Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive110

User 70.106.191.94 > Racial Slur

Resolved

70.106.191.94 (talk · contribs) makes a racial slur here. ~ WikiDon 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a typical piece (although of extremely poor taste) of vandalism, I've given the user an only warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We see this sort of thing every day, it's just people who are bored, I wouldn't worry about it. Qst 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We-e-e-e-ell, I worry about it in a society point of view manner (although the spelling is the self referential model rather than the white supremacist term) but as far as WP... slap a warning on the talkpage and take it to AIV if it happens again. LessHeard vanU 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support instant blocking for any edits which use racial, sexual or any other slurs. Such vandalism doesn't deserver a second chance. (not advocating indefinite blocks, though, just warning blocks to make a point) Corvus cornix 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Shininycoal suspicion

(Not sure if this should go here or on the incidents noticeboard...)
User:Shininycoal, for a user whose editing history spans the last 12 hours (although the account was created October 22), has a short but quite odd string of edits. Maybe I'm just overly suspicious, but it seems odd for a new editor to move the archives of MediaWiki:Blockedtext [1][2][3], put an (apparently spurious) ArbcomArticle tag on Talk:Jeff V. Merkey [4], create a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey [5], and some edits to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles and its talk page.

Is this a odd thing that might require some reversals, or should I turn down the sensitivity of my oddness detectors? Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I blocked this as a probable SCOX troll. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • He may have returned using TOR exit node 122.17.15.125. Only a single edit was made with that IP, restoring Shininycoal's changes to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. I reverted. Please correct me if I was wrong to do so. --MediaMangler 08:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am reliably informed this is user:Amorrow, who is now unfortunately out of jail. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar closed

The above arbitration case has closed. "For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions", Alkivar is desysopped. He may apply to the committee to have his adminship reinstated, but may not apply at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Burntsauce is banned as a meat-puppet of banned user JB196. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Its amazing Burntsauce remained unblocked all this time, when he arrived here it was so obvious that he was just mimicking JB196 that it was a almost WP:DUCK case, the only thing that separated both users were different IP addresses. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I did give Burntsauce an indef back in April for that reason. Alkivar lifted it. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a vivid demonstration of how successful the small crowd of banned abusers currently running Wikipedia Review have become in manipulating and exploiting our good faith. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"...Wikipedia Review..."? That would be a Certain Site, would it not? LessHeard vanU 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily so successful anymore. :) Durova^Charge! 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Help fixing a cut and paste move

Resolved

Can a more experienced admin walk me through (or show me how to go about) fixing the cut and paste move of Iron distance triathlon to Full Distance Triathlon. A user named User:Pickywiki performed the move, and I saw it when it happened, but this was before I was an admin. Later, he came back and undid my fix. To complicate matters, it should probably be at Full distance triathlon, rather than Full Distance Triathlon. So, the history pages need to be merged and then moved to Full distance triathlon, but I'm not sure how to do it. Leebo ^T/C 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First move Iron distance triathlon to Full Distance Triathlon. It will say that you have to delete the page before the page can be moved. Check the ok box, and delete away. Next, go to view deleted edits from the history tab of the Full Distance Triathlon page. Click the option to restore all edits. Wait up to 5 minutes for the database to catch up, and you should have a history that has been merged. Next, make sure that the current version of the article is accurate (it will most likely still have the redirect showing, so you'll have to edit an earlier version to get the latest version of the article). Finally, you can move that to the new name. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it, and the log for the page says I restored the deleted revisions, so now I'm just waiting for it to actually show them in the history. Does it often take much longer than 5 minutes? Leebo ^T/C 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, it worked perfectly, and I think I've cleared up any double redirects and talk page issues. Fantastic! Thanks Andrew. Leebo ^T/C 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One additional trick I tend to use when doing history merges is, before the move, I open an edit window on the latest version of the destination page. Thus, right after I do the move, I can flip back to the open edit window and do a save to restore to the latest version at once. I do this restore even before I go undelete the deleted revisions. By doing this, there's no need to wait for the history to catch up, because as soon as you restore the revisions, you are done, and can move on to other things and let the server catch up whenever it gets to it. :) - TexasAndroid 19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

request a disambiguation?

How do I request a disambiguation? Specifically, there are two people with the name "Kent Larson" listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Larson_%28disambiguation%29

Searching for "Kent Larson" list only the gay porn star. How can a search for "Kent Larson" return the MIT Media Lab faculty (or both names)?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kllmit (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 

If you moved Kent Larson to Kent Larson (porn star) and made Kent Larson a redirect to Kent Larson (disambiguation), I think you'd have the outcome you're looking for. Leebo ^T/C 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't redirect an article to a disambiguation page. If there is no article at Kent Larson, then the disambig page should be at Kent Larson, no Kent Larson (disambiguation). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. Hut 8.5 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but someone seems to have done this already, so my comment can be disregarded :P Leebo ^T/C 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth has happened here ? Now we have to pages with identical content and someone has crushed an article with a disambiguation page. Let me try to sort this out. Use the move function in the future please. Jackaranga 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting deletion of Kent Larson (porn star) to make way for move. Jackaranga 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of these copy paste moves, it now requires admin help and is much more complicated, can an admin please: delete Kent Larson (porn star), then move Kent Larson to Kent Larson (porn star), then delete Kent Larson, then move Kent Larson (disambiguation) to Kent Larson, then delete Kent Larson (disambiguation). Thanks. Jackaranga 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference all you needed to do was move Kent Larson, to Kent Larson (porn star), then create a disambiguation page at Kent Larson. This way you don't need admin help. Jackaranga 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ryan Whitney.jpg

Could I get someone to speedy delete this? It's already been uploaded to commons as Image:Ryan Whitney2.jpg, and it's blocking another commons image. I know this may not exactly follow policy, but it seems to make sense in this instance. Thanks. 71.58.97.225 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that images have to wait five or seven days, before being deleted if they're correctly placed on Wikimedia Commons. Qst 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just stop waiting around and just do it. --Haemo 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tasmin Jahan article

Resolved

 – Left an appropriate message on the poster's talk page Dppowell 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I was wondering if a full length factual article could be entered on Wikipedia regarding the playwright Tasmin Jahan? Tasmin Jahan's details did appear under the TONBRIDGE article but now it is not appearing.

please let me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.115.165 (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeking WP:U add'l opinions

...on Flourishadmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reported by a bot at WP:UAA. This may technically be a vio for "admin," though I suspect the user may be the administrator of this mailing list. What I was going to do was e-mail the person specified on that site and ask them if this is their account, then suggest that they create a more personalized account name. I'm reluctant to just block and put up a template. Thoughts? Dppowell 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see what he or she does with his or her edits. If they look promotional, I'd block. In any case, doesn't this fail matches the name of a company or group or email addresses etc likely to be promotional username violations?Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right--I was so focused on the word 'admin' that the other vio didn't even occur to me. However, because the user (if I'm right about the connection to that mailing list) may have many ties to the academic community, I'm inclined to assume good faith and IAR for the moment in the interest of informal community outreach. That said, if someone else thinks a block is in order, I won't object. Dppowell 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorftrottel (talk · contribs)

I'm sure that everyone is aware that Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours a couple of days ago for incivility. This was increased soon after due to block evasion using an IP to post at the block review on AN/I. At the point that Dorftrottel was incivil, he was drunk. I suspect that Dorftrottel is now sober and probably is upset at his actions. Scars can be left from drunk actions, in this case he has that in his block log. I believe that the block is no longer protective and merely serves as a punitive measure due to Dorftrottel no longer being under the influence, and given that the original block would now have expired, I would like to suggest that he is unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support, with the understanding that Dorf will hit the sack instead of committing an EUI the next time he's got a surplus of sheets to the wind. Dppowell 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, a funny occurence. Support the unblock--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I support the unblocking. Everyone deserves a second chance. Qst 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Support unblock. Not the first editor to have been busted for EUI - Alison ^❤ 19:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him. If I've overstepped, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) Dppowell 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was the right move, I was hoping to wait for comments from Picaroon and kwsn as they were responsible for the blocks, but I guess it doesn't really matter and we can re-evaluate if they are against the unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on IRC, no problems on my end. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC? I-R-C!(?) Did we not ban the word? The insolence of that medium. Anyway, hopefully this will inspire more assumptions of good faith on his part. He was excessively playing the persecution complex card —which upsets me because that's my bit. El_C 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all. You've been very patient with me. A fair warning though: Please stay away from Chilean red wine! Beer or moonshine never had that effect. Beer only gives me the typical 5-beer-homosexuality where I begin seeking more physical contact to other guys, while booze makes me hug the toilet. Maybe we should include some disclaimer on Chilean wine? And the hangover it gave me, you wouldn't believe. Even my usually helpful cocktail of Aspirin and strong coffee had no effect. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is that you could still type straight and make sense. Different people are affected in different ways. I've seen drunk people unable to complete sentences or click the right buttons, and even leave themselves logged in to public computers... Carcharoth 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, typing half-way straight and making some sense don't take too much effort for me. Not being anti-social does, so it's the first thing to go down the drain. — Dorftrottel⁠ 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I can always think, talk and type coherently when drunk - it tends to be walking in a co-ordinated manner that takes an effort. :-) Walton^One 11:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But I've never had a hangover. (Hint: drink gin and tonic. Good stuff.) Walton^One 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from User:Rubber_cat

Resolved

User:Rubber_cat has vandalized a number of pages today, though I have reverted all of them to this point. User should be warned and/or blocked for their edits. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user based on the nature of both his vandalism spree today and of his troublesome editing past, however next time such a report should be filed on WP:AIV where it will receive the attention its supposed to receive, this is not a board for reporting vandalism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please can an admin delete this page of mine

Hi there,

thanks for your attention to this request.

I would like to post a note about an academic survey invitation to this noticeboard. This was recommended to me after substantial discussion involving several administrators about what was the appropriate way of my contacting administrators to inform them of this survey. As the survey is intended only for Wikipedia administrators, it was also suggested that I first ask for the survey invitation page to be deleted so that only admins can access it.

For full details of the previous discussion with admins as well as the page I would like deleted, please see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zhanliusc/Survey#Survey

If that looks okay, please can an admin delete that page, and then I will subsequently post the actual note to this noticeboard when I properly open the survey.

If there are any questions, please let me know. Thanks very much Zhan Zhanliusc 11:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're the only contributer to a page, you can just add {{db-author}} to the top. Someone will eventually take care of it for you. --Onorem♠Dil 11:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I've added the tag. Hopefully, it will be deleted soon. Zhanliusc 11:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it for you. Woodym555 12:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Zhanliusc 12:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TheNightmareMan

Resolved

 – ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TheNightmareMancontributions continues to unilaterally archive featured article of the day talk pages by moving them and leaving the message "This page has been archived." The user has been warned but seems not to respond to anything. 128.227.126.232 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• "It has become apparent that your account is being used only for vandalism, so it has been blocked indefinitely. --Yamla 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)" Looks like this has already been resolved. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Images from bollywoodblog

This way folks. Sarvagnya 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved the discussion from this archive to Riana's subpage as it was getting unwieldy here. Or so Riana felt. The discussion up until now can be seen in the collapsable box below. Sarvagnya 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User THEunique

RE: User:THEunique

I just can't seem to get through to this guy. I add cleanup and Wikify tags, he just yanks them out. All entries to his talk page, User talk:THEunique, just get blanked. He/she has had several image notes added, but he/she just does nothing but blank them out. This is strange one: "14:12, 7 November 2007 Deskana (Talk | contribs) m (moved User talk:Ochahill to User talk:THEunique: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Ochahill" to "THEunique") (undo)"

If you can either get through to him, and tell him how to edit in Wikipedia, go for it. Otherwise, I would like the account blocked. This person might also be German, and that is part of the problem, English is a second language.

Thanks, ~ WikiDon 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:USER, editors may remove warnings and talk messages at will from their own talk pages. Do you have diffs that illustrate the editor's other issues? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The "strange one" you quoted above was a username change request as per Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive32#Ochahill → THEunique. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like this is the kind of thing WikiDon is referring to. THEunique has removed tags without addressing the problems listed in those tags. I agree with the above comments though that users are allowed to remove comments from their talk pages as they see fit. Username change requests are also not unusual. Also, I'm not really sure where the guess about the user being German is coming from, as the user identifies as a college student from Illinois whose first language is English. Leebo ^T/C 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"editors may remove warnings and talk messages at will from their own talk pages" - I have gotten in trouble for doing that to my talk page in the past, the admin said that I was vandalizing. ~ WikiDon 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They were mistaken. IMHO, it's very poor form to do it, and I think many (most?) would agree...but it is allowed. Dppowell 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How long ago were you admonished? The official WP:VAN policy was clarified to explicitly state that editors could remove messages at will from their own talk pages 672 days ago [6]. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DIFFs

Sterling Trucks:

• he takes out the tag
• I put it in
• he takes it out
• I put it back

Daimler Financial Services

• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put them back in today

Chrysler Financial Services

• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put them back in today

Fifth Third Bank

• here is with tag
• very next edit, he yanks it

He signed up his account on an IP address that was 68.75.173.255 (talk · contribs) that was being used abusively and blockeb by Admin: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs)

If you check the history of his talk page, he received numorous COPYRIGHT IMAGE VIO Notices [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], plus a Copy Vio for text lifted from Daimler.com. Plus numorous other notices about image removal for lack of proper usage. He just doesn't seem to care. He just lets them get deleted, and then just uploads them again.

• I warn him to stop
• he just blanks the page

He makes no effort what so ever to fix the problem or communicate with other Wikipedians to make the articles better, just bulls ahead with his own personal agenda.

He is also sockpuppetting under at least 216.82.180.23 (talk · contribs), 216.82.180.24 (talk · contribs), just look at all the warning at that talk page. I think that this might be his work address.

~ WikiDon 03:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've notified THEunique of this discussion so that he can present his side if he wants. He may choose not to, but it's appropriate to at least let him know his conduct is being discussed. Leebo ^T/C 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That is good, he has more than abused 3RR, and uses IPs-SPs to help to it. ~ WikiDon 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this ... why did you give [15] the user both a level 3 and 4 vandalism warning at the same time? Applying escalating warnings non-sequentially is highly unusual. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert irreversible page move of Template:Soviet occupation

User:Dojarca recently irreversibly moved Template:Soviet occupation to Template:Soviet occupation zones [16] unilaterally without any WP:RM process to gauge concensus first. Please move this page back per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal_of_irreversible_page_moves. Thanks. Martintg 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, no comment on the merits of the move. east.718 at 04:19, 11/9/2007

Martintg, just formally do a requested move next time this happens and establish official consensus through the Wikipedia process. This move warring has to stop and as I've participated in the dispute once I'm not going to protect it from move. But if you go through proper channels, this won't happen again. Keegan^talk 05:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to modify that, you need to work things out with User:Dojarca in a forum other than the template talk space. I'm going to be bold and move protect the page after reading some more. Any admin may revert. Keegan^talk 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree, in controversial cases like this we should defer to community input, and this can best be done via WP:RM and User:Dojarca is free to initiate such a case if he so desires. Martintg 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys are having move wars about names of templates??? Take a slap with a wet trout, everyone. Did it ever occur to any of you that a move war about a template is the most idiotically futile thing you could possibly do? The names of templates are invisible, they are never supposed to be displayed in an article! The template can be named just anything, it will never make any difference to the normal reader. I'm tempted to move the miserable thing to {{iopilkshfiziewrlkdjfdlauoer}}, just to drive home the point.

If you must edit-war, please go and edit-war about something more important. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty lame edit war to me... and I was involved in the Great Cow Tipping Edit Wars. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend familiarizing yourself with the case before commenting. After his XfD failed, Dojarca moved, renamed and changed the template without any consensus (everybody but he was against it). No one could care less about the name of the template, it was the content change that was problematical. -- Sander Säde 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally I would absolutely agree with you. However since this discussion has been about the template's move rather than its content, I too feel that the people unilaterally moving pages need to find something better to edit war about. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While User:Future Perfect at Sunrise makes a valid point, the issue here is behaviour. If we allow relative newbie User:Dojarca to get away with this, he may well imagine it is also okay to unilaterally move articles against consensus too, which would be much more disruptive in the long run. A stitch in time saves nine, and all that, for his sake as well as Wikipedia's. Martintg 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearing a copyvio notice

Resolved

Hello. I'm not entirely sure that this page is appropriate but anyway. This article Brent Crude has been cited has being in copyvio. The fact is that the url linked cite wikipedia has it's source. Can some administrator "clean up" the copyvio notice ?—Esurnir 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 21:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User 69.249.107.205

Resolved

This user vandalized the article on Hopewell Valley CHS graduate and rapper "Keyz" by adding the following quotation: "Keyz is notable for his being awarded "punk-ass bitch" status by the Real Gangsta Association of America. This honor is bestowed only upon those who not only lack talent, but have built their reputation upon a completely fabricated biography of poverty and hardship."

Just giving you a heads-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.126.162 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this; I've warned the user. Next time, please report vandalism to WP:AIV. That's the page designed especially for reporting vandalism and you'll likely get a faster response there. Raven4x4x 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial merge straw poll needs closing

Talk:Imaginationland#Merge_poll <- Please can an uninvolved admin read the discussion and close accordingly. I must stress not to just simply vote count, but to leave a rationale on why you've closed the merge that way. This seems like the simplest and most painless way of resolving this squabble. Thanks, Will ^(talk) 01:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll stay away since I became tangentially involved when I protected Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II, Imaginationland Episode III, and Template:Infobox South Park season 11 episode list. It should be noted however that the straw poll is old, and there is an ongoing RfC here. east.718 at 08:27, 11/10/2007

UAA Backup

The WP:UAA board is backed up right now. Could an admin please take a hack at it? Thanks! Icestorm815 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the note, it's been cleared now. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, a backup at this page isn't really important enough to warrant a post here. Someone will eventually get to it. -- John Reaves 03:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Block/ban for further consideration

I've just blocked ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week for continued edit-warring, and I'd like some input on what to do with him further.

This is the same user as Mr. Neutron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self-declared), FunkyFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (pretty obvious from the editing profile), and likely also the earlier VMORO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus possibly another sock account too. Together, these accounts have a history of almost incessant edit-warring over Macedonia-related articles of well over two years. Even though Foreigner is now quite adept at gaming the 3RR system, staying continually just below the mark, I count a total of eleven separate blocks on these accounts spread over the course of 24 months.

Here's just a representative sample of what editing on these articles is like. Foreigner is obviously not the only edit-warrior in this domain, but I do see him as one of the principal instigators.

• Kiro Gligorov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv on 7 Nov 2007; all his previous edits during the last months are also reverts
• ASNOM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv on 7 Nov 2007
• Struga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv on 6 Nov 2007; previous slow edit-warring all through July and September
• Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv between 2-4 Nov 2007
• Nikola Karev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 4rv between 30 Oct - 4 Nov
• Zajdi, Zajdi Jasno Sonce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 4 (semi-)rv between 28-29 Oct
• Toše Proeski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) revert-warring on 21-22 Oct 2007

I'm open to all suggestions how to proceed further. Community-imposed topic ban? Revert parole? Handing the case off to Arbcom together with the whole rest of the Macedonian-Bulgarian fracas? (That one is going to become the next Armenia-Azerbaijan case, if you ask me.)

Note that I've also handed out shorter blocks just today to two other participants of the same set of disputes (Dzole (talk · contribs) and Jingiby (talk · contribs)). Also, for the sake of full disclosure, I ought to state here that I've myself been editing one or two of the articles listed above (I keep getting asked to intervene in these disputes by this or that side.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of this ongoing Wikipedia disruption, I'd say it's time for the ArbCom. — madman bum and angel 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be useful to come up with some policy to handle contentious subject matter like this. That is, some way we can short-cut the whole arbitration committee and just go with 1RR or some such. I have no idea how such a policy could be worded and applied fairly, though, and I firmly believe it should take far more than just one single admin dictating that this is now in effect. Personally, I try to stay away from such conflicts though I am not always successful. --Yamla 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent passed principle in an ArbCom case that when "reasonable efforts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed... seemingly draconian measures [may be adopted] as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia." Presumably, this doesn't extend to administrators; something like this should be considered though. east.718 at 04:26, 11/9/2007

Well, we've always had the authority to do community bans, and community-imposed restrictions such as revert paroles or topic bans are only a logical consequence of that, being simply a selective use of that same authority. The question is just, are we confident doing that in the case of this account, or can we hope for a more comprehensive solution comprising other potential troublemakers? I loathe the Arbcom process, but I must admit for a deeper investigation of the whole field Arbcom might be more suitable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I think it is time for those involved in the articles and outside editors and administrators to have the community sanction discussion. Whether that takes the form of general 1revert parole for everyone or something else the topic area seems to be disrupted by ongoing inappropriate editor behavior. --Rocksanddirt 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Now at WP:RFAR#Macedonia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey of Wikipedia Administrators

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, if you are interested in being invited to take part in a brief (about 10 mins) academic survey, please take a look at the contents of the following deleted page :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zhanliusc/Survey

Please note that this page was deliberately deleted to make sure that only Wikipedia administrators can see it. Please do not undelete the content.

This notice on WP:AN and the deleted page technique are being used on the recommendation of Wikipedia administrators in order to avoid spamming and to restrict the survey to admins. Please see the deleted page for links to relevant previous discussions with admins, and for further information about the survey (including links to my university site and full contact details).

(Note: I understand that the noticeboard may become busy and there is a possibility that this notice becomes archived quickly (I see this noticeboard page is already quite full). In that case, I may want to post a reminder if that's okay. I only imagine one reminder being needed, if it is at all, as the survey closes after a few days)

Thank you very much Zhan Li, University of Southern California email: zhanli at usc dot edu

Zhanliusc 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zhan. I've seen that you have posted this same message at many admins' talk pages and believe that is sufficient. Could you please stop as posting the same message everywhere would be considered as spamming? Thanks for your consideration. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the best place for the "notice". (As opposed to canvassing...) - jc37 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and that's why there has been no reason to revert this thread. However, Zhan can now stop using admins' talk pages i believe. I personally participated at the survey yesterday. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He has stopped posting it to admins' talk pages, as far as I can tell from his contribs... Leebo ^T/C 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to publish the results so the rest of us can see them? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, I'd like to see the results as well.  ;) Mercury 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thirded! --Masamage ♫ 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He might not be able to publish the results here prior to acceptance for publication in a peer-reviewed journal as publication here might constitute "prior publication". Most journals have a policy to not publish previously published material (though things do slip through from time to time). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He's doing this project for an intro-level class; I didn't assume that he was intending to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that the teacher of the course or an academic collaborator might wish to expand on the work and to include him as a co-author. I agree that he quite likely would not be the first author on such a publication. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of control admin

Hello, it is regretful that it's come to this but I feel I must complain about the recent actions of admin: Duja who in the past few months has moved a few controversial articles without consensus. First was the Myanmar article. Before the anti-government protests came into the Western news and sparked outrage from activists, the Myanmar article was named Myanmar for a very long time without any proposals to change it to the British imperialist name of "Burma". With anti-junta sentiment running high amongst Westerners, there was a proposal to move the article to "Burma". The debate was heated, but, as the archives show, clearly there was no consensus. Despite this, Duja moved the article to "Burma" (1). I requested a move back to Myanmar shortly after (2) but my poll was locked immediately under the premises established that second votes are not allowed until months after the article has been moved. I let it go and forgot about the Myanmar article. Then came the FC Dynamo Kyiv article. There was a vote to move it to FC Dynamo Kiev. There was no consensus so the proposal failed (3). A little over a month later a second vote was held, despite the precedent from the Myanmar article to NOT hold a second vote shortly afterwards, but get this... the second vote failed too (4), more editors voted against the proposal than voted in favor. Does this stop Duja, who also moved the Myanmar article? No. He has the arrogance to move the article to Dynamo Kiev even though two polls were against it, and the second poll should've never have even been held! There is a small, but vociferous movement to move all football (soccer) club articles to that of old, English names such as Sporting Clube de Portugal (Sporting CP for the short) to Sporting Lisbon (the old name) or FK Crvena Zvezda to Red Star Belgrade (old name). Yesterday, Duja, moved Crvena Zvezda to Red Star Belgrade (5), again without a consensus. WP is suffering at the hands of these iron fisted admins who ignore common sense and the wills of the editors. This needs to be stopped. At least revert Duja's disruptive edits. If this is the wrong place to post a complaint about an admin then I apologize. --Tocino 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment, doing a quick headcount due to that even the closing said both sides arguments were valid the decision to move the article to Burma from Myanmar at Talk:Burma/Archive 3 was 47-19 in favour of moving. I have no opinion on the matter but felt the numbers should be in play as there are arguments of no consensus. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls are a poor way to gauge actual consensus and contribute to meaningful discussion. I agree though, the non-consensus claim seems rather suspect. ~ UBeR 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I will note a particular discrepancy between the users portrayal of two events - he noted that his poll to move the Burma article back to Myanmar was speedily closed while the Kiev article was not and continued stating the second move debte should not have happened. The second Kiev debate did take place rather "soon" after the first, a month or so, however the users poll to move Burma back was posted only 24 hours after the first decision. There is a clear case of misrepresentation here as the user has omitted that their attempt to move the article back was pretty much as soon as the last poll had closed. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, there was enough opposition in order to nullify the consensus claim. Also, many of the people who supported the move were anons and editors who had political messages in their profiles such as "Save Burma" or "Free the monks" etc. When the vote closed and the protests died down, it seemed more and more editors came out in favor of keeping Myanmar. My case against Duja does not just circle around the Myanmar article though. --Tocino 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we close this discussion. The close by Duja at Talk:Burma/Archive_3#Requested_move does not seem to be in any way questionable. The premise of the complaint is without foundation. --Tony Sidaway 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Tocino the move of the Kiev article is interesting as it was a roughly 4-1 result in favour of not moving the article that was overruled on the grounds of google results. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Kiev move should be reexamined. The consensus of the editors should be followed in this case. ~ UBeR 05:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From the guideline: For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used., but I don't know Ukrainian at all, so I don't know how to convert the name of the town from Cyrillic to European using the "Ukrainian National system". Jackaranga 06:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And for FK Crvena Zvezda, there was not a move request for the article except in 2005. This was just made out of the blue, with the comment of "this is the official club name in English." I think the article should be moved back to FK Crvena Zvezda, then a discussion should be made about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's one thing to be bold but it's another to be bold out of the blue on a subject that has precedent against you. This may be the English encyclopedia but it is not the Western encyclopedia. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is true. hbdragon88 08:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, edit wars related to etymology largely to do with debates between British-English and American-English have a lot to do with the names of Eastern European clubs in an Eastern European organisation. (Use of organisation on purpose). –– Lid^(Talk) 09:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JAMAA Deletion Review

Could some additional adminsitrators step in on the deletion review for JAMAA? [17] We won't get anywhere with Metros and I, as we already have a past of disagreements and Metros is using his bias towards me to delete a legitimate page. Please review. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 04:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Second request. In the last eight hours we have only had one additional administrator join the discussion. I would really appreciate the assistance of someone who has no affiliation with Metros. The way I have been treated by him is absolutely appauling, and despite the many requests for mediation, comment, and arbitration I have filed, and the proof that Metros is abusing his administrative powers by stalking my contributions and reverting them, regardless of their content, my complaints have completely been ignored. This is an absolute outrage, and I do not appreciate that a notable article was deleted within 5 minutes of its creation, due only in part to the fact that Metros has a bias towards me. Rhythmnation2004 12:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Admins are obligated or need to join into the discussion. An Admin will evaluate the discussion and close it (as with AFD), but anyone can contribute to the discussion - one need not have admins contribute for the discussion to have validity. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please comment, and I would like to speak to an admin privately

I have some opinions on Wikipedia administration policies. I've posted two topics on Village Pump, called "Administrative policies of banning and blocking editors" and "How to deal with users of questionable mental stability." I'd be pleased if both regular users and administrators could give their opinions. Please view the Village Pump (policy) page to read the postings. Also, I'd like to speak to an administrator(s) privately (possibly through email) about a certain issue. Any admin is free to contact me. - Cyborg Ninja 06:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another self-admitted sock

CanIBeFrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-admitted sockpuppet who has rekindled a page which was one of the ways banned POV-pusher Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sought to deflect criticism of his campaign of original research on Charles Peirce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Checkuser confirms this is probably not Awbrey, but I am still left with the question: what long-standing editor would have a reputation that would actually be damaged by proposing such a measure, to the extent of making a sockpuppet account permissible? Or is this just yet another rebuffed POV-pusher trying to reverse engineer a system that will give them the upper hand in a content dispute? It is extremly hard to take proposals like this at face value when we have no idea who is behind them, and such use of sockpuppets is, I think, corrosive, undermining those of us who are prepared to put our names to controversial debates. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any point to this post? You have shown your displeasure about allowing sockpuppets for use when editing controversial subjects before, and this clearly isn't the place to garner support for a change in policy - take it to the relevant policy talk page... Viridae^Talk 11:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the point is to gain other people's input. WT:SOCK shows that I am far from being alone in my unhappiness over the increasing use of sockpuppets in this way. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What to do when accused of "harassing" editors?

Dear admins, early today over here editor PaddyM wrote, "Your continued harassment of other editors is confusing at best and disruptive at worst." I am honestly confused and entirely baffled at what he means. PaddyM and I had been involved in a content dispute which almost erupted into an edit war, but I withdrew myself from any editing of the disputed content in order to prevent such a situation. I did leave a few templates but none of them were inappropriate. While PaddyM accused me of harassment, I am the one who now feels harassed. Tangentially, other editors have chimed in saying that the disputed content is not in the view of PaddyM, so to a certain extend I think he may just be feeling hurt and needing to lash out. Might an admin get involved to help informally mediate? Thank you. Bstone 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears as if both of you were clearly engaged in a content dispute to the point of edit warring. You yourself seemed to go a bit overboard with adding templates to the article and template warning established users. PaddyM also clearly was edit warring and not discussing things on talk. That said, the comments that were left at your talk page (that you removed) seem civil. Throwing out accusations of "harassment" doesn't help the situation, but I can understand how PaddyM can be offended by the templates. At this point, it seems like you just need to get a third opinion, or even file a content RfC to get more discussion going on at the talk page (so it isn't just you vs. PaddyM). In essence, this is still a content dispute, and I see no reason to come to the admins for anything. If the edit warring continues, the page should probably be protected. I think you should both just take a step back, relax, try to work together, and try to get more user input. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, as is entirely clear in the talk page for the article, I have worked very hard in attempting to discuss and work together with PaddyM. As you have indicated, he has not discussed the content of the article but rather has been entirely indignant that his version is the only legitimate one. As I stated on the talk page I will refrain from editing this section in order to prevent an edit war. Other editors are beginning to chime in and indicate that PaddyM's opinions are not supported by the facts. However, I am mostly concerned about PaddyM stating that I am harassing him and other editors. I believe this to be unfounded and rather a personal insult and incivility on the part of PaddyM. Thus, I ask that an admin chime in to help mediate. Bstone 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"entirely indignant that his version is the only legitimate one" why is he angry his own version is the only legitimate one ? Jackaranga 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. He doesn't want to discuss the content and will simply revert and engage in an edit war. Thus, I have ceased editing. However his accusations of "harassment" are entirely unfounded and are simply uncivil. Thus, I ask an admin to please counsel him regarding this. Bstone 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting, and telling, that Bstone initiated a discussion my edits on the AN without even involving me in the discussion. As anyone can see in the referenced discussion, Bstone simply reverted all edits by a third party, explaining that the history section is completely inappropriate for this article. I disagreed, found sources for all the statements, and they were still removed by Bstone. Additionally, another editor took issue with Bstone's version and he still insists that I am disrupting the process.

I don't disagree that we are embroiled in a content dispute, but for Bstone to say I'm "feeling hurt and needing to lash out" and come complain about me to the administrator's seems silly. As Andrew c pointed out, placing generic templates on my talk page instead of actually discussing his concerns and then simply deleting my responses makes it that much more difficult to discuss either one of our concerns.

Either way, it seems the admins have essentially agreed that this issue need not be brought to an admin, but discussed on the talk pages with other editors, which is exactly what is happening. Hopefully Bstone will be able to more appropriately contribute instead of just randomly adding as many templates as possible. Cheers, PaddyM 18:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no clean hands in this episode, PaddyM. It would be lovely if in the future you can compromise instead of simply reverting with indignance. Like I said, I have ceased editing that section as you are willing to bring it into an edit war and level personal and uncivil attacks. I, however, am above that. Bstone 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD needs attention

I am taking the unusual step of listing an open AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhavas. As you can see from my notes on the AfD, this situation is an utter mess, with quite a number of versions of this article having already been created (possibly more than I've found--please make a note at the AfD if you find any more). This needs to be dealt with once and for all, with the possible resolutions, as I see it, being:

1. Restore one, merge the histories of the rest into that one, and protect all of those titles as redirects to that one.
2. Make all protected redirects to Ezhava.
3. Delete all and list at WP:PT. The advantage of this over redirecting is that it makes clearer to the editors who are creating these lists that they are not wanted, if that is indeed how the community feels.

I am listing this here because I think the reason that the AfD has not yet gotten any comment is that the extent and nature of the problem is not clear to those who can't see deleted edits and/or do not have experience reading logs. I'd appreciate any comments. I have no personal stake in how this is decided, but I do think it important that a final, clear decision is made, or else these problems will continue. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The other reason was the AFD notice was missing plus I put a note at Talk:Ezhava (which has been fully protected for quite a while). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Many images tagged for deletion today

Hello, just informing you that we have tagged all the images licensed under {{MEP image (EP)}} for deletion today, as replaceable fair-use. Please note that even though the European Parliament allows reproduction as long as they are attributed, Wikipedia:Non-free content does not allow replaceable non-free images. As all the images using this template depict living persons they are not irreplaceable, and had no fair-use rationale anyway, they have all been tagged for deletion (around 250 of them). I also tagged about 50 images from Category:New Zealand Crown Copyright images for deletion for lacking fair-use rationale.

• In both cases most of the problem comes from the fact that the templates ({{MEP image (EP)}} and {{NZCrownCopyright}}) led users to believe the images originating from the European Parliament and NZ Gov Agencies, could be used even if they were replaceable. I modified {{NZCrownCopyright}} to make it clearer it requires a fair-use rationale and nominated {{MEP image (EP)}} for deletion.
• User:NoSoftwarePatents now has 184 image deletion warnings on his page, but I will also report him at WP:UAA. Jackaranga 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Commented at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:MEP image (EP). Quite glad you didn't report User:NoSoftwarePatents, that would have been a bit of a stretch. By the way, Image:Istvan Palfi (EP, 6th term).jpg, speedily deleted under the rationale that it was a depiction of a living person, was, in fact, a depiction of a dead person, so I undeleted it. Are you quite sure all 250 images you tagged this way are of living people? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it wasn't me who had tagged that one, but I have now, because it has no rationale. Jackaranga 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it did, you just didn't see it. Added a heading so it's more obvious. Again, are you quite sure about all 250 others? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Don't know what is to be expected though, I mean User:NoSoftwarePatents has uploaded over 150 images in violation of policy. It took long enough to tag all those ones. I will go through and check them all (the ones I tagged), but I don't like the fact that other users should fix his policy violations 150 times over. Jackaranga 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

They were uploaded 2 and a half years ago, in April 2005, and clearly in good faith, since you will notice he quotes the EP permission in each upload. At the time, the permission template said nothing about the image being non-free, that was changed in 2006 [18]. You're getting upset at him for a rule interpretation that changed a year after his action, and is disputable even now. This isn't a vandal, this is a hard working contributor, who should be treated with respect. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well in the around 130 I had tagged I did find one that is dead now, so I changed the tag. Also note I am not accusing him of being a vandal and it was he who created the template in the first place. He is not a bad faith editor, I apologise for that, I was getting more annoyed at you really, shouldn't have taken it out on his edits. Jackaranga 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth: While these images might not be entirely free in a technical sense, it strikes me that there is no real-world issue with their licensing status, and that pushing for these images to be deleted or replaced should be, among all the image-rights issues facing the project, a fairly low priority. Newyorkbrad 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Help on protected page

Hello. I would like to have Outriggr's assessment script (see here) installed on my monobook.js. It is protected. Could an administrator please add it? I would like to help WikiProject Military History. Thanks, Auroranorth 11:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Gnangarra 11:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK update

The DYK update is over 9 hours too old. I have updated the next update (I've done it before). Would someone please promote it immediately from the next update? Royalbroil 16:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! Royalbroil 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AWB Checkpage

The Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage has some users waiting for confirmation over 24 hours and it says I should ask you guys on here. Cheers thanks alot! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 10:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone will probably come along shortly. Don't worry :) Qst (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done... Why on earth someone put that on the page... —Reedy Boy 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User Scipo

Resolved

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

Myself and twsx have filed a request for comment about Scipo because of his constant edit waring, however his edit list is getting stupid, and still nothing is done about him.

Can something Please be done about him

cheers PhilB ~ ^T/_C 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The RFC, which he was notified of, has been running for three weeks and Scipo has not responded. Three editors have gone on record as saying they've tried to work this out with Scipo. I'm blocking him for a week for edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! XD PhilB ~ ^T/_C 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

backlog!

backlog at WP:UAA! need admins to start blocking@--( Mulligan's Wake)(t) 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleared, thanks for letting us know. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a pretty significant backlog at WP:RM as well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings

Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now pitching into Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an incredibly complex debate, which is also a minefield (I have seen the OTRS tickets and discussed this one at length with Jimbo and Fred Bauder). This had gone quiet for a while, but Privatemusings seems to have reignited it (or at least played a part in that). Giovanni di Stefano is the lawyer of an individual whose article Privatemusings' main account edited. At what point does a "legitimate alternate account" become a controversy-evading "bad hand" sockpuppet, I wonder? It seems to me that WP:SOCK is being systematically gamed by a small number of people in order to create drama and ignite controversy. I remind people that the main account here is not a very long-standing contributor, is not traceable to real-world identity, so seems to me to have no credible reason to be using an alternate account to cause friction on one of our most problematic WP:BLP articles. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, he's editing Talk:Giovanni di Stefano, not Giovanni di Stefano, and is editing on the talk page in a civil and collaborative manner, working with users including Fred Bauder. Describing it as "pitching in" is a little unfair - and I don't see any friction being caused. Is this "main account" actually still editing? I note PM says it is not (which would suggest it is no longer a "main" account). If not, WP:SOCK doesn't apply. Has PM's other account ever edited Giovanni di Stefano (not another aticle tangentially connected)? As an aside, why did you delete Privatemusing's enjoinder to try and resolve things between the two of you? ([19]) Neil ☎ 09:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have no interest in resolving things "between the two of us", that is a complete red herring. However, this is probably better at WT:SOCK. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC):::

Guy, would you be willing to email me the name of PM's main account and the articles that you mention here? Or I will try and be on IRC from work but I'm rather busy. Thatcher131 12:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The sock puppetry rules no longer apply, unless you are implying that the original account has NOT stopped editing as claimed. I don't think you are the best person to deal with this, because he has made a good faith attempt to patch things up and you ignored that. Viridae^Talk 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So you say. But that is falling for the abusers' frequent trick of claiming that anybody who comes along and shows an interest is "involved" and therefore can't offer an opinion. Actually the overlap between PM's editing and mine is extremely limited, plus (and this is the important bit) such interaction as we have had is the result of attempts to address his problematic behaviour. To say that further discussion of his problematic behaviour is now embargoed because I have started to look at his problematic behaviour is a line of reasoning that will soon leave us unable to deal with any problem at all. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note that his last contribution to the talk page was more than 48 hours before Guy popped up to mention it. At least this time Guy isn't visibly a party to the specific dispute, which is about all that can be said in favor of this report. Time to bury the hatchet Guy. GRBerry 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, the claims that 'Privatemusings is using multiple accounts to edit the same topic' are based on a single brief comment about the subject of 'BADSITES' (prior to creation of the Privatemusings account) and perhaps a handful of other edits on pages within the vast spectrum of the whole controversy. Unless there is some other account that I do not know about or I am overlooking some connection, there has been no 'vote stacking', nothing which can reasonably be described as 'use of multiple accounts to give the appearance of more widespread support than a view has', et cetera. In short, nothing remotely actionable or notably wrong. That would make some of the statements which have been given about this 'abuse' grossly misleading at best... so maybe there IS some other account which has been involved. I dunno.

As to, "I have no interest in resolving things". Therein lies the problem Guy. You made no effort to resolve it before going directly to an indefinite block. You didn't change your position even after he agreed not to do the thing you ostensibly blocked him for. You "have no interest in resolving things". You aren't even trying to settle the matter peaceably. You just want to get rid of the guy you don't like. And that, rightly, has no part in our dispute resolution procedures. --CBD 15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Addenda: Privatemusings' other account has edited the page of one of Giovanni di Stefano's clients (unrelated to the 'BADSITES' issue). However, that's a bit like saying that editing O. J. Simpson and Johnny Cochran with different accounts is 'abusive sockpuppetry'. I see no problem with either account's edits to either page in this case... nor any disruption or problem if they had all been made by one account or each edit individually made under a different name. --CBD 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD, the way we "resolve" abusive sockpuppetry is with the banhammer, especially when concerns had previously been expressed and discussed about the account straying towards the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Before doing anything I discussed the matter with a very small number of people I trust - necessarily small because to do so meant revealing the main account, which is not my normal practice at all. All of them expressed the opinion that this was unacceptable use of an alternate account. That group did include an active member of the Arbitration Committee. The fact that Wikipedia Review are now claiming to have played some part in this rather reinforces my impression that this is someone who is here for the drama, not the encyclopaedia. I am disappointed (actually disgusted, but there you go) that people are representing this as some kind of personal vendetta on my part, or a personal problem between me and this editor. Do you folks really think I have nothing better to do? Shame on you. This is someone who freely admitted that they had registered an alternate account to engage in a controversial debate (just about acceptable) but then stepped outside those bounds to engage in controversial actions in respect of content; I know their previous accounts, this is absolutely not a long-standing respected editor with a history of brilliant contributions who wants to keep that unsullied. All the accounts have a chequered history, all have edited controversial articles, all have edited controversially to some extent. To read the comments here you'd hardly credit that blocking this account was supported at the time and since by a goodly number of respected admins, or that Matthew Brown, FloNight, Thatcher and Lar to name but four have all opined that this behaviour was unacceptable. You'd think this was an editor with years of spotless history to protect, or a tangible link to real-world identity. Not so. The editor had no good reason to register an alternate account in the first place, and their behaviour since has strayed outside of the bounds he apparently set himself, and the bounds of what I consider acceptable from any alternate account. In case people hadn't realised, there is a concerted campaign under way to divide, manipulate and hopefully destroy the Wikipedia administrator community, in order to facilitate abuse by a group of banned editors. Looks like they are doing very well indeed. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, having been told the two prior accounts he used, I really think we are paying this person far too much attention. I never knew the first account, but I thought the second account was a bit of a pest, so this isn't really a case of a good editor hiding his disruptive edits. It's a case of a low-level pest being a low-level pest on two accounts. His interests certainly coincide with those of a number of Wikipedia Review editors who would not be welcome here, and he has a tendency to want to prolong discussion of internal dramas with the argument, "if we don't discuss it, unnamed others will think we are covering it up." And the resolution (or lack thereof) is now compounded because we are kindly not discussing the prior account, which makes it easier for people who argue "don't ban without an ironclad case" to sway the discussion. And, to be honest, if we are going to start banning low-level pests, he would not be at the top of my list. I will be content as long as Privatemusings keeps his promise to abandon his old accounts and stick to Privatemusings--i.e., a voluntary restriction to one account rather than a restriction enforced by a block (at least until he does something overtly bannable). Thatcher131 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, exactly that. One account: fine, behaviour not bannable (and remember I said I'd quietly undo autoblocks). Two accounts? Thank you, but no. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You actually indicated first that I should email you if I wanted the autoblocks undone, then you indicated that your enabling of the autoblocks had been a mistake on your part - just to clarify. Privatemusings 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you first indefinitely blocked in the context of the WP:BADSITES controversy, a controversy in which you are very clearly an involved party. Less than 48 hours after the ArbComm explicitly ruled that that was rejected and not policy, there you were with a very long screed asking them to overturn themselves and say that it was already policy. That is the context in which you are clearly in a dispute with this user. All of your references to Wikipedia Review make it clear to me that you are continuing to act as a party in that dispute, not as an uninvoled admin. Bringing up this particular claim more than 48 hours after the last related edit, refusing to attempt dispute resolution, and spinning the facts to make the situation look far worse than it really is is exactly the behaviour that we expect to see from users whose conduct is problematic in a dispute. It is very clear to me that Guy needs to bury the hatchet and step away. He doesn't even recognize that he is in a dispute and is himself part of the problem. Let Thatcher, or someone else who isn't a party to the WP:BADSITES controversy, deal with this. GRBerry 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I blocked him because having told me who he is and why he set the account up (to contribute to meta debate) he then stared making controversial content edits. Everybody who knows the other account, including three arbitrators and a couple of admins, has agreed this was an inappropriate use of an alternate account. I did not block the main account and offered to undo any autoblocks quietly to preserve the anonymity. The BADSITES debate and arbitration case is, after all, over. But do feel free to carry on pretending that I'm the problem if it helps you to relax. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't indicate to you that PM was intended to comment about 'meta debate' (a horribly vague notion) - I said "I decided when getting more involved in the external link issues ('badsites' etc.) to create a sock, Privatemusings, for the reasons stated on the PM user page". Please don't ascribe your misunderstandings to me, it's annoying. Privatemusings 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well that is sorted. He has restricted himself to one account now - no more problems. Viridae^Talk 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The sock issue is one problem. Another problem, with this and some other accouts, comes when folks participate in Wikipedia only to engage in disputes. This isn't a debating society. When an editor doesn't make any productive edits and instead only participates in arguments it calls into question whether that account is really contributing. However that matter may need to be resolved another time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So Guy has a problem with PM editing an article which has connections with another article that has allegedly been edited by another account which is/was also PM, but is then advised that PM has been contributing to the talkpage of the article - which isn't editing the mainspace - so Will Beback now has a problem that PM doesn't edit articles, but only contributes in the discussions side of stuff (which isn't editing, which is what people are supposed to do - when not complaining about PrivateMusings...)? Have I got that straight? LessHeard vanU 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, not exactly - I had a problem with the fact that PM was using one account to engage in controversy and another for "clean" edits, except the other account also engaged in controversy and didn't have that many edits anyway, plus he'd already switched accounts once before, and that account didn't have many edits but also had a share of controversy. So I ran it past some people I trust, including members of the arbitration committee, and everyone I've spoken to who knows the identities of the accounts agrees that this was inappropriate use of multiple account, and that there was no credible reason for this particular editor to need an alternate account anyway, and the account was starting along what looked like a familiar path of controversial editing, so I stopped that account, advised him I'd quietly undo any autoblocks, so he could get quietly on with his Wikilife. But of course this person isn't here to get quietly on with his Wikilife. He's here for the drama. And he's probably by now getting advice from others on how best to get it. And the best way seems to be to imply that because PM was opposed to BADSITES, therefore all those who consider his behaviour problematic are in favour of BADSIIES, and BADSITES is bad, therefore those who consider PM's behaviour problematic are bad. Or something. I really don't understand the fuss, myself, because generally we block without hesitation when people register alternate accounts just for trolling. Thanks for taking an interest, though. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a little confused here now, because you seem to be saying that at first there seemed to be a case of good hand, bad hand which appears to be a conflation of what WP:SOCK allows - the use of an alternative in areas which the original username does not want to have their prior existence/history involved - which then became somewhat muddied? So, which is wrong?. As far as I am aware, the actions that are forbidden in WP:SOCK is for both (or all) different accounts is to represent themselves as different individuals in order to subvert a discussion - especially where one of the other identities is also participating - by making it appear that a viewpoint has more adherents than is the case, or to circumvent 3RR on reverting, or the like. I do not see any suggestion that this has happened. Also, I am pretty certain that there is no WP policy in getting involved in controversial subjects/articles/discussions (see my essay) as being forbidden or even discouraged.

"He's probably getting advice how to get it" re drama; it appears that you are uncertain that this is indeed happening, so this is a subjective judgement, as indeed is the notion of drama. It is not good faith to assume any motivation other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia for any action, unless you have evidence to the contrary. As well as assuming AGF, WP:NPA makes it clear that any (supposed) affiliation is not grounds on which to judge an editors contributions. Which brings us to the thorny question of BADSITES and ArbCom; where it was recognised that (outside of two specific named sites) there was the possibility that discussion arising from WP critical sites informing discussion at WP was not grounds for such discussion to be disregarded - or those who may seem to reflect some views found in such places. I am aware that you vehemently opposed those findings, and have found reason (which I have remarked in other discussions) to continue to taint the actions or the purported views of WP editors with that of one of those sites. From that I might infer that you are continuing to troll for the suppression of reference to or acknowledgement of Wikipedia Review despite the ArbCom decision, except that AGF requires that I simply believe that your actions and comments are only guided by your belief in what is best for WP - which I of course do. Which brings us to "trolling", an adjective which appears to be the mirror of "sticking to ones principles"; one of which alludes to poor behavior and the other to an admirable personal trait - a subjective consideration, often reflecting a bias.

To return to my original comment, which was originally in response to Will Beback, do you not find it strange that one person should criticise an editor for making edits to an article while another criticises the same editor for not contributing to article space a few paragraphs later? Surely you both cannot be right? LessHeard vanU 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU misunderatands my concern. It isn't with participating in discussions - it's with participating in one dispute after another without making any contributions to the encyclopedia. While it may be fun to debate issues, that's not the point of this project. We're here to write a reference work. There are a bunch of accounts that seem more devoted to stoking Wiki-dramas then to getting work done. At the extreme, we've even had sock of banned users coming through and intentionally provoking disputes for the amusement of the WR crowd. In my opinion, we've been too patient with disruptive users who act politely and claim to have the best interests of the project at heart, but whose actions tell a different story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many ways in which to build an encyclopedia than the adding of content in article space, there is the constructing and testing of the systems and procedures by which the content is evaluated and comported. The tools for this is debate and discussion. Without application of new ideas and criticism there is the possibility of entropy eroding the structure of the encyclopedia. What provides the most danger to WP, the supposed ill-willed actions of vandals or a self satisfied oligarchy that permits nobody to note where there might be evidence of decay or shoddy practice? It is even possible that the claim to have the best interest of WP at heart is exactly that, no matter how different their conclusions as to what is best differs from yours (or mine). It just requires a bit of good faith, and the ability to conduct a reasoned discussion. LessHeard vanU 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever wrote an encyclopedia solely by arguing over policies. Granted, a certain amount of policy-making is necessary. Disputes, both about content and about policy, are also inevitable. But disputes that aren't resolved are disruptive. There appear to be some editors who relish disputes, who maintain them, who even provoke them. These people do not help the project. Criticism for the sake of criticism isn't constructive. It is naive to ignore the fact that there is a website devoted to destroying Wikipedia whose members have been coming here to instigate disputes within the community. That type of activity should not be tolerated, whether as part of a concerted effort or just an individual initiative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK cautiously allows the use of an alternate account, with some examples, where the editor has a really compelling reason not to want to get their main account embroiled in a particular controversy. One example I've been given which arbitrators consider appropriate is: an editor who was cleaning up problems with paedophilia advocacy and did not want his main account (traceable to RWI and hence professional reputation) to be associated with paedophilia articles. We might also allow this for, say, scientology articles, where there is a long history of real-world harassment. This user had no such reason. It was a low-activity account anyway, and had shown no previous reluctance to engage in controversy. The idea that the main account needed isolating form the controversy fails to stand up to any kind of inspection, as pretty much everyone who knows the full facts seems to agree. This was a blatant gaming of the wording of WP:SOCK to go absolutely against its spirit, and the Wikilawyering about it has been tiresome and vexatious. Will is on the money above: we are being manipulated by those whose aim is to destroy or undermine us, in order to either destroy Wikipedia altogether, or gain an advantage in their content disputes. I urge everyone to read the evidence and findings of the Alkivar arbitration. I do not think Alkivar is or was evil, he was very skilfully manipulated by people whose goals are utterly inimical to this project. Incidents like this give them endless joy, they see us arguing forever over the blocking of an abusively used sockpuppet account (and do remember that the main account was never blocked, this was an account, not an editor, which was blocked), and they love it. They want us gone, and sowing the seeds of division in the admin community by creating drama in hot topic areas, and by prodding people like Alkivar with known views they can manipulate to create division and strife, is precisely what they are after. I cannot imagine that a year ago we'd have wasted a moment on this block, because it was so self-evidently an inappropriate use of an alternate account that it would have been stomped pretty much on creation. Instead we now have people supporting the sockpuppeteer in order, it seems to me, to preserve what is mistakenly seen as the "right" to free speech or the ability to link to sites that exist purely to undermine and destroy us. Would we have tolerated a sockpuppet account created solely to defend the ability to advocate paedophilia, to use one previous contentious incident? It's pretty clear from past arbitrations on LaRouche that the arbitrators take a dim view of single-purpose accounts for controversial subjects, you need to have a good reason - and this individual never did have a good reason. We have been trolled good and proper. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) To answer both in turn; of course Encyclopedia's are partly built by arguing over policy, do you believe that Encyclopedia Brittanica simply evolved without discussion? Policies in presentation and content have obviously changed over the various volumes - it is just that the discussion was internal. Disputes that are not resolved are indeed disruptive, but resolution requires both parties to work toward a result. Also, I concede that there are those who prefer the arena of debate to the "drudgery" of adding and citing content - but this is not necessarily a bad thing, since it is best that the talents of contributors be used in their areas of ability and a better encyclopedia can be the ultimate result. As for off-Wiki sites reaction to unfolding events, ignore them. Unless you have proof that an individual (or group of individuals) is a anti-WP member of an off-wiki site (since not all of the membership may be) or is being coached by such a person, then the WP member that is being influenced by off-Wiki comment is you, not the Fifth Columnist or Red Under the Bed. In the matter of PrivateMusings, there was some debate at Wikipedia Review as to what allegiences he had when he first appeared, which indicates that he is not "controlled" from anyone there (and lets not get into guessing games of double bluff, which is simply another drama developer).

Your interpretation of WP:SOCK appears far more severe than my reading of it - I see no requirement for a compelling reason, simply a desire not involve the main or original account in a "hot" area with the express consideration that the two or more accounts are used separately. It cannot be argued that PM's contributing, or the areas edited, has not been considered "hot" simply by what we are reading here, and that having a previous history which may be considered controversial is what is stated as a legitimate reason for creating an alternative account. (It was not PM who bought up the matter of the original account, either.) Therefore it appears that PM was using this account fully in compliance with the wording. If the wording of the policy does not reflect the spirit (not just an interpretation of the spirit, either) then the wording needs amending. You cannot sanction editors for following what they believed to be the proper course per their understanding of policy.

I have already commented on the claim that PM is being directed by members of an off-wiki site, and that your referrals to Wikipedia Review in this forum indicated that it isn't PM that appears is being manipulated by them. Perhaps a year ago this case would have been stamped on, but that needn't make it right. Things evolve, people (hopefully) learn, individual leave and other individuals join, the ability to link or not to sites depends on appropriateness and verifiability (not BADSITES), and the dynamics change. It is foolish, if not to say dangerous, to sit outside the process and wish for "the good old days", you have to engage with the situation that exists now - because that is where the encyclopedia is.

Finally (and this really is the last I will write on this, since it appears that the original matter is concluded) both of you need to consider that firstly you may be wrong either wholly or in part, and that your own obsessions with certain off-wiki sites colours your perceptions of other peoples motives. I'm not saying that you are and they do, just that you should be aware of the potential. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 11:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

<remove previous post, might not have helped.> - on second thoughts - I'm sure all editors would likely agree that this amounts to a discussion about my continued editing on the wiki. We have clear dispute resolution policies - at this stage I think we need to engage them, not just pop up on various noticeboards and (in my opinion) canvas for a ban. Perhaps a fairly simple ArbCom case is in order? I'd be more than happy to engage there, because they way it's happening at the moment is upsetting, and stressful for me, and hardly seems fair.

Oh, and many thanks to CBD for having the courtesy to notify me of this discussion - it's very unpalatable to discover a conversation about oneself taking place, without the decency of the editor involved to notify you. Privatemusings 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it in all that above, but just to be clear, you're down to exactly one account now, yes? By which I mean you are now only editing Wikipedia under the name Privatemusings and will stick to that in the future. Thanks, William Pietri 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am only editing wikipedia from now on as PM, and I'm very angry about Guy's behavior. Thank you too, for your considered comment on the whole situation, William. Privatemusings 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well hell, I'm angry about your behaviour - use of an alternate account that three arbitrators agree was inappropriate, coupled with endless whining and an edit history that contains very few uncontroversial edits on any of your three accounts. And most especially the fact that you continue to pretend that the problem is someone else. My involvement with Wikipedia spreads across every namespace, a couple of languages and more than one WMF project space. Yours, on the other hand, is largely restricted to agitation, querulousness and promoting drama. Let's see which of us gets banned first, shall we? Guy (Help!) 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let's go forward with dispute resolution, rather than sniping instigated by you at various noticeboards. Your comments seem to me to be a combination of personal attacks, appeals to authority, and outright needless escalation. I can say hand on heart that I haven't promoted or caused any of this recent drama - I don't believe the same of you. Let's take this calmly to Arb Com, mediation, or any sensible discussion forum. Privatemusings 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no dispute to resolve. You are on one account, and that's an end of it. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So the point of this upsetting, rather nasty thread was? I'm still very upset at the way you continue to treat me, and would like some sort of mediation or discussion about your behavior. My door's open, couldn't we start with some sort of dialog? Please? Privatemusings 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue? About what? Your continued disruptive involvement in controversy? I prefer to leave that to others, I have had a gutfull of your querulousness. As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone who knows the full facts - including three arbitrators - agrees that your use of multiple accounts was inappropriate, the fact that you chose to make this a drama rather than simply going back to your original account is rather symptomatic of your general approach, as far as I can see. I suspect there will be a few people watching your behaviour going forwards. Do be sure to keep out of trouble, won't you? Have a nice day. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well ok, Guy - but for you to say that you've had a gutfull is pretty rich, and to accuse me of creating drama when you've posted multiple times across multiple noticeboards, with no discernible purpose, is self evidently wrong, and hurtful. I welcome every pair of eyes on this situation because you have behaved inexcusably, and should take a calm look in the mirror. Have a nice day? - I will... you too. Privatemusings 12:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh get over yourself. You've been told by three separate arbitrators that your use of an alternate account was not a valid one, now go away and sin no more. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be rude to me, it's just completely uncalled for. I understand that my actions have caused confusion, but I think the strongest damage came from an indefinite block from out of the blue. By any measurement, that action was a disgrace, and I am glad it was comprehensively rejected as a tenable position. I think you have behaved unethically, and inexcusably. You have utterly refused to engage with me, preferring to post hurtful comments and judgmental nonsense in varying foras. What on earth was your purpose in starting this thread if your genuine desire was merely to shoo me away? Remove the beam, Guy. Privatemusings 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You missed one crucial fact: I only blocked your sockpuppet account, not your main account, and I made it perfectly clear that I would happily lift any autoblocks quietly and without fuss. You've also consistently ignored the very many opinions of those who say that your use of the alternate account was not a valid one, which opinions include three arbitrators. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of the drama? Guy (Help!) 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Guy, since you've already discussed this with a "very small number of people you trust," could you please discuss it with me? Not because I demand that you trust me, but because I already know these accounts, and I think Privatemusings would probably authorize you to tell me anything you know about them that I don't. All right, PM? I'd really like to know what these "chequered" histories of previous accounts are, and to know if there's anything I can clear up. Chequered? How so? I'm looking at the contributions now, I don't see anything chequered. Admittedly there is a bit to go through. What am I missing? How far back should I go? What are these "controversial content edits" you mention, that everybody who knows the accounts has agreed were inappropriate? Try me. If I also agree, I'll shut up. Inappropriate how?

As for "While it may be fun to debate issues, that's not the point of this project. We're here to write a reference work" (Will Beback)...Well, I've just been looking at the contributions of User:Newyorkbrad and Privatemusing over the past few weeks These two users' contribution patterns have a lot in common. They both debate policy a lot more than they contribute content, and as far as I can see they both debate constructively (and not necessarily for "fun"). But are we sure they realize that we're here to build an encyclopedia? In a comparison of their mainspace contributions, Brad's turn out to be more numerous, but they're very minor. [20] PM's are fewer but bigger (look at his very good edits to Socrates)[21] On the whole I would say PM comes out ahead. Isn't it getting to be time to hint to both of them that it's time to contribute more content and less argufication over policies? What do you say, shall I post a gentle reprimand on the subject on Brad's page? (Privatemusings has already gotten told off, I think.) P. S. No, I'm not currently in contact with PM, or giving him "advice" on how to get maximum drama. And no, I haven't formed any opinion about BADSITES. None. It's a subject I've sort of missed, and I'd love to keep it that way, but I suppose it's getting difficult. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC).

I respect Bishonen's advice enormously, and support and appreciate her help in resolving these issues - so yes, Guy, please do be completely open with Bish. Socrates really should be a featured article, and I'd like to help it get there. Privatemusings 14:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for sure, if you expected me to take your edits to the NPA policy seriously, especially when you had posted on your userpage that you were a sock account, you are deluding yourself. There is never a time I would accept anyone using anything other than their regular and known account when editing a major policy page. If indeed, you are going to just use this account, then I will accept that you aren't using multiple accounts to circumvent 3RR. But how many accounts have you used? Your forthcoming effort to be accountable on this issue would go a long way to reestablishing your credibility. Until then, I frankly see a lot of your efforts to be little more than trolling. That is not my opinion alone, BTW.--MONGO 19:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally respect your right to only consider posts from whatever subset of editors you choose, and I have no desire one way or the other for you specifically to take me seriously. Of course I stand by my posts, and would consider it collegial for editors to listen to one another. Your courtesy in accepting that I haven't broken 3RR is rather a back handed compliment, and the mention of trolling is both unhelpful and disruptive, as it usually is. That is not my opinion alone, BTW. Privatemusings 22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaked Episodes

I have a question about leaked episodes. If an episode of a TV show was gotten by hacking the stations Website and posted online, can people cite that in an article or not? What policies concern a situation like this? The Placebo Effect 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your question has little to directly involve an Admin's attention, & would be more appropriate over at the Village Pump, however I'll answer it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If someone posts information that they claimed to have received from hacking a website, how do we know that they aren't just making it up? Further, at least one television show (i.e. Lost) has exploited this hunger for advance information, & release foilers -- leaking disinformation about future episodes in order to keep viewers guessing. Let's just avoid this quagmire, & only report what the networks officially announce, unless the information is otherwise worth including in an article. -- llywrch 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon page creation

Just thought everyone would like to know, apparently anon page creation isn't going to be happening, User:Brion Vibber and User:Tim Starling have said that there would have to be consensus here for them to turn it on - not sure why it was even announced when the developers weren't even contacted. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• collective sigh of relief* The Placebo Effect 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• collective sign of confusion* --Haemo 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anon page creation - let's try and come to a consensus either way on what we want to do about this. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As always, the best suggestion yet. Perhaps we can obtain comments in a open discussion from those who wished to implement it. Some users don't necessarily oppose the change as long as specific concerns are addressed. This RfC may be the place to vent it out. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

YEAH! turning it back on was a bad idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A bot would go a long way towards keeping WP:AFC up to date. For the most part, bad article submissions are immediately rejected, while decent submissions can languish for months. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, are you sure? My impression is that Jimbo Wales, Anthere, and Eloquence all thought Gmaxwell's experiment was a good idea. Those people don't need community consent and can just order Brion et al. to turn it back on. Maybe the board, etc. has decided not to do this without community approval, but the initial proposition certainly wasn't presented as if anyone was asking the community for permission. Dragons flight 02:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It must have something to do with the lenghty discussion at the Village pump. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure now you mention it. Did any of them comment about it on the mailing list? I'm not aware of them commenting about it on-wiki. But I think that their word would overule consensus and the devs would probably do it. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they commented on the mailing list. Cbrown1023 talk 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Gregory discussed this directly on the conversation that took place on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)‎ he is aware that there isn't a concensus there yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this at the aforementioned RFC, but wouldn't it be a good idea that if anon page creation were enabled, a feature could be added to Special:Newpages allowing for the viewing of only those pages made by anons. SashaCall 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to take this opportunity to spam Wikipedia:Article wizard. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow I love this page. I'm wondering if there is a technical way to redirect new page creation for not autoconfirmed users there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let the discussion begin! Grandmasterka 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is funny because from reading the mailing lists, I had the feeling that there was a consensus (amongst editors) to try to turn it on again. Weird :-) Anthere —Preceding comment was added at 08:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The subset of regular users of the mailing lists, though longstanding and very dedicated users, may be to small to predict consensus once a discussion gets on-wiky. E.g. I don't think that many of the regulars at New Page Patrol take part in the mailing list discussions. VirtualDelight 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit war updated, marked as policy

The blocking policy has long allowed blocking for edit warring. I left a request on 2007-10-28 asking whether Wikipedia:Edit war could be updated to reflect our practices better. User:Dmcdevit did a significant rewrite on 2007-11-3, and on 2007-11-7 User:Heimstern changed the tag from guideline to policy. I believe this is a positive development. While the three revert rule is a useful and important objective metric for edit warring, there are many other forms of edit warring that are equally disruptive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it ought to be renamed to Wikipedia:Don't edit war lest people start thinking edit wars are policy... Oldelpaso 11:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Would we then have to change Wikipedia: Vandalism to Wikipedia: Don't vandalize then? Natalie 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's what we've been doing wrong, all this time. :( More seriously, is it worth perhaps looking at a merge between this and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule? They seem to go hand-in-hand. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with a merge. - jc37 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Several people have brought up that idea, and I don't think it's a bad concept. But 3RR is a very comforting rule to some people, which might complicate the merge.

On the talk page, User:Geni has stated the opinion that before this is marked as policy, the size of existing policy has to be decreased by the same amount. I have never heard that expressed before, and more comments on Wikipedia talk:Edit war would help clarify whether there is much support for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuous misdemeanor and vandalism

I found that the Keyngez has continuously committed vandalism on the thread for Seoul in Wikipedia. Keyngez has kept removing the previously uploaded pictures without any consent and replacing them with some ghetto pictures that are not even sure they were took inside Seoul. It is so clear that he has a bad intention to harm on Seoul. I asked him to stop doing it by leaving a message to his user box, but he denied my polite requestm and left messages written in very clumsy Korean on my talk box as follows. Judging from his particular words and grammartical structure used mostly in Japan, it looks that he is plausibly Japanese in Korea:

나는 한국을 좋아합니다.그 사진은 내가 실제로 서울에서 촬영했습니다. 당신은, 쓸데 없게 깨끗한 사진으로, 한국이 깨끗이 보이도록하고 있다. 당신은, 자신의 마음에 들지 않는 사진을 자기 중심으로 제거한다. 그리고, 문서 훼손 과 마음대로 단정짓는다. 최악인 성격, 매우 초조합니다.

그것과 타인의 이용자 페이지로 당당히 코멘트하지 않게.화가 난다.--Keyngez 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

실제, 서울은 그렇게 깨끗한 도시가 아닙니다.--Keyngez 06:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In short, the summary of translated version of above paragraph written by Keyngez is he likes(?) Korea, but Korea is dirty country, and you (me, patriotmissile) has uploaded beautiful pictures of Seoul, which are not true faces of Seoul, so he took pictures (of some ghettoes) to let world know true Seoul's dirty faces. And he (Keyngez) defamed me (patriotmissile) that I have a worst personality and made him nervious.

His pictures are obviously not true faces of Seoul, and also those pictures looks unlawfully borrowed from internet, and also they are in very poor quality. I don't even know where actually those pictures were taken.

I strongly request administrators ban Keyngez's id and password for Wikipedia. I think this guy believes that harm on Seoul and South Korea is a patriotic act to his own country.Patriotmissile 19:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Steward Elections

Nominations are open.Geni 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I have suggested merging 3RR into EW at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Merge. Mercury 03:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Cosmo advises women to create Wikipedia page profiles....

I was chatting with my girlfriend tonight when she mentioned that this month's issue of Cosmo suggests that for job interviews, women should create Wikipedia pages with their pictures and resumes. I had a Sam Seaborn moment and told myself I wasn't going to get involved, but here it be:

"Brilliant Ways to Get Ahead"

• 6. Smart girls send out resumes only after running their names on Facebook, Myspace, Friendster and Google to eliminate all incriminating pictures and rant postings.
• 7. Of course, after that, they create their own Wikipedia entries with gorge photos and life achievements.

So there's something new to look out for. Keegan^talk 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Faaan-freakin'-tastic. GlassCobra 05:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So who wants to volunteer to send a note to the editor explaining the concept of notability? (And who'll volunteer to distribute valium to the new page patrollers dealing with the results?) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll volunteer for that latter duty, though I won't guarantee that all the valium will end up being used for its intended purpose. We already had a small-scale drill for this sort of thing here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#SEO at Business.com giving out bad advice. We may want to send Durova out again to spread the word about COI, vanity articles, and such. With luck, this latest offering from Cosmo will go unheeded and join the magazine's weight-loss advice and sex tips in a more-or-less total intellectual oblivion. --Dynaflow babble 05:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh god. Look out for edit summaries that say "Cosmo told me to". Dfrg_msc 08:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose deleting article on this pathetic magazine in retaliation. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>And I want to delete 4chan</sarcasm> because its members trolled and death-threatened me, but if you'll notice, I haven't so muched as touched the actual article. Retributive deletions are just as bad as rogue blocks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete? IF some of our detractors are to be belived expanding our Kate White article would be more effective.Geni 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade deleted "Random Person" (Do NOT, under any circumstances, hire this person!)

Alright, so I'm not that mean...most days... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Add {{COI}} templates and protect the pages. That will look great to prospective employers. (Warning: do not actually do this!) - Jehochman ^Talk 08:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You realise that people would respond to this by createing articles on other people applying for the job?Geni 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete? If some of our detractors are to be belived expanding our Kate White article would be more effective.Geni 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Add the pages to Category:Drug addicts seeking job that I just created for this purpose. Jackaranga 08:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This along with the move to allow IPs to be able to create new pages is a winning combination. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply confused why anyone should think that "gorge photos" will have any effect on their career prospects... LessHeard vanU 10:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Cat:Wikipedians seeking better and more frequent orgasms in an effort to lose post pregnancy weight while writing new blockbuster when wearing this seasons must have fashions.

IS that sarchasm? Guy (Help!) 11:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just commenting on my faulty observation... 13:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs)

This thread's getting a bit rocky, isn't it? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can yon dig it? JuJube 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, replace their photo with [22]. (Note - don't actually do this either). ELIMINATORJR 11:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yowzah. I'd hire her! Well, at least for a song or two.... -- Kendrick7^talk 17:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise! Let's get that girl an article; she'd certainly fit under WP:HOTTIE... GlassCobra 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't create an article about me here, but I put in my résumé that I know how to setup and use MediaWiki. I wonder what these girls put in their articles, and whether their bosses edit their salary to pay less. -- ReyBrujo 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Cosmo suggested this tactic as a means to stand out from the crowd: "I'm notable! I have a Wikipedia article me! You have to hire me!" Unfortunately, many notable people would not be a good fit for any job. Honest. These Cosmo readers would spend their time much more profitably with an account on a website like LinkedIn -- llywrch 18:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only hope the readers of that publication are more interested in this month's sex tips and nail polish. Durova^Charge! 19:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only person who sees rule #6 as much more pointless than rule #7? Good luck wiping your existence off of Google, ladies. JuJube 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Google cache doesn't last forever, just... some months? <joke>Besides, you never know when your "G1v3 M3 53X!" profile at MySpace will help you a raise :P</joke> -- ReyBrujo 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, when I see a tongue in cheek, I take it as a joke. Pulling out my (totally heterosexual) copy of December's issue of Cosmo you can see the article also recommends hot pink business cards and the term "BFF". While it's probably half-serious, I don't think we need to fear a rash of young women making Wikipedia article about themselves with "gorge photos" (well, moreso than they already do) anymore than we need to worry about being blinded by personalized business cards. --Haemo 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Your mileage may vary, but have you seen who reads Cosmo? Some of the women I know that read it would jump off the side of a cliff if the magazine told them that it would get them better {sex | job | man | body}... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds like this stunt, er article, should be mentioned in the article. Vegaswikian 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  I guess it's the most notable thing I've heard from the magazine this decade... -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I was hoping they might be encouraging their readers to try and seduce us all, wikipedia as the new sex or something. I hope we are not seen as an upmarket social networking site.. We get a fair amount of user page spam - they often want to be renamed to their actual name so it can be found using google, and so people think they have an article rather than a user page. Secretlondon 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone could post a note about how video clips might be useful for newbies seeking adminship? John Carter 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, I'd love to see video clips for the people who apply for adminship with a few dozen edits. That'd be absolutely hilarious, in a gut-wrenching, "you poor human being" kind of way (read: the best kind of way). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we get Simon Cowell to vote at their RFA's after that, do you think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the first suggestion I've seen that we lighten up on RfA candidates... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, oh, god. It'd turn into something like viewing audition tapes for The Real World after a while. нмŵוτнτ 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Real World: Wikipedia. This is the true story...of seven editors...picked to work on an article...edit together, and have their talk pages watched...to find out what happens when people stop following WP:CIVIL...and start getting real." EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have forwarded the idea of premium rate text and phone voting for RFA candidates to the fundraising committee. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, don't know if this has been mentioned before, you can see a type of vandalism which is hard to revert with firefox at User:Jackaranga/vandalism, if one day IE supports CSS properly it will be impossible for the average user to revert. The only way would be to use the ?title=xxx&action=edit method, which many users wouldn't know about. Jackaranga 02:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your cgi code frightens and confuses me! But seriously, you evil genius, you might want to mention this to the developers. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For those of us who aren't programmers or web designers, and are quite curious about why we can't hit the edit button on that page, please explain what this is doing exactly. Thanks :) The Hybrid T/C 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's putting a big invisible box around the text (notice how the start of the text lines up with the edit tab). -- Kendrick7^talk 04:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The technique's been around a while -- I remember encountering it when Willy on Wheels used it to cover up Special:Recentchanges with his signature image. It's not too hard to undo in Opera: just click the "user mode/author mode" toggle, and the CSS on the div is removed. There's probably also a Firefox extension to do the same thing. --Carnildo 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically he's made a div box which is see-though and covers the edit button. For an example of non-malicious div boxes see my userpage. James086^{Talk | Email} 04:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a big box, that makes sense. Thanks Kendrick7 and James086 :). Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 04:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On Firefox with Web Developer extensions, it's pretty easy to just do CSS - Disable styles - All styles, then hit the edit link. Or with Nuke Anything Enhanced, just right-click on the page and select "Remove this object" (though that probably needs an intuitive guess that there's an invisible object that sits on top of the page). Other extensions probably do allow to do the exact same thing... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

alt-shift-e solves that. β^_command 06:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I used accesskeys to get around it as well. Still, not a bad little trick. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another way, without any extensions, is View->Page Style->No Style in Firefox. henrik•talk 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tricky little guy. I could see people using that on their userpages. нмŵוτнτ 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive, edit warring at Islamophobia

This article really needs some more admin watchers to curb the POV war that is reoccuring there since the protection was rescinded. Kyaa the Catlord 03:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching... -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can see how this is quickly deteriorating into a mud-slinging contest so let's close it. The debate was about the edits of Pol64 (talk · contribs) and I think it's clear that the idea right now is: let's try SqueakBox as a mentor and see how that goes. Report back to WP:ANI if that doesn't work out. Pascal.Tesson 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. All the more frustrating, because I actually agree with this guy, albeit in a far more moderate sense. Basically, he's a retired cop, here to police articles relating to child sexual abuse.[23]

He has been blocked before, for the operation of two sock puppets, and now appears to be laying into other editors. He feels that NPOV must equal his majority POV.[24] He misses the point, as most of the people he argues with, including myself agree with him, but denounce POV warriors.

Finally, he has taken to accusing BLP subjects and even other editors of either being pedophiles or criminals.[25][26][27][28] Otherwise, he sees fit to patronise other editors by pointing out "agendas".[29]

In my opinion, we should not be allowing any editor to strut around Wikipedia, accusing others of being pedophiles and criminals, however noble his stated aims are. GrooV 16:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Introduce him to User:SqueakBox, who may well be able to help as he is sympathetic to that POV but has a solid understanding of policy (to the point where he is philosophical when he occasionally steps outside it and is whacked with the WP:TROUT. Squeak is a decent person. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate your willingness to find creative solutions but I've said it before and I'll say it again, SqueakBox is most definitely not an example to follow. He's been repeatedly blocked for 3RR and personal attacks and would have been blocked even more extensively were he not fighting for the good guys. Last time I mentioned this to you, you chose to disregard my concerns which of course is fine but please, assigning an over-passionate editor to mentor an over-passionate editor will lead to more trouble, not less. SqueakBox has repeatedly thrown around accusations of pedophile-sympathies (and I happened to be on the receiving end twice but you can ask <sarcasm> well-known crypto-pedophiles </sarcasm> such as Georgewilliamherbert how they felt). Pol64 seems to be something like a nightmare version of SqueakBox, more destructive, less policy-bound but still at heart both editors misunderstand the notion of neutrality when it comes to delicate topics like these. What Pol64 needs is a cool, composed and clinical editor, which I think you'll agree SqueakBox is not. Pascal.Tesson 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pish and tush. Squeak has a good heart and would move this user closer to where he needs to be, without being seen as part of the problem. He also has sufficient appreciation of policy to take in good part when he does allow his passion to get the better of him. That is no bad thing. Perfect? No. And he'd not say so, either. I've said I'll help too. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think i am not an example to follow, Pascal? Given that both DPetersen and XavieVE ended up being indef blocked I think it is an excellent idea as otherwise I fear Pol64 will also be blocked. I am not quite sure why you feel the need to attack me again and again without any solid cause, Pascal, and your descripotion of Pol64 is relation to me does not seem to have been made in good faith. IO think your accusation that I do not understand neutrality is baseless, I don't go around saying such baseless things about you, please have the respect for a fellow editor not to come out with these types of outburst against me again and again. it makes it sound like you have a grudge against me. I am fully committed to neutrality in all my edits and for you to claim I do not understand neutrality or that I am not cool, composed and clinical is just opining in a rather uncivil way. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, XavierVE was blocked because he was a destructive nutcase with a stated purpose of disrupting the project to push his point of view. I don't know much about Pol64 but if he's a clone of XavierVE, he will be blocked sooner or later. I have never and still don't question your good-faith Squeak, but I think you often forget basic things like the good ol' principles of "Don't accuse other editors in very hurtful ways", "Don't overreact", "Don't get into revert wars" and "Leave your opinions and beliefs out of the editing process". I am certain you mean well and that's not the issue but are you really going to deny that you've been involved in edit wars repeatedly? That you have lost your cool a number of times and thrown out unfair pro-pedophile accusations at editors standing in your way? (And no, the fact that you often deal with actual pedophile-supporting editors is not an excuse for throwing these accusations lightly) Are you going to deny that you were blocked repeatedly for 3RR and personal attacks? As I said, I think that guidance to Pol64 should come from someone who has a better track-record when it comes to dealing with delicate articles prone to emotionally-laden edit wars. Pascal.Tesson 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, if you have indeed accused Pascal of having an agenda, I would have to symapthise with his feelings. They are after all criticisms to which he is entitled, and to even consider citing policy violations here looks like a classic case of "tyrant playing the victim".

On to Pol64. I would not be willing to prolong the career of a twice blocked editor who has a habit of accusing others of having pedophile agendas, serious criminal records and even of being pedophiles themselves. In fact, I see all of these as serious, blockable violations which do nothing to better even his own overzealous advocacy. GrooV 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of being a tyrant, Grooming? I think Guy's point is that Pol64 is a difficult new editor (one of many on the PAW articles I might add) and therefore mentorship is a good idea. He certainly has acted in the same way as many of the editors he opposes and this is not acceptable, if I do mentor him it will be on the basis that he needs to change his ways to become a constructive editor. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, let's not personalise this one eh? See if Squeak can effect an improvement. Watchful waiting, please. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of being a tyrant, SqueakBox. It just seems to be a particularly disagreeable habit of yours, to claim policy violations, claim that you are being attacked and to claim that others are acting in hateful ways, when it is your actions that fit better into such categories. To me, and others it seems, this is both subversive and cynical of you.

Now, on to your potential recruit. I would feel extremely uncomfortable operating as an unpaid volunteer in any situation where I am exposed to someone of such an agressive nature, who throws around accusations of radical sympathies, past crimes and pedophilia. I have seen this destroy public servants in the past, and it's only the semi-anonymous (at least untraceable) nature of my existence here which convinces me to contunue alongside an editor such as Pol64, an editor that by any sane standard, and within any IRL institution would have been eliminated long ago. GrooV 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making entirely unfounded accusations against me, we are not any of us here to let of steam by targetting other editors. But I agree that Pol64 is one of a number of problem editors re the PAW articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of response that I was referencing, SqueakBox. By misidentifying "unfounded accusations", you put yourself in for exactly the same criticism. An example of an unfounded accusation is the identifiaction of an editor as a pedophile apologist in an edit summary. It is an unfounded accusation due to its extremity, lack of cited evidence and fundamental relation to who or what a person is. Whether right or wrong, my opinion that you have a habit of projecting (as also identified by others) is nothing of the sort.

Indeed, it is another habit of yours, to undermine the meat of an argument by making arbitrary and almost invariably false criticisms of its methodology, e.g. "personal attack", "accusation" or "bad faith". Again, it is most unfortunate that these criticisms are if anything better echoed back at yourself.

Let's get this straight. You have made your opinions on the issues covered very clear, as I have. I really feel that the way you integrate these opinions into your dealings with others and even the articles themselves, is sometimes unbearably egocentric. GrooV 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Squeak likes to play the martyr. He can throw accusations at people, but heaven forbid you accuse him of something. Oh no. Fighting for Justice 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, although I wouldn't be so harsh as to suggest that he should go the way I wish Pol64 to go (unless of course, he is proven to be his creator). He has to learn to respect the consensus of editors, though. His own presumptions about the nature of others are not good enough to override that process. GrooV 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Grooming, I am proven not be Pol's creator but given your recent arrival, your SPA and your attitude towards me I do wonder if you are not a reincarnation of one of the many banned users on the PAW articles, banned users with a long track record of ban evasion through sock creation. Fighting, you have opined without backing up your opinions in any way, I do not play the martyr though plenty of PPA supporting editors have repeatedly done so. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MadmanBot task request

On behalf of the Bot Approvals Group, — madman bum and angel 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

User:Nikkul

I have had a tough time in dealing with this fellow. Look at the history of Delhi and New Delhi. He is very keen on adding his images to the concerned articles irrespective of whether they are of good quality or not. He is more concerned about boasting about the number of images he has added to articles in his userpage rather than making a sincere effort to improve articles. To divert from the topic, he accuses me of using User:74.140.120.11 as a sockpuppet. I just forget to log-in at times, thats it. He then reverts an edit made by me on Gurgaon article as an act of revenge. It is becoming increasingly difficult to deal with this fellow. Need your advise. --Lokantha 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you both are being uncivil to each other; reverting each others changes instead of disscussing them, labeling a user as a sockpupet and insulting. I think you should disscus with each other rather that continuing the way you are now, and for the sockpuppery, there is no case. Oysterguitarist 05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hangon without db

• Once in a while I find a page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and it proves to contain a {{hangon}} tag but no {{db.....}} tag. Likely while its author was developing the page he put the hangon tag as a precaution to say "hold your horses" to anyone who got overhasty wanting to delete it early. Should the hangon template put pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? Anthony Appleyard 11:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite often, authors of pages tagged for speedy deletion will replace the speedy tag with their {{hangon}}. That would seem to be why it keeps the page in the category. The main problem it causes is where the authors misunderstand the notification on their user talk page and put the hangon template there instead of on the article. Sam Blacketer 11:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also sometimes article gets speedy-deleted, and the original author recreates the article immediately with {{hangon}} on it. Check the article's deleted revisions and/or the author's deleted contributions and you'll probably figure out what they're trying to do. Speedy deletion process confuses the heck out of people - expect every form of weirdness. Luckily, there's a logical explanation for almost everything. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that happens where the user has gone to edit the article, and in between clicking on 'edit this page' and on 'save page', an administrator has deleted it. Sam Blacketer 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't really see what the problem is with hangon-ed articles being put in Cat:CSD, since these articles should be deleted more times than not. This particular categorization has also alerted me to people improperly tagging their usertalk page, or accidently adding hangon to the article talk page instead of the article - somehow they always miss that huge red message. But the hangon template does also place articles in Category: Contested candidates for speedy deletion, a sub-category for Cat:CSD, so if this is a real problem perhaps the tag could just add the contested category. Natalie 14:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The other situation I see this happening is when a new editor confuses their user talk space for the article talk space and puts the {{hangon}} there instead. If you see a lonely {{hangon}} on a user talk page, that's probably what happened. Caknuck 15:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything really ambiguous about the user talk page notice that one of their articles is going to be speedied. Usually, they replace the speedy tag with a hangon tag thinking that {{hangon}} is an ironclad defense against erasure. Sometimes, that kind of thing is missed; so I think the template should keep that category. JuJube 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Bot-related suggestion Is this not simply a case of a particular type of either typographical error or action not in keeping with present procedure? If yes, then perhaps articles that have a 'hangon' and lack a 'CSD template' could be addressed by bot to add the 'CSD template' ... if examination by the bot of the edit history reveals that a CSD template had been affixed and removed ... or to remove the 'hangon' ... if examination by the bot of the edit history revealed the absence of a previously placed CSD template. Not having authored bots, I'm not sure if this kind of discrimination is within the capabilities of standard bot scripts or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly could be done, but I'm not sure there's much need for it. Sure, clicking on a link in CAT:CSD and getting a page with just a {{hangon}} tag may be confusing the first time it happens, but it's not actually hard to check the history yourself (which you should do before speedy deletion anyway). This isn't anywhere near the oddest thing you'll encounter if you spend enough time going through CAT:CSD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the newer users put the {{hangon}} tag in place of the {{db}}. I find this in a lot of article edits by newer users. Like, if adding to a list, they simply write a new person over another person's name on a list, for no apparent reason. If anyone finds out why, you've solved one of the greatest mysteries of my Wikipedia life. нмŵוτнτ 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP deletion

I just made a BLP deletion, and I would like some others to take a look at the article in question. Here's the undelete link: Special:Undelete/Norman_Dodd. I know we need an article on this guy probably, but in its current state, it could not continue to exist. Thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably should replace with a safe little stub. In fact, it may be better to stub than to delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as the subject is notable, and there is some verifiability with third-party cites, a new BLP ought to be stubified, not deleted. Bearian 14:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"[..]in its current state, it could not continue to exist" is a ridiculous reason to delete. @pple complain 15:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It is really a stretch to apply the policy for biographies of living persons to somebody that has been dead for 20 years. (I assume the death date is accurate since it was added by NawlinWiki from SSDI, a realiable source.) I'd think you could safely restore all the revisions from January 2007 and earlier. The article certainly went downhill in the July 2007 and more recent revisions. However, I'm not as convinced we need this article at all; the biography of the Congressman that led the committee doesn't mention the committee, nor do we have an article on the committee. So it probably should be sent to AFD for notability, as I can't see what this is a sub-article of. GRBerry 15:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've selective restored. AfD or not is up to someone else, I was dealing with the immediate biographical issues and unsourced statements. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like selective restoring would be a GFDL issue. WP:BLP says to revert to a neutral version, not delete. (I can see both sides of that issue - just pointing out what the policy says). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any GFDL concerns if a date is chosen and all versions before are restored, with none after. (This appears to be what was done here; all versions up to January 2007 were restored, and no versions from after that date.) The authorship information is completely preserved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is a content dispute only. The only named people in the latest deleted version I can see (20 Oct), Dodd himself and Carroll Reece, are both long dead. My feeling is that handling this sort of dispute by calling it a BLP violation and summarily deleting the article is an abuse of admin tools, though it is a strong sign of good faith that demon brought the issue here for us to review. —David Eppstein 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All together now: the L stands for living. Natalie 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - why on earth was this deleted citing WP:BLP? Neil ☎ 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

respectability issue

I prefer to edit as an anonymous IP. Due to my ISP my address is dynamic. This has made it difficult to provide verifiable documentation of my credibility with wikipedia. Is there a way that my reputation can be assertained while maintaining my anonimity with a dynamic IP? for now:68.244.131.116 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, what you are asking for is the very reason accounts exist. You can create an account that has no relation to your real person though, you don't need to provide an e-mail. A user name is more anonymous than an IP by the way. For example if we take a random user: User:Agyle we know absolutely nothing of his real life other than that he speaks English. If we take you now, we can't know for sure but it would seem the IP address you are connecting from is in New Jersey, USA, probably from North Arlington, and your ISP is SPRINT PCS. Jackaranga 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're active in particular wikiprojects, people editing in those areas are probably going to get used to seeing IPs from your ISP. But what if you eventually move, or otherwise switch ISPs? It'd be difficult to prove you're the same person, and you might have to start from scratch. Getting an account just strikes me as being more practical, on all counts. Ultimately, though, I just don't know how realistic it is to try and build a reputation when your username is (effectively) changing so often. Might be easier on a static IP, but again, getting an account sounds more practical to me. Is there a particular reason you don't want to register? Mainly asking in the hopes I can offer some more specific feedback or suggestions. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) I noted that Sprint Wireless is your ISP. Are you editing from a smartphone, by any chance, or are you using a cellular wireless card from a laptop? Either way, there's no real way to build up social capital here without creating a stable and recognizable identity, as my old sociology prof would have put it. If you would like to symbolically maintain your status as an "anonymous" IP editor, but still have an account to sign into no matter where you are, you could create a username like 68dot244dot131dot116, which I think would be allowable under WP:U as it i not entirely random. Alternatively, you could get a static IP and create a Wikipedia "identity" around that address, like 68.39.174.238 and others in Category:Anonymous Wikipedians have. The best route to take, though, is just to get an account and then put nothing about yourself on your userpage. That will make you as anonymous as yu can possibly be here, and will give you the ability to receive messages, create pages, and build yourself a history. Best of luck. --Dynaflow babble 04:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you pick a name like User:Respectable? Bearian 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Detroiterbot malfunctioning

Can someone block the bot until it is repaired? See history on San Diego County, California to see problem; bot changing information in infobox rather than just changing labels and style, etc. as designed.--Markisgreen 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no recent edits by Detroiterbot to Walla Walla, Washington. Did you perhaps mean some other article? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i corrected the article name above.--Markisgreen 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Detroiterbot malfunctioning for duplicate post. Woodym555 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Large vandal-sock army needs blocking

Resolved

This blatant vandal Inspiron1m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized the featured article. [32] Then he went along and created 4 new accounts. [33]. The main account and the others need blocking, post-haste. Nobody of consequence 16:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Scientizzle got them. Natalie 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Callmebc

03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

SockPuppet

Yes, hello. I am Bugman94. When I was editing Wikipedia under that account all I wanted to do was vandalize. That is also what I intended to do with a couple sockpuppets. As I got older, and used the wiki more I began to love it and the people on it and I noticed the impact it had on many many people. So I ask you. Please PLEASE, will you allow me to create a new account and start new please. All my recent socks have no intentional vandal contributions. Please. Have faith in me. My vandal days are over. Thank you. KingPuppy 20:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you'r being honest. The decision is not up to me though. Qst (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have many times. I just want a chance please. KingPuppy 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you use a single account and on your userpage write a brief history of your involvement identifying past accounts and explain that you've changed. You could put the full details on a subpage in your userspace. If you reveal the history, that may protect you from any claims. What you don't want is for somebody to discover the socks later on and file a complaint. If you declare, explain, and behave properly with the new account, Wikipedians are likely to forgive past mistakes. If you old account is banned on indefinitely blocked, you should first petition to have editing privileges restored. Do that by email, not by creating more socks. I hope this helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're using the KingPuppy account, which is new...what's really going on here? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you use the account your editing from now? Oysterguitarist 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to start new w/ a new account. Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingPuppy (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming the system won't let you for some reason, follow Jehochman's advice, use the talk page of KingPuppy. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have written an apoligy on my userpage. Also would it be smart to apologize to those I have been in conflict with for example EMC or PGK? KingPuppy 23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But you were actually BANNED, not merely blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This guy is a sock of a banned user who has created loads of multiple accounts. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bugman94, whether he's sorry or not, he's once again evaded the ban. If he wants to appeal his ban, he should take it to ArbCom. I've blocked this account indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where was the ban discussion? Or is this one of those old indef block / no one willing to unblock bans? (I ask because there is not an entry at Wikipedia:List of banned users.) --Iamunknown 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He admitted that, do you have any reason to assume his apology is insincere? I don't see any reason why the arbcom has to be involved with this otherwise. —Ruud 00:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He caused a hell of a lot of disruption with his socks, there's no reason to believe that he's not editing with other socks now. I suggested ArbCom to appeal the original ban, because I'm no way comfortable with this guy editing given his history. Interesting point about the ban, I always thought he was community banned, but it could be one of those "no-one willing to unblock" bans. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, no reason except WP:AGF. How long has it been since his last sock got blocked? Or did you not know that either before capriciously blocking his new account? -- Kendrick7^talk 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, this is stupid. I told him to just get another account and not be honest this time. Terrible advice to give to a 13 y.o. but honesty clearly isn't always the best policy around here. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know to the hour, but I remember blocking one about a month or two ago per check user evidence. That's my problem here, and we don't assume good faith when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he was vandalizing with that last account I'd be less inclined to assume good faith. If it was a CU for the sake of CU based on topic area or something, I'd be more inclined to believe in his reformation. The original ban was way back in May of 2006. If he was really 12 back then, then he could have changed a lot by now. Were any of Puppy's edits problematic? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The past history shows he has the potential to disrupt and he's been banned for a good reason - Since 2006, he's created multiple socks, up to at least last month, so there's no reason to believe he's going to edit constructively. Editors that are banned are not welcome here under any account. Admission of him having this account is admission of ban evasion. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's just that confession is bad for the soul is completely counter-intuitive to my religious tradition. Sneaking back into the community with a wig and a pair of Groucho Marx glasses is a strange option to even have which only works in cyberspace. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

When a user is banned the only way to lift the ban is trough ArbCom, thats the main diference between a indef block and a ban. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if he quietly creates a new account, does not vandalize or disrupt, does not reference his past misdeeds, and does not display suspicious editing patterns, he effectively doesn't need to ask ArbCom. I really think these "please, I promise" postings from banned serial vandals are just poor trolls, and we shouldn't bite. We should have an essay or something explaining it, and when the requests show up, we just link to the essay and tag "resolved". <eleland/talkedits> 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking a series of parables might do the trick. They are stories which repeat themselves over and over around here. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If he would create an account and just keep quiet he would be able to edit. Oysterguitarist 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what he wants to do. Keeping quiet isn't on his agenda. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But maybe a request for checkuser is? Oysterguitarist 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume his last account was User:SLSB. That account had over 1,000 edits and seemed like a productive editor before being suddenly blocked in September as a sock of the May 2007 vandal account. No explanatory link was given in the block log. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned users can't edit, period, even if their contributions are viewed as constructive. The ban must be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. If you don't like this, feel free to initiate discussion on WT:BAN, but given this procedure has been pretty much stable for as long as I can remember on WIkipedia, it is unlikely that consensus will change. Daniel 02:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that. I'm just perplexed his last account, after months of being a productive wikipedian, ever got found out. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On that point, I have no idea :) Daniel 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

When is the last time that this user, under any account, was actually vandalizing rather than seeking to contribute constructively? If it was several months ago, a request for lifting the ban might be in order. If not, not, but a response of "if you refrain from socking or block evasion for [N] months we will lift the ban" might be in order. Newyorkbrad 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering... was the ArbCom involved here or not? Was there a discussion about banning him? If this is a community ban, it will last as long as no administrator is willing to unblock him. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the difference between a ban and a block, was this user banned? Not that I'm in a hurry to see an unblock but I'm wondering why Arbcom action would be needed here? RxS 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know of any ArbCom case on this user, and I'm familiar with most of the cases from the past year and a half or so. (For that matter, I don't see Bugman94 on the list of banned users at all, but that's not dispositive as often enough no one remembers to add a community-banned user to the list.) I think the meaning of "community ban" has evolved to the point that if there has been a lengthy community discussion resulting in a ban, no single admin should unblock without consensus. However, my question as to whether the user's non-constructive edits are recent or date from many months ago stands. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, of course. I am just trying to understand the situation. The original user was blocked last year for page move vandalism, his log block does not indicate he was banned, just blocked until PilotGuy changed the template at his user page, and the only discussion I find about him is this one. -- ReyBrujo 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am looking into this. I of course can't see any potentially oversighted edits, nor do I have any evidence that there are any. This user created an account on May 31 2007, User:Jlsatty, and requested via his other account User:JohnnyB123 (created on 30 May by other sockpuppet User:SuperBall53) to create the account Mr Bubbles on May 30th 2007 (note that he already had used the account User:Bubbles2430 the previous year). The user User:Hahaimbored, from May 22 2007, was clearly a disruptive sockpuppet. The User:JellyBelly372 was not really disruptive, but was yet another user created in the same week (28 may 2007). The user SparkleMan, created a few weeks later, could not recall his previous ID's when asked sepcifically for it[34]. Then again, SuperBall53 also had no idea why anyone would think he was User:WikiMan53[35], already created in December 2006.

But perhaps this is the most damning? [36] Half of these have since been blocked as sockpuppets of this user. At the end of August, he didn't feel the need to reveal his previous accounts and troubles, but was preparing to become an admin...[37] (and in case you wonder, this user was perfectly aware of how to use alternate accounts in a correct way[38]).

In short, this is a user who has created tons of sockpuppets between May and September 2007, has already twice attempted to become an admin while having undeclared other accounts, and denies having other accounts even when sepcifically asked. Why should we now, only three months later, suddenly trust him? Support ban, definitely. Fram 13:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, sure, I know. He disrupts, he must be blocked, indefinitely if necessary, etc. What I still don't see is where he was officially banned, by either the ArbCom, Jimbo or the community. The difference is minimal since he apparently continues to disrupt, but I don't like the idea of people getting banned by just changing a template at the user page. -- ReyBrujo 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the discussion you linked to did conclude that "One blatant vandalism and this user is banned". I can't find a more formal ban, but this seems to me a case of "a ban is an indef block where no one is willing to unblock / the consensus if to keep indef blocked" If needed, I belatedly support banning this user. Fram 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That list of account creation doesn't make any sense. If you were going to do this maliciously, wouldn't you log out first? and wouldn't you actually use the accounts you've created? Maybe he just edits from a school computer or something and doesn't log out; or eagerly shows others the joys of wikipedia (only to see all his friends banned as his sockpuppets) It's really screwy. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. First, not every vandal is smart enough to figure out what can be easily found, what needs a bit more work, and what is near impossible to check. Furthermore, it looks like he mixed his own sockpuppet accounts with real, separate, requested accounts, making it harder to block (or just be certain) by looking at the creation log alone. But the interaction between different accounts is suspicious, and the fact that some of them have been found through checkuser seals it for me. That the same kind of behaviour is repeated (the May creations, and then the August creations) is even worse, and doesn't give me the confidence that the current apology is genuine, or that enough time has passed to consider this editor for a second chance. Fram 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have created those accounts by request at WP:ACC; see Wikipedia:Request_an_account/August_2007. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it is now impossible (as far as I can see) to tell which IP's actually requested these accounts. He had a history of creation one account with another account[39],[40], some perhaps legitimate, some not. I would like to point out this checkuser page Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bugman94, where it is clearly stated that one of the characteristics of these socks is going to account requests. This is from before the august creations, so it is not a justification after the fact. Fram 09:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He was caught creating sockpuppets back in June 2006. But the accounts his later reincarnations created thru WP:ACC that were used were never blocked as his socks, only those that weren't ever used, where knowing whether or not they are socks is impossible. Seems like a real failure of WP:AGF to make this out as some sort of ongoing history. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They can be known as his socks if the IP's that requested the creation match. In some cases, the names of the new accounts are rather suspicious as well. Anyway, on May 30 2007, user SuperBall53 created user JohnnyB123[41], who requested to create the account MR_BUBBLES[42]. He had already used user Bubbles2430 the year before. So he creates an account that asks to create an account via account creation request page, with a name that resembles an older sockpuppet. You would have to ask the blocking admin if he has more info than this, but for me, this is enough to be very suspicious of all users created by this sockpuppeteer. And anyway, these accounts were only blocked fourteen days after creation, without any contribs yet, and without any complaints, so it doesn't look like many productive editors were scared away. Fram 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was told this is where you people request bans and such...

So, like the fancy title things says, I'd like to request that you happy admin folks ban a user. No, not me. Bluemaven. I, as an Uncyclopedia admin, have had to deal, recently, with a user by the username Zana Dark. Yes, the Zana Dark who was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia on November 4th. She is now banned for the same amount of time on Uncyclopedia (as of last night), due to her behaviour. The same fate has met Bluemaven, who, while a CheckUser does not show it, is very very likely to be a sockpuppet of Zana Dark, based on her edits. Now, Bluemaven has come to my Wikipedia talkpage, and I'd like to request that you fine and lovely chaps ban her. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is I think specifically noteworthy that Bluemaven self-identifies as "Zana" as per here. John Carter 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You should leave a note asking him/her to stop first, then, if that doesn't work, then we could ban him/her. Prodego ^talk 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

However, I'm fairly certain that this would be an unacceptable use of sockpuppets, eh? Isn't that an acceptable reason for a ban? -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps. Can never hurt to leave a warning though. Prodego ^talk 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But, wouldn't that violate WP:DENY, to my understanding of WP:DENY? In anycase, she's been banned, so there's no need to warn anyone. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zombiebaron. Zombieninja101 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. GlassCobra 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you GlassCobra. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with blocking Bluemaven on this evidence. Now, about Zombieninja101 who just popped back for the first time in over a month, and hasn't made more than 4 total edits since April. Is there any reason not to block this account as a sockpuppet? GRBerry 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He is a fellow Uncyclopedian with whom I was disscussing this matter. I doubt that that qualifies as a sockpuppet. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I got a girlfriend in April, which meant little time for wikipedia, and never bothered to return as an active editer to this or any of my old wiki's after we broke up in August. Oh yeah and I lost my computer for the entire summer. You should note that I've been here over a year, and have fought over things that I doubt ZB's ever heard of, such as Madness Combat. Which I still wish would get an article, although that doesn't seem likely. Zombieninja101 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

a sock of a blocked or banned user does not need a warning. Once ID'd as a sock, they can be immediately blocked for block-evasion. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But again, warnings are never wrong. Prodego ^talk 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So we block them for sock/vandalism/whatever then slap their wrist when they don't comply? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That depends. Understand I have no problem with the block. However, the question is how reliably can you prove (remembering WP:AGF) that a user is sockpuppet. In this case I didn't see the link as strong enough to block without warning, and would personally give at least one (probably one in this case) before blocking. That said, I repeat: I have no problem with the block. Prodego ^talk 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I said "Once ID'd as a sock,", I didn't say it was always easy, but sometimes it's ridiculously obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; sometimes, they simply say "I'm a sock of so-and-so". Painfully easy to identify then. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But only if they are telling the truth, & not lying in order to get an otherwise innocent editor in trouble. -- llywrch 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Royal Burial Ground

Two editors, User:Lonewolf BC and User:TharkunColl, are engaging in mild edit warring by removing cited material through reverts with either irrational summary, or no summary, and no discussion; this is after lengthy debate at Talk:Royal Burial Ground resulted in a narrow, but observable, consensus to insert that which the above two editors continually remove. This behaviour appears to be in bad faith, and is certainly disruptive. The page has now been protected twice, at my request. The actions of these tenditious editors needs some attention, please. --G2bambino 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd say that the situation needs additional comment rather than just these two editors - it looks like everyone (G2bambino included) should step back and consider whether they're being a bit too overzealous about this issue. Surely it could be resolved with less sturm und drang than this. Isn't there a compromise position that could be reached -- something that accurately describes the royal family but doesn't distract from the point of the article? --TheOtherBob 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, British Royal Family. Although I'm keeping out of Royalty-related articles now, due to the many arguments, I really think G2bambino has a strong POV, the current wording on the above article is ludicrous! As I have said a thousand million times, common usage demands they should be known as the British Royal Family (which "doesn't distract from the article" like Commonwealth realms does). --UpDown 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you demand, and in the face of verifiable evidence that your POV is narrow-minded, no less. This is why you resort to debasing your opponent's argument by misrepresenting it, as opposed to actually dealing with it.

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, the founder of the WikiProject put forward the following as a proposed guideline for the WikiProject:

"Where appropriate – i.e. in any case where the monarchy, or an aspect thereof, is/was shared between Britain and any other state independent therefrom – it will be necessary to make specific mention of the Commonwealth realms, at first specifically, but more generally thereafter. The main state on which the article concentrates (Britain unless stated elsewhere) will be used most often throughout the text, but only as primus inter pares, and never to the exclusion of all others in the article."

This satisfied my concerns. The others continue to be obstinate. --G2bambino 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

First I'd advise against commenting on the person rather than the issues -- stay cool. In terms of the WikiProject, I'm not sure that I'm as certain as you are that this is the final word on the subject -- consider whether that is the absolute authority here, or whether this might be the type of situation where an exception or less rigid approach would make sense. I'm not saying that this is the case -- but I am entirely certain that calling fellow editors "obstinate" is unlikely to get them to agree with you about it, but that being open to their views might. --TheOtherBob 16:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly love to comment on the issue instead of the person, however, in this case, the persons seem to be a large part of the problem; without cooperation, we can't move anywhere, and without communication there can't be any cooperation. Communication is more than simply restating the same personal opinion over and over again, and demanding the other party simply accept it as fact, without any provided evidence or even logic as to why they should do so; and this is precisely what has been going on at Talk:Royal Burial Ground, and, indeed, anywhere that this shared aspect of the royal family (and monarchy) comes to light. This becomes especially frustrating when cited and verifiable sources that contradict their POV are presented and consistently ignored. Willful ignorance and/or a constant unwillingness to explain why one's opinion is to be taken as absolute truth is what makes one appear obstinate. Using this as reason to continually revert any attempts to resolve is what makes a disruptive editor.

I have tried being cordial and collegiate with these people in the past; I have listened to their demands, understand their concerns, and have tried to create compromises that satisfy both parties; but still, their behaviour, and their stance, never changes. This same fight has been going on for months, and across dozens of articles. --G2bambino 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and you always start the "fight"! All you say above aplies equally to you, your POV, you not listening and so on. The way I read the guidelines at the WikiProject was that on Royal Burial Ground British Royal Family is sufficient. Seems the guidelines need rewriting. Anyway, as I've said I am not editing Royal articles anymore (hence having not reverted myself on the article). These sort of frustrating discussion are time-wasting, especially when certain editors refuse to budge and then accuse others of bad faith when they are merely trying to be logically and reflect common useage. Please don't accuse others of bad faith when they clearly are not.--UpDown 18:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A perfect example of what I speak of: the opinions of others are frustrating and a waste of time; evidence that supports their view is irrelevant; I say this is sufficient and therefore it is. And one is to assume good faith from that?

As I said, I've listened, I've understood, and I've tried to cooperate: "royal family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" a) acknowledges the primary association of the royal family to the UK, b) acknowledges readers are most familiar with the British aspect of the royal family, and c) acknowledges that the royal family is shared and not purely British. That's called a compromise. --G2bambino 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that G2bambino has developed a POV, based on a selective reading of the sources, which leads him into quite ridiculous assertions such as the idea that the British Monarch does not reign over Canada, etc. For a very long time he has been inserting this POV into articles on the British Royal Family. TharkunColl 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, a perfect example; you people are providing more proof of your attitude than I could've hoped for. Only someone who wishes to willfully dismiss those facts that contradict their POV would call this a selective reading of sources. A brutal unwillingness to even cooperate. --G2bambino 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't often get involved with these articles, though I read the debates, the view of G2B is 'unique' and I rarely see other editors sharing his POV. However, I believe he may be technically correct, but his edits tend to make the wording of articles convoluted and bizarre, and not reflecting the world as most people know it. Which is not to say he isn't 'technically' right. Just most people from the UK would go 'eh??' to look at it. Anyway I just mean to say that it's not Thark or Lonewolf's fault, a lot of people from Great Britain have the same reaction reading G2B's edits. Allowances should be made somewhat for this- maybe we're brainwashed.:)Merkinsmum 23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, my view probably is "unique" from the viewpoint of some others, I can understand that; it hasn't eluded me that 95% of those who oppose me are from the United Kingdom, and I can imagine they're used to looking at things from their perspective. But, verifiable facts are verifiable facts, and Wikipedia isn't read by only UK citizens; it thus needs to take a more global stance where appropriate. The real mess emerges when a user or two simply can't accept that the way they've understood things might not be wholly accurate, and worse still when nationalism comes into play; i.e. those who think acknowledging the sharing of the monarchy - sharing! - diminishes the United Kingdom.

I've tried to be sensitive to this, and though I tend to take a more egalitarian stance, I've come to accept that the UK should, in certain circumstances, and for various reasons, be... highlighted, shall we say. My wording probably isn't perfect; it isn't easy to sum up a complex reality in a few measly words. But, my aim isn't to impose my specific composition anywhere, but to work towards one that is accurate, succinct, and acceptable by most users. I cannot, I repeat, cannot, do that without cooperation, which Thark, in particular, but some others such as Lonewolf (though for different reasons) and UpDown, refuse to do. It's like trying to show evidence to a brick wall. --G2bambino 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Sock puppets ARE GOOD

User account Sock puppets ARE GOOD is an old, unused account. The user page redirects to the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Any suggestions on what, if anything, to do regarding this account? -- Jreferee t/c 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I re-redirected the userpage to his talk page so it doesn't redirect to the policy page anymore, but doing anything to this account would be rather punitive considering it's last edit was in 2005. — Save_Us_229 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-user complaint

I am in receipt of an email from a non-user complaining about allegedly libellous posts by an editor persistently over an extended period of time. The email identifies the non-user and editor by their real names and requests that steps be taken to stop the editor from libelling the non-user. Obviously, this is beyond my jurisdiction. Where should I forward this email for action (or refer the non-user to). Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say either to OTRS or OVersight. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin, non-lawyer, non-everything, why-is-he-even-giving-his-opinion opinion: This is Wikipedia, not the legal system of whatever country they live in. If they know the real life identity of their libeler (libeller?), they can talk to a lawyer. The libeller's real world identity does not affect us. The only thing we can (and should) do is look at the article in question, decide if it's a BLP violation or not, and revert/block/protect/request oversight as necessary. The email should normally have gone to OTRS, and since they're skilled at handling such things, I'd forward it to OTRS (or direct the "non-user" to do so). --barneca (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, if Wikipedia is aware of one of its user who is a libeler, they should be punish that user under relevant Wikipedia policies, which exist. Wikipedia should also remove any potentially libelous material, which is also mandated by various Wikipedia policies. It's not as if Wikipedia has no responsibility here. ~ UBeR 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not a clearcut case. There's no way to tell whether the statements are true, so I'll just forward the email. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  04:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)