to Wikilawyer, but WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The use of "page" instead of "article" in that sentence seems significant to me, so I don't think I can agree with Bless sins' first point. I endorse his/her second point absolutely, mind you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I've seen people blocked for violating 3RR on policy pages, talk pages, and even user pages. The only time I have seen an exception made was for people removing stuff from their own user page. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the edits to the Homeopathy notice subpage - disruptive edit warring seems to justify a few short blocks, and not of Jossi. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are instances where reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy and it appears Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. Not reason for a block, and agree with Ronnotel's decline.--Hu12 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to look through Jossi's recent editing history and some of the rumblings going on at User talk:Jossi. I know it is hard to block what you may consider to be a trusted admin, but I'm afraid he's stepping beyond the bounds of policy and making some very provocative maneuvers. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

to be honest, I'm much more concerned about your behavior. I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on. I think Jossi is trying to de-escalate the environment. I can't say the same for you. Ronnotel (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement. In the meantime, I think you should carefully note that this 3RR report was not due to me edit warring with Jossi, so there really isn't a kettle to be seen. Also, FYI, "I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on." is basically flouting WP:AGF. I know that you are upset with my hardline position at cold fusion, but you shouldn't let that cloud your judgment. For what it's worth, I really appreciated that you started this thread because it shows that this is not an easy situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that a cadre of dedicated warriors on each side is pushing the situation to where uninvolved admins can't step in without being attacked somehow.

This whole article probation / etc situation was set up to defuse that, and yet has now become another focus of disruptive editing and infighting.

From a practical standpoint - it doesn't matter who's fundamentally right. If both sides make it too toxic for uninvolved admins to step in, both sides need to get blocked and pages need to be full protected until things cool down.

That is approximately the last step left, and we're approximately there. I haven't pulled any triggers yet, but I think it has to be on the table. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As a previously uninvoled admin, I generally agree with User:Georgewilliamherbert. I had some hope that Arbcomm would agree to look at the article to look at issues of user conduct, but it appears that they continue to view it as a content dispute. I'm not really sure what else can be done from this point, because I don't think most of the unconstructive behaviour is actually blockworthy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't the only tool that admins can use here. You can impose revert paroles on individual users, or article/topic bans. That might be a way to address disruptive behavior that doesn't rise to the level of blocking. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that the most disruptive behaviour I see isn't to the article (in the form of excessive reverting, etc.) but on the talk page, where many editors seem interested only in denigrating (civilly, natch) their opponents; the talk pages get flooded with this sort of thing, and attempts to achieve consensus get buried and have low participation. Revert paroles wouldn't do any good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's where the article/topic bans come in. If an editor consistently makes disruptive edits to the talk page, including incivility and obstruction, then they can be prohibited from editing the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's more subtle than that, I'm afraid. They behave civilly, they're polite, and they don't obstruct others' efforts. They just do nothing to advance the cause of consensus, and a whole lot to fill up the talk page with endless debate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

In order to centralize disussion related to admin responses to the situation...

I have just blocked ShmuckyTheCat for 3 hours for the edit: [1], which I judge to be disruptive and drama-increasing rather than reducing behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, so following WP:TALK is now blockable. In this forum, it figures. Shot info (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was Shmucky's edit summary? This does seem like an odd choice. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a bunch of comments is not helpful. By itself it would probably be worth a warning or overlooking - but it was further escalation after comments by myself and other admins that further escalation is unacceptable, and that crackdowns for existing behavior might be justified. 3 hrs is enough to make the point without abusing anyone severely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seemed to have missed that bit in WP:TALK. Would you be able to point out where jossi's comments helped improve the article? Shot info (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were to rigorously block for violations of a strict interpretation of WP:TALK on the article talk page, about 35 editors will be sitting on their hands for the next week.

Alternatively, one can acknowledge that WP:TALK is a guideline not a prescription, and "violations" of it aren't removable barring other disruption... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that having a bunch of the editors sit on their hands is a bad idea. You could accomplish that through article/topic bans through blocks, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just shaking my head at what actually is acted upon decisively. No, it shouldn't surprise me, given the obsession with civilness over content. And edit warring civilly is tolerated....until it becomes uncivil, but by then it's too late for certain admins to act. Instead they pick and easy but largely tangential target. Shot info (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, large scale edit wars and disruption are worse for the Encyclopedia than even having clearly factually wrong content in some articles. Edit wars and personal attacks are attacks not just on individuals, but on the community. The community will, if it's not damaged or scared off a topic, eventually fix incorrect articles and related problems. But there's not much which fixes the community if people rampage around trying to break it.

Schmucky happened to be the first incivility to step in front of the bus, after we started the bus moving. That it was him and not one of a few dozen other people is not his fault, nor a conclusion about his position in the article dispute.

If you will excuse me from this little discussion, however, I have some people to ban from the talk page for a couple of days, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

George, in all honesty, there are a LOT of editors who are just waiting to see admins actually begining to act and act sensibly. Blocking Schmucky wasn't sensible (IMO). But if he is the first sign of a movement by admins to enforce content by removing editing warning, then I think he would be accepting of his fate. But then again, some oldtimers have heard this sort of talk before. I personally look forward to in anticipation to see what happens. Will the project move forward, or will WR be proven correct? Shot info (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd thing to block over. From George's perspective, removing comments made things worse. Schumucky felt differently. So instead of asking him not to do that.. no warning, you jump on a block? Wha? Schmucky's logic for removing the "OMG I'm leaving" comments are reasonable. We should not block over bad judgement calls (not that I even agree that it was a bad judgement call or not). -- Ned Scott 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Infophile (talk · contribs) is banned from Talk:Homeopathy for 24 hrs for this edit which was disruptive and uncivil. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

endorse. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to be civil rather than how they have been uncivil. Ronnotel (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there's some edit warring over the inclusion of the Pseudoscience and Fringe science categories on Homeopathy. This sequence of edits strikes me as a bit odd, since QuackGuru is an advocate of the categories and Dance With The Devil has never edited the article before. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec to Ronnotel) This is the major problem with the Project at the moment. The most civil POV is rewarded by the admins rather than NPOV and improving the article. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to improve the project rather than how they have been uncivil. Shot info (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is an official policy at Wikipedia. Editors who are laboring under the misapprehension that they can 'improve the project' while being 'uncivil' are... laboring under a misapprehension. Dlabtot (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First let me say that I endorse the article ban of User:Infophile, and further endorse User:Dlabtot's comments on civility. That said, I understand where User:Shot info is coming from; editors can be as frustratingly obstructionist as they want on the article talk page, but as long as they're polite about it there are no consequences to them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues. The problem isn't the civility, it's the failure to enforce NPOV. It's time to reward those who contribute to the project, rather than do what we have been doing - which is reward those who editwar, but do it civilly. Shot info (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just don't agree with your assertion: There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues. I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of admins are putting forth their best good faith efforts at enforcing WP:FIVE. And I'm sorry, there simply is no way to justify uncivil edits: not only is incivility a violation of one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles, it also just doesn't work - it's poor rhetoric which not only fails to persuade, but backfires. Dlabtot (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it backfires, meaning that the uncivil NPOV pusher is overwhelmed by the civil POV pusher. Which is worse? From the answers here is it clear that it is the more civil. Also it is plain only one one of the pillars is monitored - civility, because the civil POV pushers are rewarded. If you want people to believe you, then it's time (as I keep advocating) for the admins to start enforcing the others. NPOV as a starter. Clamp down on that, and you will find that users (on the whole) won't be around to be uncivil. It's not difficult - although the evidence is clearly to the contrary. Shot info (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The community has decided that WP:CIV is its most important policy, ahead of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all the rest. (Don't even think about WP:IAR.) It's frustrating to those who value content, but you can't fight city hall. You either play the game by whatever rules you're given or you get off the field. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The community has decided that WP:CIV is its most important policy, ahead of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all the rest. Another assertion with which I must respectfully disagree. In fact, that is precisely why I linked to WP:FIVE. These fundamental principles form a whole. It makes no more sense to think one is more important than the other than it does to think that your heart is a more important organ than your brain. But as far as "getting off the field if you don't like the rules" - yes, I completely agree. Dlabtot (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be tested empirically: make impeccably neutral edits supported by top-drawer reliable sources and use uncivil edit summaries, then make POV edits supported by the lousiest possible sources but do it civilly. See which gets you into trouble faster. I'm not suggesting you actually do this, but I think the outcome of the thought experiment is obvious and is supported by past experience. Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you posted this below my comment, as it seems to be completely unrelated to anything I have said. Dlabtot (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only can it be tested, the evidence supporting it is rather apparent. Saying it doesn't happen is just rewarded the civil pov-pushers, but that is the default position, and has Ray states, no point fighting it. Too bad it isn't actually the rules of the game, just umpires being selective in how they do their job(s). Shot info (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outside view as an interested but uninvolved ordinary editor) Shot info, I think part of the problem is that enforcing civility is content-neutral, while enforcing NPOV requires making judgements about content. As soon as an admin tries to evaluate where NPOV lies in a contentious article, that admin is an involved participant in the content dispute. And since admins are explicitly prohibited from using their administrative tools to adjudicate a content dispute, there's no straightforward to "enforce" NPOV. I think the current system relies on the assumption that anyone focused on pushing a particular point of view will also trip up in more objectively measurable ways, such as incivility, excessive reverting, lack of sources, or abuse of multiple accounts. Most of the time, that's true. Sometimes it's not, and then what do you suggest? --Reuben (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that admins don't enforce NPOV, and just enforce CIVIL - because it is "easier"? This agrees with what I have been saying (and others have disagreed with I note). The solution is for admins to become more informed, not involved, of the issues. Too many admins opt for the "civil" solution and reward the civil pov-pushers, while with a bit of care and attention (and doing some of this stuff called "work") the correct solution can be applied to correctly ID the real editwarrior. Besides, as it is noted over in Homeo-land, almost every admin adjudicating over there has been "involved" at some point or another. Something which is proving to be a problem for admins. My personal solution is "AGF" for involved admins regardless of the level of involvement because if an admin editwars, well that what we have AN/I for. But as we see here at AN/I, an admin can 3RR (and even "civilly") and get off scot-free. God help us if the watchers don't watch their own watchmen. Shot info (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not just because it's easier, but because the admin tools and the rules for using them aren't very well suited to allow the admins to enforce NPOV. I agree with your assessment of the problem, but I don't think there's much the admins can do about it. As soon as you decide who's a "civil pov-pusher" and who's a "good editor," you're involved in the content dispute and ineligible to use administrative tools, so the admins are in a bind. Again, this is my observation as a non-admin. --Reuben (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Refocussing

Jossi's behaviour is troubling. He has been told that he is not considered uninvolved or a trusted mediator by a particular side, and yet he continues to maintain he is, and to take actions to the point of violating 3RR. Can someone explain why that is considered OK? Relata refero (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been told that by both sides (see e.g., the comment by Martinphi, who is a paranormal-oriented editor[2]) but in this case both sides are wrong. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix that since I'm just a science geek and not a lawyer or diplomat. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

From my perpsective, it became a problem when he had to "edit war" to assert his uninvolved neutrality. What should have happened (given the half dozen admin eyes on the page, and the assumed dozen more watching it) is that a different admin should have made the revert so that Jossi wouldn't have had to do it himself. No one is perfectly objective or as we say here "neutral". But I imagine that more than anything, Jossi got riled by the lack of support that he should have received. My comments here notwithstanding, I hate how this turned out, mostly because, with the recent block of that cat guy (gal?), it reinforces the (mis?)understanding that being admin is more than just having a mop. R. Baley (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I've looked through some of Jossi's edits in this area, and I have to say that in my opinion he and the rest of us would be best served if he looked elsewhere. I can recommend several other problematic areas that would benefit immensely from his energy.

I'm not sure what Martinphi's objection is, but he seems to be more welcoming than the other 'side'.Relata refero (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with some of the above. Although I respect Jossi, he should know perfectly well that 3RR is a community consensus and he has ample methods to deal with the situation other than what occurred. No one is served by allowing admins to IAR content-issues where they are related. Rather it presents the image that admins are under no restrictions to do as they will. The project already suffers from too much of that image. It's almost a daily refrain. I also agree that the extent that Jossi has self-involved now becomes problematic.Wjhonson (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'content' in question, though, was the warning template. Actually, instead of reverting the editor who kept changing it without discussion or consensus, Jossi should have just blocked him for violating the probation. Dlabtot (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If all of Wikipedia were handled as the homeopathy page is being handled we could easily get the community down to pre-2004 levels tout de suite. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Jossi's behavior to be the issue that needs discussing and possibly remedial action there. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Why is insisting on non-involvement when he appears pretty involved not worth discussing? Relata refero (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Sgt Friday always supported Bill Gannon. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When both sides in a dispute think the admin is on the other side, that's a pretty good sign that they're neutral. Is jossi regularly involved in editing homeopathy articles? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that belief in this case? Which people think Jossi's anti-homeoepathy? Frankly, I don't think you can, so I suspect the statement's irrelevant. Relata refero (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he's only made a couple of edits to Homeopathy itself, but a larger number of edits to Dana Ullman (apparently some sort of homeopathy advocate). He does however seem to have been fairly heavily involved in the talk pages of both articles but only since January 22. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to have edited Dana Ullman only from the 26th to the 28th of January. In other words, no, he's not regularly involved in editing homeopathy articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet, somehow, has managed to be a perceived problem in that much time. Do we really want this particular editor imposing hair-trigger sanctions in this area? Relata refero (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so some edits = uninvolved. Or <30? <10? > 1000000? I seem to have missed that bit where uninvolved becomes involved? Will enjoy reading the tortured wikilawyering to justify this bit of Adminoversight (tm). Shot info (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When I added it up the other day it was 114 of his last 500 edits. I'm sure I counted incorrectly. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 05:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, I don't think he's on one side or t'other, I just think his behaviour is questionable (at best). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Under the "some edits = uninvolved" standard, I would be an uninvolved admin, as I've only edited the talk pages of Homeopathy and deadly nightshade in the last few days; otherwise, I've never touched homeopathy articles. If I were to enforce the probation, though, I don't think I'd be perceived as an uninvolved party... --Akhilleus (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've articulated above, I have no problems with admins being "involved" and this exercise is showing that making admins "uninvolved" is a futile exercise. However in saying that, the normal avenue to policing admins should they start to break the rules (ie/ other admins, nominally via here) is shown to be broken (ie/ by Jossi's very example). So the only way to police it, is to force admins to be uninvolved. And as we see, what constitutes "uninvolved" is largely in the eyes of the AN/I and seems to differ from admin to admin. Perhaps if admins actually monitored for editwarring rather than civility....well, we wouldn't be here and lots and lots and lots of typing would not be needed. But as we can see, that's just too difficult... Shot info (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In my time as an IT manager, I've found that I much prefer technicians who were deeply knowledgable but rude and uncivil over those who were nice as Mother Teresa but clueless. But that's just me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 08:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that computers don't complain about who's servicing them... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat Civility issues, 2nd incident

In addition to the previous complaint, now, apparently a public noticeboard has degenerated from content discussion into a railing against my persona itself, as can be seen by clicking here. I'm not sure how content issues have merited that my entire persona become the focal point of a public discussion of "crankery." Sadly, I'm also not sure why these attacks are not engaging some form of intervention. WP:NPA seems to offer me some protection against this mess .... "some types of comments are never acceptable: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not."

Not quite as serious, but another recent problem that troubles me is that Zenwhat has taken to misquoting me, in an apparent attempt to cast me as a gullible idiot. Here he states how I've assessed myself to be overly biased and deluded. I've never made such an assertion.

These attacks have persisted despite my admonishments to Zenwhat. Please look into the matter. Any consideration would be very greatly appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Observation by User:Mayalld

Having had a, pretty minor, run-in with User:Zenwhat over the past couple of days (he was restoring comments to user talk pages that the user had deleted), I'm unsure that this is an AN/I case. Far more a WP:WQA issue. Having said that, there is an issue to resolve. The user is not infrequently abrupt, and seems to believe that WP:IAR means that he can unilaterally change policies and guidelines quoting WP:DICK. Mayalld (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mayalld. There seems to be disagreement over which forum is appropriate. My previous issue was bounced back from the WQA, though not entirely due to "inappropriate forum." I'm not really sure where to turn on this. Dedicating an entire noticeboard section based on his characterization of my persona, instead of focusing on the verifiability of content seems to thoroughly cross the line, but in any case, please advise which way I should turn. I kinda need for his disparaging behavior to stop. I'm thinking only an Admin can make that happen, at this point. BigK HeX (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the editor who handled the WQA complaint. It was bounced back because, as noted, there are several existing unresolved threads already open on two other forums, AN/I and FTN. When a complaint has already escalated to AN/I and to this level of discussion, there isn't much a friendly note from a WQA clerk without administrative abilities is going to do. It's already being addressed elsewhere, and since it appears to be an ongoing dispute, it's best addressed on a noticeboard where it will have the attention of admins or through mediation.

I'd also add that in the specific issue of restoring the deleted comments, I think that Zenwhat was acting in good faith. The discussion in question was about a policy/conduct issue. I believe he felt it needed to be addressed on the user's page and was frustrated that it kept being deleted. I'm reserving an opinion on everything else, because I've done my best to stay out of it. DanielEng (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments

IN Zenwhat's defence, this particular complainant is rapidly approaching tendentiousness in my opinion. Relata refero (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah ... now that you've said it. Show how it's true. BigK HeX (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I am inclined to think that Zenwhat's characterisation of your comment (diff) is tenuous, at best, I would recommend that this not be dealt with on the administrators' noticeboard, where nuanced solutions (which is what I believe is required in this case) are generally not arrived at (in part due to the heavy volume of posts to this board). --Iamunknown 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware that any other appeal could actually enforce any solutions .. ? well, except Arbitration which seems premature. But, anyways, I just need him to attack content, more so than me, personally. Whichever venue can make that happen is cool with me. BigK HeX (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Re enforcement: individual admins can "enforce" things, though if they are contested, a review should generally happen here. My hope, however, is that we can arrive at a solution without the need for enforcement, but I guess we'll see.  :) --Iamunknown 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this does appear to be something ongoing between these two users, how about mediation?DanielEng (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm no fan of Zenwhat for what I see as baiting other editors at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron as seen here and here. There was also an AfD Zenwhat opened just to make a point which seems a bit abusive and some threads on Jimmy Wales talk that also seemed to be veiled soapboxing. Having stated this I have seen perfectly civil and constructive dialog take place elsewhere. Benjiboi 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that no interpretation is required to characterise Zenwhat actions at talk:ARS as baiting. He is overt about it when, in Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#A request for comment, he asks other editors to comment on two articles and that AfD in order to - as he says a bit later on - demonstrate that the group's actions are disruptive. My impression is that Zenwhat is a learned person who's very deeply convinced of his own rightness and whose interactions with others here are characterized by that. Notice how he opens his dialogue with ARS in this section by titling it with a vicious insult and following up with more. --Kizor 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is also going on here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor Rebuttal

This complaint is tendentious. His complaint is about Wikipedia:FTN#About BigK Hex on WP:FTN, created for the benefit of other users making edits to Monetary policy of the USA, who have also been having problems with this user. After being notified by User:Gregalton of some pretty bad sources being used on Monetary policy of the USA, I came across this user making some pretty absurd assertions and tendentious edits. I checked his contribs, found a number of blatantly absurd edits indicative of trolling through a single-purpose account, which I then reported on WP:ANI [3]. On the advice of some the users who responded, I posted an RFCU to investigate the possibility that this is the sockpuppeteer, User:Karmaisking. [4]

BigK HeX then used this posting as justification to start another thread on WP:ANI about "incivility" in a thread that admins themselves can already read a few pages up. [5] His WP:WQA was then issued for him on his behalf, by User:Addhoc, who copied and pasted BigK's remarks to WP:WQA with the dubious summary "add Zenwhat - copy from WP:ANI - no opion on complaint."

WQA / User talk Issue

[6] Administrators don't take the extra step of copying and pasting WP:WQA violations they think are unfounded or are indifferent to. Danieleng asked him about this and Addhoc removed his comments from the talkpage [7] and didn't copy his original comments to Danieleng's page, thus wiping the information from any future archives. Danieleng would then comment on Addhoc's talkpage, Addhoc would immediately remove it (they reverted a couple times over it), but they continued to discuss the matter on Danieleng's talkpage, where the rest of the conversation remained. I then attempted to restore Daniel's comments, because it seemed inappropriate to remove them, but was reverted. [8] I then posted a thread on Addhoc's talkpage asking him to stop removing comments and Addhoc again reverted it. [9] Within the policy of WP:Talk, he is fully free to do this of course, but Daniel and I both agree that it was belligerent and immature -- reasonable for a non-SysOp, not for a SysOp, however, who is accountable to the community. I recommended Daniel issue an RFC, but he doesn't think it's that big of a deal. I'm willing to just let it go also, but it's relevant here, so I thought I'd mention it anyway. Until 1=2 has continued to debate the matter with me on my talkpage, now referring to me as a "vandal" for restoring Daniel's comments with one revert. Based on that, I'm not going to debate the matter any further here or with Until 1=2.

I never called you a vandal Zenwhat, check your facts. If you choose not to debate further with me or others, then they will make their decisions without you. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat/BigK

OK, so anyway, after this, I post the sub-section about BigK Hex on WP:FTN to demonstrate his past pattern of behavior, to help other editors. It seemed to be helpful to User:Itsmejudith who responded, "Thanks for this as I now see why editors were so concerned."

Then (a day after BigK's last posting on WP:ANI), BigK posts a second thread on WP:ANI about incivility over the same issue.

Is there going to be a third after this one, BigK? You're wasting others' time here and only seem to be digging yourself a larger hole.

That's all. I have no further comments on the matter. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• "BigK posts a second thread on WP:ANI about incivility over the same issue"

Funny guy. Obviously, the admins can quite plainly see that the two ANIs are referring to two incidents of questionable civility. In fact, this 2nd posting was made because the behavior was decidedly more aggressive, IMO.

• "Is there going to be a third after this one, BigK?"

Errr ... only you know the answer to that.

All of this inflammed commentary, and not a single apology. Kizor makes an intersting point, above. It is quite obvious that Zenwhat sees no fault in what are obvious personal attacks and is unlikely to disengage. This is why the matter has been presented. BigK HeX (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Zenwhat's second paragraph, interested editors and admins may wish to see my (somewhat lengthy) remarks on Zenwhat's talk page: (talk page section) (diff). --Iamunknown 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification: The remarks about User:Addhoc are a side-issue and yes, as Iamunknown just noted, based on my own misunderstanding of certain diffs. I think Addoc's actions were still inappropriate, but only mildly so, not worth arguing, even suggesting RFC, or taking note of, since all comments were restored in full on Daniel's talkpage. Sorry about that. Please ignore it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On a side-note, thank god I didn't finish that policy proposal "requiring admins to not remove comments from their talkpages!"

I frequently have difficulty reading these horrible things called "diffs." Please, forgive me for my blatantly horrible reading comprehension and tendency to speed-read to the point of humiliating inaccuracy. Sorry for wasting your time.

Still: This apology extends to the matter of Addhoc. The diffs regarding BigK HeX stand and seem pretty solid. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zenwhat, thanks for your apology. Addhoc (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"diffs regarding BigK HeX .. seem pretty solid" ... Hopefully, the admins will decide on all of that. BigK HeX (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish ISP user

• This is in regard to delete Siobhán Hoey and Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) from an anonymous account that from the WHOIS file are all Ireland-based. Siobhán's effort to being deleted occurred last March 30, but was reinstated on April 4. Aoife was deleted, but I had brought it back in an effort to work on bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton. From both article's histories, I have seen where these edits look like they have been vandalized from these IP addresses. Also, this same user (or users) is attempting to delete Siobhán's article again and tried to put Aoife's article on the February 1, 2008 AfD before succeeding. Please have a look at this because most of these articles are Irish-based and there may be other signs of abuse as well. Thank you.

The accounts in question are shown below:

• 84.203.1.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.97.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.149.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.132.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.98.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.52.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.2.170.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.76.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.21.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.183.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.174.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.138.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Chris (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For context: this relates to the sub-stub Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) and its on-going deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh), and the article Siobhán Hoey and its closed (as keep-cleanup) deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siobhán Hoey.

Personally, I'm not seeing an incident. I'm seeing an anon with a bee in his/her bonnet about these articles, who is arguing loudly for deletion from multiple semi-dynamic IPs. But established editors are not agreeing and seem at the moment unlikely to do so. Such are the ways of AfD, the louder and longer the anon calls for deletion, the more established editors will say keep. This isn't to detract from the annoyance the author of the article will be feeling: it's just not all that an unusual circumstance (albeit usually anons ask for a keep). ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but if you click on the contributions to these links, you do see some of these articles linking to Irish related articles, including a few links that are single-purpose accounts (194.125.52.12, 213.202.132.52, 213.202,149.105 (all but one edit), and 194.125.97.208 (all but one edit).). These are things to think about. Chris (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The same editor is continuing to readjust the Siobhán Hoey article even after the call for the second delete was withdrawn. I have asked him to stop hios vendetta, but it seems like they do not want to listen. Chris (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I put in request for semi-protection of article to stop an edit war before it gets out of hand on the Siobhán Hoey article. Chris (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Siobhán Hoey article now fully protected until next Monday. Chris (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that the IP editor is edit warring. I had found them determined but reasonable before that. But the whole vendetta thing they have going is just tiresome. Still, with (I imagine) solid keeps behind the two articles, dealing with them will be easier in future. Although they do have one good point: Despite their best efforts, the sisters didn't qualify is POV unless a reliable source can be cited saying that. Reducing the entry in Siobhán Hoey to The sisters didn't qualify solved that. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthon01

(Moved from WP:AN) east.718 at 21:43, February 2, 2008

It appears that this user is being subjected to remedies under the homeopathy probation, but may not have been informed of that probation and so not may not know that remedies could be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps an independent admin can take a look? —Whig (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Without comment: [10] R. Baley (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting, why was Anthon01 removed from that list? —Whig (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

East. [11] Anthon01 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That makes sense. [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the second action against me in 2 days. Why? Anthon01 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was properly notified, but more to the point, the reason given for the block is 'stonewalling'.... What is 'stonewalling' in this context and are there diffs that demonstrate this supposed behavior? I know what stonewalling is, in a general sense, but I don't know how it substantively differs from 'continuing to disagree'. Disagree with whom? The consensus? Obviously there IS no consensus, any way but even if there were, disagreeing about it is not disruptive in and of itself. I thought you were allowed to express your disagreement with the consensus (if there is one), as long as you don't engage in disruptive editing. Is there a policy or guideline that describes the parameters of 'stonewalling'? I don't want to accidently violate a guideline or policy that I may not have heard of. Dlabtot (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Probationary sanctions were imposed by an uninvolved admin (see here), who also implied there were some checkuser findings being sorted out. Those sanctions can be appealed here, if that's Anthon01's intent, in which case I'd suggest briefly making a case and allowing input from other uninvolved admins. You could also ask the admin placing the sanction for specifics if that's your concern. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The stated reason for the block is "stonewalling". Was that accurate? or was he blocked for some other reason? What was that reason? Someone's suspicions? Something that was implied? What is the specific reason he was blocked? Dlabtot (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile the edit warring rages on with nary a warning or block or ban in sight, except me. And guess what. I haven't touch the article at all. By an admin who has express his disdain for alternative medicine. Anthon01 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Presenting a case? How long will the case stay open? Will Guy come by and take another swipe at me trying reveal my indentity an accusing me of being a meat puppet and commanding to leave, as he repeatedly does? Anthon01 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, you're not making a very persuasive case. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering I just caught you using a half dozen accounts to edit war for the past six months across multiple pseudoscience-related articles and had the results verified via checkuser, the more germane question seems to be if you can evade a block. east.718 at 20:02, February 2, 2008

Half dozen accounts? Please read the checkuser account carefully. You're making alot of unfair accusations here. You are wrong. Ask FT2 if I have a half dozen accounts. You should do you homework before accusing me. Anthon01 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again wrong. Will I be given enough for me to comment and other admins to comment? Anthon01 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your comment on the Checkuser report here? Why is it wrong? Lawrence § t/e 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a relevant link .[13] Quack Guru 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

East. I know you have you work cut out for you. This problem is a big one but you've pointed your adminstrative arrow in the wrong direction. Note as I have left the problem has gotten worse. Just consider that I may be a moderating force instead of an extremist. I have reached consensus with a number of editors including Jim Butler, Art Carlson and Scientizzle and Arthur Rubin. So far I am unimpressed by your efforts in this case. Your block of JacobLad is unimpressive. [14] Used once for 1.5 hours and never never used again. Please delete as you can see I have no need for it. Anthon01 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I will defend this on my talk page. And let me say it here before Guy comes through for his drive-by accusation. I have absolutely `nothing to do with Ilena. Anthon01 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While there was strong suspicion in the beginning that Anthon01 might be Anthony Zaffuto, the partner of User:Ilena, I no longer believe this to be the case and think that no one should raise this accusation against him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I will comment here once I have completed my defense there. Anthon01 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have sent my explanation to FT2 and am awaiting his reply. Anthon01 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

(copy from my talk page) You learn mostly by floating around WP. I notice from reading talk pages that some editors have more than one account. So early on in my experience here, I decided to try it as experiment. I used JacobLad on one day and one day only.[15] I wasn't sure what the point was and didn't know there was a problem with doing until after. I still don't know what the rules really are because I see others talk about openly on there talk pages. Anyway I decided it didn't interest me and haven't used it again since that day.

Bottom line is, with one exception on 1 day, I use one account and one account only, that is Anthon01. FT2 can confim that.

I have a computer at home, a computer at the office, a computer at the library. My computer at the office is static. My home computer is mostly static (cable service). There is a time limit on how long you can stay inactive before you are automatically logged out by WP servers. More in a momment. Anthon01 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2: I think I can prove to you that I didn't willfully evade a ban, but I will have to do it at least partially by email because it involves discussing IP addresses. Are you willing to do that? Anthon01 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So I use different computers for convenience. FT2 can confirm that when I login using all those different IPs, I alway use the same account. I think in the last 2 months I have posted a message using an IP only twice, both times erroneously as I didn't notice that I had been logged out by the WP server. I'm sure all of you can relate to that. I was blocked only once, back at the beginning of December I think. FT2 can confirm that the IPs he has found were not used during that time. Anthon01 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

...

I have no idea whether the libraries computer are static or not. I have only posted from there rarely. Why do I post from there? I have access to full-text journals. SO I can read the whole article before commenting. Could you imagine how much better WP could be if we all had acces to full text instead of depending on an Abstract? Anyway, thats the reasons for all the different IPs. Now East718 has accused me of having half a dozen different accounts. Wrong. Please read checkuser over. FT2 can confirm that. More to come ... Anthon01 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(End of copy from my talk page) Anthon01 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Commenting purely on the sock concerns (and not on any other article editing matters): Quick summary - The information available supports AGF on the sock concerns, with lessons hopefully learned about the perils of not logging in, that no harm was done with the Jacoblad account, and no malice seems to have been intended. The editing both logged in and logged out, and under multiple IPs (home, work etc) was problematic and might have led to further sock concerns, but hopefully Anthon will avoid that in future. I have taken steps in private to address that. (My comment). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While Anthon01 may appeal to some few collaborative situations with some editors (a couple of whom share his POV on many alternative medicine matters), he is pretty much constantly in conflict with editors who are scientific skeptics and supporters of mainstream POV. Those conflicts cannot be ignored or undone by a few favorable situations when editors of his own persuasion support him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a recent example where consensus is reached with mainstream editors, and not editors of [my] own persuasion.[16] I will find another. Anthon01 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I still want to know what 'stonewalling' is, precisely, and see the diffs in which User:Anthon01 engaged in this behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise how can I defend myself properly. Anthon01 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Background info regarding improper use of a sock by Anthon01

In contrast to Anthon01's statement above, I find the actions of Anthon01 while using his sock puppet, JacobLad, quite "impressive" and a significant violation of policy here. Talk about a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny! I noticed the edits by JacobLad at the time because they occurred at a very opportune time for Anthon01. Why? Because at that exact time period (minutes) we were engaged in a very heated discussion (with Anthon01 being backed up by Levine2112, both of whom are very strong advocates of chiropractic, a competing profession) about edits that made quite false implications about my own profession of Physical Therapy.

This diff is the last edit in the section where the discussion can be found, so the whole section can be read on that page. I tried to improve the false phrase by a rewording and the introduction of very good sources. They continually reverted it. You will notice that the List still fails to contain a single mention of chiropractic in any manner, even though numerous attempts have been made, even with good sources, to include its pseudoscientific aspects (vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, vitalism). This situation is caused mainly by the efforts of Levine2112, who claims to be a "chiropractic advocate" and has admitted he is here "to protect chiropractic's reputation." [17] The edit history of the List shows this charge to be true. This type of deletionism of well sourced inclusions needs to be stopped. It is disruptive protectionism and violates NPOV policy. When Anthon01 arrived, they became a tag team to protect chiropractic.

By editing the Physical Therapy article in the manner which he did, Anthon01 was effectively taking revenge by attempting to smear my profession. He was trying to do it at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and then he used a sock puppet to do it at the PT article itself. He also edited it using his Anthon01 username, in cooperation with Levine2112.

It is important to note that I respect NPOV, even when it goes against me and even when it means the addition of nonsense, as long as it is encyclopedic and properly sourced. That is why I didn't revert his additions or edit war with him and Levine2112, since the additions were properly sourced and to some degree true. Whether they are a notable POV is another matter, since the same can be said of some aspects in most mainstream medical professions, and most aspects of all alternative medicine. It is an especially ironic situation, considering it is an example of the Two wrongs make a right logical fallacy being used by two believers in alternative medicine and pseudoscience. They delete obviously good sources that criticize their favorite profession, and then attack a mainstream profession in revenge.

All of mainstream medicine has issues of this type because we are working with inherited techniques that seem to work, but are sometimes uncertain. Fortunately they are dumped if proven to be ineffective. That last part isn't mentioned by them in their edits there.... Within alternative medicine, and to a large degree chiropractic, this is not the case. Applied Kinesiology is itself a notable example of a pseudoscience being practiced by a rather large number of chiropractors. It is also an article which Anthon01 tried to dominate when he arrived here.

What should be done about this misuse of a sock puppet to edit disruptively (even when using good sources) is up to admins to decide. It was definitely not a collaborative situation. Just because it happened some time ago, doesn't mean it should go unpunished. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This definitely puts the use of the sock, together with copious volumes of other disruptive activites on the part of Anthon01, in a new light. Thanks Fyslee.--Filll (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive? Prove it! Anthon01 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: (1) are you not under some administrative restriction now? (2) your posts here speak for themselves. I rest my case.--Filll (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well consider me ignorant. I am under no admin restriction. Please clarify. Please consider WP is very new to me, and certainly this process of adminstrative review is. Anthon01 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll: Re: copious volumes of other disruptive activites. Prove it. This is hyperbole on your part. Anthon01 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The current situation is a bit too dangerous for me to engage in this sort of provocative and confrontational activity. I leave it to the admins who have already dealt with you and I suspect might deal with you further in the future if an attitude and behavior shift is not imminent. I hope so.--Filll (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider striking out some of your inflammatory comments? Anthon01 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully decline to do so, until such time as I am informed by some authority that this was a mistake or has been rescinded, and Fyslee informs me that he was mistaken. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: This is mostly a rant. Theres is absolutely no need to respond to most of what you have written here as it belongs on a talk page. If you would like we can take it to your or my page, or a talk page if you find that more appropriate. If there is a specific violation policy that you think I should be penalized for then state it and I will respond. Anthon01 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: Please provide diffs. Anthon01 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth having this user around?

Can anyone point to one positive contribution this user has made? If not, should we consider, perhaps, a community ban? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this editor actually do any editing? While communication is an important part of the wikipedia process, it has to be balanced with contributions to our primary purpose - that of creating an ecyclopedia. I am not seeing much evidence of this balance. I think before a community ban, the editor should be encouraged to spend some time doing some editing... --Fredrick day (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 has done sufficient editing for the encouragement to be unnecessary. SA's point stands. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a fair point, sadly. The sheer tendentiousness by which he has handled his "defence" here does not suggest future promise, either. Orderinchaos 11:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The reaction by his opponents to requests for diffs to substantiate the accusation of "stonewalling" (such requests have been made three times above and twice below by User:Dlabtot and twice above by User:Anthon01, and answered zero times) can, ironically enough (unless I've missed something) be reasonably characterized as stonewalling. —Random832 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a diff. Did you miss it? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Diffs of all kinds of problematic edits

• [18] Falsely claiming lack of consensus.
• [19] Falsely claiming lack of consensus.
• [20] Disregarding a study to suit his POV.
• [21] Adding a red herring comment to further his disregard.
• [22] Adding emotive language to further insult the person offering the study.
• [23] Wikilawyering to push his POV.
• [24] Jumping to conclusions about how a review's "determination" will affect future research (as if that's Wikipedia' concern).
• [25] More Wikilawyering pretending that editors who are perhaps more steeped in NPOV than any other part of the encyclopedia don't understand it.
• [26] Discounting a survey based on raw numbers rather than considering the sampling (a common tactic of POV-pushers who wish to denounce a less-than-flattering survey).
• [27] Quixotic comment: perhaps meant to convey distrust of a source?
• [28] Pure stonewalling.
• [29] Ad hominem dismissal of a reliable source.

I could keep going, but will spare the reader. Just go through his contributions. It's not hard to see that this user does not so much disrupt discussions as much as he destroys them with questionable rhetoric and ridiculous repetition.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about admin action

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merged here from WP:AN. I was banned for 1 week from editing the homeopathy article and talk pages by East718 for stonewalling.[30] Besides that, user East718 did not specify why he imposed it on me. Is it possible for me to get greater clarity as to why I was banned? Perhaps some concrete examples so I can consider if there is any reason for me to appeal and what I should appeal. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that you are tendentiously pushing a point of view, using whatever measures you can to try to get your way and frustrate the editors who oppose you. Look at your own contribution history. Virtually every edit you make related to homeopathy fits into that pattern. I think East718 can provide specific diffs to support their actions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I await East718's input or any other admins' input. Anthon01 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a diff might be helpful to explain what Anthon01 is doing wrong. —Whig (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Notify East718 that a discussion is occurring. That would be the first thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he deserves at least a diff and evidence presented to know why he was blocked for a week. Bstone (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly tht Anthony01 was blocked for continuing to disagree on the talk page aka stonewalling? To me, this blocking for this "offense" sounds exaggerated. Andries (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 was temporarily topic banned from homeopathy, per Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. If they would like an explanation of that action, they should ask East718. No block has occurred to my knowledge. I do not understand why Anthon01 address his question here, rather than at User talk:East718. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and don't understand the process. I thought that since this is the admin board, I could get an answer here? Anthon01 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

this is the noticeboard to notify admins (and indirectly the entire WP community) about admin related iussues. if you have a personal discussion with a user going on, address it to their talk page like User:Jehochman recommended instead of airing your dirty laundry out for everyone else to see.

I will take responsibility for suggesting that Anthon01 ask on WP:AN (not WP:ANI) because that is where appeals of admin actions are supposed to occur pursuant to the homeopathy article-probation, as I understood it. I should perhaps have suggested that Anthon01 go to East718's talk page first. —Whig (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

i have always beleived that it is better to try and explain your side of the story to the admin first instead of humiliating both yourself and the admin on an easily accesed discussion board like this. such a drastic step should be a second move in case appeal negotaitions stall since alot of these issuses can be resolved informally through a chat between the adminsitrator and the blocked user. Smith Jones (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I still would like to know what 'stonewalling' is, and where it is referenced in Wikipedia policy. I've heard of tendentious editing, and actually, it seems to be pretty common in th homeopathy/pseudoscience disputes, on both sides. Is that what Anthon01 is accused of? Is this related to the article parole? In other words, did this take place after the article was put on parole? If so, where are the diffs that show his actions? Personally I think there are perhaps as many as 6-8 editors on both sides of this WP:BATTLE who have engaged in tendentious editing, over a long period. To single out one editor, without actually saying specifically what he did to deserve being singled out, seems arbitrary. Dlabtot (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can look up stonewalling in any good dictionary. Just because it isn't referenced in Wikipedia policy doesn't mean that it cannot be a rationale for blocking. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a diff: [31]. It happens to be the last diff this user made to the Talk:Homeopathy page. Now, taken out-of-context like this, some people may say, "hey, this isn't so bad". But after seeing only this kind of argumentation (that is, stonewalling) and continually arguing for removal of some rather obvious categories while insisting that "there is no consensus" looks not only like obstructionism, it looks like Wikilawyering, disruptive editing, and tendentious editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't need to explain the dictionary definition of stonewalling. I've observed plenty of stonewalling on WP from both sides in the many battles that you are involved in. What I want to know is how it is different from 'continuing to disagree' and if 'continuing to disagree' is against Wikipedia policy. What actions did User:Anthon01 take that User:East718 believes violated policy in some way, and what is that policy? How is the stonewalling that User:Anthon01 has engaged in different from the stonewalling that you have engaged in? Has User:East718 communicated this information to you? Dlabtot (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

to the best of my knowledge, stonewalling i defined as deliberately refusing to understand other editors' positions in order to make a WP:POINT. it is pretty much exactly the almost the same the as the WP:TEND violation, but some users prefer the term stonewalling because the user creates a stonewall of text to obstruct any progress for personal or imperatious reasons. . Anthon08 was probably accused of this because he refused to cooperate with another editor. i was not present tot this altercation so i don not know why User:Anthon was singled out for this, but i am certain that there was a good reason or the block will be overturned. Smith Jones (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This situation is disturbing. Anthon01 did the right thing taking the specific concern over whether or not a particular position paper can be used as a reliable source to include the PseudoScience cat on the homeopathy page. Taking this to RS is I repeat, the correct procedure. The long discussion there was no consensus over the particular issue as anyone willing to review it can plainly see. The mass counter-attack over content issues is absolutely unwarranted. This is clearly a disputed content issue. Admin action should not be taken to resolve this issue. That is contrary to our don't smother conflict. If any admin action is taken it must be imposed equally on all warring parties. I'm not an involved editor in homeopathy, but I am a strong advocate of the freedom to reach consensus. Anthon01, does not appear to have done anything against policy in this case. If he has that must be made crystal-clear with diffs. This situation is highly antagonistic and simple approaches will only serve to inflame it more.Wjhonson (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to ask East718 to be sure, but I interpret "stonewalling" as "tendentious editing"--in particular, Anthon01 has been willfully obstructing the formation of consensus, rather than working towards it. It's not over one particular action, but rather a pattern of being uncooperative. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Another accusation but no diffs. You have said that Anthon01 has been willfully obstructing the formation of consensus. Have you any diffs to support statement? I'm trying to understand what it is I have done wrong or different then anyone else on homeopathy? Has anyone really taken the time to look thoroughly at my recent edits on homeopathy? Anthon01 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is "tendentious editing" equal WP:BOLD??? Igor Berger (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't exist, because consensus doesn't exist. I'm not going to ignore the attempts to process the critics into silence. Tendentious editing is not interpretable as "we can't reach consensus so let's report the other side for being obstructive". That is not the goal of our project. We reach consensus. Once we have consensus, then we act upon that consensus. There are articles for which we cannot reach consensus, and in those cases we do not act. That is why we have dispute resolution. Editors seeking dispute resolution should not then be processed into silence. We are not a project run by forcing silence on critics, we are in-fact, one of the most open projects being run. If you cannot find common ground, then I would suggest reviewing again the full DR process and taking the appropriate step along it. Wjhonson (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the history of Homeopathy and related articles, which have been a source of intense conflict lately. DR has been pursued, and a request for arbitration (still visible at WP:RFAR) was rejected, and article probation has been imposed as a trial solution. Anthon01 has been banned from the Homeopathy article (and its talk page) for a week as a result of that probation. That's the path that DR is following here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And we're discussing the basis of that ban. I feel that ban is not appropriate because no evidence has been presented here that warrants it. Any person wishing to, can present the evidence that warrants it. If no one can present the evidence, then there is no evidence and the ban was not appropriate. That's what we're discussing. I'm open to being shown what is the evidence. Wjhonson (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread is too critical of the admins. Someone should clamp an archive template around it to stop it and edit-war with anybody trying to remove it. Is anybody willing to do this? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of my views on Psuedoscience are summarized here. [32] Anthon01 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If no diffs are provided to support this ban of Anthon01, will it be lifted and how? —Whig (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be premature. If anybody has notified East718, please post a diff. Otherwise, the conversation has not even begun yet. Complaining to a noticeboard without notifying the relevant parties is rude and disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of preparing diffs, see also this. Relata refero (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have collapsed the above discussion, because it was disruptive. If you wish to complain about an administrative action, please notify the administrator so they can respond. Whoever continues that disruption may be subject to a remedy specified in Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've undone your collapsing. East718 has been informed that a complaint had been tendered on AN, and he can follow your merge here to AN/I. Note that I'm quite uninvolved in this homoeopathy business. Relata refero (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The diff you have posted is a request for information, not an appeal. A request for information should be directed to East718's talk page. If the explanation is not satisfactory, then Anthon01 can post an appeal to the noticeboard. Bringing the discussion here is premature at this time. Less than 24 hours have passed since the notice to East718. Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can somebody review this and, if possible, delete it?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments

User:BQZip01 and myself have been engaged in an editorial dispute over the inclusion of some meaningless statistics at Talk:Kyle Field. I filed an RfC, which has gone mostly unnoticed. User insisted on a response from me to his suggestions at his 2nd request for Adminship, which I then did.

We weren't able to come to an agreement, but, for reasons I don't understand, user has created his own indictment of my editorial practices within his userspace. I asked him to remove it on his talk page and he responded saying that, since it was his userspace, I couldn't tell him what to do. I think it's somewhat unfair to me for him to advertise what a terrible editor I am, as it's uncivil and (I suppose) constitutes a personal attack. I would ask somebody to review the material on that page, determine if it violates it policy and, if so, delete it. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would seem he's since removed the request I made on his talk page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it strikes me that this needs to go – constitutes a personal attack, seeing as it's all about the negative points of one editor. Would be nice if he requested speedy deletion of it, but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. — alex.muller (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually after reading really thoroughly through WP:NPA, it doesn't seem to be a personal attack. It's just plain not nice — alex.muller (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the more appropriate venue for this is a RFC and not a page on his userspace. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It almost looks like that's what the userpage is being used for, prepping an RFC. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• But he also says "It may take weeks, months, or years to put this page together," so I don't know how long he wants to wait before filing that RfC, but in the meantime I don't think it's appropriate to for him use it as a platform to accumulate accusations and negative remarks about my editing style. If he's going to file an RfC, he should file it so I'm not waiting on hold with this thing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks to me like it's prep for an Arbcom, which I'd highly recommend. As it says on the page itself, Unless someone is poring [sic] over my contributions (as they might be in my RfA), there is no reason that anyone would have to even see this page. Also, BQZ's remarks are more about Cloud's poor behaviour than "editing style". - BillCJ (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• The previous comment was brought to you by the same user that brought us [this]70.4.12.147 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• What's with the "[sic]" after "pore", above? It's being used correctly -- or are you suggesting that User:BQZip01 thinks someone will be dumping liquid all over his contributions? --Calton | Talk 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't used this term in some time, but I did use it in this page. This seems to be a tit-for-tat response to a perceived wrong. [sic] is used to show a quote is taken directly as stated and spelling errors (or malice for that matter) were kept as originally written. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• This looks like content dispute not ArbCom or RFC... Igor Berger (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I wish someone had told me about this sooner. I would have been happy to explain. I suppose this is preparation for an RfC, WP:ANI, or something else. Personally, I hope it won't be necessary, but this is merely preparation for such an administrative request.

That said, this page is linked absolutely NO WHERE that CC didn't first bring it up. Moreover, I have never linked it myself, though I have certainly responded accordingly. I had no intention of ever linking it to anything (hence the term "draft"). It is not complete and I may phrase about a bazillion things differently or delete whole sections altogether. How CC believes this is "advertising" is beyond me.

As for "he removed the request I made on his talk page." I certainly did.

1. It was taken away to prevent any "advertising". this is a draft, not a final version of what I want to say. (see above and the disclaimer on the page)
2. WP:USER

In order to make this process more transparent, I invite anyone to read my edit history. BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

— BQZip01 — ^talk 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to get this right, are your surprised that people looked at your contribution history when you nominated yourself for adminship 20 days after your last attempt failed? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• So if you have no intention of filing an RfC, or going to ANI or anything, what's the point? What is this a draft of? The fact that it isn't linked anywhere isn't really relevant, since you're still compiling what amounts to an attack page. You've said a couple of times that nobody should have found, so I have to wonder if you were trying to bait me into an argument by doing it that way.
• If you're not going to do anything with it, I'm going to ask you again to delete the page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't going to file something, only that it isn't imminent (you can change your behavior, I could change my opinion, etc.). The fact that it isn't linked is certainly relevant as you stated I was "advertising" it; in fact, I am not the one even bringing it up: you are. I am not compiling an attack page, but my analysis of your actions and how I find them contradictory to the goals, policies, and guidelines of Wikipedia.

I never said no one was supposed to find the page (those are your words, not mine...again) only that I have taken good measures to not advertise it until completed. I see no problem compiling my thoughts and preparing such an admin request for assistance. If you feel as if you have been baited into responding...that's your feeling and I can't do anything to change it. I'll let your comments and characterizations stand on their own. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• So you're going to track my edits for the foreseeable future and use that page to judge whether or not they're acceptable to you? Sorry, but that's not OK with me. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• You've left this page up for the past 6 months, long, long after the RfC with ThreeE failed. I do not want a protacted dispute about the contents on that page. Do something with it or delete it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I never said I was going to track your changes for the forseeable future. If you will notice, all of these on this page are in the past (prior to my RfA). PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth. I never said this at all.
2. Wikipedia already tracks your edits and anyone can see them at any time. Anyone can look at them if they wish.
3. I cannot "judge" whether or not they are acceptable, only express my opinion. Judgement is the job of an ArbCom or admin.
4. I'm giving space to allow for something other than an RfC or RfA. You don't seem to even want that assurance and want to take it there ASAP. Would any of your response change if I said, "I plan on filing an RfC on 27 February at 4:30 PM CST. This is my draft for that RfC"? If so, why? I don't know when I will file it. Why should that change your mind?
5. Sorry that it isn't ok with you, but your "okay" isn't policy and I don't need your permission/acquiescence. I'm quite frankly tired of trying to reason with you as your edits are misleading/misrepresenting.
6. As for "do something or delete it", please read WP:DEADLINE. I have no intention of rushing into something. I plan to take my time and think this through.
7. Again, please stop misrepresenting me. That draft was created not 6 months ago, but just over four. I also ceased edits on it a LONG time ago (about 4 months ago) and am not actively doing anything with that page. I see no problem in deleting it.
8. For the last time...it is a DRAFT!!! not my final thoughts. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
9. As for the "RfC that "failed" with ThreeE, I hardly think 10 editors agreeing with my side of the issue and 1 that agrees with his side could be considered "failed". — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• After reading BQZip's comments it's become obvious that he won't take any action to delete it himself and currently has no plans to use it for an RfC or anything else, so it serves now only as an attack page. I would ask that it be promptly deleted. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I said, I'm not ruling it out, but I don't have to rush and submit anything immediately. I'm really hoping it will come to not be necessary, but let's just say here and now that I plan to use it for one of the methods of dispute resolution, but my plans could change and I don't know the exact date I will submit it. Does that make any difference to you? Why should it?
• Again, you are not some deity or entity that can just proclaim something to be "obvious". You intentionally ignore what I type and want to have some sort of immediate battle. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not going that way. I have no intention of having a rushed confrontation and can take any reasonable time I want to put this together. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe that you intend to file anything, since this is a (trivial) content dispute that already has an open RfC at Talk:Kyle Field. Claiming that you may or may not file something in the future is a stall tactic to allow you to keep this material on that page indefinitely. I'm asking you to start the process now or remove it from that page. The bottom line is that it shouldn't be in your userspace anyway, even if it's a draft. Put it in a text file on your desktop if you truly intend to come back to it, otherwise file your RfC or delete the page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Um...no. I hate to be blunt on this, but you just don't seem to get it: you aren't my boss and cannot order me to do something. I have broken none of the policies or guidelines of Wikipedia. I don't need to post something right now or delete it just because you want me to. I'm standing firm on this right now out of principle. This page would have disrupted nothing if you didn't bring it up. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hey BQZip? Not to nose in or anything, but couldn't you just stick that same content into a Word file or a Yahoo/Gmail or whatever, take it off your userspace, work on it in its new and non-Wiki incarnation, and let the holler cease? Just a thought (I was reading thru the page, saw this, and thought "hey, you know what would stop this?") Gladys J Cortez 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  I would agree wholeheartedly except the formats used are completely different. I can't work with the links and syntax within Wikipedia there. Good idea though and thanks for the feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure you could. It wouldn't take that long to convert the links and such, and you could speed up most of it by doing a "replace all" search, replacing "[[xxxxx]]" with "http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/xxxxx". I think it might be worth it, considering the discontent the page is causing as is. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do it in Word or whatever. Any final wikilinks- not sure what you mean as you can put a [[]] round something even if you write in a word processor, it just won't do anything until it's pasted onto wikipedia- but you can tinker with them when you finally file whatever-it-is, and just use the preview button until it's right. It will work against you having this here anyway, as well as seeming like an attack it gives your 'opponent' chance to formulate his responses far in advance.:) Merkinsmum 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He may work on a rebuttal, but that is his right. I have no problem with him editing and working on his own rebuttal if he wishes. I can see that one too, if necessary. I prefer transparency to obfuscation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think I'll be doing that. It would needlessly escalate a conflict that has already been blown way out of proportion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a reminder of two points from the fourth pillar is in place:

• Work towards agreement.
• Forgive and forget.

May I suggest continuing discussions about optimal approaches to a systematic long-term breach of this guideline elsewhere? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the sub-page BQZip01 has created. It is commonplace to use an out-of-the-way sub-page to gather ones thoughts. Johntex\^talk 05:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• THANK YOU!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks, but I'll wait for the opinion of an uninvolved third party. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I *am* an uninvolved party, I believe. Why would you think I am an "involved party". I have not, to my recollection, had any part in creating the sub-page in question. Johntex\^talk 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I don't want to make this problem any worse than it is, but I've noticed that any time BQZip01 has an issue with something he's more likely to ask you for administrative advice or intervention first. I'm sure he'll dispute this as another misrepresentative falsehood, but in the interest of resolving this amicably for everyone, would you mind if I waited for a second opinion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to you seeking additional opinions. The more the merrier. I hope you and BQ can work this out between you. For the record (in case readers don't want to follow the diff CC posted), BQ did not ask my opinion on this matter at all. I learned of this posting quite by accident. Johntex\^talk 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase this to sound less confrontational: I appreciate your response. I disagree, but hopefully we can sort this thing out with more input from others. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Johntex and say there is something wrong with the subpage. It's uncivil and unnecessary. If you need to preserve the wiki syntax, I recommend hiding it at another wiki. (May I suggest taking up useless E.D.'s disk space?) —Wknight94 (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually almost grounds for a speedy under G10 IMO. Orderinchaos 11:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Never even knew the page in question even existed until the complaining editor brought it to the noticeboard. My advice to the complaining editor is to ignore it. If the page is true, having it removed will not hide that truth. If the page is false, then the editor has nothing to fear and can fall back on the relative merits of his edits and contributions and say "See, this how I edit!". The page in question may be a singular and isolated affectation... or it might be indicative of how others may also feel. The editor is being given an opportunity to see how another perceives certain editing characteristics, and can now approach a "problem" amd make it an opportunity for growth and accord. This is exactly what Wiki consensus ia all about. If any editor's edits are good, they will survive consensus. If they are bad, consensus will have them removed. Karma does exist. (PS If I should not make a comment here, where should I have made it? I have already vowed to not put anything on the complaining editor's talk page.) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent, but I think that would be more applicable if we were talking about an RFC. A user-space page is a different animal, at least in part because it doesn't allow the sort of consensus-building discussion that I think you're contemplating, and that you would see at an RFC. --TheOtherBob 08:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment On one hand I think it's permissible to create a user-space evidence page in preparation for dispute resolution - a "draft," if you will. On the other hand, "enemies pages" are not permitted. I'm not sure which this is - but I don't think it matters. Whether this page is permitted or not, Wikipedia is not a battlefield. If this list is racheting up the animosity, then my suggestion would be for BQ to take responsibility for removing it in the spirit of compromise. There may or may not be a "rule" that covers this situation -- but Wikipedia is based on consensus, compromise, and working together to build an encyclopedia. This page does not appear to be directed toward those goals, and seems to me a bad idea that's only serving to create ill will. --TheOtherBob 08:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking that people are watching your contributions is annoying but expected - that's why contribs are public. To see it in print is a whole other thing entirely. This page needs to come down soon. Find whatever justification you want - WP:CSD#G10, WP:U#NOT, WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:IAR. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am still not convinced there is anything wrong with this sub-page that BQZip01 has created. As I say above, it is quite normal and accepted to use a user sub-page as a sort of draft working area. BQZip01 has not created any inbound links to the page, so a reader would not find this page by accident. One would have to be looking for it, or following BQZip01's edits.

Never-the-less, the comments here indicate that some people do view it with concern. Therefore, I would like to propose a compromise to BQZip01 and Cumulous Cloud: What if BQZip01 keeps the page but removes editorial comments about how he views the edits?

This would allow BQZip01 to keep the list here on Wikipedia, where formatting is better maintained than off in a Word document somewhere. (I completely disagree with the idea of moving this to some other wiki, such as ED. Cumulous Cloud does not want the information published, so I don't see how deliberately publishing it to another wiki would be a good idea for anyone.)

At the same time, it would remove any editorial comments that could be viewed in any way as a personal attack.

I think this would be a fair compromise. Johntex\^talk 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard a good reason to justify its existence. Having it exist in a private shared area - like gmail or wherever - serves the same purpose and doesn't ruffle anyone's feathers. That others have maintained similar pages does not make it any more palatable to me. They should be deleted too. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What good would that do? You would still have a page listing edits that one user doesn't like about the other, but now it removes any information that would normally be seen in an RfC. So now I would have a permanent page maintained by BQZip01 for all my edits that he disagrees with and that would never be seen in an RfC or anywhere else. Inevitably, we would all have to come back here and review that decision somewhere down the road anyway, so I don't see why we don't just deal with it now. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry Johntex, but that's a false compromise. Civility is paramount here and not subject to compromise, and keeping pages like this laying around are counterproductive to that end. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments. Lawrence § t/e 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to the aforementioned page

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocking user comments

Is there a way or means I can use to stop or prevent or block Lanfear's Bane from harassing me by posting pointless comments to my user talk page which I have asked him (or her) not to do? Thanks. Julie Dancer (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this like a month old? It looks like he stopped. Maybe you should too? --Haemo (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Julie Dancer is only editing about once a month these days, so from her point of view it's something that's just happened now. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Coppertwig. That is the case. What I would like to know is if there is any way, such as with email accounts, that I can block or divert undesired comment from specific users? For instance, I can set up rules in my email client to screen out emails which contain profanity or are from unwanted admirers. Is it possible to do this here with comments posted to user talk pages? Julie Dancer (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Physically and practically, no. However, I shall request the editor not to contact you directly again under threat of sanction - I will also put your pages on my watchlist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, LessHeard vanU, very much. Julie Dancer (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this even investigated properly? I posted a light-hearted comment on the ref desks which Julie Dancer deleted and jumped straight to my talk page calling me a disruptive troll. User was less than ten days old and personal attacking. User was also supported by Special:Contributions/71.100.168.148 (only one edit! surprise!). User was then deleting my response on her talk page without due cause. I feel that she might be a sockpuppet or a new user not familiar with jumping straight into calling people trolls. I suggest my comments on her userpage be reverted. Or I can do what she does which is just delete all the comments and then come and cry here? Lanfear's Bane | t 10:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. You returned a warning to the same user talkpage, misquoting WP policy to justify it. WP says that warnings, etc. can be removed since it is an indication that they have been read. You were asked to stop. You didn't. You are now acting in bad faith in suggesting they are a sockpuppet. If you were familiar with WP policy you would AGF or WP:DENY; whichever you feel is appropriate. I strongly suggest that you let this matter drop and get back to editing the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah I think I understand now. Even though Julie Dancer is a troll / sockpuppet I gave her recognition by replying and then broke policy with three reverts to my own comment which she deleted? That's fair enough, I'll leave the comment however on my talk as I was unfamiliar with this. Jumping straight to a 'Final Warning' however seems a little drastic... Lanfear's Bane | t 15:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Close. You issued a warning/comment, it was deleted, and that should have been the end of the matter. It appears that your interpretation of policy and guidelines is somewhat faulty, but that doesn't matter if you are now prepared to move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Copying and pasting own deleted contributions

I've been reviewing my deleted contributions, and there are some edits there (mostly those to user talk pages of users who have asked for their talk pages to be deleted) that I would like to retrieve (at some point) and record on a subpage of my userpages. Is this an acceptable use of admin tools? I'd say yes, because I still have the copyright on my contributions, even after freely licensing them under the GFDL, but I'd appreciate confirmation of this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best use of your time, but I don't see anything against policy, assuming obviously that there's nothing problematic in the edits themselves. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Newyorkbrad. Under the GFDL, you still own your comments, so go for it. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this about Squeakbox? Obviously, there's no copyright reason you can't ... but please make sure you aren't treading on WP:POINT territory. --B (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Squeakbox. It's actually Bishonen's talk page. I vaguely remember a long mini-essay I may have posted there (though it may have been somewhere else), and that is one of the things I'd want to organise and move to the right place at some point. And Brad, my time is my own to spend, like everyone else here. I could have just viewed the edits, and copy-pasted them off-wiki, but as some of the comments involve on-wiki stuff, I'd prefer to keep them all in one place. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a non-admin editor and I would like access to this same facility. Where can I review my deleted contributions and obtain copies of same? I would not wish to preserve them on-wiki, however I assume I have the same rights under the GFDL as described above.

I'm thoroughly confused with the user-talk deletion policy (NOT the user-page deletion policy). I was fairly sure I'd read articles to the effect that user-talk pages were not subject to right-to-vanish or courtesy-deletion provisions when they contained substantial edits by other users. Over the last few months, I've seen several talk-page erasures carried out by fiat, now I can't find the policies, some of the pages I thought I'd read have been recently edited, so I'm just not sure exactly what the policy is anymore.

In any case, I'm comforted that all GFDL contributors will be extended the same rights. At least I hope they will be... Franamax (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Custom is changing towards greater ease of deleting user talk pages as well as user pages. Maybe this should be debated more fully. See also Meta - RTV. You might want to check out Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Tyrenius (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Custom is changing? Is that the same as the community consensus is changing? Or is custom being changed? Maybe this should be discussed more widely, it's disconcerting to read ArbCom cases and watch the links go from blue to red to blue before the voting starts, at the highest forum in the land.

Pace Carch, who only started the thread, but I assert my exactly equivalent GFDL rights. How do I go to a provide-deleted-article admin and say "it's in a history thread somewhere, I think it's there"? How do I know what to ask for, when I can't see my deleted contributions? I'm not chasing any particular edit here so it's not ANI-worthy, but the question has been asked... Franamax (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You ask them to review your deleted contributions and, in my opinion, provide you with a list of deleted pages. You can generate this sort of list yourself if you have the "watch all pages I edit" option turned on. Then review the list of pages you have watchlisted and note the ones that have turned red. You can then decide which ones are worth taking further. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Franamax, you have 15 deleted edits. 14 of those are to subpages of your userpage. One is to User talk:Freshacconci. This is a fairly simple request to fulfill, but more complex requests may need more discussion. I'd be uncomfortable posting this sort of information on-wiki in a complex case without more consensus behind it. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth, I've now turned that option on, it will save me clicking "watch" on every page I edit, the way I have up 'til now. As I said, I'm not pursuing any particular edit, or anything other than a principle. But there you go, which of those subpages was the one where I wrote "please kill me"? (In the db-userreq, part of a defined software test, with a funny-ha-ha explanation, honest :) Are we equivalent? I can't see my licensed contribution, although someone could restore it without my knowledge or consent at any time - but you can see all of yours, any time you want, and make copies of them. And you can make copies of my GFDL edits which I myself have no (browsable) access to?

The salient point here is that I am not able to view the text of my own deleted edits, thus I have no way of pinpointing which edit I might wish to ask someone else to provide me details of. The broader point is the promptness of responses to purported RTV requests; declarations of "I'm leaving"; self-page-blanking; and the resulting loss of community overview of the leading events.

No, I have no particular complaint, I'm asking the general question: what is the defined policy on talk-page deletion? and does that defined policy address the concerns of non-admins who don't have free access to examine and browse the contents of individual edits? (PS move to talk at your option to spare the ANI page) Franamax (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to non-admins being unable to see their deleted edits. I've said in the past (even before I was given the tools) that this function should be tweaked so all users can see their own deleted edits (but not the deleted edits of others). Those who post unsuitable material may recycle what has been deleted, but that will only get them blocked faster, and there is no way to distinguish between re-posting of off-wiki stuff and repoting of on-wiki stuff. Anyway, you are right, the stuff specific to our edits should be taken to talk. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one thing I forgot. Some of the edit counting tools (the ones that scrape the contributions logs) give a total number of edits that is the non-deleted edits. API queries (eg. here) give the total number. Theoretically the difference is the number of deleted edits. Unless you do lots of tagging of pages that get deleted, the number of deleted edits should be quite low. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time to get community consensus against deleting talk pages, especially those of admins. For admins, everything we do should be visible unless there is very good reason otherwise. Except of course for removing vandalism, though i see that many of us dont even bother removing vandalism, just archiving it,. I would also support this for other users. And I agree with Carcharoth about seeing one's own deleted contributions. For one thing, it would cut down on unnecessary requests at Deletion Review for emailed copies. DGG (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

One very slight problem - what about when your talk page has a huge number of edits and doing anything with it risks slowing down the server? I had to move my edit history recently to an archive for that very reason. Orderinchaos 11:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of administrator RyanGerbil10

Resolved

 – Tools restored, lessons here is don't check "Remember me" if your sharing an environment. More importantly don't google image search "lemonparty"--Hu12 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I have blocked this administrator indefinitely after a conversation in #wikipedia-en-admins.

He vandalized the main page. :| east.718 at 07:08, February 3, 2008

He's also been emergency desysopped after a discussion in #wikimedia-stewards. Mr.Z-man 07:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose anything is possible, but I wouldn't think most people who go to the trouble of a committed identity would have an easily crackable password. His user page says he's a college student ... maybe a drunk roommate at the computer? --B (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd believe it. My general experience is that how important an account is has no bearing on how good the password is, and that about 75% of users have easy-to-crack passwords. --Carnildo (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at this with CheckUser on suspicion that the account has been compromised. Unfortunately, however, there was no unusual change in IP between recent edits and Ryan's normal edit. This would rule out the possibility that someone discovered his password (which is what happened in the last bout of admin account compromisings), and the simplest explanation is that he did it himself. However, there always remain those possibilities that CheckUser can't account for, like that he someone was using his computer, or that he left his account logged in on a public terminal (less likely because his last edit was hours previous). The devs are working on those two-way computer screens still. As I said though, without an insightful explanation from Ryan this result is pretty clear that is is likely there is no compromised account. Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The "roommate" theory does not seem particularly unlikely. - Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "compromised account" lexicon does cover a wide range of possibilities. Personally, I would wait for an explanation from RyanGerbil10 himself before further speculating or acting. —Kurykh 07:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that it's the hour when college students drink, my vote is on drunk roommate. --B (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He may be having a party and somebody started playing on the computer. Or a young relative may have done the same. For the meantime shutting down the account is the right solution. He can straighten it out tomorrow if there's a good explanation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, isn't every hour an hour when college students drink? Joe 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a clear case of WP:Bold. the_undertow ^talk 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Ryan

The account is not compromised. Someone broke into my room, likely one of the kids on my dormitory floor. It is well-known that I am a Wikimedia sysop, I am surprised the vandlaism was not worse. I am in control of this account as I always have been, and the people who have used my account abusively have been reported to the campus police. This has been a terrible nightmare for me, I am deeply sorry that something like this has happened. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 12:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to unblock per Ryan's request and explanation, but decided to allow the community to respond first (nice of me, being so magnanimous). Per AGF and Ryan's past record I see no reason to disbelieve him and support unblocking asap. Resysopping can be something left to Ryan once he is unblocked (I presume there is a record of his reporting the break-in he can provide.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually unblocked him a while ago - how could he post here otherwise? :P east.718 at 12:39, February 3, 2008

duh!LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All in all, I would say I prefer my usual hangover. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 12:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is a fine example in support of the "Log out" button. I see no reason why he shoulden't be re-sysopped in light of the situation. --Hu12 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to disable the "Remember me" button for admins? ;) Pairadox (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say I'm somewhat amused by the fact that people assumed it was a drunk roommate. Are college students really that predictable to you all? -- tariqabjotu 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. ^Avruchtalk 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan's always done good by me. I'd give him back his full privileges before the incident, and say "shame on them for disrupting your account" and if something like this is to ever happen again then I'd say "shame on Ryan for letting it happen again". If that was to happen again then the de-sysop'in should remain. For now give him back the tools—he's a good admin. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support re opping. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hey Ryan, Windows Key + L when you walk away from the computer, even ones behind locked doors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm usually very secure and confident, both in the people I live with and the building I live in. Obviosuly, that trust has been violated. Needless to say, I will of course be changing the way I log onto Wikipedia in the future. At first, I thought that perhaps, in my compromised state, I had done the vandalism, but when I dsicovered that things were missing from my room and that my desktop background had been changed to lemonparty, something more severe had happened. Speaking from the next morning, I just want to take this time to apologize formally to the community, and I hope that this episode, which has been a nightmare for me, can be safely put to bed behind us. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I just googled "lemonparty". Are you serious that that on your desktop was the last thing you noticed? :) Relata refero (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree it would be fine for the stewards to give back the tools right now. DGG (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't let this incident get you down. And I hope the campus police catch the people who did this. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion that might deter admin account hacking

When admin accounts are hacked, it's usually to use the account's sysop tools to vandalize.

What if we had a second password needed in order to access the sysop tools on that account? For example, an admin logs in. They see a vandal that needs blocking. So, they hit the block button. In order to use sysop controls, the admin would have to enter a second password that is different from the account login password. Then, while they're active, and for an hour after their last edit, they can use their sysop tools normally. After an hour, if they came back and did an admin action, they'd have to enter the password again. Basically, think Linux: you have your ordinary user account. In order to do certain things, though, you need your root password. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin account hijackings are so rare and the damage done is so minimal, this seems like it will be more trouble than its worth. Mr.Z-man 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

More along the lines of an old BBS. On some software packages, sysops would have two passwords, one for logging in and one for logging in as a sysop. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the feeling most admins would probably save the password in their browser somehow anyway, since typing in a password repeatedly can get pretty repetitive. (Heck, I personally tweaked my sudoers file on my Linux laptop to stop it from prompting me for authentication :P) krimpet✽ 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst it sounds good in theory, Wikipedia is not a forum. --Solumeiras (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ChrisO gaming WP:AE

User:ChrisO gamed the WP:AE board rather badly yesterday. Here's the sequence of events that took place.

After a fairly lengthy discussion on the Pallywood Talk: page, on Feb 1 User:ChrisO decides to make a bunch of unilateral changes to the article. [33] His changes are reverted [34] and the reverter explains why on the Talk: page: [35]

Rather than discussing the issue further, ChrisO decides he needs an advantage. So, on Feb 2 he posts a comment to the Talk: page: [36]

then at 00:18 he rounds up an ally on IRC, kylu, who offers to take action on WP:AE as soon as ChrisO puts up some evidence.

At 00:52 Chris then reverts Pallywood to his version: [37] and at 00:56 Chris files his arbcom enforcement request: [38]

And at 00:57 he then goes back to IRC, and asks someone to enforce his request, pointing Kylu directly to it.

At 01:06 Kylu applies 1RR. [39]

This is perhaps the most blatant abuse of the WP:AE board I have seen; he lines up a "neutral" admin, reverts the article, puts up his AE request, then his "neutral" admin puts a 1RR per week restriction on the page *after* Chris has just reverted it. It's obvious the 1RR restriction should be removed, but what other sanctions are appropriate for ChrisO? FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As the editor ChrisO went against, let me just state for the record that a) I'm not particularly proud of some of the comments I made to ChrisO, though (and I don't offer this as an excuse), they're scarcely worse than his to me; b) I actually do believe kylu when he claims (albeit rudely) neutrality; c) I stand by my comment to kylu that this is an area where, by now, angels fear to tread; d) as an act of good faith, I'll voluntarily comply with the 1RR ruling, whether or not is it upheld. --Leifern (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, abusive as heck. Chris, you don't get to do this; it's exactly the same sort of abuse as an admin getting into an edit war and then setting up his opponent for a 3RR block with the aid of a confederate. It's the same using admin tools to gain an edge in an edit war. It won't be tolerated twice, I suspect; for now, I'd suggest removing the 1RR and moving forward. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there evidence of the IRC conniving? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence on IRC of conniving, but I'm not sure whether or not I should post IRC logs here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, probably not a good idea. I presume that they can be made available to arbiters as necessary? I'm happy to take your word for the fact that they exist. I'd be interested in Chris' views but, if true, I'd say that some kind of sanction is appropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I find this whole thing befuddling. I see a dispute that has to do with some fairly specific isues of content, including the phrasing of some passages and the section headings. I do not see any notable violation of personal behavior policies that would justify ArbCom - is this some kind of diversionary tactic, or just an attempt to bully? - and I do not see any major policy violation that would call for administrative enforcement. I want to just say "Fellas, keep talking it out on the talk page, try to bring others into the discussion" but that would be half my response to an RfC. It's ChrisO's taking this to AE. I just don't get it. Why? The 1RR restriction is wholely unjustified. I'd like to hear ChrisO's justification and Kylu's justification but frankly I can't imagine what they would say. FeloniousMonk asks what sanctions are appropriate. I am willing to be generous with ChrisO and suggest that he got overzealous and just needs a cooling down period, say a 1 week ban from editing this article. But gaming AE - this is really serious, it undermines the whole process, and does call for some more serious sanction. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Felonious for bringing this up. I saw the AE report yesterday and was confused as to why this article was put on probation as there didn't seem to be a huge problem here. Consider the restriction removed. -- tariqabjotu 19:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your notion of "neutral" admin assumes bad faith on Kylu's part, and I would ask you to reword that slightly, as after inspecting the logs, I think Kylu is in fact fully neutral. On the rest of the dispute I can't tell much, but I don't think the minor discussion on IRC is much to worry about. It's not like the cabal is planning some evil takeover here. _→AzaToth 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Kylu didn't show bad faith; the only problem is that Kylu didn't notice that ChrisO was gaming the system. I wouldn't think it necessary for ArbCom to issue a clarification that this sort of manipulation of arbitration enforcement (not to mention this sort of manipulation of other administrators) is improper; isn't it just common sense? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A clarification: While ChrisO did in fact bring attention (in general, not to me specifically) on IRC to the AR request, I applied it and made sure he understood it applied to all participants, including him. The problem I see is that instead of discussing the situation, someone used revert to simply wipe someone else's edits and avoid discussion instead of using it to remove vandalism, which is not what Help:Reverting suggests it be used for.

This sort of putting one's fingers in their ears and ignoring the other side in a content dispute is exactly why the whole Israel-Palestine case got sent to ArbCom in the first place, and the reason I asked those involved to not involve me further. I was trying to maintain my distance from what I see as a distasteful and mutually-disrespectful content dispute, however Leifern refused to allow me to do so. The enforcement needed to be done lest the article devolve into another pointless series of revert warring, but it certainly doesn't mean I need to be involved in the arguing after it.

Was the enforcement timed to benefit one party over another? Of course. They usually are, when one of the parties involved is doing the reporting. Does the enforcement do more harm than good by minimizing the revert-warring and promoting discussion? I think it does, and that's why I set it for that article. Thanks to tariqabjotu for informing me of this thread, btw. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, you got took. ChrisO first looked for an admin willing to act (no problem there), then went and reverted the article to his favored version, then posted the request on AE, which you acted upon. That's the only problem -- his reversion before requesting the AE was not appropriate. If he had not reverted first, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two cases: 1. At the time ChrisO was reverting, he had already in mind the later enforcing of 1RR. 2. He reverted and then noticing that his revert might be followed with a series of edit wars as was normal in such articles, filed the AE request.

This two cases should be also considered against the following context: It also appears that ChrisO was certain of the soundness of his edit and aside from the content dispute had found the reaction of the other editor inappropriate.

I can not personally think of a test that can distinguish the case 1 from case 2. Either one can be the case but only one of them implies gaming of the system. Regarding the claim of Kylu playing the role of an ally, I don't know but it appears to me that it considers an event in the light of subsequent developments and is kind of akin to conspiracy theories. Just my humble view and I am the first to admit my mistake.

Now, my suggestion is that: 1. ChrisO's version to be reverted. 2. The community decides the validity of ChrisO's statement that "User:Leifern, who created the article in the first place, has indiscriminately reverted my good faith edits with an aggressive edit summary (diff) and accusations of bad faith on the talk page (diff), but no explanation of what he considers unacceptable about my edits" and takes an action if this statement is correct. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's more a matter of case 3, if I can put it that way. I originally had in mind posting an AE request directed specifically at Leifern after I saw that he had reverted without discussion. I reconsidered after it occurred to me that Leifern's action was just a symptom of a wider problem - editors on both sides blindly reverting. I saw a danger of this happening on the article, as it had already experienced edit wars. I therefore decided to act in the spirit of the ArbCom's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which avoided targeting any individual editors and set general principles for the entire topic area. I reverted the blind revert solely because it was a blind revert and not permitted by custom; if he had justified his revert with discussion it would not have been an abusive revert and I would have had no reason to act. After I did so, I posted my request to AE pointing out the problems that blind reverts have caused on articles in this topic area and requesting that editors on all sides be restrained from abusing or overusing reversion (note that 1RR still permits reverts - it just limits their frequency). And I would add that there's no cause to revert my edits, as that too would violate WP:REVERT#Do not. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. My main point was that Jpgordon and FeloniousMonk's reading was not the only possible interpretation of the bare facts; the only interpretation that makes you guilty. The reason that I asked for your edit to be reverted was that Jpgordon and FeloniousMonk's reading is a possible interpretation anyways but at the same time I suggested that your statement be investigated by the community and a serious action is taken against the other editor if your statement is correct. That decision can also involve restoring your edit later if the community decides that you were making good faith edits and the other editor blindly reverted you. Just a suggestion, you guys know better than me. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't support taking action against Leifern. As I've already said, he was simply acting in the same way that people have been acting on these articles for far too long. He wasn't a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, I don't think he made any statements in it, he wasn't informed of it and I'm not at all sure that he was aware that the articles were "under new management", so to speak. I wouldn't be at all comfortable taking or requesting action against him in those circumstances. The important point is that he now knows about the arbitration and (hopefully) understands what the ArbCom now requires of all editors in this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys know better than me about this; I haven't edited those articles and don't know what's going on. I just saw an admin-against-admin case and that attracted me here :D because such cases are usually exciting and interesting :P. This is my last comment here. Have a nice time everybody... --Be happy!! (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure what he did was wrong from the point of view of encouraging people not to blind-revert. He'd just attempted a rewrite which was reverted without discussion. He asked for restrictions on all participants. What difference would have putting the AE request up and then reverting made, precisely? Relata refero (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is really not accurate. I wish FeloniousMonk had bothered to ask me about it before posting accusations here (and it would be nice not to be burned at the stake in absentia, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors). There certainly is no "gaming" going on. The article has a long history of edit warring and disputes including two AfDs. After another editor recently added a "coatrack" tag to the article (an action with which I had absolutely no involvement), I had another look at the article to see whether it could be improved - I hadn't touched it since November last year, since when there had at least 100 edits by other editors. I had recently found some media articles which actually discussed the topic of the article. I decided that the article needed to be a bit more concise and would benefit from having some newly published citations - the changes I made are discussed in detail here.

Leifern (talk · contribs) reverted the changes without discussion here. Now, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this was an abuse of reversion. WP:REVERT makes it clear that reversion should not be used in such circumstances: "If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof." Kylu took the same view (which is after all just basic editing policy) in this exchange with Leifern on his talk page. (Leifern's visible hostility and accusations of bad faith should be noted. Unfortunately it seems that any admin who intervenes on one of these articles can expect to be attacked.)

I therefore restored my good faith edits; as Leifern had abused reversion, it would not have been appropriate to let the results of an abusive edit stand. I posted this request to WP:AE. In it, I pointed out the history of disputes on the article, the clear misuse of reversion in this case and the role that aggressive reversion has played in inflaming disputes. I requested 1RR on the article - not on any specific editor - for the sole purpose of restraining all sides from using reverts to edit war. I did not request any enforcement action against Leifern, so jpgordon's implication that I somehow "set him up" is off-target, though I did ask if someone neutral could explain to him the rules of WP:REVERT. My intention in doing this was not to "game" anything - don't forget I'm just as constrained by 1RR as anyone else editing the article - but simply to prevent a nascent content dispute from escalating into a revert war as it has done so many times in the past. At that point, as far as I was concerned, both Leifern and I had had the "1 revert". I had no intention of reverting again but given that editors on both sides have abused reversion before, I had good reason to believe that someone would do a further revert and spark an edit war. I took the view - and I stand by it - that it was better to restrain both sides from escalating.

Kylu is completely innocent of any "collusion". As far as I know I've never had any contact with her before so I can't consider her an "ally" (see Kylu's own statement on this accusation). I simply asked on IRC if someone could review an AE request for me (log available on request - admins only). Kylu volunteered to review it and she was certainly under no obligation to act on my AE posting, let alone implement the requested 1RR. I actually asked the channel twice (at 00:17 and 00:57) and Kylu was simply the first to respond on both occasions.

To put the issue in a nutshell - which is better, stopping a potential revert war before it starts, or waiting until the house in on fire before acting? I requested 1RR solely as a preventative measure to encourage all sides to discuss rather than revert. I made this point explicitly in my AE request: "editors ... need to be encouraged to collaborate rather than confront. Discouraging aggressive reverting is an essential starting point." It seems to be both an overreaction and rather an assumption of bad faith to construe a request for an even-handed discouragement of revert warring, on an article where that's been a problem before, to be somehow "gaming the system". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I'm missing something. You first went to IRC to find an admin to help -- that's OK. You knew to make sure the help you were requesting on IRC was backed by an on-wiki request; that's also OK. But before you made the request, you reverted the article to your own favored version, to make sure that the article was in the condition you wanted before restrictions were placed on it. In what way is that distinguishable from an involved admin making sure their favored edits are in an article before protecting it from a good-faith edit war? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As Relata refero asks above, would it have made any difference if I'd reverted the article after I had posted the AE request? As far as I was concerned, that was my 1RR. Bear in mind that under the 1RR regime I would have been entitled to restore my edits anyway. Or are you arguing that Leifern's reversion without discussion was a legitimate action and should have been left in place? My sole concern was that another editor - maybe Leifern, maybe someone else - would revert my reversion, and another would revert that, and so on to the point of an edit war. The fairest way of preventing that was to restrain both sides equally - including myself. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would have made a difference, because that revert would have counted as your 1RR. You should have just waited, and then this whole kerfuffle wouldn't have arisen. Small details change the tone of sensitive situations, and anything covered by the arbitration in question is necessarily sensitive. Just be careful, that's all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. For the record, though, as I said above I did count that revert as my 1RR. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best if "involved" admins (such as ChrisO) would just stay away from the enforcement of the arbitration decision. Completely. I think that's what the ArbCom really had in mind, and I hope they will take this opportunity to eliminate any doubt about that. I think the committee was trying to reduce the scope of the dispute, but if involved admins are constantly pushing up against the "line" of what they are permitted to do (and in this case, I believe, crossing the line), that will only expand the scope of the dispute. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Any "involved" editor can and should submit arbitration enforcement requests if they feel it's justified - note that I acted as an editor, not an admin (obviously I can't enforce the arbitration decision). Prohibiting "involved" editors from making AE requests would make the arbitration decision unworkable. Obviously the "involved" editors are the people most likely to be aware of disputes, and therefore are best placed to explain what the problem is and why enforcement is needed in a particular case. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Figures, I take a week break from AE and the whole place collapses! But enough about how great I am! One universal I'd like to narrow this down on, as a lesson to be drawn for the future, is that for enforcement which is likely to result in such probationary measures, it is important that the enforcement nomination itself remains disconnected from the nominator's preferred version being last due to their own efforts. Which is to say: the nominator should not have the article reverted to their own preferred version immediately before or after filing the nomination. Because that does tend to defeat the point of having enforcement as, ultimately, a balancing mechanism. El_C 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a reasonable solution. There's no real dispute that Leifern's actions were specifically prohibited by WP:REVERT. If a violation of editing policy like a blind revert is permitted to stand, isn't that in effect allowing the violator to get away with it? A revert that isn't a violation of WP:REVERT should of course be allowed to stand, but I don't think we should be encouraging or permitting editors to enjoy the fruits of a violation of basic editing rules. Oh, and don't feel too guilty about things going to pot in your absence - it's just that some people are too fond of drama. See where WP:DRAMA redirects to. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My approach goes so far as to even leaving counter-reversions to the closing administrator's discretion. The greatest difficulty, I think, is finding uninvolved admins that are clued-in and oriented enough to close these reports. This, since some disputes cannot be resolved by, robotically, following a set of rules. As soon as a facet of enforcement is oversystematized (like with last reverts), one side may play that to their advantage and then the enforcement platform loses its cohesion and the confidence of the community. That's why I want closing admins sometimes doing the unexpected, to keep the disputing parties on their toes, to motivate them to play fair. El_C 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you've put your finger on the key problem - the need to find uninvolved admins. There's a related problem, which is that some editors are likely to attack even uninvolved admins if they dare to intervene in disputes on these articles. If you want examples, ask User:MastCell, User:^demon and User:Betacommand (who was an admin at the time). I said during the arbitration that I believed that a number of editors were doing this deliberately to discourage and intimidate admins into giving them a free pass. I still believe that's the case. It's certainly been true that outside Wikipedia, partisans in this conflict have been quite vicious in attacking individuals whose involvement they dislike - this guy, for instance, has reportedly been the target of death threats for his news reports. I fear that the same heckler's veto mentality is a factor here as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris, you went to IRC to find an admin, then when you had one lined up, you reverted the page, quickly asked for enforcement, and got that enforcement. That is the issue at hand; attempts to deflect this to a larger "key problem", involving intimidation of admins, death threats against journalists, and who knows what else, about which you are merely a disinterested observer trying to solve a vexing problem, become less and less convincing each time you play that hand. It is little different from the times you have protected articles over which you were edit-warring, except this time you did it once-removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Predictable nonsense. You're wrong about the sequence of events; I didn't ask anyone to review my request until after I had posted it (obviously, there was no request to review until that point). Don't rely on FeloniousMonk's timeline - it's inaccurate and out of context, like most of the rest of his tendentious accusations. And I might point out that you're in no position to lecture given your own record -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Predictably ridiculous deflection. You gamed the WP:AE board, and your attempts to blame that on everybody but yourself don't wash. And, by the way, the sequence of events is exactly right. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) ChrisO, I did in fact discuss my revert after I did, but more importantly, your unilateral rework of the edit was in direct response to my concerns about the scope of the article. In other words, you thought the article should be about B, I thought it should be about A, and rather than discuss you just went ahead and made it about B. When I reverted and asked that we discuss before making further changes, you went running to a forum only you as admin have access to. And your request included an admonishment to me. --Leifern (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher reinstated the probation because he believes I'm -- sigh -- "involved in the I-P dispute", so can we get some comments on whether the 1RR/week restriction should stay in place? -- tariqabjotu 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I said on my talk page "I was under the impression that you have been involved in the I-P dispute, although perhaps on other articles...If I am mistaken in either of these assumptions then I apologize. If you are uninvolved in the I-P dispute and you believe that a 1RR limit is not required, then you can lift the limitation." Why is this still an issue? Thatcher 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I do consider Tariqabjotu to be an "involved" editor as regards the I-P articles and I don't think he should be carrying out any actions to do with the Arbcomm decision. Tiamut^talk 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the Main Page

Resolved

 – Two users are going fishing for the day. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was sort of an accident. See, the Main Page used to be blocked from deleting because of the 5000 revision thing. I was bored a bit, and looking at the Main Page's deletion log from the delete interface. I asked in IRC whether it's possible to delete the Main Page again. A certain user who might like to show up here, possibly, told me that he tested it and confirm doesn't properly work. I was a tad too gullible and tested it for myself. Luckily, the damage was reversed and I think everything should be back to normal. Sorry, folks. Maxim_(talk) 20:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was my fault. I thought it was obvious I was joking, but clearly it wasn't. I accept the responsibility for this one, and I'd like to appologise to everyone for that - I was way way way out of line here. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems a couple desysoppings and bans are in order. ;) --Rory096 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well my pride is seriously damaged, that's for sure. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jumping off an 70-floor building won't kill you, I tried it and was fine"... Whitstable 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone who jumped off of a 70-foot building complain about it. --B (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that jumping off tall structures has never killed anyone - it is hitting the hard stuff at the bottom of said structures that usually causes the problem... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not the fall that kills you... —Animum (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can undelete a page, you can't unjump off a building. --Deskana (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you guys know that if you put a picture of goatse on one of the interface pages, it doesn't show up? srsly --- RockMFR 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need for anything to become of this. I support forgetting about it- everyone makes mistakes, and everyone forgets that jokes don't translate well over the Internet. It is pretty funny though. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, that's about how I feel now... I deserve a big chunk of the blame for actually pressing that damned button. Maxim_(talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. --Masamage ♫ 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• hmmm, yes well ...! :) Black Kite 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I mentioned on Talk:Main Page, perhaps we should institute some sort of protection against these things? We could have another prompt to enter one's password before an edit to the main page went through, and an "are you sure?" box before one deletes the main page. That could help prevent some of these things from happening. --Rory096 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have helped. Ryan told me, jokingly, that it simply won't work. So I foolishly tested it myself. Those wouldn't have stopped me... Maxim_(talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but if a box pops up that doesn't normally pop up saying "Are you absolutely positive you want to delete the Main Page?" you might have been alerted to the fact that one can, in fact, delete the main page. Also, the password prompt would have prevented the editing of "Wikipedia" to "Dickipedia" that happened this morning. --Rory096 20:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

However, as I said on Talk:Main Page, it wouldn't have helped with our penis-image-related vandalism the other day, as that was through an edit to a template. The templates are edited a lot- needing to put in your password would not help. Anyway, most people would have their password saved anyway (is there a way to get around that?) and having to enter your password would slow down reversion, too. Sounds pathetic, but I think we need reverts almost instantly in the case of main page vandalism. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

How long does it take to enter in a password, though? It seems like it would only be a very minor inconvenience, even if it were applied to templates on the Main Page, and it would only add a second or two to reverts, which wouldn't really make a big difference, especially considering it would probably prevent vandalism that would last longer than the extra couple of seconds any vandalism that did get through stayed up. --Rory096 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Main spage os the cornerstone of Wikipedian society. adding extra protections to prevent it form being vandalized is the most worthwhile ambition imaginable. I seen o reason why we cannot formally ask the developemnt team on wikipedia to consider adding this to the program. Smith Jones (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why we shouldn't expect administrators to behave better than this. This is a behavioural issue, not a software one. Risker (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This was an accident that could have been prevented if he realized he was mistaken, and this morning's incident was a result of someone gaining access to a computer logged into an admin account, and it would have been prevented if a password were required. --Rory096 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• See User:Pedro/Sarcasm for my "long standing rationale" on this ... ) Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I noticed this. Assumed it was a mistake of some kind. Still, did it really take 13 hours for the protection to be put back on the Main Page? Or was the page really still protected all that time? Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you have the correct timestamp format enabled in your preferences, you will see that the two log entries are only 19 seconds apart. —Animum (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• The protection was removed by the delete, not the edit this morning. --Rory096 22:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• This needs to go into WP:BEANS. The definitive Wikipedia beans. Hiding T 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Best laugh of the day on here is this thread. ThuranX (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Maxin, that's hilarious. Do you now get to put a "This user has deleted the mainpage" userbox on your userpage? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has deleted the Main page.

• I can't work out if by writing Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page I have violated WP:BEANS. With apologies to Ryan and Maxim. Hiding T 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how this happened. I can personally attest to the fact that the Main Page was impossible to delete for about the past month -- since 'bigdelete' was implemented. It seems the Main Page no longer has 5,000 revisions. How? I have no idea. A word to all admins: if the form appears, it means you can delete the page. The warning message takes the place of the form if it isn't possible to delete the page (try United States for an example). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry, couldn't resist). 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiding (talk • contribs)

By all means, encourage admins to attempt to delete the United States :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You lot are a bad influence. Especially with the goatse idea lol.:) Merkinsmum 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We need a Wikipedia:Village stocks to list these things, then we can all go and giggle and/or throw rotten tomatoes at people who delete the main page and crash the servers by deleting the sandbox.  :-) Gwinva (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! BTW, I tried to delete the United States, and the warning notice appeared. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, if you'd succeeded in deleting the United States, I have a feeling there are some smaller nations who would be forever in your debt. (Now if you'd just delete a few of our politicians, as well....)Gladys J Cortez 00:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Even stranger things have happend to the main page in its long and turbulent life... How about this: [40]? I personally quite like the name "Little Barrier Island" for the main page... -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some MediaWiki: namespace magic that should hopefully make deleting the Main Page a bit harder, at least... -_- krimpet✽ 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea, Maxim - you're supposed to take it to AfD first. Anyone for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, man, that is FAWESOME! And I thought User:Scientizzle did the most-amazing deletion ever when he broke the whole 'pedia...what was it he tried to delete again? Isn't that why the >5000-edits thing was supposedly put in place in the first place? Anyway, kudos on your amazingness--you are now the official patron saint of us folks who trip over rocks, spill things on our shirt, and otherwise make unintentionally-hilarious mistakes. :) Gladys J Cortez 00:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, I went and created Wikipedia:Village stocks. Do with it what you will. Turn them into patron saints, too, if you like.  ;-) Gwinva (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ban all admins from Wikipedia for one year and let us regular folks go back to business as usual..:) Igor Berger (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this tool, the Main Page is only 8 edits shy of 4,000, and could've been deleted for not reaching the "bigdelete" limit (5,000). That's been fixed now. We laughed, some cried, let's move on. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's nothing. If you add Lemonparty to Mediawiki:Loginsuccess, it doesn't work! Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Process attack by Hu12

Admin Hu12 has now instead of making an attempt to resolve this dispute, escalated the situation by reporting my own site here to the Spam police. Grossly mischaracterizing the situation. It seems to me that he is attempting, yet another process-end-run to try to discredit anyone pointing out his own anti-project behaviour. Wjhonson (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Attack? Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. This is not the first time this has been an issue with you, seeAN/I Original research and linkspam on Talk:Mike Huckabee.. You're here to improve Wikipedia, not just to push adjendas or funnel readers off Wikipedia onto your site, right?..Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2F.countyhistorian.com--Hu12 (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What's "this dispute" which you refer to, Wjhonso? (it's linking to WP:DR, not to any specific dispute) El_C 09:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And you know we've already run this EL process and your position failed. The previous AN/I failed as anyone can see. There was no follow-up, and no further action. And all reviewers can plainly see that this situation has developed solely because you are seeking to discredit me for pointing out your own conflict-of-interest in the entire King of Mann / unrealroyal.com circus. Wjhonson (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, rules are rules. It's your site. WP:COI tells you what to do with it. Besides, it fails WP:RS and WP:EL, so it's inclusion is dubious regardless of the COI. Shot info (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not in disagreement with that interpretation Shot info. I have a few rare times added a direct link to an article I've writen to an in-wiki article page. As A.B. correctly pointed out on the Spam Project, editors are not only allowed, but encouraged to provide in-TALK links to information, including their own, that might be useful for developing article detail. For the most part that is indeed what I did. In the few cases, where there is a link from article space to my site, I would have no problem at all, with removing them. Hu12 has never approached me to resolve this which would be the normal and correct first step. His report is merely, part and parcel of the entire long-running King of Mann fiasco. Now that Mann has evidently returned to Wikipedia, I'm sure we'll see much more of this sordid situation.Wjhonson (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You were aware of this back in March 2007 @ AN/I Original research and linkspam on Talk:Mike Huckabee., so there is no excuse and I yes I've notified you ^[41]. While one or two talk page request may have have been appropriate (discounting the WP:RS and WP:EL issue), spamming 18+ additions to talk pages is called Canvassing (Source soliciting), and unacceptable.--Hu12 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wjhonson here. This does not seem to be extensive or intensive enough to warrant blacklisting. El_C 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I have a link to the "spamming 18+ additions to talk pages," please? El_C 09:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See also - →Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2F.countyhistorian.com

• 7 March 2007--26 August 2007--1 February 2007--5 February 2007--06:20, 2 April 2007--6 March 2007--arbitration/Bluemarine 10 January 2008--July 2007--December 2007--9 November 2007--30 December 2007--7 March 2007--5 March 2007--rfc/Bluemarine 19 September 2007--1 February 2007--23 August 2007--26 August 2007--12 August 2007--28 May 2007--Deletion review 28 May 2007
  --Hu12 (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is all from a while ago, so what prompted the latest? El_C 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• What's the problem with his comment at the rfc/Bluemarine? El_C 10:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It being a continuation of past behavior, but that was an honest statement. Nothing here in my opinion warrants blacklisting (not sure who brought that up, nor did I suggest). These reports take time (started a month ago), and the long term nature (since 2004) of the additions required just that, more time. In any event, if one or two talk page request were made probably wouldent have spent the time as it would have been appropriate (minus WP:RS and WP:EL).--Hu12 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) No redirect Hu12. Anyone who reads the AN/I you linked above can see quite clearly that no action or response was taken. You have failed Hu12 to notify me on my talk page, or request any sort of reaction or response there. That is the first step in dispute resolution not the last one. And I reject your repeated use of the word "spamming" in this derogatory fashion. Anyone can clearly see, the links were placed over a long period of time, and were directly related to updating certain particular article details. Admin A. B. has already addressed this for you, since you seem confused about proper use of external link information on article talk pages. You have misinterpreted our policy a number of times, which is disconcerting since you should be in a position to understand it more clearly. Your behaviour here and elsewhere is really quite remarkable. And I don't think I need to clarify that any further. El C, the 18+ Talk links to which he refers, were diffed by him on the Wikiproject Spam link, Hu12 provided above. Anyone can read them, and convince themselves that those diffs, have no relation to spam, the links being directly related to information useful for expanding the articles. And placed on the talk pages as we as editors are encouraged to do. Hu12 is just fishing around for something to use against me. Whatever might stick.Wjhonson (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of User:X3210

Resolved

 – Although the user did lash out, he has since contacted me via email and has, in my opinion, genuinely apologized for his actions. I've since unblocked the user and left a welcome back note on his talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 08:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please review the blocking of User:X3210, it followed an incident where an administrator incorrectly reverted his user page (that the user had blanked as is his right) [42] and told the user it was not allowed. I became involved because of this post Wikipedia talk:Don't restore removed comments#Disagree in which the administrator cited this as an example (which is also unfair and should be removed).

When I checked the page it seemed to me that the administrators involved acted hastily, without complete understanding of policy and with a serious misunderstanding of the users contributions (the use was characterized as a "vandal" and all I can see is that he was undoing vandalism on Tom Petty, incorrectly tagged an IP, apologized for it and then blanked his page after the other involved parties had replied. I don't see where an attempt was made to verify policy until after the incident had escalated. Thank you. Awotter (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems X3210 was (wrongly) told not to blank his talk page, proceeded to make a WP:POINT by blanking someone else's user and talk page, and that got him blocked by a previously uninvolved administrator. I see no error in that administrator's actions. Sandstein (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, while it looks like the people who reverted the blanking of this users talk page were not entirely correct (any user may blank their talk page at any time; blanking of ones own talk page confirms that one has read any messages thereof; archiving is not required, and we don't make users wear Scarlet Letters.) the users response thereof was ENTIRELY inappropriate, as they seemed to go on a blanking rampage of other users talk pages. So, to sum up, this user SHOULD have been allowed to blank their own talk page; the people who told them this was not allowed were incorrect. However, the users response was entirely inappropriate, and merited a block. In the future, users should contact admins here or at WP:AN and not attempt to rectify a misunderstanding by revenge. I endorse the block, but the editors who told them the wrong info should be set straight also. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah - I just wrote a long post with diffs to try and clarify the sequence of events, and here I get beat to the punch >.< I agree that the editors need to be set straight--it's worth noting that a user even used rollback to restore the contents a couple of times, although they later posted on the talk page that blanking is acceptable. --jonny-mt 07:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

First, he blanked his talk page, not user page as stated above. I have no problem with people blanking their user page at any time. It is, however, correct that I was mistaken about user talk page policy. I still disagree with that policy, and the essay that backs it up. In the future, I will only restore very recent warnings that were clearly removed in bad faith; I understand that still technically contravenes policy, but I have seen many editors do it. Second, I of course didn't block X3210, or accuse him of vandalism. He was blocked (31 hours) by Slakr because he blanked my user talk page, Pumpmeup's user page, and told me to "buzz off". I did not request that block.

I don't understand what is unfair about me "citing" my blanking (I didn't cite the block, or say the block was justified) at Wikipedia talk:Don't restore removed comments#Disagree. I was quite frank that I had done something that was in violation of the essay. I also explained why I disagree with the essay. Superm401 - Talk 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than making a user wear a big giant red "A" on their chest, what is the purpose of preventing registered users from blanking their own talk page? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:refactor. Igor Berger (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is none, anybody can blank their own talk pages. It's usually a sign of frustration when vandals or other editors who've been warned again and again keep blanking warnings, and the legit editors keep stuffing the warnings back up to show they've been tagged as vandals. It happens. Heck, it happens to me, too. Snowfire51 (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had no problem with the dude blanking his user talk page at all, since it's our policy to allow users to do that. Of course, when he started retaliating at others for restoring the pages instead of taking the issue here or elsewhere, it seemed like a clear issue of civility and harassment/retaliation. However, if the user is willing to be civil and use the proper channels for resolving disputes, I'll be more than happy to unblock him/her. --slakr^\ talk / 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I like to keep it all transparent. To me it is a Red Badge of Courage! But that is just me. Igor Berger (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, I should make it clear that I don't think what the did user was at all appropriate, but had it been handled better and a bit slower, the user might not have gotten to that point, in fact the user did reply on the talk page of the admin initially and not in an uncivil way and his page was reverted again.Awotter (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason we have multiple levels of warnings. If someone pastes gibberish into an article one time, I'll give them a polite warning. If I see they've done it before, I'll give them a more severe warning or block them. But I don't want to look in the talk history, just because the user prefers to blank their page completely every time someone puts a message. Superm401 - Talk 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• We shouldn't really be surprised that users react poorly when they perceive they are being harassed, and lash out at those they see as the harassers. Someone restored X3210's talk page hours after it had been blanked, and without leaving any explanation. Gimmetrow 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  Communication is the key! Templating regular users does not work. They are not vandals. If people would learn to communicate better we would have less Flame Wars going on! Igor Berger (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

True, restoring someone else's talk page shouldn't be done. However, to me that's a very small problem. When a blocked editor has caused trouble all over the place, legit editors get frustrated and sometimes make bad decisions. To misappropriate Chris Rock, "I ain't saying I would have done it...but I understand." Snowfire51 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• • However, neither should we condone the lashing out. This user wasn't exactly a newbie, and any reasonable person never resorts to blatant vigilante-style revenge when faced with perceived harassment. I am nto surprised when people act like dicks, but it doesn't mean I think it should go unchecked. Reasonable people look for authorities to turn to when they perceive harrassment by others. This user's first response was to return fire. Hardly a proper move... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the first response was this at 3:46:04, which looks pretty civil. Then at 3:46:59, Superm401 restores X2310's talk page, and at 3:47:56, X3210 blanks Superm401's talk page. Not the best response, but hardly seems to have merited a once-and-final NPA warning. Gimmetrow 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Superm401"In the future, I will only restore very recent warnings that were clearly removed in bad faith; I understand that still technically contravenes policy, but I have seen many editors do it." I'd like to suggest may be you not be concerned with what users do on their pages talk or otherwise, good faith, bad faith or indifferent faith. If they've blanked it they've read it, that's the essence of the policy. The warnings don't disappear.Awotter (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It may not have been known by the editor that users have every right to blank their pages, even involving bad faith, warnings, block notices. That's something a lot of editors have a problem with, from what I've seen. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said they disappear. I said they become needlessly inaccessible. It seems like this policy exists for the whims of editors, without any consideration for the efficient functioning of the wiki.Superm401 - Talk 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued OWNership and reverts against consensus

Resolved

 – User blocked for 1 month

Moved from WP:AN

On the article Boerboel, Frikkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continually defied consensus, violated the 3RR, and been uncivil. Blocked three times for violation of 3RR, admin Samir worked hard to personally facilitate a discussion, which Frikkers refused to participate in. In December Frikkers was blocked for one month as a result of attempting to change Boerboel back to his preferred version against the consensus of the discussion. As soon as his block was up on January 31st, Frikkers again reverted. As the last user (not me) to revert his latest actions put it in their edit summary, "rv WP:OWN of article against consensus, removing interwiki links and removal of sections by user repeatedly against consensus". Considering that Frikkers continues to not only makes reversions against consensus, but almost totally ignores attempts to engage him in discussion, I don't know what the best solution is. Please advise. VanTucky 04:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs at AN/I? Might get more attention there. Bstone (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the user set up the account just to edit this article. Special:Contributions/Frikkers. If not ownership there must be WP:COI. Igor Berger (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be a little bit of an assumption of bad faith, but it's also a logical possibility. I think the user also created an article on one registry for the breed, and part of his edits are to say that that particular registry is the sole real one for the breed. In general, Frikkers has ignored the reasonable attempts to engage him in the collaborative process. Any ideas for a solution?VanTucky 18:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Being that this user is not causing an immidiate threat to the Wikipeida project I believe this does not belong here and you should try WP:dispute resolution. I would try to mediate with the user but I am not an admin and the user may not respect what I have to say starting an edit war. So best to have an admin try to contact the user with some sage words. You can try User:VirtualSteve or User:Ioeth they will probably be glad to help you. Igor Berger (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• User has bee blocked for 1 month by User:Davidruben. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned user Grawp

Resolved

 – Additional IP's blocked. SQL^{Query me!} 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Grawp is reverting a large number of redirects to non-notable D&D articles using the IP 71.107.164.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I request that someone block him and semi-protect everything the IP has touched. FWIW, these redirects were all made by User:Craw-daddy who I see as one of the D&D "fans"; one who is editing quite reasonably. --Jack Merridew 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the sockpuppet accusations, but the massive reversions seem to be a problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alison dinged them. So resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Alison seems on top of this; he'll rant on the ip talk page until someone protects it a while. Watch for a return on some other IP or D&D-themed sock account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed as Grawp yet again. Also Keysapart (talk · contribs), now blocked - Alison ^❤ 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And 71.107.164.232 has had their talk page protected to prevent further trolling. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He's back with IP tag-team tactics such as [43] [44] which fake-out ClueBot [45]. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the 3 IP's in question as probably grawp socks. SQL^{Query me!} 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jack Merridew 10:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

nb: also came back as User:Whomtends but that's all over and blocked; should be checkusered. --Jack Merridew 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Done and checkusered. Blocked another account and its underlying IP - Alison ^❤ 11:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this an unapproved bot or am I being paranoid?

Resolved

 – It is not an unapproved bot, you are being paranoid _(1 == 2)^Until 04:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I admit it's possible I'm just being paranoid, but see this: Markussep (talk · contribs)

For roughly three and a half years straight (since August 2004), this user has, about 8 to 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, generated full directory entries (generally geographical data on eastern Europe, but also obscure European athletes) at incredible speeds.

Their edits also sometimes seem to follow certain algorithms. See my comments on their talkpage. Although, of course, that could just be a person themselves counting the alphabet.

Could a person really have the mental and physical capacity to do this?

Even if they're doing it manually, I told them to stop because it's anti-collaborative. Is this an unreasonable request?

So far, they've made roughly 1,500 comments on talkpages, while making roughly 42,000 contributions to the mainspace. That's not "collaboration." At this speed, it's not physically possible for the average editor to review these contributions for notability and so on, because by the time they have, the user has already created a couple hundred more. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is allowed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Should it be? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. We have bots all of the time transwiki articles to here from other places or create articles from databases. That is how we get the articles on all of the US cities and towns; a bot did them all. During the 2 Million article rush, many of the new articles were made by a transwiki bot from the Portuguese Wikipedia. We have a bot now that makes articles on all cities and communes within France. In fact, we welcome those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's just an approved bot, can we have the articles it creates automatically marked as "New page patrolled?" Pairadox (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bots like this are fine and long welcomed here in the community; they help create stubs that can later be expanded upon by human editors. A ton of our articles on populated places in the USA and elsewhere started out as stubs generated from census data and blossomed into well-written, comprehensive articles. krimpet✽ 10:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Zenwhat you need to investigate people not bots. Bots are not Evil. We are not Robo Rama movie..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an approved bot and he denies that it's a bot. If you guys agree it's a bot, then yes, he needs to get it approved, per WP:BOT, since what he's doing drastically alters the mainspace and is therefore not just automated editing

Bots should not be auto-generating possibly contentious content, because as noted above, how are users supposed to collaborate? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well is it a good bot or a bad bot? Igor Berger (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If the bot does something disruptive or harmful to the project, I'd be the first one to block it; but where is this "contentious content"; and for that matter, how is it harming collaboration to be creating stubs for people to build off of? krimpet✽ 11:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Zenwhat, you forgot to mention your previous discussion with Markussep. Are you claiming that Markussep lied to you? How about notifying him about this thread? If you spent a bit more time editing the content of Wikipedia rather than trying to control its contributors you, too, might learn to edit so fast. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion asking this kind of question here shows you still haven't learned to assume good faith. The editing patterns of this user are obviously not those of a bot. His core times are about 4 hours per day, typically something like 7pm-11pm Middle European Time, i.e. after work. Sometimes more during the weekend. Sometimes only an hour. If you suspected Markussep of lying to you the right thing was to check these things on your own by looking at his editing patterns with an open mind. Just selectively picking some details in order to make a case is a highly disruptive behaviour. Stop it. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From all I can see, Markussep is human and collaborates with others on the creation of stubs for many towns and geographical features. He has an excellent track record of collaborating with others through WikiProjects, for example through many subpages of the Germany project. He deserves praise, not paranoia. Kusma (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is as far from good faith as I can see...I mean, if he's organized, efficient and committed, he must be a bot? Have you even looked at his edits? --Smashville^BONK! 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat seems to be hellbent on self-destruction. Over recent days, he has;

1. Restored comments to a user talk page that the user concerned had legitimately deleted per WP:TALK.
2. Responded in an un-WP:CIVIL manner to my assumption of good faith that the point above was due to not being aware of WP:TALK (he knows the policy, and disagrees with it)
3. Repeatedly copied whole conversations to the other parties talk page, due to his apparent personal belief that BOTH pages should contain a record of the exchange.
4. Messed admins about by getting his user page deleted and restored to make a WP:POINT
5. Now, this rather blatant failure to WP:AGF here.

He seems to be determined that Wikipedia will change every policy and way of working to how he wishes it to be. Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

either way, since this started in 2004, there really was no approval process for bots. any bot operating prior to creating WP:BAG is automaticly grandfathered in. β^_command 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I already explained this was appropriate editing to Zenwhat here: User_talk:Zenwhat#bot.3F. I have agree with Mayalld's observations, and I hold back in providing some observations of my own. I think Zenwhat could benefit from more attention from experienced users. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Zenwhat has started a number of threads over the last couple of months that could be described as vexatious. Leithp 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hans: "Are you claiming that Markussep lied to you?" No, hence the reason I titled this thread in the form of a self-deprecating question, "Is this an unapproved bot or am I being paranoid?"

Are you accusing me of accusing Markussep of lying to me? Please see WP:AAGF. Also, yes, I realized I need to AAAGF and you therefore need to AAAAGF, etc., etc.. The point: I'm not accusing him of lying, but I have difficulty believe it is just a user. If that difficulty is out of my own ignorance, so be it. That's why I asked here. I'm not reporting the man, but asking experienced users if it's possible for a person to actually do this.

Since most users say yes, then yes, I believe you. The claims about "self-destruction," and the need for an experienced user are both condescending and insulting, though they appear to be said thoughtfully and in good faith, so thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am accusing you of that:

• Markussep: "I can assure you that I'm not a bot, and that I don't use automation tools for my edits (except AWB for minor things, replacements etc.)."
• You start this section: "For roughly three and a half years straight (since August 2004), this user has, about 8 to 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, generated full directory entries (generally geographical data on eastern Europe, but also obscure European athletes) at incredible speeds." This was a gross misrepresentation. You did not notify Markussep, and you did not mention what Markussep told you.
• You again: "It's not an approved bot and he denies that it's a bot. If you guys agree it's a bot, then yes, he needs to get it approved…"

Now you accuse me of not assuming good faith because I asked you whether you want to accuse Markussep of lying? Hello?

Now what else did you do in this one day?

• A user whom you suspect of sockpuppetry told you that he has just been checked. Instead of apologising in this awkward situation you ask the user to provide a diff.
• You correct a typo on someone else's user page.
• You post to a thread "Immature sysops.in the IRC." that you had started earlier.
• You oppose an admin candidate on the grounds that you would like to check something first but that you were too lazy to do it. (Today someone provided you with a long list of diffs, and now you have changed your vote.)
• You create your "Cruft portal". You advertise it with a POINTy post to VP (policy), but nobody bites.
• The famous "Delete my history, please" story. Ryan Postlethwaite gives you a last warning: IAR is not for disruption. While he is writing this, you are writing this inflammatory suggestion to ANI.
• You ask an admin candidate a puzzle that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and another what he thinks about your "Cruft portal".
• You complain to Benjiboi, because he has archived your disruptive WP:ARS thread, and then you post to Masem: "Help me delete WP:ARS".
• You post to VP (policy): "The inclusionist cabal now using bots to prevent deletion". A gross misrepresentation of the facts. Afterwards you make a POINTy post to the Bot owners' noticeboard.

The last three items were after Ryan's "final warning for disruptive edits". I have skipped minor things and one matter where privacy is an issue.

This was all in just one day. Can you imagine what happens on a day when 100 editors (out of > 6 million user accounts) decide to act up like this? And you are continually asking others to assume good faith or even assume high intelligence on your part. Am I the only person here who can see the contradiction? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, calm down, Hans. I'm not going to address your remarks if you're going to rant. You seem to be seriously reading into a lot of my posts. I do have a tendency towards knee-jerk reactions, but I admit it when I'm called out on it. For instance, you cite my thread above about the "inclusionist cabal," but you fall to cite the fact that I later retracted those remarks. [46] (And this was before you just made these accusations, btw.)

And again, if I was accusing him of lying, I would've titled this thread, "Bot-owner spamming Wikipedia," not "Is this an unapproved bot or am I being paranoid?" 1==2 thinks I'm paranoid and I'm willing to let it go. If I was 100% certain he was a bot-owner, right now I'd be fuming over 1==2 calling me paranoid and letting this continue. But I'm not. I guess I was just paranoid, mmmk? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd vandalism on Jakarta International School

Hi folks, Just a bit of odd vandalism - a user appears to be making some form of bomb threat (be it a prank or not) to a school, Jakarta International School. The user is Soul_988, and I've added a regular vandal tag to their talk page - just wanted to let an admin know in case there's any special procedure or perhaps this is genuine in any way (I don't want to make a call like that myself). Thanks. SMC (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Diff is here, contact details are here. Worth somebody who's familiar (if there is anyone) letting them know — alex.muller (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a vandal. But you never know! The user made the same remarks to another school as well Special:Contributions/Soul_988 Who knows what are procedures for this type of behavior? Igor Berger (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone like that can just be blocked indef now, right? Several years ago there was thought to be a risk of an attack and the school was actually closed for a time. Hardly a laughing matter (although it sounds like bored kid). --Merbabu (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Main Page discussion (notice)

Just in case anyone has missed it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Adding useless revisions to pages to make them undeletable. See also this wiki-tech mailing list post. The main outcome seems to have been this, which means that all main pages on all wikis are undeletable and unmoveable. Please, no discussion or comments here (go over to WP:AN to add comments). This is just a notice. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of AN post

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Summary for three issues (A, B, C) that I think it would be good to discuss in regards to a recent block of a bot and a set of admin actions:

• (A) Consequences of BetacommandBot's week-long block and how to handle the work it does.
• (B) Whether an arbitration case should be opened to handle the desysopping points (East718).
• (C) Whether there has been abuse of a bot flag (Betacommand)

Posting here and notifying of discussions there, to avoid splitting the threads. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:59.163.208.2

Could someone review this edit? User:59.163.208.2 has recently returned from a 31 hour block and made exactly the same kind of edit (s)he got banned for (removal of AfD notice) plus added a sharedip tag for the IP address they are using. The history of edits from this IP suggests a single user, plus a reverse DNS lookup gives 59.163.208.2.static.vsnl.net.in - implying that it is a static IP address. Is this a likely to be a disingenous attempt to prevent or limit future blocks? Thanks! Ros0709 (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Edokter has since removed the sharedip tag. Unless that was incorrect this can be closed as resolved. Thanks. Ros0709 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Swatjester

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

Resolved

 – Block reversed, let drama die

I got an email from SqueakBox on Saturday asking that I delete his user page. I thought nothing of the action, and did so. It seemed simple enough. Today I logged in and saw this message from Swatjester. I followed it to the AN/I thread above, and the deletion log for SB's page. As we all know, this wasn't the first set of threats against SB - CUMBEY posted them on her web page, off wiki, iirc, and there have been lots of others. Anyway, there's no requirement for proof of a threat in order to delete your user page.

Quite frankly, Swat's refusal to assume good faith is bad enough. It would appear that he is willing to put the safety of an editor at risk because that editor used the wrong template/terminology. Now, to top it off, he is engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries - here and here. Calling someone a liar isn't the same as accusing them of misrepresenting the facts - it goes to intent. Given his actions which put another editor at risk and his personal attacks, I think a block is in order. I think his present attitude makes him a danger to the project. Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks despite a warning [47]. I'm blocking him for 12 hours. If someone feels that the block is unjust, feel free to undo/adjust it without consulting me - I'm not that attached to my own actions. Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking another admin over a dispute you're personally involved is generally a really bad idea... krimpet✽ 15:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How was Guettarda personally involved in the dispute? -- Zsero (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Krimpet. I'd strongly advocate Guettarda removing the block himself, before someone else gets in there. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Wow, he actually did it. Guettarda, when you're the aggrieved party, you should have taken it to AN first. On the other hand, he does say that if anyone disagrees, they should undo it, so minimal drama please. Relata refero (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How was Guettarda the aggrieved party? -- Zsero (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the block has been undone by LaraLove (talk · contribs). ~ Riana ⁂ 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those edit summaries are bang out of order and the block should stand. In regards to the wider issues, Wikipedia is just not that important, something that we on the inside sometimes forget in our work for the project. Whatever the conduct of an editor on wikipedia, if they feel that their actions here have compromised their real world safety, then we act to minimise that damage - the on-wiki stuff is irrelevent in that context. Are some editors going to attempt to use made-up threats to gain advantage here? yes but it doesn't matter one iota when weighted against the possible ramifications of us blaming hardball with the 'wrong' (those who haven't made made up a threat) editors. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for the personal attacks after he was warned. Anyone who thinks that's ok can unblock. Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see myself as in a dispute with him - I warned him about his behaviour. That isn't a dispute. Guettarda (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pot, Kettle, Black. You came to my talk page after this issue was good and resolved, just to tell me how I make you sick, and you're utterly disgusted with my actions. Personal attack much? There's no proof that there ever was a death threat. There were no such threats at all on wiki, and I explicitly stated if there were I would delete them immediately. Now you're calling for a fucking block because I did exactly what WP:USER told me to do? Maybe you should review the policies Guettarda. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This issue has been resolved for over 24 hours now. What do you think you're preventing? Or is it maybe that YOU are refusing to assume good faith in MY actions? Jesus fucking christ, the hypocrisy here knows no bounds. -e- So I was blocked eh? Yeah that's appropriate. I'm done with this discussion. If anyone wants my viewpoint, they can talk to me on IRC or IM. I give full permission to reproduce my statements from there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to tell you that putting procedure above the safety of another editor is unacceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that you engaged in PAs after a warning. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I lost in the superbowl pool last night. Can I get in on the desysop pool? In all seriousness, bad idea, very bad. Both of you need to calm it down a few notches - this is the stupidest thing in the world to argue about. We're talking about a user page being hidden from public view (nothing is really deleted). This has no impact on the encyclopedia and everything is accessible if there is anything needed from it. I despise with a passion that we allow user space to be indexed by Google and I'm all for anyone wanting to get rid of it for privacy, but it isn't that big of a deal that you should block an admin over. --B (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If Squeakbox's claim about the death threat is true, then it's a huge deal, and the need to hide the page from public view is urgent. If the claim is not true, then indeed it's not a big deal. Therefore, regardless of who ultimately turns out to be right on the underlying facts, only one of the two is taking it too seriously. -- Zsero (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that we allow Google to index anything other than the mainspace? If it's not in an article (such as disputed statements or idle speculation on talk pages, or discussing the inner workings of WP itself), then it shouldn't be something than has Wikipedia's name attached to it in a google search. Just my 2¢. Horologium (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Google indexing is useful in the Wikipedia namespace for sure. Policy discussions and the link. Guettarda (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it ever acceptable to engage in personal attacks in response to a warning about engaging in personal attacks? Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Swat, calm down. You are going way over the top here on a relatively minor point of order. Yes, Guettarda should not have blocked you but you are not making things easy for yourself. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I must admit I am rather unclear on why "In about 12 hours, I'm going to decide whether I'm going to continue to work on this project. Maybe I'll lie a bunch of times, make vague allegations of death threats and come back!" is a blockable personal attack but "Your attitude to your fellow editors turns my stomach. I can't believe that anyone would act in the manner that you have. It's utterly disgusting." is acceptable. Thatcher 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Thatcher and I'm going to join the crowds calling for a reduction in drama. I strongly suggest that all parties who are even so much as REMOTELY involved in this go have a long walk, or spend some money, or do whatever you do to relax. The drama factor on this issue is almost - but not quite - to the level of your average high school. Seriously, guys, everyone walk away, or this madness will get even uglier than it already is. Stop the drama spiral. - Philippe | Talk 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

{EC) Both of you made some unnecessary comments. Are they personal attacks? That's debatable. Regardless, whatever they are, you're both guilty of it. So either you can both be blocked or you can both go on your merry way. I've unblocked SWAT. My recommendation is that, since the core issue was resolved yesterday, it all be let go, and you both go your own way. Lara❤Love 16:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the block against Swat was preventative, or in the best interest of Wikipedia. If the block has not been reversed already I would do it now. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just stumbled across this, and I must say it's an awful block. And the attitude of the blocker ("Anyone who thinks that's ok can unblock") doesn't put you in any better light. It assumes bad faith of Lara, and places the blocker in the god-like position of "if anyone undoes this block they're saying that personal attacks (as the blocker perceived them) are okay." This needs to stop now. You can't block someone just because they piss you off. Especially after an insult was leveled at SwatJester. -- Bellwether ^B_C 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Swat re-posted personal information about an editor after the editor said he was subject to a death threat. We don't tolerate that kind of behaviour. Swat called him a liar - calling someone a liar is a personal attack - it imputes motive. And my comment regarding the block was that it was that I don't have the sort of attachment to my ego that some people have - I don't require that people seek my permission before undoing my blocks. I always say that. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Swat is 100% out of line for that kind of action and needs to apologize in public to Squeakbox. Lawrence § t/e 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest researching this a bit more, Lawrence. Swat felt the deletion was out-of-process (it was, by the letter), and simply undeleted. He didn't "repost personal information about an editor." That's simply G's mischaracterization of it. Apparently, Squeak has used this deletion tactic to cover his tracks in the past. Additionally, Squeak had moved his talkpage to a user subpage, which was then deleted, further bolstering Swat's claims that Squeak was potentially just "covering his tracks", so-to-speak. This, combined with the out-of-process deletion led Swat to undelete. Guettarda then attacked Swat saying that s/he was "disgusted" by him. Then G blocked Swat for the perceived "personal attacks" from Swat. -- Bellwether ^B_C 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No, I'm aware of the history having read the threads all over. My point was that it doesn't matter how you ask. If I said here, "Please delete User:Lawrence Cohen because I had bad coffee this morning," that is a valid reason, and place to ask. If I mail you direct and say the sparrows told me to ask for it's deletion, that's fine. If I ask in IRC, thats fine, or if I catch someone on Google IM thats fine too. The point is, User:Lawrence Cohen can go at any time for any reason, be it a lark or a serious reason. User talk:Lawrence Cohen however, should not go, as I understand it, unless that username is done, finit, retired and gone. Lawrence § t/e 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Really who cares, wikipedia is simply not important enough for us to play games with people - if users want their pages deleted, delete them - since plenty of you track squeakboxes every movement, how this is going to cover his tracks is beyond me. If someone feels threaten, the page is deleted - I don't care if it's Jimbo asking or willyonwheels - their onsite conduct makes no difference to our trying to ensure their offsite safety. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Break-in at User:Clevelander

I'd noticed a strange edit from Clevelander (talk · contribs), an account that had been unused since 2006 and which has its talk and user pages redirected to Aivazovsky (talk · contribs). So I put a note on User talk:Aivazovsky, and he put a note on my talk page at User talk:Nagle#User:Clevelander: "That was my old username. Apparently, someone hacked into that account and is now using it. I did not make any of those contributions listed except for the Rasul Guliyev‎ contrib and the personal attack noticeboard thing which should have been moved to my new username but apparently weren't. Again, I did not do any of those new contributions from 2008. Please stop whoever is doing that. Thanks in advance! -- Aivazovsky (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)" Please take appropriate action. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The account's logs state it was created on January 12 of this year. If there was a name change, that would have freed the old username up for someone else to register it, right? If so, it doesn't look like a hijacking case, although those old contributions probably shouldn't be attached to the new user. -- Vary | Talk 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll block Clevelander indef, then. Compromised account, simple situation. Mangojuice^talk 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. Weird. Okay here's what happened. Clevelander changed his/her username to Aivazovsky very recently. A new user then chose Clevelander as their username. When the rename happened, some of Aivazovsky's contributions were deleted; WP:PAIN was deleted for about 2 weeks in January, and then restored. Apparently the restore granted the edits to a user who didn't make them. I am inclined to say that Aivazovsky needs to remove the redirect from User:Clevelander but it's important that the link be mentioned. I'm going to post at WP:BN to see if anyone can fix the situation, but probably not. Mangojuice^talk 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And scratch again -- Clevelander changed usernames over a year ago. Clearly, the redirect should be dropped now. Hopefully the bureaucrats can straighten out the error with the edits. Mangojuice^talk 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need a developer for that. Thatcher 17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm on IRC now asking for a developer to come and take a look, hopefully one will be around shortly. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the revisions (both deleted and undeleted) with the new name. (Note that the user rename system now updates deleted revisions, but that wasn't true at the time this user was renamed.) --Brion VIBBER (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so that's what's going on. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the user and talk pages should have been moved following the rename, not redirected, right? They shouldn't be associated with the new 'Clevelander' account. Should I ask the user if he wants the old revisions merged into his current user page? Or just offer to move them to a subpage? -- Vary | Talk 21:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there are many talk pages signed by the former Clevelander, it is often conventional to recreate the account and block it to prevent an impersonator from using it. Here this looks like someone picking a free user name. He may not want people thinking that all the pages signed by the old Clevelander belong to him. Someone should have a talk with the new Clevelander about picking a different name. Thatcher 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

After Brion's database changes I'm not entirely sure what happened here. Presumably some edits deleted at the time of the rename (when these weren't reassigned) were since restored. Do we know if the person who recreated trhe Clevelander account did so maliciously or innocently in the (actually correct) belief that the account wasn't taken? I would welcome advise about how to better educate users about considering recreating accounts after renames (these is info on it at Wikipedia:Changing username but I don't know how attentively users read the guidance notes... WjBscribe 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There were some edits from WP:PAIN that were deleted at the time of the name change and didn't get renamed, but were since undeleted, so it looked like User:Clevelander had made 5 or 6 edits to PAIN in 2006 plus his 4 new edits. There is no reason to think the new account was a malicious recreation, but it is linked to all the old talk page sigs. Definitely some education needs to take place at WP:CHU, maybe the clerks or 'crats can send the user some boilerplate about recreating to prevent impersonation. Thatcher 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Undeleting and Deleting Corey Worthington

This person (also known as Corey Delaney) is all over the news and internet after holding a large party and making a number of appearances in the media. The article was deleted awhile ago and I undeleted it starting from scratch, thinking he is a notable person. Another admin deleted it again 6 hours later, and I believe the re-deletion was not justified and ignored the information I put in the article.

I had created the new page from scratch with something like 21 news articles from the BBC[48], International Herald Tribune[49], and major Australian newspapers, and American shows like Best Week Ever. The Times of London [50], AP [51],etc also talked about him.

I also added on a section about the aftermath and his activities after the party, which was one of the major concerns from before - his future prospects have been the subject of much media coverage - he has been "earmarked" to host the Australian Big Brother[52], he's going on an international DJ tour,[53] he's modeling in Australia[54], Ozzy Osborne was interviewed about him[55], hosting parties[56], and even smaller stuff makes the news - a contest to win his sunglasses[57], which also led to sales in those sunglasses exploding[58], he was beaten up outside a mall, which got a lot of press coverage (for example [59][60]) and when it came out that the fight might have been staged, it got more press coverage (i.e. [61]). There are tons of Facebook groups, t-shirts, etc for the guy, he's been called an "international hero"[62], "one of the world's most famous teenagers,"[63] and so on.

I would argue that he's notable not because of the party, but because of his appearances on the media, the reaction to those appearances, (such as [64][65] and even a t-shirt [66]) and what he's doing now, (TV gigs, tour etc) which to me would invalidate the argument that he is famous in connection with only one event. Even what his name is has been in the news.[67] So in short, I think he's notable, not just for one incident, and deserves a page here. It adds to the encyclopedia. --AW (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV is that way. Nakon 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the original rationale for deleting Corey Delaney was due to single-event notability, which we do not feel is notable per our notability guidelines. Unless he somehow gains fame based on something other than something related to his party, he's not notable and all recreations will likely be deleted as recreation of deleted material. --slakr^\ talk / 17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakon - right, but since there's already been one, and it says "in exceptional cases go to AN/I" I figured I'd do that. --AW (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Slakr - yes, and i think I addressed that with Big Brother, the DJ tour, and the continuing news articles about him. He's still in the news weeks later for doing other stuff. --AW (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about disqualifying "single-event notability" (like for say .. Neil Armstrong). This guy IS all over Google, and, apparently, local news in that area. I've never heard of him though, so I think his fate probably must come down to pretty arbitrary decision. Let consensus decide, perhaps? ... maybe an RfC somewhere or let the article stand long enough for an uncensored AfD? ... or merge these one hit wonders into a separate article ( One Hit Wonders)? BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Slightly OT, but Neil Armstrong is not a good example of one-event notability! He would have plenty of material in his article even if he had never set foot on the moon. --Reuben (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want it undeleted take it to DRV. That is the proper forum. (I'll be happy to support overturning then). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do --AW (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Petition to keep Muhammad images

Resolved

 – content removed by JZG

this is a terrible idea and is likely to increase any current bad feelings that exist around the article. It has nothing to do with a) improving the article or b) calming the situation. I tried to remove it on that basis (plus the fact that's it canvassing for an off-wiki petition - something we rountinely remove) but it has been restorted. Some admin input would be helpful. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are they petitioning? Themselves? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, we do not need links to petitions on the talk page and we will still have the images as per the typical alphabet soup label people toss around. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Petitions" on external sites should have absolutely no impact. As long as it is legal to display pictures of Muhammed in the USA (where WMF's servers are located) they should stay on the site. Unfounded vandalism (including the page being bombarded by anon edits) needs to be removed immediately, no question, and laws concerning those images that shouldn't change any time soon. (Oh, and I should point out I'm not an administrator) — alex.muller (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you reply seems to suggest that you think I'm talking about the petition that was set-up a while back asking for the images to be removed? I'm on about a petition created within the last hour by wikipedia editors and linked to on the talkpage of the article. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

They are public domain since they are hundreds of years old, so they are legal to display everywhere for copyright reasons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

em..yes? I'm not sure how this related to the issue that I'm bring to the attention of this board - this actually has nothing to do with the images themselves but the use of the talkboard by editors to canvess for an off-site petition that is only likely to inflame the situation. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, same one I thought – the petition currently on the main page of that site is apparently "telling" Wikipedia to remove the images. They're legal (I believe), so they stay, off-wiki petitions counting for nothing. Completely agree with User:Fredrick day removing the content in the above diff. — alex.muller (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with it or not, don't just censor it. Archive it if you wish, but don't remove it entirely. Zazaban (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We routinely remove links to off-site petitions with comment or archiving - this is standard accepted practice, what makes your link any different? --Fredrick day (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure this falls under the realm of a content dispute? The net effect of these battling petitions will be zero, even if the new one never gets any votes. Don't waste your time. Focus on improving the article instead of a crusade to get back at or convince those who disagree with you. ^Avruchtalk 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But it's not a content dispute (Zazaban and I actually AGREE on content and I AGREE with the petition) - I'm simply trying to follow standard procedure that links to off-site petitions are removed - that has been standard practice as long as I have been here. It's nothing to do with the actual content of the article. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG, I don't see how the link to this petition furthers the quality of the article. I also think the original petition is completely misguided and pointless. If someone does not want to see the images, he or she is free to configure their browser appropriately to not show them. Anyways, both petitions are more likely to bring bigoted zealots than well-meaning editors. We should endorse neither, and should bow to neither. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

JZG has taken care of the problem (he wiped it), so I consider the matter resolved. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus, we are not a linkfarm to petitions. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna start a petition against people petitioning Wikipedia... Aecis^Brievenbus 13:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Paul Harald Kaspar

Resolved

 – User indef blocked by Yamla

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

• Paul Harald Kaspar (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected)
• Chadbryant (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)
• King Of Cable (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)
• I Always Win (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• I am inclined to deny his unblock request and let the block stand. The user appears to be unilaterally removing all references to professional wrestling from MANY articles, and doing so without consensus to do so. However, if someone has a different opinion, I would solicit it here. The block seems good, but seeing as he has requested an unblock, I thought it prudent, since this was not pure vandalism or other clear cut case, to bring it here for discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the block supposed to achieve, and what policy is he violating? This dispute has been here before, and it seems like what they need to do is get an RfC going to establish consensus on this (minor) issue. Is Paul edit-warring to keep out any mention of wrestling or otherwise being disruptive? ^Avruchtalk 20:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a sockpuppet of banned editor User:Chadbryant, based on the edits and claims of "harassment" and the like. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

These difs are enlightening: [68], [69], [70]. Those three alone seem to break 3RR... Also, the claim that Wrestlemania, which is a fairly well-known and significant event of its own right, is "non-notable" seems patently rediculous. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to wade into the content issue, but I don't think he's saying Wrestlemania isn't notable - just that the occurrence of Wrestlemania at this particular venue in '92 isn't notable. ^Avruchtalk 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if you look at Talk:Wachovia Spectrum it looks like the blocking admin has been involved in the content dispute at issue here. The editor has previously been blocked (and unblocked by WJBscribe) for this same situation. ^Avruchtalk 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See the contributions of I Always Win (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (another Chadbryant sockpuppet), same removal of content, also plenty of edits to Ace Frehley (album) which PKH also edits. There's plenty more similarities as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't consider myself to be involved in the Wachovia content dispute; I first got involved when other editors sought third party input in an edit war. My take was that the user refused to engage in good-faith discussion over the content, and failed to provide any policy-related reasons to remove some rather innocuous content. I blocked after Paul started removing any mention of wrestling from multiple other pages after repeat warnings not to do so. Regarding Avruch's suggestion about an RfC, I should note that Paul refused to engage in mediation in regards to this matter recently. I hadn't been aware of the Chadbryant case previously, but the edits do look similar. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough here to request a Checkuser? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Already done, feel free to add evidence. ^Avruchtalk 20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the result is  Stale because nothing recent has been linked to Chadbryant. See this page. ^Avruchtalk 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to note - the coincidence here is pretty convincing and a sockblock doesn't actually require a positive RFCU result. ^Avruchtalk 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this unblock request too and also thought that (at least) the user would have been reasonable to think that Ohnoitsjamie was an "involved" party. I also think that calling the activity "vandalism" is wrong. But then, I do think Paul has been editing badly here. WP:POINT may be what best describes this -- he seems to have been upset that people wouldn't accept his views about discussing wrestling shows, and yet went doing the same kind of edit elsewhere as if to try to win the argument he was losing. Alternatively, I'm concerned that this is POV-pushing; Paul obviously has a strong opinion that professional wrestling isn't important enough to cover, but that certainly doesn't seem to be what secondary sources do. Mangojuice^talk 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

V-Dash Ban

Last month, V-Dash (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely by Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for not being a "positive influence" (block log). Recently, he has taken to evading the block with sockpuppets (see the contributions of DeathMark (talk · contribs) and Axzeuz (talk · contribs)), and from the looks of it, his impersonator has left Wikipedia. As such, I am now asking for a community ban of V-Dash - it's clear that he's going to keep harassing video game articles, especially ones for Nintendo systems, all whilst denying whom he is. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A community ban is just an indef block never lifted. Since no one has lifted the block, then just block any and all socks when you spot them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We could run a checkuser, block his IP. Or at the very least find out if he's dynamic. Justin^(c)_(u) 19:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He's not, AFAIK. All the socks match the IP used by the main account. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash finally got splatted? Oh, thank God. HalfShadow (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, possible wikistalker.

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here

See TheEggManCometh (talk · contribs). Just look at their contribs. They make an account just to leave two bizarre messages on my talkpage and Kim's. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest WP:DENY or AGF & ignore it, according to taste. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. WP:IGNORE. Ok. Just ignore it. Sheesh, whats wrong with me. ^Avruchtalk 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, wiki-itis there. Just ignore it, no need to WP:IGNORE anything. Mangojuice^talk 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The user said "hi", stop seeing things where there are none. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

86.20.169.102 mass removing prod's

Resolved

 – No action needed.

Anon Special:Contributions/86.20.169.102 seems to be mass removing prod tags, it seems somewhat disruptive but I'd like someone else to look into it. I think my re-insertion of prod on Traditional leather fire helmets is acceptable enough. Benjiboi 21:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Anyone is allowed to remove a prod. This user appears to be applying logic and wikipedia policies in determining whether a prod should be removed. This is neither disruptive not inappropriate editing. If you disagree there is always AFD. I suggest you remove the prod you reinserted as it is no longer correct to insert it - especially as your reversion removed the sources and citations the ip had added the the article. Did you use rollback for this action? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting they didn't have the right I was suggesting that it may be disruptive. I reverted myself as I didn't see they had added two "further reading" items effectively doubling the content. There removal of the prod tag was edit summaried as "This is the correct tag", if they had written almost anything else like "adding two books" I likely would have just walked away which I'll now do. Benjiboi 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is disruptive. The user is an edit ninja. See Wikipedia:BRD violations. If edit ninjas cluster together, it can be a problem because good-faith users can't actually succeed at collaborating to create content, if such users just move from article-to-article, making one edit after another without any apparent attempt at discussion.

I took a look and this edit appears rather contentious. [71] The prod tag stated it wasn't notable for "general interest." When the user removed the tag, they put in the illogical edit summary, "Wikipedia's inclusion criterion is not 'only those things that interest everyone'". See straw man. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, this is not a ninja, this is a person. Anyone can remove a prod for good reason. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But one is permitted to remove a PROD tag for any reason, without discussion (although, to be sure, it is helpful if one explains the removal in certain situations, lest any prospective AfD debate should be without information that counsels keeping), and a block (or even a request that the user cease the mass removal of PRODs) would be appropriate only were bad faith plain or were a disruptive impact clear; here, at least several of the dePRODded articles seem perfectly encyclopedic and quite likely to be kept, and many of the edit summaries, combined with the placement of the PRODs with cleanup tags in a few instances, do an acceptable job, if obtusely, of explaining the dePRODding. One may certainly dePROD with some speed if he/she works from PRODSUM and removes those tags that provide no reasonable reason for deletion (as, for instance, "[not notable] for 'general interest'") or those that almost certainly would benefit from a fuller XfD discussion, and I don't, on an admittedly cursory look, see anything to suggest that the editor here acts in anything but good faith or that the net effect of his contributions is negative or disruptive. Joe 01:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nauticalgalaxty and my talk page

Oh dear, it appears I've annoyed a silly billy.Nauticalgalaxty (talk · contribs) has moved my talk page. This may well have to do with the mirade of users compaling that the made up william trellis ward was fake and which ended up getting users banned. Might an admin check IPs for Nauticalgalaxty (talk · contribs) and Hippytrout (talk · contribs) against TonyMcnam (talk · contribs) and Yoshi525 (talk · contribs)? Thanks. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't have the technical ability to check IPs -- that has to go to request for checkuser. - Revolving Bugbear 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You might want to file a request about this at WP:RFCU. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh the things you learn; thank you :) --Blowdart | ^talk 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like most of these accounts have been blocked already, except for Yoshi525, who's indefblock I issued was shortened to 8 hours by User:AGK. We'll keep an eye on this user's editing patterns after the block is lifted and determine if reblocking is warranted. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AGK might want to rethink that block.  Confirmed these accounts and more are the same person. The question is, is this someone who could be a good contributor but needs a talking-to first or is this someone who wants to make trouble only. Thatcher 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've seen multiple talk pages of those users with warnings that were blanked, a number of hostile talk page messages, and some highly inappropriate page moves. I think the fact that they're using multiple already autoconfirmed accounts to do all these things points to disruptive editor. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(My point here is that as a checkuser, having commented on the technical evidence, I would rather not also comment on the behavioral evidence, but have someone else look at it and decide whether to give the master account one more chance. I will block the confirmed socks in a little while.) Thatcher 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the technical confirmation, Thatcher. I have acted on the new information here. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Posen speech

We're having a little problem with IP 189.6.238.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at this article today. He continues to add information from Holocaust denier Arthur Butz to both the Posen speech and the article on Heinrich Himmler. Now, three single purpose accounts, Teoph (talk · contribs), Johanneskirchner (talk · contribs), and Earlybegin (talk · contribs) have begun to reinsert the information. Users Antique Rose and GoodDamon are preparing a sockpuppet report here, but with something this obvious it doesn't seem necessary. Could an admin step up and block the accounts and possibly semi-protect the articles? AniMate 23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Three accounts blocked, two articles semiprotected. Anon confirms by email that this is all one individual. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

The edit war continues - [72] Corvus cornix_talk 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

someone neds to something about this. it's clearly a disruptive and contentions article. Perhapst he best solution would be for the article tobe palced on probation similar to that of Homeopathy. Smith Jones (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the grandiose suggestions by Smith Jones, I merely semi-protected it for three days. We are far far far far far (add a far here) away from homeopathizing this article. Keeper | 76 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

okay fine but if a continuous edit war breaks tout again after the semi-protection expires it wont be on my head sir. Smith Jones (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't inject drama where drama does not exist, Smith Jones. Haven't you been warned about this in the past? Keeper | 76 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

where did i iunsert drama? it is obvious that semi-protection wont stop an edit war; it rarely does in sitautions like this involving editors who have been here for long and over conflicts that are unliekly to be resolved in 3-days. perhaps my solution was extreme for this situation but that is hardly the same thing was injecting drama. Smith Jones (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit warriors are established editors, semi protection won't stop them from continuing their war. Corvus cornix_talk 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, upon second glance. Any other admin to support a full protection and/or an article ban? Keeper | 76 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody support a short article ban for Verklempt (talk · contribs) and Uuu987 (talk · contribs)? I suggested to Verklempt that he start an RfC, but it appears that he hasn't gone that route. Corvus cornix_talk 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

it makes better sense than semi-protecting the article, which wont stop established users from just continuing they're edit war. Smith Jones (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm UNmarking this resolved, becaues until admins inform the users of the ban, it's not resolved, and that's assuming that all discussion is really finished here. I'd support the topic ban for a period of two weeks (I think, given the high level of editing, one week is too short) OR until an RfC is started, whichever comes first. If the editors choose to rev their engines on the starting line for two weeks, we can apply spike strips in two weeks and a day, and assign one year liberal topic bans, or whatever. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to find a way to resolve this and I have tried to find a way to resolve this before but user Verklempt seems to be unhappy with anything short of full deletion of everything that I have added to the article. He seems to have a pattern of long term edit wars with other users on articles that pertain to race somehow. He has edited many different articles such as, an article on the Lumbee tribe, Blackface, league of the south, etc. and I have questioned what his motivation in trying to censor pertinent information dealing with the subjects. Also, in this specific article he seems dead set on including that the MOWA's are Cajuns and in the area where the MOWA are located Cajun is used interchangeably with Nigger and I dont think that Wikipedia's purpose is to spread inaccurate incomplete info and propogate racial epithets and stereotypes.Uuu987 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

behaviour 70.54.1.78

did the same revert 5 times within 24 hours [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]

personal attack here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claymore_%28manga%29&diff=189092809&oldid=189010735

Warning please? Twsl (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I warned the IP regarding the personal attacks. The 3RR violation, however, should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Thanks —Travis^talk 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion.com

Recently the website "Priory of Sion.com" has been blocked, following the banning of User:Wfgh66, who is Paul Smith, the owner of the site. Since then a group of largely anonymous editors have been deleting large chunks of content related to the Priory of Sion hoax that was sourced to the site (see Shugborough House inscription Pierre Plantard etc). Paul Smith's behaviour on Wikipedia has been repeatedly disruptive and often aggressive, biut that does not alter the fact that his website provides access to many important documents and other content relevant to a number of pages. These documents would otherwise be largely inaccessible. I think it would be highly desirable to unblock the site. A number of the reasons apparently given for the block were inaccurate. It was claimed that Smith was spamming pages with reference to the website. In fact Smith went to considerable efforts in the past to exclude references to his website on relevant articles (see Talk:Priory of Sion/Archive 1). Also, the material on the site is what is important not the opinions expressed on the site itself as a source. I can see no good reason to block this site since to do so merely gives succor to conspiracy theorists who can link to commercially published or even self-published conspiracy books as "sources", while links to authentic documents in national collections are excluded because they re otherwise difficult to access. In fact this draws attention to the some of the drawbacks - in practice if not in theory - with current sourcing and verifibility criteria. Paul B (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only second this. Paul Smith's disruptions were due to one fact: WP's NPOV policy requires us to treat fringe theories about the PoS more gently than his website does. This led to the urge to dissociate his site from WP. Still, he is a very valuable source on the matter, provides many documents. Blocking the site seems unhelpful given that so many others are not and given that a lot of valuable information is hard to link to without it. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the original block based on i) the site is not a reliable source, ii) it was the source of substantial disruption and iii) it was being aggressively pushed to promote a WP:POINT agenda. I believe the proper place to make the unblock request is WP:SBL but I remain opposed. Ronnotel (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the blacklisting of the site does NOT prevent anyone from referencing articles that use documents contained at the cite. You just cannot LINK to his website, but there is no requirement that ANY reference be linked to ANYTHING. Any of the documents that he scanned and uploaded to his website can be referenced in EXACTLY the same manner as any print source or book. This is a non-issue, as the blacklisting of the site does not effect the use of any legitimate documents that happened to be scanned and uploaded there for research or referencing. Just treat it like a print book and move on... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability and reliability is not inherited. If the source documents on his site are reliable, then cite those documents, not a self-published website. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• As long as doing so does not constitute original research. Thatcher 04:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavy-handed admin behavior at Muhammad

Resolved

 – Page restored to the state it was when protected. FAQ page restored.

I would like to make a general complaint about the behavior of the admins at Muhammad, Talk:Muhammad, and friends. As many of you know, a petition to remove the images has been put up and several new anons have come by to complain on the talk page about the lack of images. Rather than respond to the same issues again and again, a FAQ page was put up at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, inspired by Talk:Evolution/FAQ. This was turning out to be a decent summary of the issues involved, but suddenly Hiberniantears deleted it, with no discussion at Talk:Muhammad. When it was recreated, he deleted it again. He left the references to it up at Talk:Muhammad, however.

Guy has taken it upon himself to try to defuse the sometimes inappropriate discussion at Talk:Muhammad (to which I have contributed both helpful and non-helpful comments). I think leaving notes at the talk page of editors who have in his view gone too far is certainly reasonable (although he seems to have only done that with me), however he has also unilaterally deleted giant chunks of text at Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images. I think this is extremely inappropriate; I realize it was done with the intent of cooling matters down but I think it has the opposite effect, especially since not all the deleted comment was (in his words) "unhelpful".

My largest complaint is with DragonflySixtyseven, who took advantage of his admin status to edit the fully-protected Muhammad page to put, in effect, a "spoiler warning" at the top—once again, with no prior discussion on the talk page. This strikes me as a very serious change, setting a questionable precedent, and one that should not be in place without discussion.

The common thread here, aside from the article, is that all of these actions come across as heavy-handed, if not abusive. I don't view any of these actions as in keeping with the idea the admins "having a mop" mentality that admins are supposed to have, but rather a feeling that the admins are above the rules of discussion and consensus. The behavior displayed here leaves as bad a taste in my mouth as anything I've seen in four years of editing here.—Chowbok ☠ 02:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This behavior is appalling. Are the actual editors chopped liver? The admins are actual doing more harm than good. Also, why the HELL was the FAQ deleted? Zazaban (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit made by User:DragonflySixtyseven was indeed discussed on the talk page. He simply followed what was done in Bahai'allah page; how can it be a precedent then? I fully support this. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed (1) after the fact, and (2) the tone was "I did it, and that's that". That's not what I mean by "discussion"—especially on a fully-protected page.—Chowbok ☠ 02:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Have you been following the talk page? The connection was first introduced by C.Logan.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see no consensus for the addition of such text. Pairadox (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm mainly talking about the deletion of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Zazaban (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that there's a similar message at the article on Baha'ullah; I'll also point out that I work OTRS, and we have been getting a very very very large number of complaints (some less articulate than others) about the presence of the images. After a lengthy back-and-forth discussion with one particular correspondent, and consulting with user:Cary Bass on the wording, I decided that this stood a good chance of, not "satisfying the most people", but "dissatisfying the least people". We're adults here, it's important to be reasonable and to be willing to compromise if need be. DS (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, is that people who actually have been in the dispute have had no say in this whatsoever. Zazaban (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Admins shouldn't edit protected articles (particularly edits that substantially effect a matter in dispute) unless there is clear consensus on the talkpage to do so; I see no such consensus as established on the Talk:Muhammad page.

• I have no idea why the FAQ should have been deleted. It doesn't seem to meet the CSD criteria used - thats usually used to delete talk pages of articles that have been deleted. I'd like to get an explanation of that, and it should probably be restored in the interim. ^Avruchtalk 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Would appear that there was vandalism to the article, and a CSD was applied without checking the history. Kuru ^talk 02:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have explained to Dragonfly elsewhere that I find it inappropriate to edit protected pages like this. OTRS is set up to handle complaints, but edits to articles are not made by OTRS; just by OTRS editors acting as editors. Adding content to a fully protected page is discouraged for good reasons. I would support reverting back to the version that was protected, and redoing only genuine error fixes that have been made since then.

The deletion of the FAQ also seems unusual - we have many talk page subpages, and they are typically not deleted simply because there is no article with their literal name. I hope that User:Hiberniantears will explain the deletion in more detail. Maybe he was tricked by vandalism and a CSD template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that I was too hasty in my restoration; it seemed clear that the vandalism was the cause of the double deletion, but I would appear to have missed the time stamps. Not sure why the second deletion would be using a G4 since that does not apply to speedies. I suppose an explanation would be in order then; and I apologize for my rapid restoration without letting the conversation advance. Kuru ^talk 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. The explanation by Dragonfly is troubling. It sounds as though this is meant to reduce the number of complaints at OTRS and was implemented after a private (at least off-wiki) discussion with one other editor. Pairadox (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the 'one other editor' is a Foundation employee. ^Avruchtalk 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was bold in my initiative to try to get new sections about the Muhammad issues off the talk page. Obviously, with any bold move if it meets too much resistance you stop it. I can't tell if the complaint about JzG means that the user is against removing old sections or against my attempt at having newly created sections moved. I will keep moving new sections until it's clear that enough users oppose this. gren グレン 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about you at all. I have no problem with your moving threads to a subpage. JzG/Guy was deleting whole chunks of dialogue with the edit summary "unhelpful", separate from what you were doing.—Chowbok ☠ 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG was doing the same thing as you were doing Gren except that he wasn't adding the unhelpful sections to the subpage but basically was cleaning up. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't exactly disagree with what he did. I just didn't think others wanted it--and well, I guess that's what this AN/I is about. Well, I'm glad it seems that most people are in favor of moving new conversations to the subpage. gren グレン 03:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Muhammad FAQ is extremely silly.

If the page reduces the number of complaints, even though the FAQ is silly, it may be good to keep. Though I understand completely why it would've been deleted. It gives POV-pushers a basis upon which to argue for their right to soapbox.

Imagine a sub-page on Jesus Christ: "Why am I not allowed to preach Christianity on Wikipedia?" Gimme a break. We shouldn't encourage this kind of behavior.

A more concise Muhammad FAQ would read:

"It offends Muslims" Irrelevant. See WP:NOTCENSORED. "The images are false" Irrelevant. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. "Muhammad's name should be followed by (pbuh) or (saw)" No, it shouldn't See WP:NPOV and WP:MoS. "The article on Muhammad is strongly biased towards western references" Are you sure? If so, then fix it.

It should get to the point and not dance around for the sake of appeasing POV-pushers. People who make such claims would probably outright disagree with the core policies of Wikipedia themselves, so it seems pretty silly to expend so much effort explaining things. One should not bite newcomers, but neither should they kiss trolls.

If, however, this is going to be the way things are run, to keep things fair, there ought to be an "anti-Islam" FAQ where Wikipedia can explain to the Islamophobes pushing a bigoted POV why Frontpage Magazine and the JihadWatch are not reliable sources. Of course, isn't that obviously ridiculous?

Heavy-handed administration (see rouge admin) is exactly what articles on religion need: To deal with people pushing a bigoted POV against the religion (atheists, anti-Christians, anti-semites, Islamophobes, etc.) and to deal with people soapboxing and proselytizing (Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc). Anyone doing this is violating policy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Page restored to the state it was when protected. FAQ page restored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be better if we moved the current FAQ to something like "Extended FAQ" so that we can use a shorter, more concise {{FAQ}}, kind of like we do on Talk:Abortion. --slakr^\ talk / 03:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem necessary to me to maintain the wordy, if "silly", form of the FAQ. We have a high volume of non- or new Wikipedia editors coming onto the talk page to leave opinions/complaints, and I've dealt with the difficulties of explaining policies to brash new users one too many times. Just dropping one-word replies and policy tags will only make the issue more confusing and would make the FAQ useless to anyone unfamiliar with policy in the first place. Hell, explaining relevant policy points directly seems to fly over many heads; I feel that we need to explain the policies in the context of the discussion/issue itself for such uninitiated users to grasp why we are doing what we are doing here.--C.Logan (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "concise" FAQ is a bit bitey. If these were editors that knew any better, it might be justifiable (if a bit abrupt and rude), but these people for the most part do not know Wikipedia policy, and I do not see how throwing the metaphorical book at them will help the situation. Back on topic, the deletion of the FAQ seems to have more than likely been an accident, so I don't see what dragging this discussion out will achieve. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC).

Indefinite block on an IP for vandalism?

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

Resolved

 – (ec) Rogue admin has unblocked without waiting for blocking admin to get back in touch, and the gates of hell loom before us as a consequence. 'Night all... Bencherlite^Talk 03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While looking at something unrelated, I happened on [78]. I don't believe it is normal practice to block indefinitely for vandalism, especially when the IP only made one edit that may or may not have been vandalism (there may be deleted edits though). Can somebody please confirm or deny this, and if it is not in line with standard practice, unblock? Thank you. --NE2 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. I’m not an admin, so I can’t do anything about it, though. —Travis^talk 03:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:4.242.192.197 may explain why. While indef blocking IPs is not to be taken lightly, it is not expressly verboten either. Almost never is not ALWAYS never... Perhaps User:Curps should be brought into this discussion for further background before any action is taken? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to the indefinite nature of the block, but you may want to look through the history of that article in that period; there are roughly a hundred vandalism edits from the 4.242.x.x range. It seemed to also stretch across other articles as well. Were range blocks possible then? Kuru ^talk 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about range blocks (then or now!) but other 4.242.x.x. blocks issued by Curps around that time for vandalism on the same article were for 24 hours. This looks like a slip of the mouse. Bencherlite^Talk 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked. Blocking admin has left Wikipedia, no deleted contributions, nothing to indicate any wider issue here from December 2005 that might still be current. If there is, and I've missed it, reblock at will. Bencherlite^Talk 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh shit, I didn;t even LOOK at the year. I thought it was from the most recent December. A 2+ year block is probably stale enough to undo now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Si. Safe to say the coast is clear.  :) Kuru ^talk 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible COI?

Is this the place to ask about a possible WP:COI? Bubba73 (talk), 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is unfortunately NOT the place to ask if this is the place to ask questions... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also WP:COI/N. Relata refero (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-cleaning glass spamming

There is a discussion about Self-cleaning glass on Talk:Self-cleaning glass, which needs third person imput, User:Mikkalai, removed the speedy delete templates on brandname SunClean and Pilkington Activ he started himself, wont agree on removing the manufacturer part on the article, however i believe its an active editor, so what to do. Mion (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What you didn't mention is that both are not articles he started, but simple redirects, one to the company that makes the brand and the other to the generic product article. Is it even possible for a redirect to be spam, or speedily deletable? In any event I don't see that this is spam at all. Plus, the user listed both competing companies - he's obviously not shilling for one of them or the other. I cleaned up the Self-cleaning glass article slightly to mention the manufacturers in prose (and avoid the links to redirects) rather than listing them so it would be less of a list. Beyond that, I don't see how this is possibly important enough to worry about. I'm not an administrator so I'll let the administrators decide if this is worthy of intervention. Wikidemo (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Like i said, he started the redirects to extrapromote the brand, i didn't say Mikkalai started the articles, so i didn't mention that, now to prevent editwars, the speedy delete template states, you can add {{hangon}} and give your argument to an admin, there is no exception for that. Mion (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the new edits on the article from user Wikidemo, moving the disputed content from the left to the right of the article is not changing anything in my opinion. However it gets interesting, even if internal spamming is not seen the same as external spamming, the page is used as yellow pages, and for that, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Mion (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC).

This has gone on long enough

User:Krymson made a very POV edit at Woodrow Wilson, which I reverted. Then User:Bentheadvocate restored the edit about an hour later. Earlier today I added tags to the biased statements when it appeared as though it was more than one editor who supported the additions. A few minutes ago User:Bentheadvocate left a post on my talk page explaining the edit to Woodrow Wilson and then two minutes later User:Krymson removed the tag and added an even more biased statement. It is pretty obvious that this is the same user and I think its time this ends.--STX 04:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits as unsourced, and started a talk-page thread, which is what SHOULD have been done before coming straight to ANI. I would agree that the edits need specific references before being readded, but at least INVITE the editors to the talk page to discuss civily before making sockpuppetry accusations and other demands on admins. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. This is just basic trolling by a sockpuppet, which can all go away with a simple block.--STX 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But I haven't heard any quacking yet... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard it on my talk page. The "editors" have the same writing style. I'm not saying both should be blocked, just the sockpuppet.--STX 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Krymson hasn't even edited your talk page (at least, not in months if he did).

Even if these two have a similar voice, one account dates back 4 years, the other one is about a month old, and appear to have widely differing article edit patterns and interests other that Woodrow Wilson.

There is no duck here; the pond lies silent. Please remember WP:CIVIL and talk to these two people directly about your disagreement on the article. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that this is not just two different people who happen to agree with each other? That does happen, you know? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The proximity of the edits and style of writing makes me feel otherwise. I don't have time to file a checkuser and go through all that mess, hopefully the master will just admit what he did but I doubt it. I'm finished editing for the day.--STX 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only is there no proof that they're the same, short of a checkuser, which STX isn't willing to do; but they're not really wrong either. Wilson's behaviors towards race are well documented in the article, and this comes off like a content dispute, and should be taken to the talk page, where the need or not of that part of his life to be in the lead can be discussed, and what level of posthumous lionization is acceptable. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. Wilson definitely was racist by the standards we apply today (and, to some extent, even by the standards of his own era). It shouldn't be hard to find multiple reliable sources saying this. Whether it belongs in the lead is a content question, not a conduct issue. *** Crotalus *** 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a sockpuppet. ʟʘʟ. BETA 15:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem User follow-up

as a continuation of this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive358#Problem_user. The images in question were again inserted in to the article [79], to which I removed them and left another note on his talk page [80]. This is the fourth time I've removed the image with an explanation. The editor continues to be unresponsive, at least in English. [81]. Here he responds to an editor in Korean, so he's either intentionally ignoring these requests or he doesn't actually speak english as he indicates on his user page. There needs to be some assistance here either from someone fluent in Korean or French, as well as an admin to clean up these images. There are multiple copies of them (and they don't seem to be used anywhere) but I think its fairly evident that these are not his own homemade creation unless he's a a bit of a graphics whiz, I'm still trying to track down their source.--Crossmr (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing and article-ownership by Abuse truth

Somebody posted this on WP:FTN. Looking at the article's edit history, a certain username stood out as a red flag.

Abuse truth (talk · contribs) has been owning and soapboxing on articles related to sexual abuse and hypnotic regression, in particular Satanic ritual abuse. Their talkpage shows they've been warned for edit-warring a few times.

In particular, there's this silly section that was removed by Moreschi [82]. The editor restored it, along with a number of other deletions that had been made to the article by several other users. [83] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please watch for typos.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Misread the diff. Sorry.

Soapboxing is still going on, though. Check the contribs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable admin status: User:Shii

I am wondering if User:Shii is truly an administrator as claimed by the category on his user page. I have observed odd behavior that leads me to suspect otherwise; for example:

• Dismissing talk page criticism (both valid as well as invalid repetetive tags) as "worthless whining" without any other response. [84]
• Deliberately posting a provocative insult in response to a good-faith edit (i.e. biting a newbie).[85]
• Intemperate language in edit summary.[86]
• Bizarre accusations of racism concerning the reliability of statistics on big-boards.com (one accusation against myself and another editor,[87] the other against the source of objective and mechanically-generated statistics[88]). See [89] for the whole strange dialogue.

I could go on. Is this guy really an administrator, or claiming to be, or perhaps an admin who has become jaded? =Axlq (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substance of your complaint, I can confirm that User:Shii is an admin. - Philippe | Talk 05:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Shii is an admin: [90]. No comment on the rest of the post, which I didn't read. Viridae^Talk 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note: I have notified User:Shii of this discussion. - Philippe | Talk 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just curious if the category on his user page was real. I wasn't exactly making a complaint, just posting some examples of the basis for my wondering about his actual status; after all, anybody can slap an Administrator category on a user page. Since my first encounter with this user after posting a third opinion on his talk page, I have wondered about this, thinking an admin should know better. I'll just chalk him up as a rouge admin I guess! =Axlq (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'd kind of like to hear Shii's response to some of the diffs you've cited above though. - Philippe | Talk 06:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Particularly the "You're an idiot. Get off my Wikipedia" one. Often wanted to say that, never actually have. Relata refero (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So have I, to editors with a consistent pattern of bad-faith edits. That wasn't the case here; the editor to which that comment was directed appears to have a history (albeit a short one) of good-faith edits. The incident resulted in this exchange on WP:EAR in which the user asks for help on how to respond, and Shii bites him again, and gets scolded. Interesting. =Axlq (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear Shii has lost his way. His has become entirely uncivil and his use of vulgarity has crossed the line. Can/will Shii respond here? Bstone (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Stuff like this is extremely concerning (someone may want to review that block, btw). --jonny-mt 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no real point in continuing discussion of this here, the material presented is probably enough to establish a case with the comitee. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with that message? I mean, "screw it" is not the most civil, but if Shii is correct and this is a returning banned user, please cut him some slack. Dealing with persistent banned users is quite frustrating. Kusma (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Shii's status as an admin not in Special:Log/rights or Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Ah, I just noticed. he was formerly User:Ashibaka. But wait, it doesn't show that account having any sysop rights here? I'm confused here.

In any case, based on Shii's behavior above, he's going on my list of "Good editors." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually click all the way through that log? How many pages are there? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I did a search for those names. [91] [92] If Special Log is right, then Shii isn't an admin. If Special Log is wrong, then well, that's just bizarre. Special Log is never wrong. It's magical. See WP:Special log. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to win me one of these [93] :-) for the record Shii's hoax list is quite useful, especially when a user is down (one look at it and the first thought in my mind is "no time to sleep, there is crap to clean out there"). - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Impersonating an officer! A courtmartial offence..:) Igor Berger (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the possibility of impersonation is why I created this section. His behavior seems a bit "off" for an admin. =Axlq (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No impersonation, folks. [94]. He's in Special:Listusers as an admin. I am, however, gravely concerned about a couple of those diffs. Further, Shii does appear in Special Log as 22:17, 25 February 2006 Cecropia (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Ashibaka from (none) to (none) ‎ (+sysop) at [[95]]. - Philippe | Talk 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are problems or concerns, try a user conduct RFC. I don't think there's any further need for admin action here. The block of the Saikano sock is almost certainly justified, for what it's worth. Friday (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger possible BLP issues

Resolved

 – BLP content dispute, no administrator action necessary. Sandstein (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please check on this thread? It speaks of drug use involving other living people and a minor is also involved so seems problematic at best. Benjiboi 06:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How does this need administrator intervention? Sandstein (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that it violates BLP but I was hoping someone else with more experience could see if my concern was on target. If it is then removing it would be seen as having a bit more weight coming from an admin. Benjiboi 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably want to report it on the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard--Hu12 (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually brought it over from there as this board is more active. Benjiboi 07:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please limit requests on this board to issues requiring the intervention of administrators in their capacity as such, thanks. Sandstein (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: Heath Ledger is dead. WP:BLP doesn't apply to dead people. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so. The other people mentioned are not, however, dead Mayalld (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OCN ip vandal

• Yakuza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Koreans in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 218.224.54.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 124.87.134.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 125.200.61.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 219.66.47.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 221.190.251.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 125.200.62.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.209.163.123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.209.163.123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I originally posted it to WP:AIV and heard that RFCU looks a right place. However, I think reporting it is suiting here because RFCU case takes time and mostly ip are not blocked. I have filed several RFCU and SSP files on disruptive and suspicious POV pushers. Some of them are blocked infinitely but I think real puppet master(s) seems active or evade their sanction. The aforementioned IP vandal takes interest in my recent edits and then simply alter information with a hoax link. The mentioned RFCU case, the listed people know well that I'm collecting ODN IP addresses from anonymous users on Japanese and Korean related articles. And then OCN (NTT telecom) and Plala ISP users appears. I need a help to intervene this case. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Z1perlster

User:Z1perlster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has become a troublesome headache for those editors working on the intelligent design, creationism, creation-evolution controversy and level of support for evolution articles. His behavior has the hallmarks of a disruptive editor and he is remarkable uncivil in his opinions about other editors. As everyone is well aware, these articles are troll magnets and these trolls keep coming back, time and time again. Here is a time line of his actions, only broken up with the parts about the warnings he received.

• destroying a section of the intelligent design FAQ with an attack on "evolutionists"
• another attack on "evolutionists" being scared to debate
• posting a dubious claim about how evolution is perceived by the American public. I reverted the edit because the topic is already covered in the article with much better sources. This posting will become a running theme of his contributions.
• Warning I posted on his page about his edits
• He disappeared for a day or so but added this gem to the USC football page
• Deleted a chunk of the Creation-evolution controversy page claiming the scientific community's thoughts on the topic were just as unsourced as his previous claims. This was quickly reverted by another editor.
• Created a new page within the Creation-evolution controversy section in order to continue his disruption. It was reverted by an admin.
• Restored a section that I deleted on the talk page. I deleted the section because it was clearly trolling. After Filll commented on the section, I deleted it again with an edit summary that, while a touch uncivil, is justified considering the editor's actions. He restored it again soon after and other editors commented on the section until he posted this attack. Other editors continued to try to explain various policies to him as the section grew.
• He broke up a comment by Filll in order to prove how he was correct by citing a less than credible source. He was warned by Filll on his talk page for this action.
• After that, I posted a stern warning on his talk page about his behavior. He deleted it 2 days later and soon replaced his entire talk page with a personal attack. Another editor came to repost a warning about adhering to NPOV on articles, seen here, but it was deleted within a matter of hours.
• Added the same dubious claim with subsequent poll to an article. Quickly reverted by another editor on NPOV grounds.
• Claims we are trying to censor data and then adds a rant to attack "pro-evolution forces"
• Another claim we are trying to stifle him. Also this edit shows how little he understands about policy. He then reinserts the same dubious data which is, of course, quickly reverted
• Attack on scientists (which, I assume is directed at the ones who watch these articles) in a completely off-topic rant on the level of support talk page
• Calls Filll's contributions "lies"
• Reinserted the same exact dubious claim as previously seen, which is again reverted
• A lovely attack on "evolutionists"
• More disruption on the Intelligent Design article
• "Blatant violations" comment
• Finally revealing where his POV is coming from

I have posted a notice of this filing on his talk page. As everyone can see, the editors on these talk pages have tried to help this editor understand policy but to no avail. I personally tried to handle the situation by first posting a reminder but soon thereafter I had to post a more serious warning. I don't know if this editor will be able to contribute to the project effectively, as evidenced by his minuscule amount of positive additions to the articles he has edited compared to his large amount of disruption. I shall let the community decided what to do regarding this matter. Baegis (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you asking for a ban because an editor is tedious? If you are you may want to bring the case to WP:RFAR because there is nothing we can do here but impose a temporarily block for disruption if his actions are a threat to Wikipedia project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 08:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's not true at all; we could certainly block indefinitely for tendentious editing and/or issue a community ban. I'm not going to take any action, though, because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the articles' history to know what's a settled question and what isn't (I admit that it does seem relevant to me that the vast majority of Americans reject evolution. It may not reflect well on Americans, but it seems relevant). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Igorberger is not an admin. Of course, neither am I, although I do play one on television. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear, this is not a case of WP:TE but a case of disruption. Taking this case to ArbCom with regards to an editor with a grand total of less than 75 edits seems like a waste of time. It is clearly an account that solely wishes to disrupt these articles. Baegis (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarcasticidealist is an admin and he is right. If we can get a consensus a community ban can be imposed here, if not then Arbcom. Igor Berger (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But as User:Baegis said 75 edits is not for ArbCom so I propse a 30 day ban and if that does not work or the user does not respect the ban we can block indef. Igor Berger (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Z1perlster clearly has some sort of hostile, anti-evolution agenda that he wishes to advance on Wiki, just read the history on his talk page to see the kind of anti-evolutionist comments he's made there. Angry Christian (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex. Yet again.

We deleted Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the grounds, as I read the debates, that it was essentially a POV fork of other existing articles on pederasty and related topics, under a title that is principally used by pro-pedophile activists to destigmatise sexual relationships between adults and children, a practice which is currently seen as problematic by most if not all jurisdictions, albeit with differing definitions of child.

The deletion was reviewed at length and endorsed, with editors remanded to edit the existing articles rather than attempt to create POV forks.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (Oct. '07)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) (Jan. '08)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Adult-child_sex (Jan. '08)

Tlatosmd's fork was deleted as G4, but undeleted as not being strictly a recreation of deleted material; Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 28 #User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (closed). So now we find:

• User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (edit | [[Talk:User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex)
• ‎User:VigilancePrime/ACS (edit | [[Talk:‎User:VigilancePrime/ACS|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I speedied this
• User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 4 (edit | [[Talk:User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 4|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I speedied this
• User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 1 (edit | [[Talk:User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I speedied this
• User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 2 (edit | [[Talk:User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I speedied this
• User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 3 (edit | [[Talk:User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 3|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I speedied this
• User:VigilancePrime/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:VigilancePrime/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I speedied this

There appears to be a lot of Wikilawyering going on, but in the end a few editors seem to me to be refusing to accept the consensus that the title was problematic, and also seem to be unwilling to take the sound advice of the original DRV closer to edit instead the existing articles on the subject. I hope most admins will be aware of the history and sensitivity of problems with pro-pedophile activisim on Wikipedia, and I'm rather hoping people can help user:Calton and me (among others) to explain to these editors why their POV-forks are no more helpful in user space than they are in mainspace; you can fix problems of notability in a user space rewrite, but you can't fix problems with the subject itself having been rejected as inappropriate, which is what happened in this case.

At the very least, we only need one copy of this; if the MfD decides delete then we actually need no copies of course. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck explaining! Sounds like a case of WP:SOAP. Maybe WP:CSD is the way to go for each user space article. Igor Berger (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All the POV in this rant itself is worthy of MfD. And it appears from all those dead wikilinks, that there *is* only 1 copy. So what's the problem?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they are only redlinks because I deleted them. We have a small group of users obsessively re-creating this content in userspace. As for "POV rant", I thank you for your kind and civil words and remind you that the problem of pro-pedophilia activism is sufficiently large that it has led to one (abortive) legal action against Wikipedia in Germany following a ban there, as well as the well-remembered "pedophilia userbox wars". If you don't think it's a problem, fine, please feel free to ignore it. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that you are mistaken in your assertion that "we have a small group of users obsessively re-creating this content in userspace." This is obviously not true, seeing as most, if not all, of these drafts were created prior the deletion of "Adult-child sex," and a few of them were worked on long before that article was even up for deletion. Next, please don't pull a red herring on us. This debate is indeed over policy, subject, and content, but there's no need to drag in the PPA scare. On a similar note, how do the "pedophilia userbox wars" have anything to do with this current debate? Please try to stick to the discussion at hand. There's no need to unduly complicate matters, or to throw people off by mixing in other controversial Wikipedia incidents. ~ Homologeo (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to ignore it when you got people running all around here making a big deal of it. So what if he's got a copy of the deleted article in his own userspace. Big deal. Go write an article. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to do to the Crusaders? Igor Berger (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the nicest possible way, neither Guy nor Calton are known for their ability to be diplomatic. Are they really the best people to explain anything contentious to anyone? I can see the complaints now. Anyway - deleting all the recreations of the material, yes - the article was deleted because it was fundamentally unsuitable and no amount of tweaking will fix that. Continuing to recreate this stuff is disruptive. Allstarecho, "go write an article" is pretty much the lamest thing you vcould have said. By my count, just 32 of your last 1000 edits on Wikipedia have been "writing articles" (ie, edits to mainspace that weren't just vandalism reverts). Even Guy has more than 32 in his last 200 edits alone. Perhaps you should take your own advice. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't address you so you should keep your trap shut about what I do and say when I'm addressing someone else. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I asked for help? Diplomatic I may not be, but I have sufficient self-knowledge to know that other people are better at persuading people to drop crusades for inappropriate content. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And why is this on the incidents board? Pairadox (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there are incidents (repeated recreations of deleted material) that require administrator attention. That's what the incidents board is for - incidents. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the pages, this is an obvious abuse of speedy deletion. As these items are currently listed at MfD, it doesn't hurt to let the debate run its course. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Contributions by User:Goldenhawk 0 (Edward Said; Robert Caldwell; Indo-Iranian mythology)

I am somewhat concerned by contributions for this user, who produces seem to be elaborately referenced additions to a variety of articles. When examined the references often turn out to say nothing whatever that would support the claims that are made in the additions. For example he has repeatedly added and readded the statement that Robert Caldwell "believed that no real evidence has been established to prove that the speakers of Dravidian languages are not members of the Indo-European language tree." In fact Caldwell stated the opposite, as anyone who reads the reference can see. Thjis has not stopped Goldenhawk inststing that the opposite is true.[96] He has recently added to the same article the bizarre claim that Edward Said stated that Indians are members of the "Hindoo Branch" of the "Brown Race". Anyone who has read Said knows that this is most unlikely (I assume Said is quoting an 18th-19th C writer). Goldenhawk has also added elaborately footnoted passages to Rostam and Div-e Sepid‎ in which he claims that these mythic figures were part of some ancient brown-versus-white race war. [97] The footnotes link to a bizarre jumble of texts some of which are accessible through Google books. When one looks at the relevant pages of these books (many of which are very old) they say nothing that in any way supports the claims that are made. I can't check all these contributions. Can anyone chack this user. Paul B (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If these allegations are true, such systematic falsification of encyclopedic content would merit an indefinite block. Paul, could you please provide more diffs for the problematic edits you mention and inform Goldenhawk 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this thread so that he may comment on this matter? Sandstein (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, we do not mediate content disputes here, so all discussion should be focused on conduct issues, such as whether the user has engaged in a systematic campaign of POV-pushing and adding false citations. Sandstein (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This concerns conduct. Some edits may be incompetence rather than mendacity. It's difficult to tell. Others are OR by synthesis (the references say something linked to the claim but are wildly extrapolated to support the author's race-theory). For example: "The Div Sefid is believed by scholar Joseph J. Reed to have been a northern prince." The ref says (Link to Google books for this 1860 (!) publication) [98] The statement is not to be found on p.23, which says nothing at all about “Div Sefid” or northern princes. The ref to Caldwell states that "He even believed that no real evidence has been established to prove that the speakers of Dravidian languages are not members of the Indo-European language tree". The ref provided states the opposite [99]. Paul B (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting edit summary. Relata refero (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure Reason Revolution & User:Justpassinby

Further to the earlier reports (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Pure Reason Revolution and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby), there has been further vandalism of Pure Reason Revolution by 78.105.130.169,[100] which appears to be Justpassinby avoiding a ban. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Orderinchaos#roxbo_and_duggy

Can someone please review this section and decide what to do re Duggy 1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He has been edit warring on a user talk page (User talk:Timeshift9) with the owner of said talk page on several occasions over the past three months, following on from a dispute the two users had in late November. Tonight I gave him a warning for his behaviour, and the result has been semantic games, accusations and personal attacks. Some of his comments on my talk page suggest that he is gaming the system, and I feel that admin action is required but as an involved party I am not in the position to make that call. I should note in this that I am not the party being harassed, my talk page merely seems to have become a venue for the discussion. Orderinchaos 13:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An update - protection has become necessary as the guy will not cease no matter what I do. It's at times like this that the COI provisions of WP:BLOCK seem to be an impediment to the project at times. Orderinchaos 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've warned Duggy 1138 for the edits to the archived discussion. I can't work my way through the rest of it clearly enough to see the wood from the trees, so if other admins want to step in, I don't mind. Hiding T 14:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Squeakbox - block after resolved?

Enough already, who cares why Squeakbox wants User:Squeakbox deleted? Just delete it and done, it's his page. As long as the history of User talk:Squeakbox is easy for any non-admin to find and review for Dispute Resolution, why is this turning into a massive issue? Lawrence § t/e 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This was just closed prematurely and I reopened it. If this guy wants to dump his user page, more power to him, for whatever reason. Anyone restoring a user page that was deleted at a user's request is out of line. If I ask for my page to go for threats, personal reasons, or because I like daisies today, it's gone, its my decision alone. There is still however a big problem here--the history on User talk:Squeakbox is completely botched from all the moves and deletions. Can we please get this fixed? This entire mess will then be done, unless someone disruptively restores his userpage again. Lawrence § t/e 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I asked Squeak here on his talk page and he says he is not doing a Right To Vanish. Once his user talk page history is fixed this can all be resolved. Does it require an admin to fix it? A history merge? Lawrence § t/e 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, possibly, but there's potentially edits that were previously deleted that should stay deleted, and someone more familiar with Squeakbox's talk page should do it. As an aside, if anyone wants their user page deleted for whatever reason or for no reason at all and a {{db-userreq}} gets refused, then drop a message on my talk page or email and I'll do it as soon as I pick it up. Neıl ☎ 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Userspace pages are still community pages. If a user has questionable edits in their history and to delete those edits could be considered by some as "covering their tracks" or "hiding the evidence", then there should be some further consideration in these cases before clicking the delete button. Particularly if said user has a history of such attempts to hide past behaviors. Lara❤Love 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a most compelling interest situation here - the community has some interest in seeing edit history retained, but in this case it has to be balanced against the risk attached to not deleting the page when the user is the subject of death threats. Protecting users from harm based on Wikipedia editing is a far more compelling interest than keeping some userpage edits. The page (in practically every revision) has personally identifying information (age, location, photographs etc.). Since no one has said "This edit is bad, and we shouldn't erase it" then there is no reason not to. The question now is - will someone just fix the talk page? If you were speaking generally, and not about the Squeakbox situation, then I would argue that db-userreq's should be granted first and reviewed later if necessary. Denying a request would, in my mind, require proof that granting it harms the encyclopedia. ^Avruchtalk 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of the user page isn't the question here though. If there is offensive material we can delete or Oversight those revisions. Theres no reason to blow away 2+ years of talk page history. That's what is broken and needs fixing. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Are we talking about his user page or his talk page? Even this very thread seems to be jumping between the one and the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, it's confusing. User:Squeakbox is fine, he wanted it deleted, and it's gone for good. It now lives as a new redirect. The history on User talk:Squeakbox however is gone, and that's the mess. The talk page history needs restoring. He mentioned on his talk page today that he has no problem with that. Lawrence § t/e 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page! Argh! ;-) ^Avruchtalk 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When I checked yesterday the talk page is not deleted, only archived. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its true that there is an archive of the talkpage - but the archive has the history, not the talk page. The history of the talk page is only 2 days long. ^Avruchtalk 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, as long as the history exists somewhere. Better than those talk pages that crash the 'pedia when we have to delete an edit, anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should let SqueakBox do what he wants with his pages, because current accepted practice is very unclear, then we should clarify what's acceptable at Wikipedia:Right to vanish. We should include a section about when people simply want to remove information but don't actually want to vanish, and start applying the guideline right across the board. At the moment, some people are allowed to vanish quietly (or vanish, sort of, and re-emerge with clean talk pages or a new name), while with others there's a giant fuss, which is unfair. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Slim, Guy, the issue with his user page is resolved--he wanted the old one and history removed, and it's gone. The only future problem there is if an admin restores it again like Swatjester did before, which would be out of line. The only remaining problem is his user talk history. I asked Squeak if he was going Right To Vanish, and he said he was not, here. He wrote:

"I am happy to see the talk page history restored or to move my archive to correspond with it, its only my user history not my talk history I wish to see removed from wikipedia, so can we please resolve this issue amicably"

That's all that is left, is to fix his talk page history that got completely mixed up from a series of moves, deletions, and restores. Its just a history merge admin housekeeping task now. And I agree with you, SlimVirgin. Anyone asking for their user page to be nuked should for any reason get that done immediately. User talk, not so much. Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Talk page history seems to be associated with User_talk:SqueakBox/Archivehistory, going back to late 2005. Issue a Wikitrout (or perhaps a small whale) for disruption because this kerfuffle has occupied the time and attention of waaaaay too many people and, intentionally or not, utterly confused the record of what history is where. SqueakBox really should know better after being around for at least two and a half years. Pairadox (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats the one, so it just needs a history merge from User talk:SqueakBox/Archivehistory to -> User talk:SqueakBox and this whole thing is done. Right? Lawrence § t/e 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? There's absolutely no need. The history exists somewhere, and insisting on a merge is a pointless waste of resources and effort. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what JzG is alluding to, Lawrence, is that it is somewhat-acceptable practise to archive a talk page by moving it to a subpage. See WP:ARCHIVE#Move_procedure for some more detail. --Iamunknown 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know you could do that acceptably for talk histories. Seems fairly stupid, as it forks histories, and could allow for people to hide things with enough moves. And I'm used to bots just shuffling them around. My suggestion for that was to just bring everything back to the way it was before Squeakbox and Swatjester broke all the histories with moves and unacceptable restorations. Lawrence § t/e 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and would an admin mind reviewing User:Raving Nutter, who joined Wikipedia to offer commentary on Squeak's privacy concerns? Lawrence § t/e 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Was Squeakbox's blocking yesterday discussed in this thread anywhere and I'm just missing it? Since when do RtV people get blocked? Why would the mismatch of talkpage history necessitate a block? Even Swatjester didn't block him... ^Avruchtalk 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Intolerable intolerance (at Muhammad)

I know this is at least the third section here on the fiasco over at Muhammad because of the images, but none of those sections seemed to get at the heart of the issue. So, I have to ask: is the block button broken? The support for the images goes back through months, and perhaps years, and are immortalized in our (caution: irony ahead) five pillars. And yet, when accounts, no doubt spawned by a 90K-signature petition come here to remove the images, we respond by protecting the article, calling this an edit war, and leaving the single-purpose meatpuppets alone. Why? We should remove the full protection (but keep the semi-protection), so good-faith editors on Wikipedia can make valid improvements to the article, and block the offenders. We should not be tolerating the type of intolerance coming from these disruptive users, who obviously have no respect for how Wikipedia works and are instead bent on disrupting the article into submission. They haven't succeeded (and won't succeed) in disrupting it to the point of getting the images removed, but they, in a way, have still succeeded by getting the article protected -- not just from them, but from good-faith contributors -- for the umpteenth time. Seriously, at what point are we going stand up and see this as an intolerable level of disruption that needs to be killed in the face? -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

and the flip to this is that some of our "good faith" editors want to more seriously consider their posts on the associated talkpages because a lot of the commentary from our experienced editors is just baiting, pure and simple and is not helpful. If we want people to have respect for how we work - let's not piss on their hands when they reach them out... --Fredrick day (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what or whom you're referring to. -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Under the circumstances, it's the nicest thing to do and the most political thing to do to let people have their say and move on. If you want to make edits to the articles, use the {{editprotected}} template. Cheers, WilyD 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here. -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User evading block

Hello, User:Sigint746 is really User:Sigint74 evading a block. Also, look at the history of my user page (linked to on my signature.) The editor has been a minor annoyance, but an annoyance nonetheless. Please block. Brusegadi (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vegetationlife

• Vegetationlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  

Not sure what to make of this user. left this message on my talk (which i moved to his talk), it appears to be a threat of disruption. I've warned this user previously about his/her personal attacks (with diffs) and recieve a creative reply. Further this user modified my comments and another users', in which he/she again was warned. He/she replied with another interesting reply. Eventualy abused tags by droping an NPA on my talk, followed by this exchange. Asside from a few other strange edits [101][102] It appears he's upset over some afd's I nominated previously. Thoughts?--Hu12 (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, doesn't (yet) appear to rise to level of disruption or abuse. His changes to others' comments can be interpreted as good faith so I would probably just ask him to stop. Plus, I detect a slight note of irony in his comments. Rise above it unless it continues? Ronnotel (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor using WP:IAR to excuse posting links to inflammatory links to his personal blog

Hotridge has been placing Original Research quotes and links to inflammatory posts on his personal blog on Jose de Venecia, Jr. here: [103]. Unless I miss my guess, this is him too: [104]. Does WP:IAR apply here? I don't think so, but I believe a third opinion is appropriate. - Richfife (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you openly invoke IAR to do sometyhin unsavoury, odds are You're Doing It Wrong™ Will ^(talk) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)