Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review
If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Current issues

Actions of Alansohn in relation to continued WP:POINT disruptions on Wikipedia talk:Schoolcruft

Since 14:26, 18 June 2007 (diff), Alansohn has engaged in disrupting editing on Wikipedia talk:Schoolcruft to the point where users are becoming significantly frustrated at their inability to achieve an appropriate resolution to the specific users' concerns despite reasonable and continued attempts to do so. The user has also specifically attempted to breach the spirit of WP:CANVAS by attempting to bring like-minded users into ongoing discussions relating to his discussions on the talk page in question.(diff) This has now escalated to the point where the user has been significantly WikiLawyering and falsely accusing users of making threats towards the user and engaging in personal attacks.(diff - refer to edit summary) He has also engaged in the same editorial practices that he has continued to accuse others of.(diff) Further to this, the user has gone within minutes of committing a WP:3RR violation on the essay itself (diff1 diff2 diff3), and as an experienced user with over 37,000 edits and using his account since May 2005, should have known better.

Further to this, the user is more than aware of WP:3RR having been blocked on 23 February 2007 for a 3RR violation on Springfield Park Elementary School.(user logs)

From information received from other editors, it appears on the face of it that the user has been engaged in a long history of poor editorial and consensus building practices despite such issues being constantly raised with him.(list of issues relating to users editorial practices). Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Schoolcruft article contained a statement on dealing with "Schoolcruft" that insisted that "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing." I was struck by the incivility of a statement that those who have been involved in a content dispute regarding school articles must inevitably be punished through the AN/I process if they have a disagreement on wording. After reviewing discussion and previous edits, I followed the "Please update the page as needed" invitation at the top of the essay and changed this to "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors can be more difficult to deal with.", among other changes ([1]) to address the clear WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations; this change was reverted ([2]). At this edit, the text was changed to the even more offensive "... AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." In turn, I proposed the compromise wording of "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with.", which in turn was reverted back to the new and more offensive version. A third and final attempt was made to address the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations, which in turn was reverted back to the newer blatantly offensive version. As it was clear that the two individuals involved were blocking any effort to address the problems with the article, I made no further changes to the essay. There was no violation of WP:3RR policy. All of my edits to the section in question were made in good faith, retained the basic sense of the text in question, and were made to address clear violations of Wikipedia policy.

On the talk page compromise wording was proposed by User:TerriersFan, who had also been effectively blocked from making changes to the article by User:Thewinchester's bullying and abuse. I indicated my general acceptance with this wording, noting that "the changes proposed indicate that there must be significant complicating factors to justify pursuit of an AN/I in such circumstances.", only to be informed (at [3]) that this agreed upon suggestion to deal with the issues involved did not need to be addressed or considered. Attempts to discuss the multiple Wikipedia policy violations involved in this article were met with increasing threats, bullying and multiple personal attacks (see [4], [5] for some of the more egregious examples). Ultimately, in response to an acknowledgment that the wording was "less bad" than before, came the proof of the poison in the pudding: at this edit, Thewinchester insisted that the efforts to discuss the largely closed issue demonstrated that my expression of opinion on the issue was "just crying out for spanking at WP:ANI" and concluding with an yet another shameless WP:NPA personal attack to "go back to New Jersey and continue [sic] create useless redirects for bus route numbers".

User:Thewinchester has shown abundant bad faith in writing the offensive WP:SCHOOLCRUFT essay, and in his use of bullying, threats and personal attacks in dealing with constructive criticism from me and other experienced editors (see [6], [7]), and has chosen the path of incivility in dealing with a series of constructive suggestions. There is no consensus on the wording of this section; the equal number of editors who disagree with the offensive wording were bullied one by one into walking away from the article in disgust, a path I had already chosen. Just as shooting horses is seen as the only option to deal with many equine veterinary ailments, User:Thewinchester has decided that WP:ANI is the solution to deal with any and all Wikipedia problems, as he has done here. In dealing with the supposed "schoolcruft" issue, Thewinchester has demonstrated a persistent refusal to consider reasoned discussion and proposed compromise, and has used bullying and threats, abusing the WP:ANI process in an effort to circumvent violations of Wikipedia official policy and to suppress any suggestion that he disagrees with. Alansohn 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In a conversation with another user (see here), which I assume was supposed to be unseen, User:Thewinchester made a hate-filled rant that those who disagree with him have to be dealt with through "appropriate procedural action", a process that he has abused, is abusing, and will continue to abuse. His final statement that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." demonstrates that there was no good faith involved here. Rather than dealing with the Wikipedia:Schoolcruft article's Wikipedia violations in a proper fashion, the sole goal of the process was to make a WP:POINT through bullying and provocation, as he himself has acknowledged and bragged about. I had hoped to make a constructive change to a less than constructive essay; In response, this AN/I, and User:Thewinchester's responses to those who have shown any disagreement with him, are part of a self-described premeditated effort to let anyone who disagrees with his own personal biases know that "they get dealt with accordingly". Alansohn 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And let's not omit this comment, that "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them [sic] from the nearest freaking yardarm." In some parts of New Jersey, as seen on The Sopranos, threats like this are followed by a bullet to the back of the head; here on Wikipedia that bullet is here at WP:AN/I. This systematic and pre-planned abuse of the AN/I process must be put to an end. Alansohn 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with Alan. Apart from antagonising a whole slew of editors whom he berated, censoriously accusing them of attacks and poor faith, offering up lectures on civility and providing an all-round peacock display of wikilawyering, finally driving one to an outburst of total exasperation, Alan has done nothing wrong at all. He should be quite rightly aggrieved that his innocent inquiry into reversing the tenor of the Schoolcruft essay, an essay that, as he notes, violates all manner of Wikipedia policies by espousing a POV on a controversial topic, which is not what essays are supposed to do; he should be quite rightly aggrieved that his clearly demonstrated willingness to listen to those with whom he disagrees, his sincere desire to establish consensus with editors who disagree; indeed, he should be quite rightly aggrieved that his very good-faith intervention on an issue over which he has consistently demonstrated an open-mindedness, tolerance and willingness to listen that can only be characterised as flabbergasting; he should be quite rightly aggrieved that this has inexplicably ended up at AN/I. Barging in on a group of editors and informing them that they have violated policies of good faith, civility, point, and personal attacks is certainly not trollish behaviour and I for one salute Alansohn's vigorous defense of his actions and salute the diplomatic finesse with which he consistently deals with those whose views differ from his own. Eusebeus 15:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My most sincere thanks to User:Eusebeus for his exceedingly genuine support on the persistent problems created by User:Thewinchester. One correction, though; User:Eusebeus's remark that editing an article to address policy violations constitutes "Barging in on a group of editors and informing them that they have violated policies..." and is somehow inappropriate, would mistakenly imply that the editors involved have a right to prevent participation from other editors, in violation of WP:OWN, a claim made multiple time by User:Thewinchester. The suggestion to move the article to userspace was made multiple times, consistent with relevant policy at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." I would be more than willing to tolerate this as a userified article. As a mainspace article, policy dictates that it will be edited. I appreciate the most helpful remarks, and hope that this one small correction will only improve the overall tenor of User:Eusebeus's WP:POINT violation here. Wikipedia would only benefit further if User:Eusebeus makes more constructive remarks. Alansohn 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn has literally been given enough rope, and has proved the exact problems that have been gave rise to this AN/I report. And if the user wishes to continue a baseless and unjustified attack on an essay and refuses to participate in multiple attempts to build consensus that's entirly their prerogative. And on the subject of essays that clearly breach [{WP:AGF]], let's look at his own work - Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, which not only fails to completly assume good faith and proposes no attempts or action paths to reach positive outcomes. WP:SCFT has achieved community consensus (Demonstrated by a near snowball keep at an XfD discussion) and encourages strongly undertaking attempts to resolve the issues it covers unless the users causing the problems just refuse to participate in reasonable attempts to do so. Seriously, this could go on and on to the point where someone will just have to open a WP:RFC on the user in question, and i'm half surprised that no one has done so already. The continued rantings of this user about pointless and baseless arguments and claims have exhausted my good faith towards them, particually since they totally take figurative comments out of context for their own person and try to claim that there has been a threat of violence towards them. That's just pathetic and to me comes across as a sign of desperation for the sole purpose of a faulty claim to the moral high ground in order to prove a point. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Thewinchester continues to demonstrate a pattern of bad faith and abuse of process. The XfD keep only proves that other editors are willing to tolerate the article's existence as an essay. Multiple editors have tried to achieve compromise at Wikipedia:Schoolcruft, only to be rebuffed by User:Thewinchester's repeated bullying, threats and regular ordinary refusal to consider any alternative to the article he thinks he owns in violation of Wikipedia policy. The physical threats -- especially this comment, that "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them [sic] from the nearest freaking yardarm." -- are disturbing enough coming from someone on the other side of the world. It's the persistent threats and continued abuse of the WP:ANI process that are by far the most disturbing aspects of User:Thewinchester's behavior. His final statement that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." demonstrates that there is no good faith involved here and never has been any. User:Thewinchester is someone who doesn't just make empty threats; he follows through on his bullying and regularly abuses Wikiepdia process to make his WP:POINT that it's his way or your brought up on WP:ANI. It's time this is put to an end. Alansohn 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to try and stay out of this one, but I would point out that contrary to Alansohn's statement above, this is to my knowledge only the second time Thewinchester has ever brought a case to AN/I. Orderinchaos 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking an RFC is in order on this matter, or preferably going to WP:MEDCOM. It seems like a couple of people whining about an essay, and both parties blowing it way out of proportion. If one of you wants to do an RFC, then do it. Better than here, us admins can't really do much here.--Wizardman 22:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are meant to be edited, but when the thrust of the essay is at odds with an individual users point of view, particularly when there is a consensus for the current version, then the opposing user is free to write his/her own essay (see Wikipedia:A treatise on essays). It is only an essay and is not policy and its reasonable to have opposing essays within the wiki (See for example WP:FAIL and WP:NOTFAIL). I agree with Wizardman that this seems to be a disagreement about content and that AN is really not the ideal place to be discussing it. All parties need to step back from this for a few days and calm down. Perhaps a moratorium or cooling off period for say 7 days where the 2 or 3 involved parties agree to not edit the article or talk page. The world will not end tomorrow. —Moondyne 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that Wikipedia:A treatise on essays is, merely, an essay, and has no standing whatsoever as a policy or guideline. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., which actually states that it "documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia" states that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." Wikipedia policy makes all essays, even this one, open to editing by all editors and grants no one ownership rights, unless moved to userspace, as repeatedly suggested. Alansohn 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to visualize the efforts to modify the wording to something less offensive, and the effort to maintain the status quo by User:Thewinchester:

Iteration	User:Thewinchester and User:Eusebeus	Alansohn and other suggested changes
1	Original version: "Schoolcruft articles can always be improved, but even longer term Wiki editors know where to draw the line. Users contributing Schoolcruft to Wikipedia need to be watched closely. If they are a registered user, gentle coaching and comments on their talk page from more experienced editors will usually pull them back from a self-induced death spiral. However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing."	First change: "Schoolcruft articles can usually be improved. If they are a registered user, gentle coaching and comments on their talk page can be useful. However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors can be more difficult to deal with." ([8])
2	Reverted to: "Schoolcruft articles can always be improved, but even longer term Wiki editors know where to draw the line. Users contributing Schoolcruft to Wikipedia need to be watched closely. If they are a registered user, gentle coaching and comments on their talk page from more experienced editors will usually pull them back from a self-induced death spiral. However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing." ([9])	No change
3	Changed wording of final sentence to "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." ([10])	"However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with." ([11])
4	Revert to "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." ([12])	Suggested edit "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with." ([13])
5	Revert to "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." ([14])	User:TerriersFan suggested compromise wording of "However, articles created by anonymous IP editors are always the most difficult to deal with. When it has been clearly demonstrated that they have not heeded the call, or fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing, and the Schoolcruft crosses the line into vandalism then action through AN/I should be considered." ([15])
6	Compromise ignored	Compromise wording accepted "While less than ideal, the changes proposed indicate that there must be significant complicating factors to justify pursuit of an AN/I in such circumstances. As currently worded, the death spiral by those opposing "Schoolcruft" to open an incident for someone with what is at worst a content dispute would be almost automatic." ([16])
7	Compromise rejected: "*Um, this is an essay that lays out a point of view. It does not require any course of action. Since User:Alansohn is one of those whose actions are enveloped by the critical analysis proffered by the terms of the argument, his objections, while understandable, hardly need to be taken very seriously. Alansohn disagrees with the entire tenor of the argument. Why accommodate his own tendentious pov-pushing when he could simply write a counter essay?" ([17])

I disagreed -- and continue to disagree -- with the general tenor of the article and its insistence that content disputes revolving around school articles that are deemed to be "Schoolcruft" must continue on a path towards WP:ANI if other editors disagree with User:Thewinchester. All of my attempts at rewording the article left the essential gist of the article unchanged, but sought to remove the most uncivil and bad faith aspects. Compromise wording that I will still accept would leave in the possibility of a path to WP:ANI, but only where vandalism is involved. User:Thewinchester has refused to consider any alternative wording from an article that he has decide is his WP:OWN. Suggestions to move the article to userspace was made multiple times -- consistent with relevant policy at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." -- and have been repeatedly ignored.

In a nutshell, User:Thewinchester has made a determined stand for the moral high ground that those who disagree with his personal biases will face AN/I if they have the audacity to disagree with him. It's not just an empty threat; It's happening right here, right now. Alansohn 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering both of you whacked warnings on each other's talk pages before it got here, and that you came close to violating other policies such as WP:3RR, I'd say it had gotten well past disagreement. You have every right to disagree with an essay, I disagree with many I see around the place. Likewise, I cack myself laughing at the ingenious wording of some which are blatantly anti-AGF (the vanispami whatever one, and WP:CB as examples) - despite assuming AGF in my own dealings, sometimes frustration is a factor! I'd rather see it expressed in an essay as a catharsis of someone's feelings that someone understands how they feel and move on, than for them to take it out on people who may be contributing positively. Ironically, the essay to which Alansohn posted a link to on the Schoolcruft page on 14 June [18], Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, is one of the most nasty pieces I've ever read. I, however, choose to ignore it as a view that doesn't match mine, and move on. I suggest Alan do the same re this one. Orderinchaos 10:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. Alan seriously needs an extended wikibreak, or at least a moratorium on AfD-related issues. That's totally insane. Eusebeus 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is an improvement over User:Thewinchester's threats of physical violence, what's with this latest personal attack. This is the second time you've violated WP:POINT right here on the Administrators' noticeboard. Again, address the issues in the article in question. I have. Alansohn 11:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the title of this piece is "Actions of Alansohn..." so discussion of your actions is entirely on-topic here. Orderinchaos 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting out that you've gone completely and obsessively over the top, Alansohn, is NOT "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" -- in fact, it's completely the opposite. You DO understand what WP:POINT means, right? Hint: it doesn't mean "pointing something out", even if it shares a verb. --Calton | Talk 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I had completely failed to notice the authorship of the essay I cited (thinking it was just a link-in), and the tenor of my opinions has changed markedly - this is hypocrisy at its finest. I am curious to know if Alan would be so keen as for those of us who disagree with his definitions and, in particular, his characterisations of hard-working users and administrators to be refactored or removed. I note with curiosity Alansohn's comment on the Cruftcruft talk page[19] with consideration of his behaviour at SCFT. Orderinchaos 12:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another aside, to show that this is a pattern and not an isolated incident, Alansohm seems to have done something similar in a "discussion" on the Kristi Yamaoka AfD where it didn't matter what I said as long as Alansohn got to reiterate his points about what I was doing wrong, despite the reasoning I gave him.. MSJapan 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the AfD in question. User:MSJapan was warned by another user that "You've tried four times now over the last 15 months o have this article deleted. Enough is enough please. If 15 months after the first AfD you've been incapable of demonstrating lack of notability, it isn't going to happen. Continued attempts over and over again to have this deleted serves no purpose. Please, stop. Thank you." (See for details). User:MSJapan's actions in this AfD and the three previous ones he created speak for themselves in terms of failure to observe Wikipedia policy and persistent abuse of AfD policy. Alansohn 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point, and it only distracts from the real issue at hand. In the AfD, you asked questions regarding why I felt justified in doing what I did, and every time I answered, you basically screamed "POINT violation!", which means you didn't really care what I had to say. That illustrates a pattern similar to what is going on here, which is either a total disregard for or a weak facade of "discussion" in order to show that you're right and no one else is. MSJapan 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly sought to improve an article that violates Wikipedia policy, only to face malicious attacks directed at me. In addition to User:Eusebeus's shameless personal attacks here, he also seems to have the same problem elsewhere on this same subject. Eusebeus' latest derisive remarks, "Have you seen the latest derangement at the Schoolcruft talk page" would fit squarely as a prima facie violation of No Personal Attacks. (see [20] for the details). Alansohn 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the FRACK does an essay -- which is, you know, NOT A FRACKING ARTICLE -- violate Wikipedia policy by having the temerity to not agree with your views? Wait, don't bother answering unless you can do so with fewer than twenty-five words, that doesn't rely on calling other people evil, and that cites actual policy WITH ACTUAL CITATIONS.

If you have a problem, write your own fracking essay and be done with it. --Calton | Talk 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who WP:OWN's this "fracking" essay? I encourage you to read the relevant Wikipedia official policy on the subject at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." Whether its just a "fracking essay" or not, the article is open to every single editor, regardless of their connection to the subject matter. Every single "fracking" edit that I had made to this "fracking" essay was intended to leave the "frackingly" malicious tenor of the "fracking" essay as is, while toning down some of its most WP:UNCIVIL elements. Why would anyone have a "fracking" problem with that? Feel free to move this essay to your userspace if no one else is going to be allowed to edit it, per Wikipedia policy. And by the way, "frack" you, too. Alansohn 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of write your own fracking essay and be done with it is causing you great difficulties? Apparently, the only word you actually saw was "fracking", given your mindless regurgitation of it. Here's a hint for you: The horse? Dead.

Calton, Alan did write that essay; he calls it Cruftcruft and it is a model of the restraint and fair-mindedness that he shows generally. Anyway, I think the suggestion made somehwere in all the above is correct: an RfC would be a more appropriate venue for the issues that have been exposed here. Eusebeus 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was very carefully modeled on WP:SCHOOLCRUFT, building on its fair-minded and balanced coverage of the subject, with many sentences kept as is, with a few words changed. I was very careful to remove the text in WP:SCHOOLCRUFT that advocates bullying and threats to subject to WP:ANI anyone who disagrees with the essay. And what's the big deal, it's just a "fracking" essay? Alansohn 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has a long history of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations. What's going on with the Schoolcruft essay is nothing compared to the plethora of problems interacting with others, some of which are documented here. I don't think there's anything that can be done about this essay. Someone should just file an RFC and let community consensus make the call. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The threats and bullying from User:Thewinchester -- including threats of physical violence -- are what are relevant here. One only has to look through Thewinchester's bad faith actions in defending his patently uncivil essay in the face of good faith efforts to address some of its most malicious aspects. For all the personal attacks, there has been no one here who has justified User:Thewinchester's efforts to falsely claim ownership of this article in violation of WP:OWN and his abuse of Wikipedia process that involved him following through on his bullying. There is plenty to do with this WP:SCHOOLCRUFT essay: follow Wikipedia policy and implement the good faith proposals to improve it. Problem is that folks just refuse to observe this policy. Alansohn 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you still crapping on and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill Alansohn? I've crossed five state borders and three different timezones since I last checked in on this, and you've continued to persist in beating this up for your own purposes, a viewpoint that I can see many of the comments to this AN/I report support. Would someone please open an RfC and help put a stop to this continued WP:POV and WP:POINT ranting? Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're still crapping about an attempt to take a sentence that read "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing." and attempted to change it in various efforts to any one of the following:
      - 1) "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors can be more difficult to deal with." ([21])
      - 2) "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with." ([22])
      - 3) "When it has been clearly demonstrated that they have not heeded the call, or fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing, and the Schoolcruft crosses the line into vandalism then action through AN/I should be considered." (As suggested by User:TerriersFan at [23] and supported at [24])
      - You are absolutely right that an RfC needs to be created to deal with the abuse by User:Thewinchester. In the face of multiple good faith efforts on my part to amend the malicious bad faith tone of the original wording, which demands WP:ANI as the only solution to an imagined "Schoolcruft" problem, User:Thewinchester repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy by insisting that he WP:OWNs the article, refuses to consider any edits to his essay and repeatedly violated WP:NPA and WP:POINT through his bullying and threats to initiate this notice. Above and beyond the grotesque physical threats, the exact abusive action that User:Thewinchester threatens to impose on those who disagree with him about "Schoolcruft" are what he has abusively created here. I stand 100% behind my actions in attempting to edit and improve this Wikipedia:Schoolcruft essay. This shameless violation of WP:POINT by User:Thewinchester must be dealt with appropriately. Alansohn 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's interesting to note that the line you keep quoting appears to no longer be in the essay, due to changes by another editor which I think have changed it for the better (and probably addressed nearly all of the AGF concerns). Orderinchaos 10:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The original wording was problematic, to say the least. I proposed two variations to reword the sentence; another user proposed a third version as a compromise. Given that the text was deemed perfect and was set in stone once the XfD passed, the fact that this offensive sentence was changed by a third editor shows that there is broad agreement that the original wording was unacceptable. While the modified version may be more accurately described as "less bad" than "better", it further demonstrates that there is a clear consensus that the original wording was indefensible by Wikipedia standards. No one supports the original wording. Alansohn 11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Case of beating a dead horse if ever there was one - the wording was changed nearly 48 hours ago. I recall saying at the time (way back on 18 June, actually) that the only result of revert-warring is that two inferior versions battle it out - which is exactly what happened. I do not believe the original wording was problematic, but I believe it was capable of misinterpretation - something that can't be said for the new version, which I thank Zivko for putting in the time and effort to produce - something which, I might note, he did with the utmost of civility towards those who wrote the bits he decided to remove or reword. Orderinchaos 13:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Calton, Alan did write that essay - Good, then he can confine his bitching there instead of trying to take over someone eles's opinion. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My god, this section reads like alphabet soup in parts. I'm amazed that no WP:USERs have written a WP:ESSAY to address the overuse (or overabuse?) of WP:POL WP:SHC's in WP:AN. :) That being said, I think we need to all stand back and look at this objectively. Yes, the essay needs improvement. Nothing is set in stone. No, waging a POV campaign because you don't like it is not going to fix it. Accusing editors of threats of physical violence and whatnot (I have read four entire talk pages this morning and failed to find one, other than a metaphorical reference akin to "X should be hung from the nearest tree" - perhaps a failure to understand the Australian idiom is part of the issue) is only going to inflame the issue. Writing essays which are more ridiculous just to make a point is not constructive. An editor with 37,000 edits should know better than to act in such a ridiculous manner and I hope that this stops very shortly. Before this interchange ends, I would like to propose that someone should make a really silly cartoon of this section of WP:AN before it descends into the archive pit. Zivko85 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OMGWTFBBQ. --Carnildo 06:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a suggestion: everybody step back, take a deep breath, and relax. You seem to be a few steps away from request for comment or arbitration committee territory over a couple of essays. I've half a mind to nominate "schoolcruft" and "cruftcruft" both for deletion as they appear to be much more trouble than they are worth (and no, that wouldn't be just to make a point, I genuinely see both of these essays as comprising very little in way of value to the project).--Isotope23 20:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There really is a page "Wikipedia:Cruftcruft". And it's written in a far more serious tone than I'd expect. -- llywrch 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewinchester seems to have a chronic problem with civility, that resulted in an administrative block imposed at the beginning of this month. Thewinchester was asked to apologize to the user he had abused, something who could not manage to do (see [25]), which makes the claim of an "almost" violation utterly irrelevant. While User:Orderinchaos and User:Eusebeus have taken on the role as Thewinchester's chief apologists, neither can feign ignorance of Thewinchester's chronic incivility, personal attacks and abuse of Wikipedia process. Orderinchaos had to be rather disingenuous in discussing Thewinchester's block, when he stated that "I see that 'persistent gross incivility or gross harassment' is the standard required to achieve a block", but given Thewinchester's track record since then we seem to be well past the point of "persistent". His discussion with Eusebeus that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." demonstrates a deliberate effort to provoke and disrupt, a textbook definition of a WP:POINT violation. My good-faith edits to WP:SCHOOLCRUFT seem to be only the latest trigger of Thewinchester's long-festering incivility. User:Thewinchester has repeatedly lashed out at anyone who violates his definition of this arbitrary and malicious term; I am far from the only victim of his abuse. It's time that serious action was taken to address these chronic violations by User:Thewinchester, who has made incivility, personal attacks and abuse of Wikipedia process his hallmark means to disrupt Wikipedia. Alansohn 03:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint was one of process in that instance, and has been resolved since with the fellow admin concerned. I still believe that block was unjustified based on the circumstances which led to it. Had I been disingenuous, I would have noted that neither WP:COI nor WP:BLOCK would have obstructed me from lifting the block myself, and done so, rather than raising it at AN/I and on the blocking admin's talk page. I think, however, this is a distraction from the point that many others have made that your behaviour is really the core issue here (not least because Thewinchester hasn't edited any related articles or talk pages for two or three days now) Orderinchaos 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating and slightly rearranging your collection of pejoratives and Wikipedia shortcuts over and over again won't change anything at this point, since at this point, the main generator of disruption appears to be you and your never-ending foot-stamping. That horse? Dead. What you're selling, no one's buying, so you best drop it before someone figures out the simplest way to deal with the main generator of disruption involves pushing certain admin buttons. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that I am "trying to take over someone eles's [sic] opinion", repeats the false claim that User:Thewinchester has some sort of ownership rights to this article, in direct conflict with WP:OWN. Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. could not be any clearer, that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." The move to userspace was suggested, and ignored. I stand by every single edit I made to the WP:SCHOOLCRUFT essay as a good faith effort to address the incivility in this article. User:Thewinchester in turn has repeatedly bragged about his disruptive actions, bragging that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." (see [26]), as part of a deliberate effort to provoke and disrupt, violating WP:POINT by definition. It's high time that Thewinchester's consistent pattern of abuse is addressed appropriately. Alansohn 05:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots of former Wikipedians

What happens to the bots that belong to editors who have left Wikipedia? Do they have their bot flag removed, or are they adopted by another user? —Kurykh 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically nothing, unless they're malfunctioning. As long as a bot that was designed to run fully automatically performs within specs (ie. does what it's supposed to do, doesn't screw up and doesn't do anything not approved by the BAG), it can theoretically run indefinitely without any human intervention or even supervision whatsoever. It's obviously preferable to have an operator around who can respond to queries and fix any issues that might come up but, technically, it's not a requirement.
HagermanBot, for instance, was working perfectly fine for quite a while without any human oversight. Now, that you mention it, I recall an an older discussion we had on this but, personally, I don't recall ever seeing a bot deflagged. I don't really consider that a problem either since there's always the possibility that a bot could just come back (even after an extended period of time) and still work flawlessly and due to the fact that the potential for abuse is rather limited. --S ^up? 09:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only two deflaggings that I can find in the last 500 botflag log entries (both granting and revoking of flags) that were due to the user leaving (not counting situations where the owner turned out to be a sockpuppet of a vandal) are EssjayBot (and Essjay's other bots) and BlueBot. Other reasons for deflagging included cases where the bot flag had only been given temporarily, where a user had accidentally been flagged instead of a bot, and in one case where it was decided that a bot would be more effective without a flag. --ais523 08:40, 25 June 2007 (U T C)

My understanding was that bots are not allowed to run without an editor around who is available for contact, can vouch for the bot's edits, and who has agreed to fix any problems caused. Of course, I suppose someone could always 'adopt' a bot if its user disappears. --Aquillion 17:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been a problem, as seen at LDBot creating pages from....where?. 64.126.24.12 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated vandalism of my page

My user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Hyams has been vandalized by User:Pancasila for the second time. That user was already warned by an andministrator not to do so. Therefore, please:
1) Restore my user page to what it used to be.
2) Block user User:Pancasila from editing Wikipedia. Writing "fuckface" on my user page after being warned is something that should be unaccptable by the Wikipedia community.

Thank you. John Hyams 10:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalisation appears to have occurred in April this year, and is the last contrib by Pancasila to date. I don't see any point in a date expiry block for an individual who doesn't appear to be contributing. LessHeard vanU 10:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC) I note that User:Rettetast has blocked Pancasila for one month. LessHeard vanU 10:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who cares, John Hyams had also not edited WP since early April before coming here to request action on some old vandalism of his userpage. I note there has been no subsequent contributions. I have to ask, what was the point? LessHeard vanU 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threats of blocking for an outside view on RfC

Yesterday I was presented the inaugural award for 200 contributions to DYK. Has anybody had more articles on the Main Page? Now, that is a big question. Earlier that day, User:DLX had expressed his opinion to the effect that I am an ordinary troll.[27] Instead of blocking him on the spot, User:BigHaz came to my talk page and posted what he termed "a final warning regarding personal attacks".[28] At first I thought he confused our talk pages and then I thought it was another attempt to oust a content creator from the project. When I asked BigHaz to specify my remarks which he considers to be personal attacks, he referred me to my outside view on WP:RfC.[29]

In my statement, I allude to the actions of the nominator of the RfC, User:Digwuren, as trolling, e.g., his (now deleted) page about Petri Krohn's History of Estonians.[30] I also take issue with his routine rollbacks of my good-faith and proper edits as "vandalism"[31][32][33][34] and his generally rude and defying manner of conversation, as clear from the list of his accusations against Petri on RfC[35]:

"Petri Krohn's possibly most unusual behavioural aspect, the prospensity to construct elaborate fictitious ideas influenced by WP:POV and then present them as fact."
"Various peculiar, but invariably nasty theories surrounding the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn"-- An actual header, visible in the TOC
"Attempts to represent private fantasies as historical fact,"
"Representing pet theories as fact,"
"A truly bizarre rant," etc.

Instead of dealing with real disruption, BigHaz finds it helpful to threaten me with "final warnings" and blocks for referring to Digwuren's actions as trolling. I maintain that keeping a sarcastic page about your opponent's views on your nation is pure trolling. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" isn't a rule one can apply to a *user* RFC. His whole idea of warning and threatening people for what they say *in an RFC* is strange, unless it's something really extreme.

The examples of "personal attacks" presented by him on his talk have several points where the "PA" aspect is supposed to lie in the fact that I don't have (=don't give) any *evidence* for what I say. Now surely that's not the way to look at an RFC Outside view. It's *supposed* to be my opinion. And opinions on the nominators are as appropriate as opinions on its subject; compare "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors", at WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. I would like people to comment whether my conclusions are correct or, on the contrary, I should provide tons of diffs to buttress my outside view on RfC (as far as I can see, nobody does substantiate his outside views with evidence).

P.S. I question BigHaz's impartiality in issuing "final warnings" to me. According to his own confession, the removal of the WWII memorial in Tallinn induced him to "start digging around the internet to see what on earth the story was here" and to "form some opinions" on the subject of the Estonian-Russian debacle.[36] It's hard to say how the opinions of a "Baltic German" of "Teutonic ancestry" (as BigHaz identifies himself on his user page) qualify him for the role of a neutral arbiter in the current debacle which he seemingly seeks to assume. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "user requests for comment", they're "user conduct requests for comment". The focus is always on conduct. --bainer (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for buttressing my argument. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user Sesshomaru

im not sure if this is the right place to post this or not but this user keeps trying to say im a troll and a sock puppet. He is also telling others that I refuse to listen to him and hes giving me grief about my archive. He refuses to listen to reason and I was hoping a admin could talk to him. Thanks.TheManWhoLaughs 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheManWhoLaughs was blocked as a sock by Yamla. Keegan^talk 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV on the "In the News" template.

Could an administrator please address the concerns stated there? Italiavivi 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion here, for those who'd like to take a further look. Keegan^talk 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages

I noticed that Xdt (talk · contribs · logs) has a huge list of Doctor Who monsters - with fan-like commentary - on his userpage, and dropped him a note suggesting that it may be against WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. If I did wrong, would someone please tell him and me? Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion like that might be best made as 'please move that to your sandbox'; there's actually nothing wrong with keeping an inventory like that around and available so that you can refer to it and occasionally move it into articles as it becomes usable (and it looks like this user does, from time to time). You're right about usage, but I think in this case, it might just be the user not realizing they can use other space for the storage of info they use on wikipedia. --Thespian 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should really be moved off-site if he intends to as a resource for fans. We don't need to be hard-nosed about it... just offer gentle reminders. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor using multiple IPs

Resolved

203.59.187.129 (talk · contribs) diff
155.144.251.120 (talk · contribs) diff diff
203.166.243.179 (talk · contribs) diff
192.30.202.20 (talk · contribs) diff

Other than page protection, how can this be investigated/dealt with? Sancho 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken on a few sockpuppet cases in the last week, and reports of this nature usually go to WP:SSP. If these were logged in accounts, we could block them indefinitely as socks, but for IPs it's not allowed. So the question is, will blocking any of them prevent vandalism from now and forward? To answer that, I observe that only 203.59.187.129 among all the IPs you listed has edited within the last 24 hours, so he's the only one who could reasonably be blocked as a preventive (not punitive) measure. I would support semiprotecting the article for a full week, and I will make such a request at WP:RPP. YechielMan 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Yechiel's analysis on all substantial counts; hopefully semi-protection keeps these guy(s) off, for now. Tagging this resolved, for now, as semi-protection has been applied, but feel free to remove that if problems persist. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose account User:Whydoesthisexist

Single purpose account User:Whydoesthisexist. Please investigate. SakotGrimshine 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked SakotGrimshine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. The majority of his edits in the past 24 hours have been disruptive. I cannot see any constructive edits, several of which were to userboxes.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I have shortened the block to 48 hours. For information on disruptive activities, see the pages I have recently deleted that were in his userspace.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had been editing under my school's IP, but wanted to list Wikipedia:WikiProject Cow-tipping for deletion, so I had to create an account to do that. An admin can probably look at that history and see that. I then proceeded to list other nonsense junk by C.m.jones (talk · contribs) for deletion too. If that was wrong of me, please let me know. Whydoesthisexist 11:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New users making multiple accounts

Several times today I have noticed users creating other accounts even though they have only been registered for under a minute and they have no contribs, talk pages, or user pages. It seems a little weird to me, maybe sockpuppets or secondary accounts? Most of the other names are completely different, and because it's tracked back it doesn't meet any of the legitimate sockpuppet requirements. It might be request an account, but users who don't even have any edits yet?

Ah well, it seems strange, so I thought i'd post it here, as it may be a new type of sockpuppeting from someone who doesn't know it can be traced. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they're sockpuppeting, they're not picking a very bright way to do it, if a user creates another account that stays in their log forever. It's not against policy to have multiple accounts, though, only to use secondary ones in certain ways, so there's nothing to be done unless they actually try to abuse the secondary ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect during the first month of school you'll be able to see a lot of such things. "I just heard about it too, this is how it's done..." (SEWilco 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Or the IPA is a school's and the multiple users are all at that school. Anthony Appleyard 08:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 characters too long for a username?

Resolveduser unblocked, policy edited to reflect reality

Naconkantari (talk · contribs) has blocked the new What love has made of me (talk · contribs). When I asked about this at User_talk:Naconkantari#User:What_love_has_made_of_me, they replied that the username was blocked for excessive length. I haven't gotten a reply on my following message, so I'm posting here for review. Is this a reasonable block? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not. There is nothing wrong with that name. The name is not confusing, isn't not hard to remember and contains all latin characters. Hell, it's probably a better username than mine. I think we should unblock and apologise to the user. --Deskana (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody better go block Can't sleep, clown will eat me then. That doesn't seem like a good block at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, it's not. Then again, I'm more lenient on usernames than many. What about ... umm .... this one? - Alison ☺ 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many people are rigorously enforcing WP:UNP with no regards for the meaning of the policy at all. Scaring off new users isn't good. --Deskana (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, Deskana. Hence this report I filed yesterday - Alison ☺ 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heck, it's more easily remembered than Naconkantari. :-) Seriously, 6 short words in a sensible order over one made up one? Easy.--Thespian 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a very bad block. The excessive length section is deliberately vague, as I don't think we've been able to come up with an actual number, but that certainly isn't it (for cryin' out loud, it's only 24 characters). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is within policy. 24 characters could be too long if the words are run together and difficult to distinguish - but this is a straigforward phrase. We clearly allow User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (33 characters) and User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (31 characters)... WjBscribe 03:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the block is within policy or the username? Incidentally, I have always been against this policy altogether. Obvious disruption is blocakble under other policies, and, as others have pointed out, all kinds on newbie-biting goes on with borderline usernames that were obviously intended in good faither. Chick Bowen 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the username is within our usename policy IMO - I think that's clear from the rest of my post but I could have phrased myself better :-) WjBscribe 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous block. Everything that's needed to be said has been said though. Wizardman 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of unblocking? We've already lost a potential contributor. S/He ain't comin' back. Riana (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And remember - there's nothing more BITEy than taking the plunge to sign up for an account in good faith only to be broadsided by the banhammer over some policy you're barely aware of!! Indefblocking a username, where there's any doubt at all, should be a last measure. - Alison ☺ 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from the comments here, I've seen enough. I'm going to unblock that account and apologise, if they've not left in disgust already - Alison ☺ 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - Samir just beat me to it :) - Alison ☺ 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like 80% of the accounts on Wikipedia have no edits. In my experience, username blocks can create a whole lot of grief over nothing (like this one) and think I'm pretty liberal with what I allow. Grand master ka 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naconkantari's a good kid, don't be too hard on him guys :) Very classy apology note btw, Alison -- Samir 03:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. He's one of the Good Guys™ :) - Alison ☺ 04:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I trust you, because you're nice and sweet and cute and stuff, but Naconkantari's page shows someone who is a wee bit quick on the deletions and blocks, and whose response to people whose stuff he's deleted, sometimes minutes after creation is 'go request a deletion review'. Very few things really need a rush, and taking his time could help him be a better admin. This isn't the place for this, but I think he needs a little more guidance with his admin stick :-) --Thespian 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through his deletion logs, after encountering some IMO problematic deletions by him, and I have found some troubling patterns. Lots of deletions for Patent nonsense of stuff that might be deletable, but is pretty clearly not PN. A number of deletions for A7 that are, IMO very questionable. No response to date to any of my comments on specific pages, nor in any of the resultdeletion review discussions. I think that this editor is trying to help the project, I have no question of his good faith, but I think that Thespian has a point. DES ^(talk) 17:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What things are displaying as deleted for sometimes has more to do with the tagging editor than the deleting admin. Sometimes when working with speediable stuff, I forget look what the thing was originally nominated for, and delete it for a totally different speedying reason. One example would be a vanity bio being tagged as patent nonsense. It's not really nonsense, but if fails bio, so I delete. If I forget to change the "reason" field, it will show up as having been deleted as nonsense. --Masamage ♫ 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes perfect sense. I was just seeing a lot of notes that reviews were being called on the deletions. Actually, I've never seen an admin's talk page with that many 'Why did you delete....' questions, and when I have seen questions like that, the admin usually is able to effectively explain why they deleted, even if it doesn't make. Naconkantari's stock response it 'get it reviewed', and people who ask politely, who worked on a page in good faith even if it wasn't up to Wiki standards, should get a little more; esp. since the reviews seem to result in a fair # of overturns. --Thespian 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of Editor Reviews

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

Cross posted at WP:VP. Please respond here: [37].

User:Mcr616 has violated 3RR on his own Editor Review, and any sort of reprecussion was declined on this basis of his ownership of his own review. This raises serious issues regarding WP:OWN and whether or not legitimate comments on an ER can be construed as vandalism. More here: [38]. 72.128.85.212 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users have considerable latitude over control of their own user pages, sub-pages, and talk pages. They are certainly not bound to respect anonymous reviews by sockpuppets of blocked users. Furthermore, editor review is for the benefit of the user - if they don't want to listen to comments, so be it. It's a totally informal process. --Haemo 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is free to ignore it. What he's not free to do is remove it, or violate 3RR. Allow me to remind you that an ER doesn't reside in User space, it's in WP space.72.128.85.212 04:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users are granted serious latitude, especially when blocked users are trying to game the review process in retribution for past slights. That's a not a fair review, and it's not what the process is for. --Haemo 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the user in question could have solicited another to remove the comments, if they really were so serious as to constitute harassment or vandalism. The way I see it, there are three issues here:

1) Should an editor who lists himself for Editor Review have the "serious latitude" you mention to remove comments they don't like?
2) Should 3RR violations be ignored simply because an editor was cleaning their own Editor Review? and
3) Does an editor maintain "ownership" over an Editor Review page in the same way they would over a page in their Userspace?

As an Editor Review is entered into voluntarily, and occasionally to "test the waters," as it were, for a run at adminship, I believe that once created, a user should leave the substance of reviews regarding them alone. This is both to the end of maintaining an atmosphere that allows for free expression of thoughts on an ER, and maintaining an accurate records of people's opinions of an editor seeking review. What is the good of an ER if people are worried that negative reviews constitute harassment or vandalism? What is the good of reviewing an editor's ERs when said editor is seeking elected position if the editor has cleaned every negative comment up? To that end, I believe that an editor (1) should not be allowed to remove comments from their own ER. If something is harassment or vandalism, it should be obvious enough that someone else can clean it up. It follows that (2) 3RR vio's on ER pages should certainly constitute serious violations. Finally, because of the previously listed reasons, an ER should (3) not constitute a personal page, and the reviewed party should not be affored WP:OWNership rights over it. It is in the WP namespace, not the User namespace, for a reason. 72.128.85.212 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP user starting this thread is clearly evading a prior block on 72.128.88.130 (which in turn may have been used to evade another block), I've blocked their current IP address, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would anticipate getting some serious wikilawyer-ish complaints over that block. --Haemo 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

user DBZGokuSaiyan

not sure what his problem is but he made some very derogatory statements here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrenDJ I dont know what to do though can some one help me?BlueShrek 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just try to talk to him, and mention that personal attacks are not appropriate. --Haemo 04:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Something that myself and quite a few acquaintances have noticed, is that it has become near impossible to add links to Wikipedia articles, without someone immediately removing it and possibly even giving an unfair warning. While I'm sure there are some cases when this is called for, it frequently happens to people who do not deserve it. For example, I recently added a link to the following section: Higurashi no Naku Koro ni

Prior to adding it, I read all the neccessary guidelines and saw that it violated none of them. It possesses a growing wealth of information, the section in question has very few links, and the one I added is to the ONLY english site currently in existance. Since then, several editors have deleted the link, claiming it violates the ELG or is not notable. I am positive it does not violate the ELG and considering the rare and exstensive information on it, plus the fact that it is the ONLY english site for the series, should make it more than notable enough.

I've read the articles about dealing with this sort of thing, but they were really no help at all. Something should be done about this, because people should not have to be attacked or have their links removed every single time that they add them. Wikipedia may not be a "Depository of Links", but that does not mean that every new link added needs to be eliminated without the site even being looked at properly.TomitakePrincess 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added a fansite to the article. This is contrary to our external linking guidelines, and was removed on that basis. --Haemo 07:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as an addition, those so-called other english sites in that search are all sites that review anime and not actual english sites with information beyond a basic plot summary.TomitakePrincess 08:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC) There is nothing in those guidelines about adding fansites. Personal sites are not fansites. Personal sites are sites for one's own resume or information about oneself. The site in question is a site that possesses a great deal of information not in the article itself, translations, and is the ONLY english site for the article topic. It is wrong to keep removing it by twisting around words/meanings in the guidelines, when the site is both rare and informative.TomitakePrincess 07:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is -- see "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" -- a fansite, such as this, tends to fall into that category. You should also see the three revert rule, which you are violating. --Haemo 07:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly are the "unique resources" beyong a featured article that you are referring to? The site contains information translated from many of the original Japanese games, books, and other such things, exstensive information, summaries, and analysis, plus shall soon have cast interviews as well. Sounds like more than enough to qualify it staying.TomitakePrincess 07:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those things are unique to this, as opposed to many other sites about it, nor are they something which would not be dealt with in a featured article version of this page. Your tone also belies a serious conflict of interest, and you are seriously violating the three revert rule, and can be blocked for it. --Haemo 07:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you avoiding my question? And with the exception of two, all of the other sites on the Higurashi page are in Japanese. One is a forum and thus in violation of the guidelines and another is a site with little to no actual information. You are not providing a very good argument as to why the site cannot be added. Are you telling me there would be cast interviews in a featured article? Exstensive analysis of the plot, plus the complete guides and translations? Because, according to what I read, that is not true. This is the ONLY english site for this series. Why are you so bent on getting rid of it?TomitakePrincess 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as an addition, those so-called other english sites in that search are all sites that review anime and not actual english sites with information beyond a basic plot summary.TomitakePrincess 08:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're at about 10rr on that page right now TomitakeHime... Kyaa the Catlord 08:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because people like you keep provoking me over something unfair. And stop getting my name wrong on purpose-it is very rude and not appreciated.TomitakePrincess 08:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing out that none of the material covered in this site are in any way "unique" to it; as is required by linking guidelines. None of them should be linked, because none of them provide unique information. You seem to believe that because no other site does them all better than your link, that it's acceptable to add it. This is not the case. I'm not "bent on removing your link" -- I'm bent on enforcing our policies and guidelines. But, I've already done my three reverts, so I'm washing my hands of this. Someone else can handle this. Perhaps you should notice that when five different editors all say you're doing something wrong, you might want a gut check. Just for future reference. --Haemo 08:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've placed the spam1 warning template on this TomitakePrincess's page. Kyaa the Catlord 08:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this is why I dislike Wikipedia. It's nothing but a bunch of bigshot editors who enjoy ganging up on people, at least for the most part. And there is material that is both unique original. No one else has most of the the translations I do. No one else has the same cast interviews I do. There is no other site will FULL episode summaries and theory analysis. There are no other sites in English! You guys are just continuously making up excuses to delete this link, which is a huge injustice to Higurashi fans everywhere.TomitakePrincess 08:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomitakePrincess, yes, you have a very nice-looking site. However, there's no indication that it undergoes fact-checking or editorial control, which tends to be about the minimum that we require to consider something a reliable source. Unfortunately, if we allow linking to fansites, we'll soon have external link sections five pages long, if not longer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you have turned it into a crusade. With your current guidelines, no sites but official sites have any hope of being accepted, which is a huge injustice. This series has just been release in the US, but new fans will have nowhere to turn for information, because all the sites are in Japanese. And let's face it, even official sites these days have very minimal information. Most contain a tiny plot and character summaries, with a few wallpapers to download and that is it. Fans looking for more have nowhere to turn, since exstensive sites are always turned down here. It's one thing to be picky about links with sections that have huge fanbases, but this is for a series with a very tiny fanbase and a section that desperately needs some english links. There is no way for any site but the official ones to meet ALL the guidelines. There is no way for any site, even yours, to verify it's facts. You can link to sites that confirm it, but how do you know their info is accurate? Even if the site meets all the guidelines, you'll accuse it of being not notable, and if all else fails, you will try to claim it infringes copyright because a screenshot or quote is on it. But by that, no sites but official ones can exist. And when all the official sites are either uninformative or not in english, fans are left with an "encyclopedia" that lets them down in the link department.TomitakePrincess 08:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of external links is to provide material which is impossible to include in an encyclopedia, and which is not producible by other sites. For instance, an interview with the subject of an article would be a good external link. A link to a video where the creator talks about the subject would be a good external link. A pdf which forms one of the subject's most important works of fiction, or literature, would be a good external link. An essay written by a notable individual about the subject would be a good external link. Wikipedia is not your "one stop anime shop" -- we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to provide fans of a series with a directory of links to go shopping for. External links sections are not a "oh, and by the way, see these other places too" depository -- they are meant to extend the content of the article in an encyclopedic fashion, especially when we cannot do so ourselves. The links provided should be resources that are unique, reliable, and authoritative - a fansite, regardless of its quality, is none of these. --Haemo 09:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TomitakePrincess blocked indefinitely, move long now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing his block at CAT:UNBLOCK , I decided to assume that what was done was in good, but ill-advised, faith. It is not an endorsement of his behavior, I just hope he will learn from his mistake. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can say all that as much as you want, but it is not true. Fansites can be just as authorative as any article here. And in reality, you have no way to prove most of the info on here is legit. Most of the "citations" you use to prove the facts on your site ARE fansites, in case you have not realized it. And also, fansites rarely contain the creator's personal views, as opposed to the facts. I think that you are just afraid of linking to sites with more information than your articles could ever have, and I've more than enough proof to back that up.TomitakePrincess 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touchy issue... fansites can even be used as citations, yes, but it depends on the development of said fansite, and the amount of editorial control the owner(s) have. For example, Outpost Gallifrey is often sourced because the amount of editorial control and development the site has is on a large scale - it's so notable that writers for the show post on the forums. But a site on a free provider, and I mean no offence, is less likely to be as authoritative. Looking at that particular site, it's only a few weeks old at the most, isn't likely to be as exhaustive as a big fansite, and the design is a bit of a turnoff, to be honest. However, please refrain from edit warring, and discuss the matter on the talk. Thanks, Will ^(talk) 00:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But talk pages have proved to be of no help, especially for sections forgotten by most. I've seen too many brilliant fansites be victimized, which was the purpose for creating this post in the first place.TomitakePrincess 00:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange unblock request

Can someone please have a look at User talk:Jayneyalice? They say they are autoblocked because 217.41.217.24 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked, but since that IP was blocked anon only, I don't see how this is possible. I asked the user to double-check that they really are blocked, and they confirmed it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird at best, the blocking admin did not trigger any autoblock either. Since the block expires today, I think it's safe to directly unblock the IP and see if that unblocks this user. Doing it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, if the user was able to edit your page, he was not blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I initially thought, but apparently autoblocked users can edit talk and user talk pages. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked (I blocked my test account), and you can't edit anything while you're autoblocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Well, the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Autoblock makes it sound like autoblocked users "often" can edit talk pages. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Any idea on the reason why some can and some can't? Length of the block maybe? I tried with an indef block. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually thinking that Jayneyalice is the same person as 217.41.217.24 - the contribs show they've been around for a similar period. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocks

Something weird happened when I was trying to test the autoblock system:

I blocked my test account (same IP than me, different computer)
the autoblock triggered: I can edit (I assume admins are on a white list), and the IP is blocked
I unblocked the account. The autoblock stayed, and I couldn't find it in the autoblock tool. I had to manually unblock the IP.

Is that the intended behavior? I thought autoblocks were lifted when you unblocked an account. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The autoblock stays until you manually lift the autoblock, I'll see if I can find it. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not lifted. And admins have ipblock-exempt. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in your autoblock log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it appeared afterwards, I must have been too impatient. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9-day old CfD still open

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

Resolved

– This is the place to request a close, not the place to discuss how it should be (or should have been) decided. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CfD for Category:Wikipedians by religion is still open after nine days at WP:UCFD (the quoted time to keep open is 5 days, unless I'm mistaken), not to mention that its length alone is impressive. Could an admin go take a look and close as appropriate whenever there is time? Thanks!--Ramdrake 13:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCFD's may be closed after 5 days, but administrators have the discretion to allow them to remain open longer to allow for additional discussion, to properly gauge consensus or access the weight of the arguments. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus. Right now, I personally couldn't in good conscience close this either way—does anyone else have any more productive opinions? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say personnally it can be closed as no consensus, which defaults to keep, or if you actually want to gauge by the !votes, it's about 2:1 in favor of keeping. In any case, the chances of this turning into a delete consensus (even rough) seem to me to be akin to WP:SNOW. But please, don't take my word for it, as I involved myself in the discussion.--Ramdrake 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can't close this one because (1) I'm not an admin, and more importantly (2) I commented in the discussion. It looks to me like this could stay open for a month and we still wouldn't resolve it. I see legitimate arguments on both sides, and I would suggest closing it as no consensus, defaulting to status quo. Shalom ^Hello 16:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that after recounting the !votes, I counted 30:11 in favor of keeping the categories. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, and doesn't go by votes alone, this should count as something.--Ramdrake 16:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. I read the debate and decided on delete. THese categories are not helping the encyclopedia, same as many other user categories that have been recently deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was closed in error and against a demonstrable rough consensus to keep, ignoring valid argument for keeping the categories. Thus, I have requested a DRV at: [39].--Ramdrake 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{unblock}} backlog

Resolved

– Looks like it's been resolved, as there's just one anon in there now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let people know that those requesting unblock here have been waiting rather a long time.--Rambutan (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CN closure requested

The discussion at WP:CN#User:COFS has seen minimal traffic for the last day. Under discussion is a three month Scientology topic ban, reducible to one month if COFS enters WP:ADOPT, and COFS may post to Scientology talk pages during the ban. An uninvolved Wikipedian is needed to determine whether consensus exists to implement that proposal. Durova^Charge! 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and on an unrelated WP:CN note, some outside input at the Bus stop (talk · contribs) entry would probably be appreciated. As of right now only one uninvolved editor has chimed in there. I'd rather not see the WP:CN report just be another venue of an ongoing dispute between editors.--Isotope23 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any serious danger of the board degenerating that way, but an editor challenged my fairness at the COFS thread and we just need someone who's above suspicion to close it. If no one replies to this request I could petition some individual people, but I'd rather not take any action that could be misconstrued as canvassing. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False 'New Message' bars on people's user/talk pages

I'm allowed to remove them when I see them, right? It is technically disruptive. HalfShadow 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I suppose you are right but as long as the link doesn't go anyplace bad, I don't really care. Most such removal attempts seem to involve users who are already in conflict over other issues. If this is the case, it would be better to bring the matter to someone else's attention rather than escalate a dispute. Thatcher131 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Thatcher said. If you do remove them please don't fight over it if you get reverted. It just creates unnecessary drama. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing them is likely to be far more disruptive then just thinking to yourself "what a jackass" then going about your business. It's just shit that doesn't need to be disturbed. WilyD 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must really like worms, 'cause check it out -- I'm opening a can. I ask this because I really hate them: why isn't it policy to forbid them? It's either someone posting it for entertainment value, which is prohibited per WP:UP#Games, or it's someone being a dick, which is prohibited by, well, m:DICK. I understand there were beans-y objections to explicitly forbidding them, but it's come up often enough just in the past week. Granted, it is somewhat nice to have the dick-y editors categorized for me, but, well, did I mention how very much I hate them? Ugh. -- Merope 19:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making a rule against it is an interesting idea, because it would put a stop to the edit wars over their inclusion. --Masamage ♫ 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was some sort of restriction against having things that pretended to be Mediawiki features, but I can't find any page at the moment. In any case, there should be a rule preventing such "spoofing". Chaz ^Beckett 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find an inactive (not rejected) proposal at Wikipedia:Avoid imitating MediaWiki user interface elements. Chaz ^Beckett 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed at WT:UP#JOKE, but it didn't appear to be resolved -- someone threw out WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP and the matter was dropped. -- Merope 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the whole issue could be dealt with simply by having the software generate a more personalized message: instead of "You have new messages", it should say (for example) "Jpgordon has new messages". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond to the text, though, I respond to the box itself. --Masamage ♫ 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, that's in the category of "your problem and your problem alone." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was supposed to be a general "I". :P My guess is that a lot of people are so used to the orange bar at the top of the screen with the bolded "new messages" in it, that they immediately know what it means without needing the text, and click on the link. I don't think replacing "you" with a synonym of "you" over at the beginning of the line would do much good. --Masamage ♫ 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of replacing "You" in the beginning is that the spoofs all say "You", not whoever comes to the talk page. Unless someone is a miracle worker in wiki-syntax, I don't think it's possible for someone to spoof what he suggested. — Moe ε 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that it's the orange bar, not the text itself that causes a response. Would it be practical to make the message bar a specific color that could only be used by Mediawiki (i.e. this particular color couldn't be set manually)? Chaz ^Beckett 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one I think every color is already on Wikipedia, and two, I think it might be problem to restrict the use of the color orange on the site. :) — Moe ε 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't thinking of orange necessarily, maybe some seldom used color. It's probably not a very practical solution, though. I think I'd prefer just restricting people from faking the message boxes and asking them nicely to remove them. Chaz ^Beckett 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm going to be bold and nominate some pages directly used for the prank to be deleted. — Moe ε 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a half bad idea Jpgordon, do you know which MediaWiki file it is when someone gets new messages? Ideally, it shouldn't be that hard for the MediaWiki to recognize the user getting new messages and list the users' name instead of "You" since it already has a link to the talk page and latest change listed. — Moe ε 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the message is actually generated in includes/Skin.php. But -- it's a globalized message, and you'd need to reshape every damn message so that it can take the user name parameter. I don't know who does string globalization... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to change the colour of real "new messages" bars in your monobook.css, so that you learn to only respond to puke green message bars or something. Sancho 20:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the solution... put this in your monobook.css: .usermessage {background-color: #669933;}. Of course, you can pick your own colour. Sancho 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there is a great idea. --Masamage ♫ 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fine, if you want to be all logical about it. I still think the solution is to ruthlessly remove them and then protect the pages against re-adding them, but that's probably because I'm a power-mad rouge admin. -- Merope 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, crap, that doesn't work! The fake messages are the same color since they use the same parameters. I still think that massive rouge warfare is the answer. -- Merope 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw... I didn't know they completely faked the message bars. Yeah, then this doesn't work. But I like my new color :-) Sancho 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Can an admin please delete? Template:New Message. — Moe ε 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Merope 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you do happen to get a new message at the time you see one of the fake message bars, you end up being greeted by two message bars, the real one above the fake one. I personally have gotten into the habit of looking at the bottom of my browser to check the target location of the "(diff)" link. --Kyoko 21:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That time of year again, is it? The reason it isn't "policy to forbid them" is that we only forbid stuff that is important not to have. And because many people feel strongly about getting to put harmless, non-disruptive, non-insulting stuff on their pages. And I think especially because too many people get too much of a kick out of forbidding, removing, and protecting against, stuff on other people's pages. I don't have anybody who has posted above in mind when I say that, by the way. But please try to think of more useful things to do to help Wikipedia than touring it exploring your "hatred" of some silly joke. Revert vandalism. Edit articles. Avoid obsessing about other people's pages and instigating edit wars, hurt feelings, and humiliations. If the hate is nevertheless getting the better of you, how about going for a walk or something? Bishonen | talk 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Those words are so wise that I wonder did they come from Bishzilla, forgetting that she was logged on as Bishonen? The "new messages" hoax is the kind of joke that gets a bit tiresome, but not so tiresome that putting a stop to it at all costs is more important than writing articles, than not hurting feelings, or than not getting into silly edit wars. Don't make a big issue over something that may be mildly annoying but that really isn't doing any harm. ElinorD (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bishzilla would have said it something like this:

Box is problem 1 big. If annoys you 1 big, you are happy, in control of self. If annoys you 100 big, you are problem 99 big. Seek therapy. RoarRR!

Hesperian 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even without any context, that's hilarious. --Masamage ♫ 00:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making a rule against this would be a serious over-reacting. It's mildly annoying, but you will only ever encounter it on a user's talk page. I find when people put a ton of extraneous material at the topic of their talk page "mildly annoying" too -- but I don't think we should ban those, either. --Haemo 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If quarrels joke banner, please apply at Bishzilla Dispute Resolution Board And Swedish Massage Parlor. [/Bishzilla goes off to put joke banner at top of her Dispute Resolution page.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

By the way, for anyone who cares, there's a way to turn the links to black on all fake message bars. Add this to your Special:Mypage/monobook.css:

 .a[href *="USERNAME"] { background-color: #FFFFFF; }

replacing USERNAME with your own username. Ral315 » 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested history merge - Welland Viaduct and Harringworth Viaduct

Resolved

On 6 June, the contents of Harringworth Viaduct were moved to Welland Viaduct by cut and paste, with the former left as a redirect. There have been subsequent edits to Welland Viaduct. Is it possible for an admin to merge the histories of these two articles please? – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - next time you can use WP:SPLICE. KrakatoaKatie 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't create AfD page for IEEE 754r/Annex Z due to slash embedded in article name

Resolved

Trying to follow the steps at WP:AFD to nominate for deletion IEEE 754r/Annex Z, the 'subst:afd2' expands into a nonsense string due to the slash embedded in the article name. This prevents me from creating the deletion discussion page. Does anyone know how to escape the slash? Note that this article is not a subpage; the slash is part of the name. Any help would be greatly appreciated. EdJohnston 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pagename Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE 754r/Annex Z looks fine to me--VectorPotential^Talk 20:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page without trouble. I'm guessing that when you were trying to create the AfD page, you neglected to manually replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} with IEEE 754r/Annex Z, which is necessary when nominating /-containing titles. You should probably go overwrite or add to my nomination depending on how well it reflects your reasons. --tjstrf talk 20:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for extra admin eyeballs on Chris Benoit

Major story breaking now out of Atlanta that he, his wife, and their five year old son were found dead. Of course, this is touching off the usual fast and furious edit war on the article with rumors (that it was all a hoax), and wild stuff from all over the place. It's already been semi-protected, and I'm gonna try to keep it under control, but it might not be a bad thing to have extra admins looking over it (especially for BLP matters etcetera) SirFozzie 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was a seven year old son ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax – AP has it now too. We should watch all the WWE articles a bit more closely than usual. - KrakatoaKatie 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ANI report on it already, and it was semi'd preemptively. hbdragon88 04:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that preemptive protection and blocking was against policy, has this changed? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking

Resolved

As an admin, when I want to delete stuff in my own userspace I can just do it, right? (This is just housekeeping, not anything strange like my talkpage.) --Masamage ♫ 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If {{db-author}} would apply, yes. You don't need to tag it, just do it. As no one else is supposed to be editing your userspace, it probably applies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided it's done in good faith, yes. The user talk page might be an exception, but beyond that, it's difficult to think of any obvious or common example to the contrary. For non-admins, {{db-owner}} works just as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all what I figured, and it makes sense; just wanted to be sure. Thanks. :) --Masamage ♫ 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cjmarsicano blocked for 48 hours

I have been in contact with Cjmarsicano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the past couple of days because of a thread started either her on WP:ANI about the WikiProject he is involved in and its complete disregard for fair use policies. I've been trying to explain to him the fact that fair use images of living individuals are replaceable, but he continued to say how he feels that they are not replaceable, and he has been referring to others in this as copyright nazis and then proceeded to leave messages on everyone in the WikiProject's talk page in lieu of WP:CANVASS. I had tried to discuss the issue with him civilly, but he feels that fair use allows him to use the promotional photos in the English Wikipedia's articles. After he was warned about WP:CANVASS, he proceeded to repeat the talk page spamming, but giving out his e-mail the the individuals. This stemmed from his belief that he is the moderator/owner of WP:H!P and had warnings on the page that users who were not part of the project were not allowed to edit it, as well as the fact about fair use images (that myself, Abu badali, hbdragon88, and others have been trying to fix). I have currently blocked him for 48 hours. If this needs to be shortened, extended, lifted, let that be brought up here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cjmarsicano's reply can be seen here, where he explicitly gave me permission to post the e-mail.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He referred to people as "copyright nazis"? Right there is incivility unbecoming of a contributor who has been here this long. (messedrocker • talk) 03:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, no one linked to the actual WP:CANVASS page on his user talk page until I did (nobody informed him that Abu badali also filed an ANI report on him, either), just 16 minutes before Ryulong blocked him. "Canvassing" is a somewaht vague concept; on Wikipedia the definition is somewhat different than the general idea. hbdragon88 03:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me

Can something be done about Rklawton who wants to block me for removing post of my talkpage which i'm allowed to do, He is being very rude. ExtraDry 05:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, refraining from calling his simple warning a "personal attack" and "vandalism" is a good start, although his responses have been a little heavy-handed I think. Grand master ka 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary from edits of Oli Wood

Resolved

Can some admin please look at the edit summeries used by Oli Wood, and confirm on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hel Hufflepuff (2nd) whether or not the summery is based on a link to WP:IAR? A partial list of pages (based on his talk page history): Jan Steeman, Mikhail Davidov, Tim Hurst, Sitara. Deletion log suggests a few more: Caribou Public Library, Jacky Bonnevay, OdinJobs, Luz Del Mundo, Superwookie, Press Records, Exclusion of evidence on the ground of unfairness, Cleland Boyd McAfee, IFrogz, Rings (film). Od Mishehu 07:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Riana (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Benoit and wikipedia announcing the death of Nancy Daus before it was announced

This edit announced the death of Nancy Daus several hours before it was publically announced by the Atlanta police department which is odd in its ownhowever more interestingly the IP resolved to the ISP Optimum Online resolving to Stamford, Connecticut which is the location of World Wrestling Entertainment headquarters. It seems wikipedia got a news leak before it became public knowledge. Is this anything to worry or inquire about? –– Lid^(Talk) 15:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, news is frequently added to Wikipedia before a lot of news press releases. One notable time I remember this I belive is when Steve Irwin died. [40] — Moe ε 15:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably hearsay because the anon seems partially informed (due to the "peculiar text messages sent over the weekend"? [41]). Sources claim that wife and kid were killed a couple of days earlier than Benoit, and some implicate him in a suicide-murder. We'll see in the next few days. Niko Silver 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that last night and there were several wrestling sites that were reporting it before any news sites had it. Corvus cornix 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, that reads hoaxish; it refers to the June 11th fight, weeks before either of their deaths. While it might have been based on anything (the earliest reports were just of a 'husband, wife and child', before Benoit was a named, so not hard to figure out her identity), it's more the sort of thing we lock down recently deceased articles for, and not a real issue. It also seems to have been cleared up quickly. --Thespian 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the line it was added to was Vengeance which was this Sunday during the weekend it is thought to have been when he trangled her. –– Lid^(Talk) 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a suspected edit by WWE HQ in Connecticut mentioned, quite matter-of-factly, that Chris Benoit's wife (and only his wife) were dead leads me to believe that Benoit contacted somebody after killing his wife, but before killing his kid and himself. Maybe he didn't say "um, boss, I just killed my wife" but something more like "um, boss, my wife has passed away, I'm going to be gone for awhile". Whoever made that edit:

Might not have known Nancy was murdered.
Definitely knew Nancy was dead.
Had no idea about the murder of the kid or about the suicide.
Made the edit before the three deaths were reported (in the same announcement, some 16 hours later).

Am I missing anything? —freak(talk) 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to conclude that Benoit contacted anyone. It could be that a policeman contacted WWE, but gave them only partial information. In any case, this sort of thing has happened before: I've known of cases where someone from a news organization has scooped the organization's own story by adding it in here. Chick Bowen 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are news sources saying that Chris Benoit sent text messages to his co-workers, so yes, he was trying to talk to someone. — Moe ε 21:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's what we know:

The Wikipedia edit to Chris Benoit noting Nancy's death was at 04:01, June 25 (UTC), which is 00:01, (12:01 a.m.; one minute after midnight eastern U.S. time; -- which includes WWE HQ in Connecticut, and the murder site in Georgia) on the night of June 24. [42]
Sources say that Fayette County Sheriff's Department entered the house and found the bodies at about 2:30 p.m., EST (18:30 UTC) on June 25.[43][44][45]. This is some 14 1/2 hours after the "Nancy is Dead" edit.
Unless of course the police actually found the bodies the previous day, on June 24, before midnight, the WWE knew Nancy was dead before the police knew. It's more likely that someone at WWE told the police that Nancy was dead rather than the opposite.

—freak(talk) 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, hold on - this seems a bit suspect to me, so someone added that nancy had died before the police entered the house?? Maybe we're trivialising this a little too much, there just seems a little more to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the edit, yes. However, there is no reason to believe that whoever made the edit knew that she had been murdered. It could be that Benoit contacted the WWE and told them that his wife had died from natural causes/accident and then when the WWE was unable to contact him the next day, they asked the police to swing by and that's when the police discovered the bodies.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is, surely we have an ethical responsibility to contact the local police investigating the murder about this, it may turn out to be information they already have, but it may help the investigations. Would anyone mind if I emailed them? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it appears that people are running off a fowl stench that symbolizes nothing. If this is true, and more importantly: actually does play any relevance in determing what was the driving force behind such incidents, it would require someone whom had prior knowledge about something that important and was/is in a position of prominent power, why would they actually bother by going on Wikipedia to actually place a bizzarre edit like that. It could be from rumors or information slipping through the grapevine, regardless, it doesn't really appear to have anything that is of crucial or dire need of the care of the community when there are bigger fish to fry and more Zapruder-esque things to disregard. Yanksox 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This discussion should be closed if there is no furthur administrative action needed. Ryan, feel free to e-mail them or take it to WP:OFFICE, but it's probably not worth it. — Moe ε 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that WP:OFFICE should, or even could, do anything about this, but I believe this incongruity of events is worth noting in the article if it can be properly sourced, that is, if news agencies publish this startling discovery. Perhaps Daniel Brandt would be willing to contact them regarding these anonymous edits, as he has so many times before. —freak(talk) 22:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request history merge of William Arthur Bruce to William Arthur McCrae Bruce

Could an admin please do a history merge of William Arthur Bruce into William Arthur McCrae Bruce, and then decide if William Arthur McCrae Bruce ought to be moved to William Bruce (soldier)? --Eastmain 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.192.56.88 again!

Resolved

He has been insulting me again diff after this warning User_talk:68.192.56.88#Where_we_assholes_come_from, third message. Can he get a block now? W1k13rh3nry 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for serial vandalism and trolling, which I consider a much bigger problem.--Isotope23 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards