Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use 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 opening a close appeal, 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

Questions about deletion

Hello, I had asked some questions about deletion on the policy talk page, but didn't get many answers, so I would like to ask a few questions here, as they concern administrators also. In this diff, Cbrown1023 is saying the closing decision for an AfD can be based on a vote count. I thought I had seen somewhere that AfD specifically did not work by vote count, which one is true ? I am asking because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonfly CMS, what I don't understand is that there are no third party links in that article, it's undeniable, as far as I can see. Yet the AfD still closed as Keep even though nobody gave any indication of notability. Also people are saying that article is still being written, yet it was started over 2 years ago ?! In the case of companies or products, if they can't provide proof of notability in over 2 years and nobody in the AfD proves notability, how come it is not deleted ? I have heard of how "I DON'T LIKE," is not a reason for deleting, is "I DO LIKE", a valid reason for keeping an article ?
I know about WP:DRV and have read most of the policy pages relating to deletion. I am not asking for anything to be done, just for some answers if possible please. If you don't like me asking questions, please don't ignore me, just tell me to stop asking questions. Thanks. Jackaranga 14:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it qualifies under Speedy Delete - A7. I have marked it as such. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be marked as a speedy deletion candidate or a prod candidate unless there is a reasonable expectation that the deletion would be uncontroversial. This article went through an AFD where there was a split among keep and delete comments. That indicates that it does not meet the 'uncontroversial' criterion for speedy deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think since there was so little feedback the admin should have relisted the AfD rather than a simple 'keep' for vote tallying sake. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So is vote counting one way of choosing the outcome of an AfD? If there are not enough policy related arguments I guess they have no choice but to listen to the majority. Jackaranga 10:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have closed the debate as delete despite the fact there wasn't a single delete vote. Ceyockey - It qualifies under speedy delete. Clearly. The fact that 3 people at AFD miss that point dosn't change anything. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• To clear up a misconception - articles should not be PRODded after a deletion debate; however, speedy deletion trumps AFD, hence anything that meets the speedy criteria can be deleted regardless of what people say about it on AFD.
• Aside from that, I note that the principal arguments to keep on the AFD are "for procedural reasons" (which doesn't make any sense in this context) and "Is under active development" (which is irrelevant, and also inaccurate judged by the edit history). Based on that, the closing is doubtful.
• And aside from that, after more than two years here, the article has very little content, no sources whatsoever, does not assert significance, the recent "fix" was adding copyvio text from the developer's site, focuses mostly on "features" in an advertising tone, and is plausibly linkspam. Hence, deleted. >Radiant< 11:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal liberation POV pushing by admins

Fishing expeditions may be a pleasant way to spend a vacation in Baja California, but please don't ask me embark upon one at Wikipedia unless you're treating me to the other kind too.

There is a group of powerful admins pushing an animal rights agenda here at wikipedia. It is hurting wikipedia. Please help. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. Thank you. WAS 4.250 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see two comments. One by you accusing people out of the blue, and one by Cerejota, who isn't even an admin. Please explain this disconnection. —Kurykh 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments both here and on that AfD page strike me as seriously inappropriate and unnecessarily hostile towards Cerejota. I'd suggest that you tone down your language. -- ChrisO 19:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There sounds like there is alot more to this, but you'll need to explain the issue further Was 4.250. You can't expect us to do all the digging. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Factory farming has the dispute in all its nitty gritty. Slim Virgin and her friends are the powerful admins. If they stay out of this, then all the better. Cerejota claims are a puppet like match for SlimVirgin's mistaken claims. I don't pretend to know who is or is not a sockpuppet or a meat puppet or a follower or just a like thinker. But this behavior (animal rights POV pushing) has been going on for too long and it is disruptive. This latest effort is just that. It is part of a larger POV effort that extends back months or years. I believe that some of SlimVirgin's first efforts were in animal rights articles (there are allegations of some oversighting here; but I haven't looked). Interestingly, the actual SlimVirgin edits I've seen on animal rights pages look fine to me. It's slim's edits on agricultural articles that I have a problem with. And her friends like Cerejota appear to me to blindly support her edits and strategies. For all I know, Slim and her actual close friends have decided to back off and the latest effort by Cerejota may be just him left twisting in the wind. I really don't know, and consider SlimVirgin a great asset to wikipedia except for her blind spot in the area of animal rights. I think if enough disinterested admins actually read the articles and talk pages all will work out just fine. That's what I'm hoping for. WAS 4.250 19:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still like to see some specifics and not continued generalities. No one is going to take the time to look into this if you don't take it serious enough to spend your own time gathering specifics. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia building requires reading encyclopedia articles. I claim Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture is POV motivated. Cerejota claims the article content itself is POV motivated. I ask that people here read the article and make up their own minds. This would be a content dispute except that the claims are either a personal attack on me by him or a personal attack on him by me. Which is which depends on whether the article is as he says or not. That judgment can only be made by reading the article. Please read Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture and let us know who needs to apologize to who. Thank you for your time. "So this is all about who is to apologize. Stop wasting our time and both apologize." No No No. That's not it. Once you have helped with choosing what constitutes NPOV here; this will help at Talk:Factory farming with its ongoing months long off and on again revert war. WAS 4.250 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim that the contents are POV motivated, I claim[1] the article is a POV fork, and that the contents have various issues, mostly WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and geographical bias (i.e. {{globalize}}. Please do not further misrepresent my position. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Specific diffs, please. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that I started this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WAS_4.250 because I had no idea this existed, as WAS has not informed me. I would have appreciated if he would have had the same courtesy I had with him in informing the involved.

My posting said:

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Challenges_and_issues_of_industrial_agriculture User:WAS 4.250 once again launched an uncalled for personal attack against me, including a series of unfounded accusations, and an unspecified call for a ban, simply because I have argued for deletion of an article he started as a POV fork.

In the past I have placed another Incident report here on this very user, and it was ignored, however this is the second time the user does this, and this is extremely unacceptable and uncivil behavior.

In response to my AfD request, he says:

Cerejota, your outrageous personal attacks and biased wiki-lawyering to further the goals of the animal liberation movement are harming wikipedia. You and your fellow travelers should be banned from wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks from me to him, and I have not wikilawyered in any significant fashion (in an AfD one HAS to state policy violations as part of a nom), and I am not part of animal liberation movement, nor do I have fellow travelers (I have actually been on the other end of editing disputes with User:SlimVirgin another active editor of Factory farming).

His accusations are false, uncivil and calling for a ban of a fellow wikipedian on no grounds at all is extremely bad behavior. I leave remedy up to the admins, but I just want to know why I can't go to ArbCom with this extreme example of unwarranted personal attack.

I do admit being involved in previous editing conflicts with this user, however he has declined several calls for formal Mediation around the articles in question, and continues free and unwarranted attacks. He must be brought under control. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides this, I must state I am not an admin, and that he re-stated his personal attack here [2].

I must also state that I apologize if he feels I have launched a personal attack, as this is not my intention, however, it would be useful if he described in what fashion I have attacked him, as I can honestly not see any personal attack in my contributions and comments.

I also repeat my request that someone tell me why I should or shouldn't raise this to ArbCom. The user seems unrepentant, and this is not the first time he does this. He also repeatedly refuses to engage on all other steps in WP:DR. If he is not made to understand why his behavior is unacceptable, then ArbCom is the only answer I can think of. Thanks! --Cerejota 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, SlimVirgin and I do agree a lot on these pages, however we have had some less-than-pleasant encounters in the past. Claims of meatpuppetry are beyond the pale and extremely worrying. This is not even fishing. This is out-and-out poisoning the well to protect the POV fork page Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture from being deleted. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WAS has again engaged in unwarranted personal attacks, this time in the edit summaries here and here.

He alleges I have performed vandalism, when in fact both tags where place along with comments in all relevant talk pages here, here, and here.

If he disputes the tags and merge proposal, he is free to discuss in the talk pages in question, but calling "vandalism" what constitutes normal wikipedia tagging and discussion process is really insulting, and a wanton disregard for process, in particular considering this thread here and the AfD.

This wanton incivility is intolerable. Thanks!--Cerejota 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I recently came across this dispute while browsing ANI, and I would like to offer an outside opinion. I'm not sure that those reverts are necessarily examples of "wanton incivility". Obviously it's somewhat abrasive to call someone else's edits vandalism, but the discussion posted on the talk page is fairly inadequate. Some kind of specifics should be used when posting a message like that, otherwise, the tag could conceivably remain up there forever. Hypothetically, if a user decided to post "I think this is in violation of WP:SYNTH" and threw up a tag, the tag could remain forever because the justification for adding it is not "here are some issues", but rather, "I think this is a violation." This is in contrast to saying "X section needs an entire rewrite" or "I think this is SYNTH because X,Y,Z..." No matter now much change happens, the user could still claim it's a SYNTH issue until the page is deleted or there's some huge controversy or whatever. This may give the impression that you're more interested in placing tags on the page than solving the issues set forth by the tags. I'm not accusing you of anything, but please keep in mind that communication is the most important thing to the editorial process. Without communication, other editors cannot effectively understand the problem and thus cannot fix it. .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I only just saw this notice. I would request that this thread remain open for at least an additional 24 hours so that I may gather diffs to support WAS's statements above. As a side note, I would ask that readers recognize that Cerejota's remarks regarding personal attacks/etc. are irrelevant to the points WAS raised in this thread. Jav43 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not irrelevant. An administrator asked me to join them in here from a different thread, as clearly noted above. You just arrive and are already engaging in the usual baseless accusations and are failing to assume good faith. Good move. Admins, take note. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is something unhealthy afoot. WAS has not necessarily expressed himself well, but has been subject to a dismissive campaign of unfounded statements of lack of competence in editing the various articles. Farming is a broad subject which deserves proper coverage on Wikipedia. WAS has been instrumental in producing a lot of articles which seem to me to have a coherent structure and are a worthy attempt at increasing the worth of Wikipedia. Cerejota, has been party to a faction who have imposed ownership on the factory farming article. Any attempts to restructure this, even when justified by copious discussion, is dismissed and reverted. Crum375, SlimVirgin and Cerejota have been one side of an edit war. The notable point is that one side's version is dismissed via policy this that and the other, and the other version is supported by poor quality sources apparently sourced by Google searches to fit the points - so called source based research.

Admin User:John undertook to moderate, but for whatever reason is not currently active. Since he declared a fresh start, the faction of Cerejota, Crum375 and SlimVirgin were silent on the talk page. Various discussions were attempted and have not been responded to. Cerejota last commented on the talk page on 25th July. [3].

Since then you can read the discussion page and see that there have been a number of discussion points about issues with the article. These in part related to what should have been fairly uncontroversial edits.

Cerejota then all of a sudden waded in without discussion and did this.[4] with edit note (restore npov intro... "advantages" is a claim, not a true statement). Further edits, with all the usual aspects of edit warring ensued. Cerejota makes comments such as (restore to last good version, please see talk) but this appears to refer to some historic discussion. Cerejota's total contribution to discussion has been to quote policy breeches without explaining how. For example these edits, used to support his case are simple claims of policy breech without explaining why - here, here, and here this is The Bellman's Rule of Three (what I say three times is true). I haven't gone all the way back through history, but I do not see any contributions other than reverts to the article by Cerejota in the last few months. This is an unhealthy characteristic for an editor. Having stood by silently, all of a sudden Crum375 and SlimVirgin joined in the edit war.

I would highlight the SV involvement. I had picked up through my watch page that SV was on some form of WikiBreak. ElinorD has been standing guard over her home page, reverting some trolling and a few innocent waifs and strays who got caught in the firing line. She commented that SV was not on Wiki but was contactable by email. I highlight her history where she appears from Wikibreak and having been inactive since the 7th, the first three edits are on the deletion request and Factory farming ([5] [6][7]). As is typical in the factory farming edit warring, the tag teaming is joined by Crum375 [8]. The sole edit from Crum375 on discussion is this [9] which does not discuss content. In the context of the discussion, it is a discussion which starts with myself expressing confusion as to what the actual problem is. Interestingly, Cerejota for the first time makes a statement based on content, however, whilst making a claim that he has the sources to back his position up, he does not add these to the article to justify his reversion which is taking a position.

What is the point of these ramblings? It appears that Cerejota believes that a continuous campaign of repetitious quoting of policy without reasoned debate, whilst personalising the discussion into his proofs, his views, the wrongness of other editors is all perfectly normal and acceptable and cannot possibly be misinterpreted as personal attack[10]. Further, Crum375 joins in with the edit warring. Complain of this he will look innocent and aggrieved (yet was party to the edit warring that last got the Factory farming page protected). SlimVirgin is the one editor who has been genuinely trying to make a contribution to the page, but has reacted with such ownership that reasoned debate does not seem possible. (I have made my views on the issues with the structure of the page clear on the discussion page and would challenge anyone to assert that I am unreasonable in putting them forward as an improvement to the subject e.g. [11]). SV has walked away from discussion essentially claiming harassment, whereas she cannot see that perhaps the need for lengthy rebuttals is her intransigent position, supported by her edit warriors. Acting in concert is seen as bad thing when it is those against Cerejota, yet if you analyse the contributions, they are coming from different angles and there is no particular organised faction, yet SV and Crum are a well known pairing, Cerejota I have no view of aside from on Factory Farming and related articles, who subscribe to the view that their edit warring is appropriate in the face of all the evil trollers like myself that they face on a daily basis. Spenny 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for silence have been clear: wanton incivility of the type that WAS has presented is the only response any editor that doesn't subject him or herself to his WP:SYNTH, along with a crew of his enforcers, which include you, in spite of your attempt at showing yourself as neutral and uninvolved. I completely disagree I have not made contributions: they are simply reverted by WAS' gang. And in spite of you trying to minimize WAS wanton incivility, I suggest you focus on it to find out what is a foot. His denial to go into formal mediation is at the heart of this situation. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use jargon like SYNTH, you will find that stating what you mean in full will make communication more productive. Secretlondon 06:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and misrepresentations. There are two sides, at least, to an edit war. I do not claim to be neutral or uninvolved. I am not part of a gang. I have ploughed my own furrow on the Factory farming article. I have no contact with any other involved party outside Wikipedia, my involvement is totally traceable. I have no contact with the other parties that you call the gang outside the factory farming and closely related pages. As can be seen if you care to read rather than assume, I do not wholeheartedly agree with WAS. I do explain and justify my edits on the talk page. I recall WAS gave his reasoning as to why he felt mediation was inappropriate, it is a personal attack to use this rather than consider the matter in hand. From his talk page, it appears you have succeeded in your aim in driving him away, albeit hopefully temporarily. Thanks!--Spenny 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bouncing an idea

I've written a user space essay that might be a good addition to WP:NOT. Please see User:Durova/Wikipedia is not an experiment in consensus reality. Feedback and improvements are welcome. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with its content, though I might title it, "Wikipedia is not on the cutting edge" or something. The point being, as Durova has articulated, that Wikipedia changes in response to changes in human understanding, not in anticipation of them. I encounter this problem often enough that I'd support adding something to this effect to WP:NOT. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not precognitive? Wikipedia does not predict the future? Wikipedia is not a social trendsetter? (brainstorming names). Like the content.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about wikiality? Durova^Charge! 06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't that what WP:NPOV is about? >Radiant< 11:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I wonder if the corollary applies as well? By which I mean if sources we use now later disappear from the historical record, should we remove the sources because they can no longer be verified (and we can't be sure that anyone ever did verify them). I phrase this as "if society can't be bothered to keep a record of something, Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to preserve the record", or put another way "Wikipedia is not intended to be used to document past information that has since been lost". Which brings me back to Durova's point, which seems to be "Wikipedia is not intended to be used to document information that hasn't yet 'arrived'". If you get my meaning. Once the information has arrived, we can use it. If it disappears, we can no longer use it. This all goes back to Wikipedia being a tertiary source, not a secondary or primary source. Carcharoth 14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As stated at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I'd say Durova's essay is covered by WP:NOR, rather than WP:NPOV, though of course these are all related at some level. Carcharoth 14:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "if society can't be bothered to keep a record of something, Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to preserve the record" Wikipedia is not a time capsule? --Eyrian 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes. That's a good way of putting it. Carcharoth 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, I'm trying to imagine an example of this happening: say, a website vanishes & all references to it (including those in the Wayback Machine) are removed; or say all copies of a book or article are destroyed, & all references to it also removed. I really can't see either of these happening to the kinds of sources I use. I need an example that couldn't arguably also be an example of a primary source. -- llywrch 20:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I was thinking more of the way people use obscure newspaper references to document current media events and celebrities. It may not be apparent now, but I think that in 10 years time or so, we may be surprised by how much information is 'lost'. I hope I'm wrong, and that the masses of information achieve some sort of order, and that the information is preserved, but I think that certain types of attenuation will take place as well. The Internet Wayback Machine helps, but what comes after that? Huge stores of old information may suffer the fate I see collections of old pictures suffer - they get bartered off to the highest bidder, and then it gets repackaged, and slowly but surely the information degrades. Not the literal information, but the organisation, especially with problems of backwards compatibility. Google Groups is an interesting case in point. Usenet message IDs used to be the way to identify old messages (and you can still do that), but lots of people now use the Google Groups message ID, which is different. The connection point between the two is in a Google database somewhere. Unless you have the date and name of the poster, you rely on the connections being maintained between the two identifying numbers. Those who subscribe to the en-wikipedia mailing list may remember what happened when the message-id system changed, and old links to previous posts were pointing at the wrong posts. The SNIPURL and similar services hold a store of information links. If those databases are lost, the old URLS become meaningless. On Wikipedia, links to old AN threads fail once the thread is archived, unless you link to a version section (though there is a bot proposed to deal with this). But to get back to the main point, another example is that I see people linking to information on current websites that is incredibly transitory - like the current price of a computer game. I think to myself "If someone comes back in five year's time and finds that the link doesn't work, how do they verify that information?" Some of the stuff mentioned on websites is hardly ever accessible once the website is revamped or redesigned, and not all wesbites are archived by the WayBack Machine. But if you use reliable, long-term sources, then no problem. Carcharoth 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The essay holds a great sentiment, but the trend it criticizes can't be wished away. Knowledgeable, experienced contributors are often driven off by solipsists and hacks, editors who couldn't care less about how NPOV relates to the real world. Even well-intentioned and well-informed editors can become predisposed to injecting bias after years of contribution and a false sense of entitlement. What practices would you suggest be put in place to maintain impartiality? Whats the best way to cure those who suffer from an immunity to reality checks? Maybe there is some way to encourage review of Wikipedia articles by respected, professional publications. The Nature study certainly had a positive effect. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and that's why I've come to think an explicit policy statement on that point would be a good idea. Some of the existing clauses approach the idea, but there's no specific wording targeted to address wikiality. I've seen university assignments that ask students to analyze Wikipedia as a phenomenon and specifically ask about how the concept of consensus reality relates to the site. To a lot of people that connection is intuitive. So volunteers expend a lot of time attempting to communicate how that's not what open editing is about. We'd be in a stronger position to communicate that if WP:NOT included a direct statement. Durova^Charge! 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The first pillar needs its own page. One simple paragraph that encapsulates this whole encyclopedia thing we're working on. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what "encyclopedic" means on Wikipedia has always been difficult to pin down. In many ways, it is defined by what is rejected. ie. by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. One of the difficulties is the not paper point, and the sheer size of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is effectively a broad, general encyclopedia, and lots of specialist encyclopedias, all rolled into one. Carcharoth 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Turning page RFC into a virtual Arbcom hearing

I protest the turning of a neutral request for comments on an article into what is essentially an illegitimate arbcom complaint. See here. This is totally not appropriate. If editors want to make comments about text on an entry, that is one thing, but the RFC on me as an editor has just been delisted. It is outrageous that there now is an attempt to circumvent this by turning a page text review into an attack on me and my editing.--Cberlet 02:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the RFC was delisted once and this is just an attempt to sidestep that. I'm not familar with the issues here but I'm tempted to delete it unless the creator User:Thedagomar moves it into his or her user space. RxS 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagreed with the deletion of the user-conduct RfC, as did several other admins. However, starting a content RfC and then hijacking it to focus on the conduct of specific editors is a misuse of process. I agree with Cberlet and RxS that the content RfC is being used inappropriately, and deletion would be in order. I wouldn't encourage moving it to userspace, because a page like that in userspace (i.e. outside of the dispute resolution machinery) is essentially an attack page. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about moving it either, I went ahead and deleted it. If User:Thedagomar wants it back it can be restored into his userspace, but I agree that's not a good option. RxS 03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to object to the deletion of the RfC on the following grounds. The Remedies section was a boo boo on my part. It was meant to be a talking points section. This was a content RfC not the delisted conduct RfC. Dagomar 05:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the article RfC, because I think that this is a user conduct problem, not an article content problem. What is outrageous is the deletion of the user conduct RfC. Does this user (Cberlet) have some sort of free pass to violate policy? He is up to his old tricks again at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, re-inserting material from his organization's website that appears to violate BLP. --Marvin Diode 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Iasson requested unblock by e-mail

Back in May 2006, I extended User:Iasson's year-long ArbCom ban after another suspected sockpuppet (Gorbrown). I have now received an e-mail from Iasson, asking to be unblocked, and stating that he is not Gorbrown, and that a year-long ban has expired by now.

Since I am not an administrator anymore (I resigned them back in November), I ask that someone else consider this request and decide whether unblocking the account is appropriate, and if so, do the unblock.

For background I refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson, and note that there were several instances of ban evasion, including a host of "Bank of Wikipedia" accounts around. The original case regarded massive disruption to the VFD (now AFD) process and serious abuse of accounts. Personally, I have no strong opinion on whether this ban should be rescinded due to it's age, or whether it should remain in place due to the severity of the disruption. I have no knowledge on whether the claim of no ban-evasion attempts the past year is true or not. I'll entrust this case to the current admin corps. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did his email pledge to actually edit Wikipedia articles, and not to try to change Wikipedia policy on every AfD? And to quit making nonsense like Bank of Wikipedia? Corvus cornix 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid opened

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Esmehwp

Esmehwp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has racked up an impressive number of NPA, NOR, and similar warnings. Ignoring image license notices, the following is a brief record of the talk page history for this user:

1. 20 February 2007: Tells AuburnPilot to "go shoot yourself"[12] Response:[[13]
   • Blanked user talk page with "my apologies" edit summary[14]
2. 1 March 2007: On Talk:Jesus: "policy my foot, I'll do as I see fit. Don't waste your time wagging your finger, I won't respond"[15] Vassanya leaves civility note[16] and Welcome2[17]; Ecto leaves comment about Talk:Jesus comments on user talk page[18]; Response is "YEAH YEAH YEAH... move along nothin to see here"[19]
   • 1 March 2007 Esmehwp replaces talk page with "hello"[20]
3. 21 March 2007: Edit wars on Zionism (sample edit summary: "disgusting attempt at whitewashing history reminds one of british colonization of tazmania")[21]; BrandonYusufToropov requests end to edit war[22] adds Welcome message[23]
   • 6 April 2007, Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[24]
4. 13 April 2007, Ethan a dawe requests care regarding NOR and fact-checking[25], discussion ensues
   • 13 April 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[26]
5. 30 April 2007 JuJube requests no edit warring on Baha'i Faith[27]
   • 1 May 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[28]
6. 27 May 2007 Another request for sourcing and NOR[29] this time by Raymond arritt, which also includes note of BLP. Updated to include Astroturfing warning[30] Esmewhp declines discussion[31]
   • 29 May 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[32]
7. 14 June 2007 Ultramarine warns against Wikistalking[33]
   • 14 June 2007 Esmehwp blanks page[34] replacing content with "hello"[35]
8. 14 June 2007 Ultramarine warns against Harassment, adding 3RR warning[36]
   • 14 June 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[37]
9. 14 June 2007 Ultramarine leaves note about RS, V, NPOV[38]
   • 14 June 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[39]
10. 14 and 15 June 2007 Ultramarine suggest mediation[40]. Esmehwp rejects mediation[41] telling Ultramarine not to remove his/her edits, and no mediation would be indicated. Ultramarine reminds Esmehwp about WP:V[42] Esmehwp responds very rudely: "you think I don't know WP policies? don't do that again. read my writing. if you cant understand what I'm saying to you then there's no point in talking. LAST WORD: delete and you'll be reverted. FULL STOP"[43] Ultramarine tries again[44], Giovanni33 suggests compromise[45] Esmehwp responds with insults and accusations to Ulramarine[46] " I will restore deleted information if I feel the deletion is POV or if it detracts from the article. ultramarine thinks USA is the best country in the world and that is his dogma there is nothing anyone can do about it. it is not based on reason logic or facts its an emotional thing he is an ideological fanatic the only way to stop him biasing WP into his own dogma, is to stand up to him you cant compromise with fanatics I'm not going to run around finding sources for everything he disputes, he can add what he likes he can put up tags if he wants but he cant go around deleting things i'm going to stop him. (...)PS No Ultramarine I don't share your dogma so there's no point in mediation. (emphasis added) Discussion ensues, Utramarine points Esmehwp to Ad hominem, dispute is taken to AN/I(Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259#Wikistalking)
    • 15 June 2007. Most hostile page blanking yet. Replaced page with 'Hello GET off my user page ULTRAMARINE!!!! there is no point talking to this idiot you just have to fight him[47] Spartan-James reverted, adding vandal warning (incorrectly, unfortunately)
    • 15 June 2007 so Esmehwp blanked the page again, with the now familiar "hello"[48]
11. 13 August 2007 Jossi leaves NPA warning[49]
    • 13 August 2007 and in two edits, Esme states "thanks already deleted" then replaces page with "hello"[50]
12. 13 August 2007 SOPHIA leaves NPA warning regarding edits on WP:AE[51]
13. 13 August 2007 KillerChihuahua (I) leave NPA warning regarding an edit on User talk:ThAtSo[52]

And here we are. Out of 400 edits, some dozen plus warnings on his/her talk page. Please note I did NOT dig through the rest of the contributions, but confined myself to the talk page of the editor with the exception of the Zionism incident. Check contribs if you are interested in more insulting edit summaries used by this editor, and more talk-page insults on article talk pages. I'd take this to Rfc, but as the consistant response of this user has been to blank the page to "hello" and modify his behavior not at all, sometimes with the addition of ad hom attacks, I don't see that an Rfc will have any effect either. Does anyone have any bright ideas on how to get through to this editor? Does anyone think Rfc might help at all? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alienus.

Regardless of identity, I have seen little from this editor but trouble. For example, he calls Christian editors "bible worshipping worms" who "will snuff out anyone who speaks against their love for jesus."05:17, 13 August 2007Proabivouac 06:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

if there is a fair judge here she'll see that I'm a so-so contributor with a bit of a temper but that i act in good faith and do care about WP, and if I make mistakes I always apologise and and I'm being persecuted by a bunch of christian zealots who are trying to scare me or something... yawn.. whatever... also user:Ultramarine is a really bad actor and only a close inspection of his activities over a long period of time shows what damage he does to article content. do whatever you want the only thing it can affect is my respect for the WP justice system.Esmehwp 06:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you all misunderstand the poor dear. As this post[53] shows, it's just a joke. Or a classic case of trolling. Either way, clearly disruptive editing. Talk page back at hello[54], I've restrained my impulse to add the comment "goodbye". .. dave souza, talk 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As the post for which I left a NPA warning included the gem "c'mon! jewish thinkers! why there's no such thing!" he seems to be an equal-opportunity insulter. Ok, which should I use as block reason when I indef block this editor?

1. drop down reason of "Vandalism only account"
2. Account being used almost exclusively for gross NPA violations and trolling
3. Unrepentant troll

KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The second suggestion looks about right. ElinorD (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I've not checked all the editor's contributions am unable to comment on option 1., option 2. seems most appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked with Harassment drop-down, +additional comment version 2. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Chick Bowen afd close issues

How can an admin close an article at 14 keep / 11 delete at consensus: "delete"? In any event, please help us to restore this article at Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history. Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS. And you are aware that AFD's are not up or down votes, right? Corvus cornix 16:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted to interested parties, namely the various science projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and two science admins. That this was a poor close is obvious, however one counts consensus. For those of us who read science books at a great rate, there are full chapters and sections written on who is the father or mother of something, e.g. Hippocrates “father of medicine”, Lavoisier “father of chemistry”, Claude Shannon “father of information theory”. I wasn’t a main editor on this article, but can’t believe it was even considered for deletion (a vote that I didn’t know about). Science editors are going to be the ones who know the importance of these terms and this article. --Sadi Carnot 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and other problems regarding disruptive editing

User:HongQiGong edited the History of Japan article for the first time today, so that he could revert the page to a POV version. He has not taken part in the discussions I've launched over the dispute in question - I feel that he is trying to make a point by wikistalking me to push his own preference for BCE/CE.

Both HongQiGong and PHG keep insisting that BC/AD cannot be used because it is "Christian", despite the fact that WP:MOS indicates it is fine to use. Also there was a vote on having BC/AD replaced here, which was rejected. Discussions are going nowhere and both users seem determined to push their own POV.

This will seem like a minor point to many, but I feel that this constant fighting over a term that wikipedia recognises is fine is very disruptive and needs admin attention. I don't see how discussions can get anywhere because both users refuse to accept the wikipedia position that BC/AD is acceptable to use. Why have guidelines and community votes if no one respects them? John Smith's 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I had to check John Smith's contrib history in order to file Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Smith's. Yes, I believe the article History of Japan should use BCE/CE, as the history of Japan is non-Christian for the most part. John Smith's point that BC/AD is acceptable to use is moot - because BCE/CE is also acceptable to use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You had already filed the application - why did you suddenly join in the reverting? Why didn't you discuss it first?

Your argument that Japan is non-Christian is irrelevant as I already pointed out. The Community had a vote on that subject and rejected a proposal to only use BCE/CE in "non-Christian" articles. Also I was the first one to make the article consistent in terms of BC/AD - it was also the earliest style used in the first major contribution according to WP:MOS.

Your reversion is disruptive. If you had the best interests of the article at heart you would have joined the discussion and not reverted. The fact you reverted without comment on any of the talk pages shows you're just trying to push your POV and are disrupting the article. John Smith's 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That vote was on whether or not to adopt an official policy to use BCE/CE. There is no policy against its use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said there was a policy against its use. I said that some people tried to get BC/AD labelled "POV" and have it replaced by BCE/CE. The community has rejected the argument that BC/AD is POV and cannot be used in non-Christian articles. Just accept that and move on. John Smith's 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest an article content request for comment to settle the issue. You say to-may-toe and I say to-mah-toe... Durova^Charge! 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that will change anything. I've tried discussing the matter with PHG - he keeps repeating his justification. Hong won't even take part in the talk page discussions. However I will start one if the other users agree to stop reverting. John Smith's 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's really helpful. Now El:C is parroting this nonsense about BC/AD and reverting too. Does anyone take notice of wikipedia guidelines and community votes, or is it just a case of people paying attention when it suits them? I would have thought an admin would try to help resolve matters, rather than pouring petrol on the fire. John Smith's 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I told John Smith, after he claimed that my reason "is not valid" because "the community had a vote," I hardly feel that this vote (of course, I ask, what vote?) invalidates my reason, not for History of Japan today, not for Mumbai two days ago, and elsewhere. I'm not sure why we need to have this obvious Christian dating symbol used in non-Christian entries. Maybe John Smith would like trying changing BCE to BC in the Israel entry. Let's see what consensus, not "vote," emerges after that. El_C 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change anything on the Israel page, am I? In fact I am not trying to change the page in question, I am trying to restore the version that I made consistent. It is people like PHG, Hong and you that are trying to change the date entries.

On the Mumbai article you claimed that the general consensus is to use BC for Christian-related subjects (populations, countries, cities, ideas) and BCE for the rest of the world/'s history. Yet there is no general consensus - this is clearly outlined by the vote I mentioned that took place here. How can you have consensus when a majority disagree with what you allege?! So your justifications are wrong. John Smith's 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is consensus, last time I checked. This is a secular encyclopedia, not a Christian encyclopedia. Secondly, this is a content dispute, clearly not everyone agrees with your (John Smith's) assertions, and so you should take it to dispute resolution as Durova has already advised you. Thirdly, your incivility to El C hardly helps your case or your standing in the wikipedia community ('parroting this nonsense' is quite rude.) Suggest you move along now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough with a vote from May 2005, it's now August 2007. As I said, from having a watchlist with close to 25,000 pages, the trend seems to be increasingly for non-Christian entries to be dated as BCE and Christian-related ones as BC. There's also the (largely pro-BC/AD) trend to keep whatever the original was (and I used BC/AD in many of the articles I authored, about non-Christian populations, incidentally; mainly as I don't really care). But I see the amount of energy, and sheer edits, that the issue still takes. Mainly, there should not be edit warring over it, that's be the bottom line. El_C 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for being a tad rude, El C. However, if you don't want there to be an edit-war you could set an example and not revert the page again. Cheers, John Smith's 19:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. We do not let one-edit-only ips have their way in this project, sorry. El_C 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine - I agree with you. I was concerned you were entering the wider confrontation. John Smith's 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone sprotect that article? There are several one-edit-only ips revert warring. El_C 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 week. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

14th August

Ok, this is getting silly. Both User:HongQiGong and User:KillerChihuahua are wikistalking me at History of the Americas. Can someone please get the wikistalkers off my back? It's bad enough when a user does it - Hong tried to allege last night he only knew about my edits on History of Japan because of the check-user report he ran, but I edited the page long after he filed that. But I honestly don't feel secure if an administrator is going to stalk me too. John Smith's 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you confined yourself to the debates, now spread across several pages, and stopped mass editing articles to your preferred dating system, no one would have to revert your contentious and divisive edits. Also, please stop canvassing for support. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not "mass-reverting" - I made the article in question consistent. Also I don't know why it's wrong for me to make an article consistent, but it's ok for someone like you or Hong to revert the whole thing. That seems far more divisive than what I did on the History of the Americas page.

As I explained on your talk page I asked a few people who've worked on Japanese articles if they had any thoughts - that was it. I was not canvassing for support. John Smith's 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you. This is all about one issue. If I was wikistalking, I would be reverting his edits that are unrelated to the current content dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What can I say - I'll credit you with subtlety. John Smith's 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, can you please stop wikistalking me! You're now reverting my edits on Chola Dynasty. As anyone can clearly see, Æthelwold's version here had inconsistent terms. I made them consistent using the earliest non-stub version as a template that used the terms - it is you that are mass reverting.

Can someone please take him in line. It is ridiculous for me to have my edits rolled back when I'm making inconsistent articles consistent. John Smith's 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles) has not concluded, but is currently strongly in favor of the date format which you oppose, I can only suggest again that rather than trying to do an end-run around this, you confine your efforts to the debates you started and cease your personal campaign to change articles to your preferred format. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not relevant, given I am not editing China-related articles - the China Project can't impose guidelines on the whole community. Where terms are inconsistent in an article it is perfectly acceptable to make them consistent using the first major contribution/non-stub as a basis. You seem to think it's ok to wikistalk someone because you disagree with their edits - but it isn't. John Smith's 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note Hong has now joined in the wikistalking on Chola Dynasty here. That now makes it two articles for both users. When does it "officially" become wikistalking? Three? Four? John Smith's 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note 2 Hong has now wikistalked me on:

• Xia Dynasty
• Shang Dynasty
• Sino-Roman relations
• Indus Valley Civilization

That makes it six articles for him. John Smith's 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think much of the dispute started at Talk:Jesus. It almost seems like John Smith's is the only one who wants to see his edits upheld as much as he does. Then he spread the dispute over to Chinese history-related articles by editing those articles to his preference, and then he proceeded to also edit articles to his preference across a number of other articles. The dispute is also being discussed in Talk:History of Japan. I am now fixing his edits. I think something needs to be done to stop John Smith's campaigning. It's very disruptive. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to undermine me. This did not start on the Jesus page - it has gone on for many months, originally on Talk:Japan where some users tried to push BCE/CE on to the article. Later on I went to edit some Japan-related history articles to try to get consistency across articles and then the project. It was only later that I went to the Jesus article.

You are coming up with cheap arguments to justify your wikistalking. If my edits were that objectionable users who haven't taken part in the BCE/CE vrs BC/AD debate would have rolled them back - I think that happened once, and that person certainly didn't roll back all my edits on this area. Every other time it has been someone like yourself that has taken sides. Given you have such a visible POV I don't think you have any credibility to accuse me of campaigning. The fact other people haven't followed me around shows the tolerance of most people that agree with the use of BC/AD. The fact multiple pro-BCE/CE users have followed me around shows their lack of tolerance, though I know others are far more respectful and don't do that. John Smith's 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking? ROFLMAO. Pushing POV across several articles indicates a need to make certain it doesn't happen everywhere. It's hysterical when an editor, who's been shown to push a certain POV, whines about wikistalking, just to throw off the scent. Well, now I'm watching you too John Smith. I guess I'll be accused soon. I don't actually care, because it's so funny. You've made my day. Accusing KC, a well-known administrator on this project, of wikistalking is like accusing me of believing in the myth of Jesus. Never going to happen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Orange, I might have thought you had some credibility if you were impartial. The fact you jumped in on the History of Japan article and accused those that support BC/AD were "Christian POVing once again" shows you are not neutral. Unfortunately it appears that believers in BCE/CE band together to pick on those that are happy to use BC/AD and won't take bullying quietly. John Smith's 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note 3

KillerChihuahua is now doing exactly what he accused me of - disrupting the project (as he put it) by changing stable articles:

*Cemetery H culture *Vedic period

• South Asian Stone Age

This seems to imply that there's one rule for administrators and another for ordinary users. John Smith's 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can tell from the diffs that he is only making those articles consistently use one format. That has always been your concern, no? Why are you complaining? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad on the first two. But on the third, he changed all the terms bar one. Now User:JoshuaZ complained on my talk page that I did the same thing. So are you saying Josh was wrong to bring up that particular article? If you're going to talk about the templates, I raised the issue on MOS and the response was that consistency does not apply to between articles and templates, or articles in a series. John Smith's 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The navigational template on the right side of the article uses BCE/CE. He made it consistent with the template. In fact that's exactly what he said in his edit summaries.[55] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that a template is the basis for articles' styles - it's ridiculous, especially if the articles were created before the template. If anything it should be the other way around. As I said, when I raised the issue at MOS the response was that conformity between articles, etc should not be forced because there is no clear "superiority". So claiming template styles is a reason to unilaterally change all bar one term is not a valid reason to force articles to conform to it. If Josh was correct to reproach me K_C should receive the same treatment as I did. John Smith's 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest John Smith's, if your top priority is consistency, I'm not sure what the problem is. The article is consistent right now, regardless of what the template shows, regardless of how the article used to read, regardless of how related articles read. If your concern is consistency, then that concern has been addressed. What does it matter to you whether the article uses BC/AD or BCE/CE? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong, that's very nice but you don't seem to care about that. I made articles consistent that you (and K_C) reverted. Don't expect me to follow a principle you're not interested in. I have used consistency as a reason to edit - you had no reason to reverse my changes and put in your desired slant. You were wikistalking me, plain and simple. Don't try to dodge responsibility. John Smith's 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My reason to revert your changes is that I would like to see non-Christian-related articles use BCE/CE. On the other hand, your main priority seems to be consistency. You went around changing articles to use BC/AD in the name of consistency, and I am opposed to the use of BC/AD in the articles you edited. So when an article is consistently using BCE/CE, I don't see why you have a problem with that. Please read WP:WIKISTALK#Wikistalking. I am not editing to cause you annoyance or distress. I am editing in accordance to how I feel the articles should read. And as you pointed out, I've edited Xia Dynasty and Shang Dynasty to use BCE/CE - check the histories of those articles and you'll see that I've edited those articles before I ever even stated an opinion about this date issue. Those articles are on my watchlist. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're admitting you have an agenda? That would be against WP:MOS, which says one should not change a style in such a way. Also are you going to argue that Sino-Roman relations and Indus Valley Civilization are on your watchlist? I argue for consistency, though I may have a preference for BC/AD - that doesn't mean you have a right to override my changes. John Smith's 20:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the MoS concerning this? It says that the format shouldn't be changed "unless there is significant reason for the change." I believe this is a significant reason for the change. WP:WIKISTALK#Wikistalking specifically states that following an editor around to cause annoyance or distress is wikistalking. I am not out to cause you any annoyance or distress. Yes, I have an agenda, and it is to improve WP articles. I am opposed, as others have been, to your mass conversion of certain articles to use BC/AD. And in fact, John Smith's, anybody has a "right" to override any of your changes unless the person is in danger of violating 3RR. Even IP editors have this right. What part of WP being an encyclopedia that anybody can edit don't you understand? So again, if consistency is your top priority, then what's the problem? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you had read MOS you would know that BC/AD is an acceptable term - there are no caveats. So in that case you shouldn't be overriding my changes. If you think you are in the right, go start a conversation on MOS and we'll see whether you get consensus or not. The fact is you won't, which is why you are arbitrarily mass converting. You are also twisting the facts - I am not mass-converting all articles. Generally I have been making them consistent where there was no consistency. It is you that have been mass-converting. You keep pretending you aren't wikistalking, when it's obvious you are. You're just trying to save your own skin. John Smith's 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that MoS says that BC/AD is acceptable, in fact it also states that BCE/CE is acceptable. It is decidedly neutral on which format to use in and of itself. And given that I believe there is a significant reason for change, I have not violated MoS at all, since, and I repeat, MoS states that it shouldn't be changed "unless there is significant reason for the change." I am also well aware that you have been making articles consistent, consistently using BC/AD that is. I am opposed to having those articles you edited to use BC/AD, which is why I changed them to BCE/CE - which, again, is well within MoS guidelines. My edit keeps consistency, if only that it makes the articles use BCE/CE, and justifiably so in my opinion. Also again, WP:WIKISTALK#Wikistalking states that wikistalking is following an editor around with the intent to cause annoyance or distress. You can keep making an empty and unfounded assertion that it is "obvious" I am wikistalking if you like, but I certainly disgree with the accusation that I am intent on causing you distress or annoyance. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if you think you're not doing anything wrong go talk about it on MOS. When I tried to create consistency by editing articles and templates, you reverted me and insisted we talk about it first. Yet if you think you're correct you reserve the right to edit unilaterally - what hypocricy.

Of course you would deny you're trying to cause distress of annoyance - one would have to be a pretty foolish wikistalker to admit it. John Smith's 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. If I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong, what reason have I to talk about it on MoS? And my most current edits regarding the dates have preserved consistency, so what's the problem? That agrees with your own agenda of consistency, correct? And no, I have no intent on causing you distress or annoyance. Other editors are free to agree with you and disagree with me, of course. Your accusations are, in the end, baseless. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't want to go to MOS because you know your arguments will be shot down, or you will fail to gain consensus. That's what wikipedia is supposed to be about - gaining consensus. But you only want consensus when you oppose something. If you support it you think it should happen straight away. I think my accusations are far from baseless - if they were you would have left one comment and then disappeared. The fact you keep coming back shows you know there is substance to what I've said. John Smith's 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Would someone userfy this and / or close it? Its a content dispute, and I'm in this thread so it would be inapropriate for me to close it but surely some Admins are getting tired of this taking up AN space? I would have closed it some time back had I not been involved. This is the wrong venue for this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, please stop this back and forth on the AN. Please resolve your personal differences elsewhere. As for John Smith's, I'd seriously suggest that you stop editing wikipedia for the sole purpose of switching between CE to AD. Please note: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names. If I were you, I would consider dropping this matter, or at least stop editing the main space in this manner. There are currently a number of talk page discussions on going, and continuing this editing pattern is only getting more and more disruptive. If you honestly cannot look past CE vs. AD, then I would suggest, when you find an article that a) you would like to change or b) is inconsistent, go to the talk page and start a topic. Do not edit the article before a consensus is reached by editors who are involved with that topic. You are edit warring on multiple articles, and spreading controversy every time you jump to a new article. Surely there are much more productive ways to participate here at wikipedia than changing between from CE to AD (I don't think any of your edits have been the other way around, have they?) Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks for your response. Actually I self-reverted myself on Indus Valley Civilization when it was pointed out I'd changed most of the terms over. On Christianity and Buddhism I did make the usage consistent in terms of BCE/CE. On Template:Middle kingdoms of India I also added a CE term where it was missing (for clarification).

If I should not be editing in regards to BC/AD without consensus, why can K_C and Hong edit for the purposes of putting BCE/CE in without consensus? In some cases they were doing so on articles I hadn't been editing. I understand you are just trying to calm things down, but they are not helping either. Indeed Hong actually declared that he doesn't think he needs consensus to change an article to sole BCE/CE usage. Are you going to ask him to gain consensus first as well? Also what sort of an example is an admin like K_C setting if, again, he is going to take the dispute on to other articles? I'm not complaining that I'm not having my way, only that two users appear free to do what I'm asked not to do. John Smith's 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First, KC uses female pronouns. Next, yes, the controversial naming convention guidelines applies to everyone. This situation seems to need deescalating, so I'd suggest than anyone involved in the dispute put a hold on edits which will most likely be controversial. Those who are upset with our guidelines should perhaps make a proposal on the guidelines page. I understand that there are a lot of articles that have inconsistencies (i.e. they use both BCE and BC), so it isn't reasonable to expect every individual article to have a talk page discussion. I believe what some editors have already done (i.e. started a centralized discussion on a wikiproject) is a right move to get a broader consensus for a number of articles within the project's scope. Maybe even a bot could be created to do this task in a more objective manner? or maybe not. All I know is that recent edits on all sides of this dispute have come under scrutiny and therefor everyone should proceed with caution, focusing on discussion and consensus over rash editing. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO speedy noms

Just an FYI, I noticed Nasmformyzombie (talk · contribs) tagged quite a few articles on pornographich actresses for speedy deletion. I've not reviewed them, but the one I did look at wasn't a speedy because the article made a claim per WP:PORNBIO, so anyone clearing out CAT:CSD may want to pay attention to these. I imagine some of them are legit speedies, but they may not all be.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind...AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) is removing the CSD tags, which I take to be a decline of the speedy.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Made a comment on the user's talk page, after which he stopped (before the AN notice). I'm reverting about 8/10. There are some without assertions, but many have awards, etc. Since they're reasonably good faith noms, not vandalism, just edits by someone who didn't understand WP:CSD#A7, I theoretically should be using edit, rather than rollback, but since there are about a hundred of them, every click counts, and I hope to be forgiven that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

block user?

User:Din&tony has been active since July 13, 2007, but has only made a long series of nonsense edits to his/her own talk page. Not vandalism, per-se, but perhaps a misuse of Wikipedia. - Special-T 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A closer look indicates that the talk page is being used as a message board. - Special-T 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Er... I suppose full protection of the page would stop them (after the appropriate warnings, of course) there but that wouldn't stop them creating another account and doing the same again. Anybody have any idea what they are talking about? Anyway, I will stick a warning on the page and see what transpires. LessHeard vanU 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm has speedy deleted the page, although I note that it was previously deleted on 13 July. I wonder if protection is going to be needed? LessHeard vanU 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please salt this user talkpage - I have now deleted this twice this evening. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ☺ 21:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Enciclopedia DG

A teenager (which by the wa got indef blocked for persisten copyvio uploading on commons earlier this year) setup his mediawiki installation at http://es-enciclopediadg.newsit.es/ (well, not really well setup), and then proceeds to create an article about his website: Encyclopedia DG.

Enciclopedia DG or Encyclopedia DG is a Spanish language wiki encyclopedia, released under the GFDL founded by Diego Grez. It uses the MediaWiki software.

The article and site are complete vanity and has been deleted before:

   * 20:34, 13 August 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Enciclopedia DG" (spam) (Restore)
   * 21:33, 6 December 2006 Eagle 101 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Enciclopedia DG" (Per Criteria for Speedy Deletion, A7) (Restore)

Just letting you know, as the kid will probably recreate his promotional article, he even compared it to major forks like Enciclopedia Libre or Citizendium editing the "Wikipedia history" tempalte at [56] no matter that his site is much much more trivial and irrelevant than those selected there. As I said, just letting you know guys. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

kind of hard to add spam when the target got salted ;) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone have a look please

I am near 3RR so I can't edit Eliseo Soriano which some editors seem determine to sanitise and smother with spam. User:Petersantos made 8 edits on Aug 14, all to the Soriano article. User:Vivinkid has made 26 edits to Wiki, 25 to Soriano on Aug 13 and 14. New User:200.247.144.160 has made only one edit to Wiki, to Soriano on Aug 14. New User:201.31.19.175 has made only one edit to Wiki, to Soriano on Aug 13. Moriori 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte thread removed

Removed edit by abusive puppeteer Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pasted from an open proxy with false user signature. --Irpen 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BOT2008BOT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a single-purpose sock used to solicit a block[57]. No comment on Anonimu's actions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add that I support the indefinite block of this single purpose account.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support an indefinite block of Anonimu, 100% and more. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Best give Anonimu another block, he's just not getting it. reverting good faith edits as vandalistic, calling a non-banned editor banned, pot calling kettle black, and what appears to be OWNership on Nicolae Ceauşescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't think there'd be any loss in an indef-block, though. Will ^(talk) 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant the SPA that reported this. With regards to the account being reported (User:Anonimu) I haven't seen any change in his behavior whatsoever. Continued edit warring, false "rv vandal" edit summaries, ownership of articles, etc... I support any action any admin wants to take including an indefinite block if that is deemed necessary.--Jersey Devil 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed edits by abusive puppeteer Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) done through an open proxy. --Irpen 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A roster of editors whose activities in the project revolve around Transnistria, after several ArbCom hearings of the case, seek their main opponent to be blocked. That the thread was started by an indef banned account and "augmented" by an IP adds nothing to their argument. Seriously, this page does not belong to dispute resolution procedures. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the complaint was posted by long since permabanned Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) through an open proxy with the false signature. I believe this settles the issue and ends the thread. --Irpen 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A very useful tool

Worth checking out and saving.[58][59] Durova^Charge! 04:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Did we have to link to the blog :P. In any case, interesting tool. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, now that I read the blog, its good, I'm just jumpy around blogs. Hopefully some people will be able to make use of this, though the data seems to be from a database dump, so it is by no means live data. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to tweak the software? I've been trying to get in touch with Virgil for days. The basic value of this tool is incredibly useful. Durova^Charge! 05:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! I wish this had been available a long time ago. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just glad to learn that, whilst they're not too certain of where UBL might be, the CIA are quite knowledgable about a good bit, including how properly to feed domestic goats. Joe 06:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It also seems the CIA and I have the same sense of humour. :-D daveh4h 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN deletions

After several months since the last time this was broached, and with little progress made, I have deleted BJAODN and its various subpages. Per WP:DENY, its mere presence promotes slander, copyright violation, spamming, and just plain old vandalism. As Jeffrey O. Gustafson brought up here it is also a violation of GFDL. Since Jeff's initial deletion there has been little to no progress in attributing edits copied to BJAODN. As such it is time for this content to go. Are we Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia? I'm certainly hoping its the former. Lets act like it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll miss BJAODN, but sadly it's true. MessedRocker (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the hell of it, DON'T WHEEL WAR. MessedRocker (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to lead by example when it comes to attributing material. Wikipedians are all too quick to complain when some site doesn't give the necessary attribution, but when things like BJAODN exist on Wikipedia with no attribution, how can we expect to be taken seriously in our requests for attribution. It think it really does have to go this time. Nick 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN violated the GFDL about as much as answers.com does. It wasn't very funny, so I won't miss it, but I think it's a silly place to start enforcing the GFDL (why didn't we use a more suitable license?) Kusma (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are so many issues regarding BJAODN... many people find it humorless (I could care less...), the GFDL issues (yes, there are GFDL issues), the copyright flaunting, the potential SPAM and attacks, the fact that they were restored (via wheel war) in defiance of community discussions going on at the time... there are so many reasons why this stuff shouldn't exist (based on both policy, and common sense and dignity), and so few why it should. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but on a lot of pages it says the pages it comes from (where it is available in edit history), and at least that material should be kept. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In far too many cases the content comes from deleted pages or histories available only to administrators with far too much to do, or long since lost from the database. The last deletion and restoration was a serious shot off the bow to say, "fix this, quickly, and correctly." The many people clamoring to get the job done, claiming it could be done, did not do it (nor could they). More than three months and no change. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I fully agree with the above. People were given a chance to fix things, and (perhaps unsurprisingly) they did not. Aside from that, we have plenty of humor pages that are actually funny, as opposed to the mediocrity that is BJAODN. >Radiant< 10:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Erm, I don't think this is a speedy. Shouldn't we have an MfD debate over it? Melsaran 11:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I believe the pages were only restored on the understanding that the histories would be corrected, something that wasn't done. It's regrettable but unless a number of administrators are willing to undelete articles to find histories and such, there's really no way forward. Nick 12:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Another MFD? Why waste the time of everyone when no consensus will occur? Straight deletion of this crap is worth it. — Moe ε 12:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Take note, for both Moe Epsilon and I agree on this issue. Good riddance to this firehose of crap. Burntsauce 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't try to impress me. — Moe ε 22:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Turns out there were 31 redirects to that. My favourite Wikipedia:Firehose of crap. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I heavily endorse Alkivar's actions. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with deletion. We have plenty of jokes within articles. One of the dirtiest can be found here. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia was a small community it could have worked probably, but with the ever increasing number of users (and thus vandals), it seemed inevitable that it would get more and more disorganised. Also even though wikipedia is not censored there is no reason to tolerate for example people’s animal sex stories, like I had seen there. 204.128.192.8 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops that was me who left that message above, but my login had expired. I see there is a fair bit of vandalism from that IP address. It’s used by the Walt Disney Corporation employees :p Jackaranga 14:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse too. Horribly unencyclopedic. There are plenty of places on the Internet for that stuff. If you want something encyclopedic, there are articles like World's funniest joke and Category:Jokes --Dweller 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the deletion of BJAODN. Yes, I am aware this issue is a source of controversy, and I know some will find my views controversial, but I believe this not unencyclopedic. I'm not a fan of it myself, but I know of people who are. Whether I like it or not is unimportant.

If I was an admin I would try and do the GFDL stuff with regards to this - as it is I'm currently trying to look for copyvios and make sure they are deleted, and fixing BJAODN is a good start for me. The argument that this is unencyclopedic does not stand with me: this is in the project (i.e. Wikipedia: namespace so it's more of an in-joke than anything else, along with all the other meta-documentation in the namespace "Wikipedia:". Humour is a subjective thing, so being careful about BJAODN is the best way to deal with it.

One such BJAODN I have kept was the Persian Panda hoax, at User:SunStar Net/Persian Panda, tagged with {{humor}}, and full attribution - this is one such example where BJAODN has attribution.

My other one, User:SunStar Net/Satan claus needs a WP:HISTMERGE as I admittedly cut-and-pasted it before it got deleted.

I think it could be restored, but only if people are willing to help me with such things - e.g. finding relevant diffs - Help:Diff showing how to do it.

For what it's worth, BJAODN could be kept/restored/allowed, but there would have to be strict limits with regard to things like attribution and linking to diffs - if there is no edit history, or as on Meta, a dump of the history with <pre> tags on the talk page (for cut&paste BJAODNs), so GFDL compliance is kept. (see some pages over there for an example - I can't remember exactly what pages, but regulars who are members here will know!)

This is all I have to say on the matter, and I hope people will have a look at what I've suggested, and if you've any questions, leave a note at my talk page (it's in my signature!).

Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Alkivar earlier today to review his deletion. I think that it's always better to have a proper MFD discussion rather than being this bold. If there's consensus to delete BJAODN then by all means let's do it. But I also think that putting a stop to BJAODN doesn't have to require deletion. A simple archive+protect+cease production+mark as inactive would have sufficed.--Húsönd 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would, if the copyright concerns are valid (and most people seem to think they are). And process for the sake of it is evil, right? Moreschi ^Talk 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another admin overturn, I listed it in MFD to avoid a wheel war here. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

MfD will not solve anything. There will be no consensus, guaranteed. DRV is the place, as the criteria use for deletion was valid. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See also the 2 huge threads in June's Wikien-l mailing list archives (titled "Seriously, on BJAODN", and "BJAODN restored again"). --Quiddity 19:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are also gigantic threads from May-ish about the issue, including a fairly vituperative one aimed at yours truly. The mailing list is not helpful. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pointers: Currently at both Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 14#Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

Too bold

This was a case of going too far with a bold action. If the results of prior discussions was "No consensus" ( as it was ), the responsible response is to try again, not simply take it on yourself. Elements of the community don't trust admins in general because of stunts like this. I have restored until / unless a MFD or similar discussion (format/location less important than content / topic) proceeds to consensus. Georgewilliamherbert 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your position on the history being absent from a vast portion of BJAODN ? Nick 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My position on this morning's deletion is that there's precedent that you talk about major issues and find consensus first. The (legitimate) GFDL / history issues do not override that.

If Jimmy, Arbcom, Mike, or the Foundation Board decide that we have a problem and must simply fix it then that's a different thing. The rest of us should play by the rules. If it's controversial, seek and respect consensus. Georgewilliamherbert 20:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Georgewilliamhervert. I may not agree with BJAODN, however feel that the appropriate channels should be use. Be Bold, not wreckless. In this situation, instead of going through the proper channels the decision maw bade unilaterally by someone who did not like it. There may be a conesnsus to delete it, out it up for MFD and take it from there. Take it a piece at a time. Just up and deleting it is only going to cause problems. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The be bold policy should not apply to large decisions like this - deleting hundreds of pages (I believe) without discussion. I'm all for being bold and exercising WP:IAR with a single page, but not a controversial series of heaps of pages. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I'm all for it. BJAODN is a bunch of crap, and it gets worse with every iteration. Half of it is one-liners about sex (Ha...ha...hilarity. If I was five.), and the other half is defamatory to random people. The very few snippets of it that are funny hardly make it worth keeping, and let's not even get into the GFDL issues. Wikipedia has enough amusing stuff - just look at the weird articles list. What do we need bad jokes for when we've got exploding whales? Kill it with fire, and keep it killed. ♠PMC♠ 01:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

rant

Given past "do it first and (optionally) think later" actions by Alkivar, I shouldn't say I'm surprised. It is objectionable however to delete such a huge batch of pages and not even using a proper edit summary; that is unless you can prove how WP:DENY ties to GFDL violation and when did it become a speedy deletion criterion (no doubt BJAODN was speedily deleted)? "WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism" is just a mix of whatever "bad things" one person could come up in a minute. In future, please use well-thought and meaningful edit summaries when performing mass-actions. Миша13 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Bottom note: while I'm sorry to see BJAODN go and will certainly miss it (gotta bookmark the deleted histories), I fully understand the GFDL problems raised; I just don't condone they hasty way it was done (as if heavens would fall on our heads if we didn't delete it LIEK FRICKEN NOW!). Миша13 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1. This is clearly outside the domain of formal speedy deletion rules. 2. You deleted the entries that supplied history along with the ones that don't. 3. No opportunity was given to interested contributors to locate history for their favourite entries, which isn't a daunting task, and now they lack the necessary info to do so (unless they're admins). This was precipitous action and should have been preceded with discussion to establish consensus around a compromise. Dcoetzee 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be stressed enough that the BJAODN regulars had enough warning when it was deleted three months ago - and they failed to fix the problems with BJAODN. It would take hundreds of editors and dozens of admins to dedicate all their time in order to make BJAODN GFDL compliant, that it did not happen last time means it will not happen this time, because frankly, admins and editors alike have far more important things to be doing: Are we an encyclopedia, or a joke book? And if we cannot be GFDL compliant, than what is the point of the GFDL at all? (And this still doesn't address all the other issues involved like WP:DENY, the spam and slander...) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I note again Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 2, with a DRV for the BJAODN subpages. I'm not sure that is a solid close; it feels more like a concluding remark after facts made the DRV moot than a close. GRBerry 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Feh

This is a project which has the odd yet cherished goal of producing a free-content encyclopedia. Its content is licensed under the GFDL, which requires attribution. This is non-negotiable and proves an everyday encumbrance with things like transwiki, commons uploads, and non-compliant mirrors. It is frequently a pain in the ass. However, it's also the law of the land, so we deal. Now, we have here a large collection of pages, chosen at random from the rejected slough, separated from their edit histories, with no evident utility to the project. The amount of time and effort spent at a cross-purposes to the core purposes of this project is staggering. That there are editors prepared to die in the last ditch defending this absurdity is even more staggering and beggars belief. Uncyclopedia is that way. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it, as some of it is funny. I only add stuff that is not from deleted pages, which is available in the history, and which is attributed. Instead of deleting it all, just remove the unattributed, and keep the rest. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From the concept of a free-content encyclopedia we grow a community of people devoted to building one. Every community develops its own local history, traditions, etc.

BJADON is a part of many people's sense of community here. Blowing it up without asking, again, is a rather rude attack on the sensibility of large parts of the WP community.

It may be that the GFDL issues require its deletion (I agree with issues, but disagree with the necessity of the outcome, though that may be what happens eventually). That outcome can come from one of the community processes with due deliberation, from an Arbcom case if need be, from Jimmy or the Board if an overriding external decision is necessary.

On an issue with this history and clear and evident community sensitivity, it should absolutely not come from any small set of admins in the dark of the night. BOLD is not a license to flip the bird to a large fraction of the community.

I don't have any reason to think Alkivar intended it to be seen that way, but it is. That's why it's dangerous for admins to think that BOLD and frustration are sufficient justifications to override the community. That attitude is dangerous to Wikipedia.

This was not the right way to go. Even if we have to walk down this path, this was not the right way to get to here. Wikipedia's community is important enough that we have to get things like this right. Georgewilliamherbert 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Copying my comment from the DRV: BJAODN stopped being funny ages ago. There was no bar for inclusion and all of the entries were mere boring tripe, vandalism of the lamest variety. This is not anything worth preserving. As many others have pointed out, keeping it around as a shrine to vandals runs counter to the principle of Denying vandals recognition. We should take a cue from how real world local governments deal with vandalism: they clean it up as soon as possible, leaving no trace that it was ever there. This is the best way to discourage vandals, by showing them that all of their effort is for naught. The worst thing you can do is put it up on a pedestal where hundreds times more people will eventually see it, and perhaps be "inspired" by it, than if you simply just painted it over and never mentioned it again. --Cyde Weys 02:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A good argument, but speedy deleting it like this is still very inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thou shalt fight vandalism - fight, I say! (Bureauracy watch)

I don't think I can really say anything here, but can someone please troutwhack some sense into various discussions at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit? We now have a well-supported proposal here, here, and here, to set up some sort of elite cabal force of superpowered vandal emergency response team. This would appear to me to be bureaucratic process-creep - FFS, it's only reverting a page. Also, proposals to limit CVU membership to people to a certain amount of reverts, and as part of the above, some proposal to set up vandal-fighting "shifts". IMO we do not want a private army. This would appear to be what we're getting. BTW, where's the evidence current RCP practice is failing? Moreschi ^Talk 13:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically we've gone from one extreme to another? Unbelievable. The things I'm seeing in User:Titoxd/Sandbox/CVU FR task force are actually quite alarming. OK - people! Newflash: RC patrolling is not saving lives! Sit around with recent changes open, or Lupin's recent changes feed, exert some clue, whack some idiots, report to AIV, lather, rinse, repeat. Why, oh why, do we require shifts, limited access to tools, even more layering... a 14 year old who knows how to find their monobook can install Twinkle. Please take a step back and read it through fresh eyes, you may realise how silly it all sounds. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can feel Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (fifth nomination) rising up within me. — Moe ε 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tried MfD coupla days ago: didn't work. Since then, it appears the CVU has spiralled from being useless to being actually harmful - at least potentially. Someone please inject clue, with trouts if need be. Moreschi ^Talk 14:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This actually seems to be a sensible idea: It doesn't need to be as bureaucratic as it seems to be, but having a template of people who may be doing something else but who can help with vandalism if asked and setting up a channel for collaboration would be conducive to the security of the encyclopedia. We'd not have users tripping over one another in the wee hours in the morning, but we'd still be able to deal with vandalbots. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not that template so much. See the comment:

Well why not have CVU First Responders. When I say this I mean a established task force not just the Vandal Fighters who we typically assume to be in the front lines. My suggestion would include a task force where you would agree to be available for a certain part of the day to fight a sudden outbreak of massive vandalism. We could have 2 hour shifts were you could sign up to be involved in one of the shifts. To inform you when it was your time perhaps we could create a bot to leave messages on the users talk pages when there shift began.

This has WP:CREEP written all over it. Glorifying the process of reverting isn't needed. — Moe ε 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Shifts and bots do seem a little over the top, but it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to generate a list of available users. Is there actually an issue here that requires the attention of all administrators? --ST47Talk·Desk 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is - the sanctioned development of cliques and potentially elitist groups within the admin ranks. If a specialist action group is formed, with the communities blessing, then they are possibly going to start driving community practices within that area. This would be very bad. Admins are supposed to represent and act on behalf of the community, but those who form part of any specialist grouping will be going beyond that remit; therefore it is up to the rest of the mop wielders to remind those admins of their responsibilities.

Hmmm... I suppose I ought try posting some of this over there. LessHeard vanU 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which specialists? Which new practices? The system that I proposed just allows people to show that they're online or not, in case they so desire. The task force, as of right now, is the template, and not much else. No shifts, no membership requirements, no segregation, no voting, no anything. So what is objectionable about it, besides the connotations surrounding the CVU? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that some sort of shift system or sign-up sheet or log is a bad idea. It would be nice to have a way of guiding people to the times in most need of coverage. DGG (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Moe, want to try actually supporting your assertions with actual evidence? How is anything purely optional problematic, especially when the "mandatory" time shifts were rejected? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  If you want to revert vandalism, then press the "undo" button. Don't bother with this "first responders" team. Sean William @ 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well, if it were that simple, then there would be no IRC anti-vandalism feeds, nor a WP:AIV. Essentially, this is something to bring the IRC anti-vandalism tools to the wiki. Many of the more "scandalous" proposals, such as time-shifts, and membership requirements, were shot down. All it boils down to is a list of who is online and who can help out if things are needed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I've done quite a lot of RC patrol, and the template idea sounds very useful to me. It would be handy to be able to contact other folks actively seeking out vandalism. The other material, which Moe Epsilon mentions, has been dealt with "in house," as it were, as Titoxd says. --Moonriddengirl 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Okay now ladies and gents. The original plan was developed by moi. As were the "scandalous" proposals. I created a suggestion that through consensus has now been brought down to a much more reasonable level of coordination amongst vandalfighters. I realize that my original statement was farfetched, but lets just take what we have now. We have a plan to have a Task Force of the CVU where editors can interact in such a way as to more effectivly deal with vandalism. I'm sure that even some of you who absoloutly despise this proposal would agree with this idea if it had just been proposed without any of the discussion. The discussion has created a proposal that I believe is quite reasonable. If you want to bash me and the plan into a million pieces feel free. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have one additional comment regarding Moreschi's question on where is WP:RCP failing take a look at these diffs. This one is a edit that was made by a user changing MartinBots soft talk page redirect template to Martinp23 to a "hard-on" redirect template. As you and I well know there is no such thing and we all know the implication. It wasn't until here that i over 24 hours later reverted the edit. There is a example of RCP missing vandalism. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there's no danger of WP:CREEP in the CVU proposal. WP:CREEP is about instruction creep; the proposal doesn't include instructing anyone to do anything. Secondly, administrators aren't here to police Wikiprojects and the ideas they may discuss, so this is not the place for this discussion. Waggers 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a few responses explaining how and why this is a bad idea, but I suspect another MFD may be needed in short order because circumstances have changed significanly in the past few days. The last organization, to my knowledge, that tried something like this was Esperanza, and we all know how that one turned out. >Radiant< 11:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that until this thing actually forms, don't worry about. I think that most if not all of these concerns are going to be dealt with. --Mschel 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC) .

rant

What in the world is the problem now? Have you all grown so fearful of cabals, imaginary or real, that you will start closing wikiprojects next? Because this is about what it is - a wikiproject - a gathering of people that wish to improve Wikipedia in an organized fashion. For some reason, they are being shunned instead. Out of those criticizing, I wonder how many actually do the dirty anti-vandal work (read: watching the feeds for hours and reverting and reverting...) and out of those who do, how many use IRC for that and know the ropes of the war - yes, I've spent enough time on this in my live to tell you it is a damn war and stop denying that. If some folks want to form a "professional" army, then let them, and if the want to play with time-shifts, let them, and if they want to introduce discipline among their ranks, let them. As long as they do not impact negatively on the rest of the community (like CVU is said to have) by outing non-members or anything like that, there is absolutely no reason to hamper their efforts. Миша13 12:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Savoie

I've just given this user a block, but the more I read of his edit record, the more concerned I am. My block was for incivility and racism, but a perusal leaves me thinking he's a very disruptive user. I welcome comment. --Dweller 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, endorse keeping an eye on him. I'm not sure if his past history (I didn't go too far) indicates a need for a bigger block yet. --Golbez 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrgh, second edit has a summary instructing others not to "get rid of" the page created, or Savoie would "be furious".[60] I agree with the concern, this looks like a huge issue. OTOH, this is his/her first block. Try to keep an eye after block expires, and suggest reading up on NPA, CIVIL, NPOV, OWN, etc. It is possible Wikipedia will be a learning experience for her/him and s/he'll become a civil contributor. If not, warn, block, repeat until done. Good luck. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The racism, admin-impersonation, WP:OWN issues, edit warring and incivility bothered me. When I spotted that he's named himself after some gruesome murderer, I became very bothered. All this... yet his complete edit history doesn't even fill one screen yet. --Dweller 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want to indef, I for one won't reverse you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... generally if someone is tossing around insults and racist comments and impersonating an administrator, I'd likely indefinitely block them right off the bat, regardless of whether it was their first block or not. If they don't have enough sense to know not to be an idiot (really, where and when is it not unacceptable to insult people and impersonate an authority figure?), they can go edit somewhere else. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-blocked indefinitely. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

Someone may want to look at closing this AFD. It was a part of 3 sub articles to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn all nominated together. The other 2 AFDs are closed, but this one is still open (since 5-AUG). Though I didn't participate in the AFD, I was involved in some discussion at one of the other (now deleted) related articles so I'm not really a neutral party to close this.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Isotope23 for posting this notice. This AfD seems to be missing from the category lists of open debates on the main AfD page, which may be why it has not been closed yet. The main AfD page shows the oldest open debate dated Aug 9, but this one was started on Aug 5.

For context, although it was nominated at the same time as the other articles Isotope23 mentioned (I think there were more than three, possibly five, and some were deleted but one of them was kept), please consider this article separately when closing the AfD because those other articles were loosely in the same topic area, but each of the articles is a stand alone page. It was not a group of articles intended to work together. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Troubling. It doesn't seem to have been transcluded into any of the AFD daily logs. DRV regulars would probably recommend a relist solely on that basis. This was an error by the nominator; he forgot the lead "The" in adding it to the daily log. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_5&diff=prev&oldid=149401582 diff). Relist anyone? GRBerry 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's going to be relisted, which I don't object to myself, somebody should really look into the sockpuppetry that's been going on, I think the evidence is pretty convincing, but then I've been wrong before. Anyway, take a look: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. If the evidence is not convincing, could someone at least advse Kephera975 not to canvass for delete !votes by repeating the same arguments over and over to everyone who !votes keep? IPSOS (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought canvassing meant trying to persuade people on their talk pages to side with you. I apologize if I'm doing something out of line. Please do let me know if I have to be less talkative. Also, I apologize for making the mistake with the word "the". Thanks. Kephera975 04:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As you were warned on your talk page but chose to ignore, normally one lists their arguments for deletion and then let's the other editors discuss. It gives the appearance of a "campaign" to keep arguing your case with everyone who disagrees with you. The process works fine without such canvassing. IPSOS (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

←I don't know if this needs to be re-listed, since there are 12 editors who have entered comments and there is a consensus to keep, or at least not to delete.

But if wider participation is desired and it is relisted, I ask that the existing page and its history be archived in some way and not deleted. It could be moved to the talk page, or closed as no consensus and then a new relist opened with a new page title, or perhaps the page could be renamed. There is a lot of content on this AfD page that several editors worked on, as well as evidence of possible sockpupptery in the page history that may be useful later and may be referenced in a couple of open WP:SSP reports, so I request that however it is handled, please do not delete the page history. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the usual way this would be done would to be to close and archive the current AfD, and for neutral party who did not participate previously to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (2nd), listing it as a procedural renom, linking to the old AfD so arguments don't need to be repeated at length, and registering 'no opinion' as nominator rather than the usual assumed delete !vote. On the other hand, I think it could be closed as Keep now rather than going through the process again... IPSOS (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the bots

It looks like CorenSearchBot and User:Polbot are having a difference of opinion. *sigh* Keegan^talk 17:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Does CorenSearchBot have an exception list or something similar? Mackensen (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If it doesn't now, I imagine it will after this. Keegan^talk 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

More than 3 reverts? 24 hour block. And consider blocking their owners too. Pour encourager les autres if nothing else. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quadell saw the same thing and blocked the bot as I was on my way over after posting this. It's set for indefinite until Coren can work out the bug. Keegan^talk 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's adorable. Durova^Charge! 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Damn that ByngBot! Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• I love this sort of thing. One of the more amusing things I've seen on Wikipedia was a couple of bots having a revert-war over which version of a "test" article was less vandalistic. Fighting only ceased when I CSD'd the article and an admin came along to delete it. Moreschi ^Talk 18:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• I couldn't resist.[61] ;) Durova^Charge! 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ooh! Bot wars! Soon to be made into a major motion picture. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I claim copyright for having first initiated a "War of the Bots" ANI thread ([62]). Sadly, on a topic that is still not resolved as of today... Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Coolness! Let's collect the examples and create a new WP:LAME section. It's hilarious and nobody's feelings get hurt. Durova^Charge! 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Cool maybe, but in fact the case I mentioned is still making feelings go hot. Currently debated at Talk:Ingria and WP:BOWN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Amateurs. Really fun bots edit-war with themselves... ARMM (Usenet). Georgewilliamherbert 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, there are much better bot wars. Such as when you get bots that dont revert if there were the person they would revert to, but get stuck in a war with 3 other bots. Funny to watch, especially if they are approved for 10+epm. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have links to examples of those sort of bot conflicts - they sound... interesting! Carcharoth 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I raised this same issue over at ANI (though I was 5 minutes later and failed to noticed the block had been done). Is AN more bot-orientated? :-) Oh, and Polbot ran into MartinBot the other day. See here, but this was more due to its owner messing up a test. Carcharoth 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• There's no topic requirement between here or ANI. I raised the issue here because I didn't require admin intervention since I am one; 'twas a heads up and not so much an incident that needed looking into. You did the proper thing. Keegan^talk 02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On a serious note

The point about the bot war thread above should really be that CorenSearchBot seems unable to distinguish between Wikipedia copying from website A, and Wikipedia and website A both copying from source B. This is a serious problem if source B (as in this case) happens to be public domain information, but website A give the appearance (to the humans editors clearing up after CorenSearchBot) of claiming copyright on the text. I can't emphasize enough that those clearing up after CorenSearchBot (and similar bots) must critically examine each case to determine whether Wikipedia, the other website, or another website altogether, is the original source of the suspected copyvio. Carcharoth 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CorenSearchBit does have a whitelist, but look at User talk:Coren to see the number of false positives. Of course, it may be that the bot is finding a large number of positive matches, but someone should do an analysis to estimate the percentage of false positives. Carcharoth 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How come none of these issues some up during trial (even though it had one of the longest trials I have seen), and it all comes up later? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason that beta-testing doesn't shake all the bugs out of commercial software: once something goes live, it gets a lot more usage in a hurry than it ever did in development. --Carnildo 03:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wherebot has had similar hiccups. They will be fixed. Just gotta stay on their creators. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From looking at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, CorenSearchBot (along with the other 2 bots) is reporting far more true copyvio's then false positives. The articles are not being tagged for automatic deletion. They are being tagged and listed for investigation. I agree that admins need to be careful to ensure public domain material is not deleted, but that is true of any copyvio tagging. CorenSearchBot has exclude lists for sites & users and Coren has actively been working to reduce false positives. I don't see a significant problem and benefits here outweigh the drawbacks. -- JLaTondre 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating misrepresentations

Over the past few weeks, I've been involved with editing Herbert W. Armstrong, after I was brought in as an uninvolved third party during an article dispute. One of the other editors in the dispute has done an amazing job of assuming bad faith. He accuses me of trying to start a revert duel here, and then claims that my logging off due to a low battery was part of an attempt to bait him into a WP:3RR violation. He says that I and an anon editor opened up a complaint against him, when we posted to it after someone else opened it -- before I was involved with the article. He also says that we "cite policy incessantly".

When I attempted to summarize his extremely lengthy talk page comments so that other people could more easily get a sense of what the discussion was about (summarizing everyone else's posts in the same style, and collapsing the original posts), he told me that he "won't allow anyone to summarize or characterize in their own words what I wrote." He says that I have "unfortunately put yourself in a position to get brushed aside". He has repeatedly characterized himself as a "new editor", despite having made his first edit in October 2006.

He also said that I restored a deleted comment of his, when it was someone else who did it, because they felt the deletion put their response out of context.

I'm getting pretty close to the end of my rope here. I don't think this is near the end of the dispute resolution process yet, but with the frequent attacks on my motives, I'm getting close to washing my hands of the whole thing, and I don't think that will be good for the article, or for later editors.

Thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging reliable sources

Resolved

 – Burntsauce now knows where to go

Apologies for bringing this to the administrators noticeboard, I'm sure there is a better place for this (and if so please point me in the right direction). How does one judge reliable sources? I have found a site which appears on 2522 different Wikipedia pages, called www.onlineworldofwrestling.com [63] and am finding that a large number of articles are relying on this site as not just their primary source of information, but the sole source of information. Considering that anyone can pay the $25.00 to submit a profile to this site, and then in turn have it used to source a Wikipedia article, I have my doubts as to its reliability. Is this cause for concern, or no big deal? Burntsauce 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard exists for exactly this purpose. WilyD 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you, I've copied this discussion there. This thread can be closed if that is standard procedure. Burntsauce 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Double Accounts

I beleive this shows the use of two accounts does anybody else see it? [64] ExtraDry 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUSPSOCK is the more appropriate forum for this. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Prolix

Is there anything to be done about excessive posts to a policy talk page? I am trying to facilitate a consensus following an edit war on WP:BLP, in which I admittedly participated. Another participant in the edit war has added 20,000+ bytes to the talk page and made 51 of the 57 total edits there today alone.

I'm not sure what to do. He hasn't stepped over the line of civility or anything else specific as far as I can tell so I don't want to mention him by name. But his contributions are so voluminous and frequent it is difficult to continue discussion. To my mind they are frequently argumentative, off topic, verbose, and even a little bizarre. He has edit conflicts with himself and frequently revises his earlier comments to add tidbits or change his statements. I'm afraid most people have tuned out and that this will spoil any attempt to discuss the policy and reach consensus to avoid further edit warring. I've asked him a few times to be concise and on topic but to no avail at all.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Is there any policy on this or must we just live with it? Thx, Wikidemo 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy I have ever seen, but posting 20k per day to a talk page is not an effective way to communicate, as this editor will learn in time. I would just ignore the excessive posts and make the person write more succinctly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought...but I don't think "will learn in time" applies here. He's an old timer and has gotten blocked frequently, ten times in the last year. Thirteen more edits today and the day is only two hours old (by UTC). I've given up on actually reading everything he's saying but he seems to have just refactored / reordered things he said over the last day...and now he's giving me all kinds of warnings about NPA, saying he only wants to hear proposals from editors who have been active at least a year, not six months (I've been on about 8 months, he has for a couple years), etc. I have that "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore" feeling about this. It seems to be heading for a meltdown. I should just walk away but the edit protection on the policy page ends soon and I can see it's headed for a renewed edit war if people can't discuss it constructively.Wikidemo 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vanilla2

Resolved

 – closed early per WP:SNOW - Alison ☺ 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to bring this up, a guy with 20 edits at the most, who's been here for less than a month, never uses edit summaries or the minor edit button, wants to run for admin. What do you think we should do about this...it's ridiculous. I think we should let it stand and all but...there's no way in Hell he's gonna win. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just let it sit, after a few opposes it will be closed early. This sort of thing happens frequently enough that there is a standard protocol for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As above. The editor has a right to apply for adminship but it'll probably go one way. Let the community decide here - Alison ☺ 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We close them when they are very obvious like that. Secretlondon 09:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring

I'm tempted to call arbitration on the behavior of both sides in the recent BJAODN dispute. It is perhaps a lame example of a wheel war, but if it's so lame that's all the more reason why people shouldn't wheel war over it. Over a year ago, some people stated that wheel warring is poisonous and that the culture around it needs to change. Obviously it hasn't changed. >Radiant< 11:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Thatcher131 11:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea. While I agree in theory that BJAODN (unfortunately) needs to go, the way this has been handled with deletions and undeletions, especially given what happened in the days after after Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) initially deleted this unilaterally, has not really been ideal admin behavior.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir Hugo Drax and Hugo Drax

Can someone please correct the abovementioned pages? The article is located at Sir Hugo Drax with a redirect from Hugo Drax, but the talk page is located at Talk:Hugo Drax with a redirect from Talk:Sir Hugo Drax. Thank you.

 Done --ST47Talk·Desk 11:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there was a cut-and-paste move last October, and we're at the wrong title regardless. I'll do the history merge. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucracy watch

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting, people have apparently gotten into the habit of voting for "coordinators". This strikes me as unwiki. Input would be appreciated. >Radiant< 12:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Other projects do that too. That's where we got the idea.Rlevse 12:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

They're asking people to be co-ordinators, not Rulers of the Universe. Co-ordinator is hardly a bureaucratic title. Neil ム 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With 142 members, I do not think they need 5 of them though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It started with WP:MILHIST a while ago. I don't think it's necessary, and I do worry about walled gardens, but there's other things more worthy of attention.--cj | talk 14:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeking an uninvoved administrator to close discussion

At WP:CSN#Ideogram.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 a siteban is under discussion for Ideogram. No new posts have occurred in two days. Durova^Charge! 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ill do it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anybody know the templates to archive a CSN discussion? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You could nick them from samples in the archives. That's what I do. Durova^Charge! 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

that is what i was going to do! Just wondered where they came from. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Navou closes a lot of discussions there; he probably knows. Suggest e-mailing him because he'll be mostly offline for a couple of days. Durova^Charge! 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How many articles does Wikipedia delete per day?

A few months ago I recall a stastic that this site deletes around 5000 pages a day. Been looking for confirmation of that and can't find it anywhere. I'll accept estimates from the CSD regulars if that's the best we can do. Would appreciate help! Durova^Charge! 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)