This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive174

Noticeboard archives

Possibly inappropriate deletion of material from talk page

I was patrolling some anonymous, unsummarized edits. Normally, when I see something like this deletion of material from a talk page I feel confident on making the call whether or not to revert it, but since the content removed was partly mine and partly someone accusing me of bad faith, I don't think I'm the person who should wade in there. Could I ask someone else to please have a look? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just archived the whole talk page. The newest section was over six months ago. There is no need for two year old sections to remain there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Archiving is fine. But he didn't archive, he simply removed. - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User page in mainspace


page deleted, no continuing problems. Guest9999 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Crazyaboutlost has created Usuario:Crazyaboutlost as a user page in mainspace. I'm not exactly sure who to inform about the mistake as User talk:Crazyaboutlost redirects to User talk:Crazyaboutlost (usurped). I'm not really sure if this is one user or two as the two similar userpages would indicate one but why would they have to usurp their own account? Very confused but either way the page in mainspace should be deleted or moved to the correct location in userspace. Guest9999 (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Price Is Right using Wikipedia articles?

Resolved: There are more pressing matters at hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

During today's (October 24th) episode of the U.S. game show The Price Is Right, they had a Showcase which featured the models reading facts about the prizes. The copy was attributed to Wikipedia, and their style was pretty reminiscent of our style, but since it was spoken and I wasn't expecting it I couldn't check and see if they actually matched up with our articles or not. No mention of the GFDL was made to my knowledge, though it could have been stuck in the credits somewhere. The show will be available on [] sometime this evening.

My question is this: one, if they are indeed Wikipedia articles, and the GFDL wasn't credited (though Wikipedia was), what do we need to do? And secondly, I'm not sure on the specifics of the GFDL, but if they used a Wikipedia article on the show, would that mean that entire episode of the show is GFDLed? (We could illustrate many of the articles about the show with screencaps from this episode if so...)

Also, of note was that the final "article" read was apparently supposed to be a parody of a vandalized article. Since the prize was a boat, we might want to keep an eye on boat to see if any imitative vandalism happens. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

People are free to use our knowledge by reading short excerpts or paraphrasing. The GFDL notice is only required if they republish substantial amounts of content, according to my lay person's understanding of copyright law in the United States. Jehochman Talk 17:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
And no, I'm really quite confident this isn't a loophole and that they've somhow voided their copyright to the show. --barneca (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
But if they did publish large portions of material without proper GFDL notice then the price is wrong, bitch! Cirt (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It could work the other way - they use some copyrighted material, so the whole show's copyrighted. DendodgeTalkContribs 17:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Danger: excessive navel gazing can lead to nearsightedness. Please go edit the articles. ;-) Jehochman Talk 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
They could quote small parts under Fair Use without satisfying the requirements of GFDL. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We should be encouraging this, rather than worrying about the nitty-gritty. This is exactly what Wikipedia should be used for. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting, especially when one recognises the vocabulary, on a game show Amanita muscaria was described as 'quintessential'...which is used in the lead of the article XD. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Aye, WP:AGF and all. It just proves that despite all the claims, people do actually use Wikipedia. Important people, too. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The real question is what the hell were you doing watching the price is right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just not the same without ole Bob making subtle passes at all the beautiful women... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 06:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It went downhill when Bill Cullen left. They never quoted Wikipedia on his watch. Edison (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle issues

Due to recent problems with the API, if you report someone to AIV using Twinkle, it does this. Would anyone object to me putting a watchlist notice to try to get people to stop doing that? J.delanoygabsadds 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Do it to it. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)'
Uh, we could just remove that part of twinkle... (comment it out...) ffm 21:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to comment out the function. This is not a major announcement for the community. Cenarium Talk 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've disabled the ARV script in twinkle.js. Feel free to revert when it works. ffm 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it wrong to just cut and paste warnings from the WP:WARN page, adding in the names of the relevant articles? I have never found it necessary to do semiautomated editing via "Huggle" or "Twinkle". Edison (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not wrong, it's just... slow. Semi-automated also tends to be much easier and convenient, etc. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 05:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of newcomers

Resolved: Newcomer welcomed, article being worked on, over-eager newpage patroller counseled. Fut.Perf. 08:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I am told this is the right place to come and mention this. I joined only yesterday having always supposed Wikipedia is the place 'anyone can edit', so I did. I am qualified with two higher degrees in linguistic related subjects, and I have publications in this area. I started an article scalar implicature which is a well-known subject area in pragmatics, also known as quantity implicature. As soon as I started writing the article - I mean literally as soon as I started - someone put a rude template on the page saying it was 'patent nonsense'. I admit I had some trouble with the formatting as the editor here is not easy to use, and it didn't read properly until after a few attempts. But it was not very nice to a newcomer to have this happen. The article is a bit longer now and is referenced, but needs a lot more work and frankly I am not encouraged to do any more. With best wishes, and sorry to be complaining like this. Americanlinguist (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, and I can only apologise on behalf of the community for the thoughtless action of that newpage patroller. Please understand that people who patrol the new page creation log have to deal with quite a lot of nonsense, which makes some of them a little trigger-happy, but cases like this really ought not to happen. Also, a piece of advice, please keep in mind that our articles need to be written in a way that makes them understandable to laypeople as far as possible. Maybe you could try to make the article a bit less opaque to the non-specialist, by making a bit less concentrated use of technical terms in the first sentences? Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope this first frustration won't spoil it for you. Fut.Perf. 08:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thank you I am sorry to have been rude above. I was thinking about an easier way to communicate the first paragraph. However I took the terms straight from textbooks and I understand Wikipedia does not allow original research in the sense of interpreting source material. Americanlinguist (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a good consideration, but I guess "original research" that just consists in finding more layperson-friendly ways of explaining the background assumptions behind a statement are really no problem. I actually think it's now a nice little article as is, but being a linguist myself I can probably understand it more easily than many others. Perhaps we can still come up with a way of making it more accessible. In any case, thanks for your contributions, and feel free to contact me if you need any help. Fut.Perf. 08:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This happens all the time. I swear I'm going to write WP:SHITANDRUN one of these days. Jtrainor (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:BITE also applies to new page patrollers as well. The ideal is that the new page patroller learns to patrol better, and the bitten new contributor is (as happened here) properly welcomed and apologies given. Speaking of which, someone should say something to User:Simplebutpowerful, as they were also involved in this. Oh, and instead of writing an essay, why not take part in new page patrolling (you probably do already, so ignore that). Hey, I have an idea, we can have a system to patrol the new page patrollers! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam filter keeps me from undoing spam edit

The wikipedia spam filter keeps me from undoing an edit which replaced Talk:Social network with spam because the vandalised talk page contains a link to What can I do about that? — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rolled it back for you. Dayewalker (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing article

Why is there no article on Hoopla? It just redirects to an article about a film. Hoopla is a notable game - see [1] [2] [3] (BBC is as reliable source as you get) [4].--Porollostracuos (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoopla is mentioned at Funfair#Sidestalls and games. It's not easy to find though. Maybe set up a disambiguation page at Hoopla? I'll do that now. Actually, while looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Hoopla, I found quoits. But still, this area does need a bit of tidying up. Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure

I have recently noted a few problems with AfD closure process. Since this is mostly an admin process, this seems like the best page to discuss it.

The main problems are that AFD's are closed too soon, and that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old is updated too soon. The WP:DPR clearly states that "Every day, the day page (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day) that is more than five days old should be moved here. The decision to keep or delete a page is to be implemented only after this move has been performed." This is what Mathbot does, but people can't wait for it and add the next day (much) earlier. As an example, the page for the 17th was added early on the 21st[5], which means that many AfD's were only 3 1/2 days old, instead of the required 5.

Today, 18 October was added some 12 hours before Mathbot would have done it automatically: more serious, at that time (less than 4 1/2 day after the last AfD's were started), only 20 of the 112 discussions were still open! Excluding Speedies and relisted debates, this still means that many AfD's were closed before the page was listed on the /old page (as the Deletion Process mandates", and that they were closed before 5 days had passed (e.g for the second one, 4 days and 2 hours had passed).

I am not arguing that these closures were incorrect wrt the result: I have not checked them. But five days was the compromise between a swift process and sufficient time for everyone to research articles and improve them (and the suggestions to lengthen the period are regular fixtures on WT:AFD). Could we all please try to not close regular AfD's before five days have passed and before the page is listed on /Old, and could we also not list new dates on /old manually, since Mathbot does that automatically? Thanks... Fram (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue here. Mathbot does not list the days on /Old automatically. The AFD page is listed when the page is more than five days old — the AFD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 18 was created at 00:00 on October 18th (i.e. the start of the day) and that page became five days old at 00:00 this morning and was listed on WP:OLD at 03:19 this morning, at which stage it was just over 123 hours old. Process has been followed here, although as you rightly point out, Kurykh added the 17th too early.
It's a side effect of the instruction that an AFD listed at 23:59 on the 18th will only be open for four days and a minute when that AFD page becomes eligible for listing at WP:OLD. However, the current instructions are being followed as written.
On a side point, there is a discussion at WT:CSD on lengthening the delay on delayed speedy deletions to seven days; it's been suggested that AFDs should go the same way. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect, Stifle (and I'll revert your change to the AFD/Old page). Mathbot does list pages if given the chance, e.g. here[6]. Pages should only be listed five days after the page has been "closed" for new entries, so that all discussions get at least five days. If this is stated differently somewhere, those instructions should be changed / clarified. I'll take a look at the CSD discussion, hadn't seen that one yet. Fram (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not what the procedure says — it says that they are listable on /old when the AFD page is five days old. If you wish to change the current practice, please establish a consensus for that. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Or just call over to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Time limits where we're trying to unify all the limits anyway. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry for inadvertently removing two of your comments, they have been kindly reinserted by Tikiwont) The prodcedure says to movethem when it is "more than five days old", which is open to interpretation. Five days and one minute? Or at least 6 days? In the end, all guidelines have to be in line with the policies, and the deletion policy clearly states that "The discussion lasts at least five days". If you wish to change the policy, ... ;-) (by the way, the discussion at CSD will not be good enough tochange time limits for other kinds, this has to be done at WT:DP or the Village Pump) Fram (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a specific issue? Some AfDs become speedy deletes. Others become snowball keeps. There are nonadministrative closures. Specifically what is the problem? Things that should be deleted that are kept before their time? Deletes that happen before the appointed time? If I were to name a single problem with AfD procedure it is that nonadmins sometimes jump the gun by closing as keep in unclear cases and before the discussion is done. And a close second is the participation of sockpuppets, hotheads, and SPAs. Wikidemon (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The specific issue that I understand Fram is making is that AFDs are being closed earlier that he feels they should be. (Feel free to correct me if I misinterpret you, Fram.) Stifle (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. For a number of reasons (one being guidelines that are unclear or not in line with policy), the correct procedure as described in the deletion policy is rarely followed anymore: while on the one hand we have discussions to lengthen the time deletion discussions stay open, on the other hand actual practice is to close them (individually) or move them to the "old" page (in group) before five days have passed. As long as the policy is to have at least five days of discussion, we should stick to that and not close AfD's early en masse. Fram (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
About the duration of the AfDs - I have started to go down the list of AfDs and see what the results were and when the decisions were made (currently at User:Od Mishehu/notes). In the first 40 we have 2 relists; 7 speedy delete; 2 withdrawn; 1 with a WP:SNOW deletion and userfying; 1 early non-admin closure; 1 still open; the other 26 were all closed after anything from 4 days 2 hours till 4 days 11 hours, mostly by MBisanz around 1:43-1:49 UTC today. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the technical instructions when to list log files are subordinate to the policy covering the time for the deletion discussion. As that is five days for AfDs the section marked 'old' should only include AfDs that have passed that limit. As AfDs aren't listed single but in logs, the log should be moved there only when the most recent AfD inside is at least five days old. Which seems to mean once the log is six days old. People can still close those AfD individually that are five days old or close to it. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry sounds like process wonkery for me. From what I've seen, any close that isn't clear more often sticks around 6-7 than 5 in the first place; and those that get close by shaving the 5 day delay are the clearcut ones that aren't going to be saved at the 11th hour by a cleverly rewritten article. Unless a demonstration can be made that there are cases where the result would have been different a few hours later, I'm certainly not going to stand around XfD with a stopwatch and yell "out of process" if a clear discussion is going to be close early. If this leads to actual abuse, then it needs to be examined. If the only problem with the rounded delay before closure is "it didn't last the specified duration", then it's a non-issue. — Coren (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coren (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy)- but the question is: What is the minimum time? When Serpentera was deleted, it had 3 votes to delete, none to keep. In the 21 hours it had till the end of the 5 days, a couple votes may have been cast to keep - and then there wouldn't be a clear consensus to delete anymore. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Even if the keep votes had just been 'this is an interesting article please don't delete it'? I'm getting tired of 'no consensus' closures when all the policy arguments are one way and the SPAs, first time editors who have edited nothing else, bring up a blog or a self-published website and the decision isn't made on policy grounds but, as you say, on 'votes'. Doug Weller (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's another issue entirely. The reason things happen as they currently do is simply one of practicality: XfD nominations happen at all times of the day, and administrators closing them have better things to do that trawl the page looking for the ones at the right time for closing... hence we organize into daily pages; which tend to be closed in one fell swoop (regardless of the time the XfD was put on that date's page). In practice, the clear XfD get closed really fast (which means that some may be 4 days and a few hours), the others not so fast, but all are potentially closed. Unless that few hours' difference actually changes outcomes (which would be made obvious by DRV), there I don't see an issue at all.

An argument could be made that we should have one (entire) extra day of delay, but (a) I don't see a need and (b) wanna bet some people will then start complaining that debates that should have been closed 23 hours ago!!1! have been affected? — Coren (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Process wonkery? Then why have a policy at all? I am not complaining about some individual AfD that should get overturnd because it was closed 15 minutes too soon. I am complaining about the culture we have here of closing almost every AfD too soon, listing them on Afd/Old too soon, and so on. Admins are supposed to follow policy, except where it harms the encyclopedia. Waiting five days to close an AfD will probably not harm the encyclopedia. However, if you think that 3 days is enough for most AfD's, let's just change the policy to reflect consensus. I don't care either way, but it would appear a whole lot better if discussions actually run for at least the amount of time they are supposed to. Fram (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't. As I've stated just above your comment, an argument could be made to add one more "daily page" in the queue and thus make the discussion last from 5 to 6 days instead. My point is that arguing about which hour in that day is the right one is pointless. — Coren (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think my argument boiled down to that. I will not complain if someone closes too late, or if it is closed five minuts early for some reason. The problem was with the systematical closures hours (and even more than a day regularly) before the policy-defined minimal time. Adding one day to the queue would help a bit (but isn't even needed: just wait for Mathbot to add the day, instead of doing it manually 16 hours earlier), and waiting for all normal closures until the page is listed at afd/old would help as well. It would make life even simpler: you (plural) don't have to add anything to afd/old, and you don't have to worry about the starting time of the AfD: if it is at /old, you may close it. Nothing more, nothing less. Fram (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
"Then why have a policy at all?" - Good point, policy is supposed to be descriptive of actual practice, not proscriptive of what people should be forced to do. It should probably be updated. That said, 90% of AFD comments some in the first 48 hours of the discussion, the other 3 or so days are mainly just a courtesy to people who don't check Wikipedia every day. But the odds of a comment after 4.5 days changing the consensus of a discussion are quite small. The only cases where it would would be active AFDs which should be left open longer, and cases where the consensus is so weak that one comment can change it, which should probably be relisted. Mr.Z-man 16:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Can nobody see the problem here? 4 simultaneous corner 24 hour days and 4 Earth rotations occur within a single 24 hour rotation. Duh.
AfD discussions are meant to run for five days. Because AfDs are grouped into 24-hour "daily" pages, and because those pages are moved into the "Old" listing as a group, then there is inevitably a difference of up to 24 hours between the durations of AfDs. The solution, then, is, is to decide whether we want the error to be positive, negative, or split - in other words, whether we want discussions to run for 4-5 days, or 5-6 days, or 5 days +/- 12 hours, etc - and having decided this, to adjust MathBot as necessary.
Personally I see no harm in guaranteeing every AfD gets five days. Articles that survive the first few days of AfD without being speedied are unlikely to harm Wikipedia by sticking around for another 24 hours. On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that harm could be done by cutting a discussion short. We're talking about getting rid of peoples' contributions here, and there should be no question in anyone's mind about whether or not we're giving their article a fair chance. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree and indicated my own math above. Moreover, process should help us, in this case to distinguish clearly those AfD that should be closed by putting them in an 'old' section below a line from those who can possibly be closed already directly above that line. Actually both for MFD (updated manually) and WP:DRV (updated by a bot) that have the same five day period, you'll see six days listed under 'current' and not five as right now for AFD.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Another point. Admins who wait for a discussion to run the full five days will find that other admins (who like to tidy things up earlier) will have closed discussions before they (the 5-day admins) get a chance. Thus this skews the demographic of "closing admins" from "all admins willing to do AfD closing" to "those who are willing to close a few hours early". This could, eventually, cause problems. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Or to put it less diplomatically, with the current practice AfDs are more likely to be closed by admins who are wikiholics with a slight disregard for policy than by admins who make sure that their actions comply strictly with written policy. (By the way, does the scheduled mathbot operation also introduce a geographical bias in admin activity?) --Hans Adler (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Selection bias and consensus

I have seen instances where admins have been conducting discussions on their own talk pages, or other user talk pages, to develop a consensus about important community issues such as whether to unban a user. Per common sense, such discussions should be occurring here on this board where everyone can see them. A user talk page is not a neutral location and will tend to attract users who have interacted with that user before. Such discussions should not be taken as representative of community opinion. Comments, kudos, and rotten tomatoes are welcome in response to my suggestion. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "none of the above"? You're correct in principle, but there are cases where bringing a matter here would simply greatly increase the drama, acrimony and all-out slugfest where handling the matter on the sidelines may lead to a faster resolution with less heat. — Coren (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A user talkpage is far more transparent than IRC, and there is a reviewable history too. I think any such discussion on a talkpage should be referred to an admin board before being enacted. In short, if a prior discussion on a talkpage allows a more detailed/considered proposal to be placed before the rest of the community then that is a good thing. Acting upon decisions made in a less trafficked place is not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
most admin decisions don't have general implications, and anyone who thinks one does can bring one here. I think people tend to watchlist talk pages of some admins who tend to get involved in such discussions. that said, an admin who is deciding something that is controversial and general should know to list it somewhere. But think if all discussions were listed here--we'd have no time to actually review the ones that needed it. We have over a thousand active admins. DGG (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think any discussion about whether to remove a community ban or sanction should be here, not on a user talk page. Can everyone agree with that? Jehochman Talk 12:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Final actionable discussion, yes. Preliminary discussion can be conducted anywhere appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


There seems to be many User: pages and redirects to user namespace in template namespace[7] Some might be legit, but others might benefit from being move to userspace or given the old heave-ho such as through R3 a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common. If you have any inclination to address this, please do so. Thanks. -- Suntag 19:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to move any non-redirect either into the user namespace or to a name which doesn't begin with "Template:User:"; forward all links to these redirects (both those which are currently redirects, and those which we will be moviong and leaving redirects behind); and delete the redirects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that there are currently reasons why some of these pages are necessary - for example, User:Dinokid/Templates/Navboxes/Sapphire Park has a {{Navbox|name=User:Dinokid/Templates/Navboxes/Sapphire Park|...}} where the name is prefixed with a Template: prefix. Until {{Navbox}} is fixed, some of these may be necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Some neutral input please

Three weeks back I closed a WP:RM, and moved Flag of Ireland to Flag of the Republic of Ireland, largely based on what I thought were the better arguments of the pro-move side.

There is currently another RM to move the article back to Flag or Ireland, which has descended into a squabble about the original RM and various accusations of bias (apparently because I once used the term "Republic" to refer to the Republic of Ireland on someone's talk page, I have a "conflict of interest"). At the moment several of the contributors are people involved in the many Irish-related arguments, so it would be good to have some neutral input and feedback on the original decision. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bring in people from the Chinese and Zimbabwean versions of Wikipedia to decide this using reliable sources, and require the two sides who are arguing this to accept whatever they decide. People who bring these outside fights into Wikipedia are incredibly disruptive. Remove them from the argument altogether and half our problems go away. For heaven's sake, people are screaming at each other about what to name a flag. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
And, see, it's reasons like this why I'm staying away from a backlogged request re: the (city, state) construct. (But, if someone else wants to take a crack at it....) JPG-GR (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you said it. You've moved the page and you are involved with that pages discussion. Unless it was an "in an out" opperation, such as an anonymous administrator moving the page upon request via the concent of the user on that page, I would tend to believe that you do have an interest. Furthermore, without going into details the prima facie evidence you stated doesn't help your case believe your are at arms lenght. b.t.w.: What ever happen to WP:NPOV and representing this conflict within the article!!! Unless for some reason (devils advocate here) the article is missing reliable sources. LOL. I laugh because I think the route of all evil on wikipedia is a lack of complacency to properly source and format references. Good luck! --CyclePat (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

archiving my user page?

Resolved: The consensus of the discussion is that Fyuck(click) can do as he wishes, may it be archiving the template or removing it altogether. -- lucasbfr talk 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

All I want to do is archive my user page at User talk:Fyunck(click) but someone I have had problems with in the past has reverted it. This would be "Tennis expert." I want nothing to do with him (not wanting to stir up any more problems on a one-to-one basis) but could someone please make him leave my user page alone? I wasn't sure where to post this since it's not really vandalism or personal attacking. It's just mischief. Thank You. (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a confirmed sockpuppeteer, so you lost a couple of rights when you started socking. One of them was the ability to remove the category saying that you're a sockmaster.
Additionally, you'll need to log in before we'll do anything about a user page, in order to confirm your identity. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 09:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops... thought I was logged in, Sorry. I didn't want to remove anything even though it's all in the history. Just archiving all but current events. Surely that's ok? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the "offense" was back in June, that's OK with me. Just don't do it again ;) -- lucasbfr talk 12:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
However, Tennis Expert is correct; Fyunck(click) has conveniently omitted the section about sockpuppetry in the archive he created. It's not a complete archive as he has claimed. Horologium (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it only me or does one clearly see the f word in this username? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
One clearly sees it, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I see it also. Action? Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur, but like the optical illusion of Image:My Wife and My Mother-In-Law (Hill).svg I see the other side of the image... wiktionary:Funck and click... or how about F(for franck) and "Yunck" (a last name according to this search) + (click). Maybe it's a dyslexic mix of Franck Yun? I think there is a reasonable doubt that this may be a valid user name base on someone’s real name. Nevertheless, the more I look at it, the more I just want to ignore the fact that it may me "Fuck yu" or "Fuck it" which rhymes with Fyunck(click). It's pure bias, and this aforementioned fact should not be taken into consideration, even for the most or the least disruptive of users in our decision to block someone for disruption.... such a bias would put into disrepute the administration of fairness and brand Wikipedia's administration as insensible. I recommend, and I think WP:SOCK does as well, that it simply be ignored. --CyclePat (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline that allows a confirmed sockpuppeteer to archive the confirmed sockpuppetry notice after just four months? This user was highly disruptive and dishonest in June, (see, e.g., this) and as far as I know, he has never admitted that the checkuser conducted on him was correct. At the very least, he should admit everything and apologize before being allowed to archive the notice. Tennis expert (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no policy that requires users to archive everything that once was on their talk page (or there would be a lot of "F words" on my archives). We also don't ask people to undergo Self-criticism sessions here. -- lucasbfr talk 10:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And the cite for that is what? This user was outright dishonest and disruptive and has never admitted anything. Before allowing a user like this to obscure the consequences of his actions, the user should come clean about what he did. Tennis expert (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps I'm missing something? "F word" is a bit ambiguous, but the username doesn't contain "fuck" if that's what you mean. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the Scunthorpe problem? (Which is good for a laugh, if nothing else.)--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)First, re: to Horologium, the sockpuppetry thread isn't in the archive because Tennis Expert took it out, not Fyunck(click). Second, per MZMcBride, I think you have to work hard enough to see the f-word in the user name that no action should be taken on it (also, he's had the username for over 2 years). Third, per Lucasbfr, I'd say if this occured 4 months ago, and the user has been editing productvely since then, it's Ok to archive the sock notice. A cursory glance through a few recent contribs shows mostly good edits; does someone have diffs of recent bad ones? If so, let's see 'em. If not, let's leave him be, with Lucasbfr's "just don't do it again" caveat. --barneca (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for at least looking at what's going on. I included the whole archive, I guess Tennis Expert took out the part in question without my knowledge. The user name is from the book "The Mote in God's Eye" and is not supposed to be derogatory in any way at all, it's the alien's job description. Since I posted this query one person has now changed the archive header for the better (thanks), Tennis Expert has again reverted the user talk page, and now someone has added stuff to my user page which I kept blank before. So things are worse than when I asked for some help. sigh :-( I wish I knew what to do because it's very confusing. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would assume that the user name is a slight misspelling of "Fyunch(click)", which is a term from the novel The Mote in God's Eye. In fact, we mention the term in the article.-gadfium 17:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I misspelled it when joining and then said "oh what the heck" I like it this way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh snap, that's where I recognize this from. Thanks Gadfium! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so back to the topic at hand sorry, I didn't notice people had resumed talking about this again mid-thread. i must say, I now have no idea where to continue this, so I'll leave the post at the bottom of the thread. --barneca (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC): I think we should come to some sort of agreement that Fyuck(click) can now, after 4 months, put the sock notice in his talk page archive, and remove it from his user page and talk page. I don't think it was intended to be a scarlet letter he has to wear for the rest of his life. If anyone has evidence of questionable behavior/wrongdoing/etc that have happened in the 4 months since he pulled this, please bring them up, as it would affect my opinion. If not, I'd like to remove the notices. --barneca (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see why he has to put it in his archive. It doesn't appear that he was blocked for it, so it must not have been a big deal. I don't think there's any rule that requires talk page archives to be perfect records, or even a rule that requires having talk page archives. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What about WP:UP#CMT, which says, "Policy does not prohibit users ... from removing comments from their own talk pages.... Important exceptions may include ... confirmed sockpuppetry notices.... In these cases it may be legitimate in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to display important information about ... sockpuppetry." As for whether he was blocked, see this, which was connected with this whole sordid saga. Also, see this, which was the block of his disruptive sockpuppet. And, yes, it was a big deal. Tennis expert (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And what exactly do you think having this template on his talk will achieve? Especially 4 months after the event? This is getting more and more silly... -- lucasbfr talk 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the above, archiving this old thread is reasonable now and nothing in the username or recent actions of the user warrants admin attention. The userpage notice is uncalled-for and could be waived as well. Cenarium Talk 23:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keeping the confirmed sockpuppetry notice on the current version of this user's discussion page will further WP:UP#CMT. If you (lucasbfr) don't like that policy, maybe you should try to gain consensus to overturn it. But that is not the point of the discussion here. Through June of this year, this user (Fyunck(click)) had a proven history of dishonesty and disruption, which this user has never admitted much less apologized for. (See, e.g., this, where he claims that any confirmed sockpuppetry notice would be "very unfair".) In my opinion, that makes the user untrustworthy, which aside from anything else is why the confirmed sockpuppetry notice should remain. By the way, administrators occasionally impose conditions for unblocking, and I see no reason why conditions could not be iimposed on this user for removal of the confirmed sockpuppetry notice, including admission of previous sockpuppetry. Tennis expert (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
legitimate in order to keep a user from gaming the system. But the user is not gaming the system, so let him be. SpinningSpark 09:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You're misreading the policy, or rather reading something into the policy that does not exist. The policy does not say that a confirmed sockpuppetry notice must remain on a user's discussion page only if the notice is needed to prevent this particular user from gaming the system. Tennis expert (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Funny to see how Tennis expert, of all people, is opposed to granting another user the option to archive his/her talk page as they see fit. He regularly removes anything he deems critical of his editing, no matter if that criticism is valid or not. Funny. Very funny indeed. Everyme 10:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok enough of this nonsense. Tennis expert is the only dissonant voice here. Marking it as resolved, can we please go back at, you know, writing stuff in namespace 0? -- lucasbfr talk 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What do I do about this?

I nominated an article, Georges Lopez, for speedy deletion. The editor obviously took exception to it, and posted this in my talk. I know it's not Earth-shattering or even rude; it's just weird. I'm just curious whether there's some kind of stock response to this... or perhaps I should just ignore it. Seegoon (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Revert and ignore. I see no problem with the speedy (which is actually on Georges lopez—note the lower case l), because it's nonsense, lacks context, and is unreferenced. Horologium (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Weird, exactly; possibly not himself. Can't see what help an admin can give unless it gets heavy. Delete and forget. --Rodhullandemu 01:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb oversight

... granted per announcement of October 19.

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

User right given. --Filip (§) 10:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin bot BRFA

This message is to bring greater community attention to the BRFA of DYKadminBot. All members of the community are welcome to comment on the proposal at the linked page. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

Hiya, everybody. Yesterday I protected Joe the Plumber for 48 hours due to an edit war, and that protection is gonna' wear off early tomorrow morning. It doesn't seem that the content dispute that triggered the war is at all over, and I fear that it will resume as soon as the protection does expire. I wouldn't like to extend the protection, so that non-warrior editors can continue to work on it as normal, so if I could get some more eyes over on it now that'd be great. Cheers, and thanks. lifebaka++ 19:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How about blocking the people that continue to edit war? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Depends on whether its the same people or random IP vandalism. If there are a small number of edit warriors and they don't get the message from page protection, then definitely block the edit warriors next time. Thatcher 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
With sufficient warning, that is in fact my plan. I just can't be on 24/7. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Editnotices have been shown to be incredibly effective for edit wars, if you're interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that looks like a useful idea. Any examples of effective ones in recent use, MZ? ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There's one on Sarah Palin, actually. Just read up on it. Thanks for the link, MZ, that will help. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, that one's good. Agree with lifebaka - a useful tool to consider in the future. Ta muchly, MZ. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to get a list of editnotices currently in use? Or a way to find out whether a page has an editnotice without actually clicking on "edit this page"? I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes and sort of. --Carnildo (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
PrefixIndex is a bit more of a 'canonical' way of getting the list. That is, it doesn't specify a start and end like AllPages does. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and a wikilink can be made so readers can see where it goes without clicking: Special:PrefixIndex/Mediawiki:Editnotice. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit war is restarting: [8], [9]. Basically no compromised can be reached because some editors strongly believe that facts published in mainstream media of all political leanings (from WaPo to Fox News), should still be excluded from Wikipedia based on BLP policy. Good luck sorting this one out. VG ☎ 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also fighting over "the most famous plumber in the nation" statement [10] [11]. Seriously WP:LAME. VG ☎ 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
One editor has made at least 4 reverts in a very short time period. QuackGuru 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Most famous plumber my ass. Have we all forgotten about Mario and Luigi?!?!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen it specified that Luigi was a plumber- for that matter, where's the actual evidence that Mario did any plumbing work either? In any case, that statement has to go- it's unverifiable and a blatant peacock. Humph, most famous plumber... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Listen I think it is fairly clear that they both were plumbers. The mere fact that they went up and down pipes shows that they have some sort of expertise on the matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but did Luigi have his own license, or did work under Mario's? (Score -1, Troll) VG ☎ 17:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


To be clear, as there's some confusion, I am not Science Apologist, though the name, Shoemaker's Holiday, is vaguely similar. There has been some confusion.

Now, then, I originally sent this to the arbcom, but they said that it should be dealt with by the community, so... here we are!

Martinphi (talk · contribs) is under an editing restriction because he " has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, threatening disruption of the project, and making deliberately provocative edits" (Finding of Fact #2, sans links). It is becoming increasingly clear that he has not yet learned proper Wikipedia behaviour. and, as the restriction is due to expire in November, I am asking that it be extended a further year.

For instance, in a thread which I've sampled here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, a part of NPOV policy that has been part of policy since 2001 in nearly the same form as today [12] does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology. He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through,[13] then leapt over to the policy page and attempted to delete the phrasing he dislikes.[14]

Here is a recent Arbitration enforcement thread about his editing of policy.

I think that Martinphi's statements in the Paranormal Request for clarification are also relevant. In the face of every arbitrator clearly stating that the finding of fact does not set out an explicit content ruling, but was simply an effort to understand the party's points, he continues to insist that the arbcom, in fact, made a content ruling, and that he should be able to use it to push his point of view.

Martinphi has a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes him very frustrating to work with. The Arbcom restriction somewhat mediates that, but I don't think he has demonstrated any real improvement in the last year that would justify the restriction's removal, and would encourage a community restriction be placed on him.

I would also suggest that he be banned from editing policy. Besides the examples from above, back in April, he specifically admitted to editing WP:CIVIL in order to better use it to attack ScienceApologist. [15] [16]. (Background, abridged: he was adding words he had seen ScienceApologist and other people he disliked using to the Civility policy as "actionable" examples of incivility. [17] [18] [19]) Between this, today's editing of WP:NPOV/FAQ (described above), and the more recent WP:NPOV incident (courtesy duplicate link), I don't think he can be trusted to edit policy.

I would encourage anyone with doubts to review Martinphi's edits to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view from about 29 August to 7 September. This will give clear evidence of a pattern of editing I can only hint at in this brief summary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, note that the "today's editing of NPOV/FAQ" refers to editing that took place about a month ago, not actually today (10/24). Avruch T 16:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No action was taken by the committee upon your identical complaint there, and apparently no action taken as a result of any threads on WP:AE. That suggests to me that no action is really necessary at this point. Avruch T 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (refactored for accuracy, my mistake) Avruch T 20:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I am under no restriction of any sort regarfding him. The only thing remotely similar came after he launched a major attack on me on WP:ANI, and I was advised to back off while others dealt with it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC) No longer relevant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
From my Rfarb comment pasted here. Nothing has changed since then, and I consider Shoemaker's part in this to be disruptive. I am greatly concerned about his motives.(olive (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Statement by olive

Concur with Coppertwig: Have I stepped into an alternate universe? I initially decided not to comment here because I couldn't believe that anyone who has been watching Martin's editing in the last few months could take seriously what is being said here. I've met Martinphi on a few of the policy pages where I have been working, and did a little work on Psychic. Here [20] he is obviously working in consort with editors who have multiple views on the topic of NOR. Martin has been clear, measured, intelligent in his comments, and obviously is collaborative in his editing. Yes, he's also strong and forthright, but needs to be given the editing environments on some of these articles. I would say on the policy pages there is very little friction among the editors, and whatever is there isn't coming from Martin. Here, he and OrangeMarlin although apparently in disagreement agree to compromise on Psychic. [21][22]. I understand as Ludwig mentioned that editors can disagree, and may have strong differences of opinion, but as with Martin and OrangeMarlin there are other, less disruptive ways of dealing with it than an Rfa.(olive (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Comment by MBisanz

Usually when Arbcom tells the community to handle something, it either means the behavior issue is not yet ripe enough for them to hear or it is a content issue they will not hear. If it is a content issue, the general progression is WP:3O->WP:RFC->WP:RFM. If it is a long-term behavioral issue, the usual progression is WP:EA->WP:RFC/U->WP:RFAR. From my brief glance at the issue, it appears to be a behavioral complaint about Martinphi's actions in editing articles. As there is near unanimous agreement that WP:AN is a poor forum for handling long term behavioral issues, could I suggest that a WP:RFC/U appears to be the best forum for resolving this matter? MBisanz talk 16:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I second this. List the request at WP:RFC/U. -- Suntag 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I see value in getting broader input from the Community and think a RFC/U will be a good method. If issues are noted that need to be addressed, then we can decide the best way forward, with new ArbCom restrictions, maybe. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be extremely frank here as I have never been before on Wikipedia. This complaint should never have been filed. Its not real, and I can't believe that it is even being discussed. This editor in the last months has been blameless, and I mean blameless . His progress and maturity have been a pleasure to see and watch. To have another editor who would seem to have ulterior motives trump this up and for the community to even consider the charges in any way, in any way at all, after the Rfarb in which only one editor responded against Martinphi and in which three editors with diffs showed the accusations to be false seems completely beyond understanding. I am incredibly reluctant to speak against SH here so I won't say more. Yes I'm upset, and outraged. How can this happen? This should stop here! (olive (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC))
There is one way of changing this and that is if the editors mature enough to deal with the material and the difficult situations they have to work in. One editor has done this. This issue is not about the old arguments on these fringe articles. This is about one editor creating a situation where none exists. OrangeMarlin and Martin are very clearly on opposite sides of the fence on these fringe articles and yet they have found ways to work congenially on Psychic. I would very much fear that bringing up this old issue as you have will only inadvertently create a red herring. This is not to blame just an observation. I want to reiterate this situation does not exist. Martin is not behaving in the way that SH says he is. There was no need to bring this here, or to Rfarb for that matter, and to continue this on when someone is blameless is of grave concern for me since it means really and truly someone can be railroaded into a situation and yet be innocent. In this instance this editor has taken to heart the restrictions placed on him, and has behaved in an exemplary way. This kind of untrue accusatory situation can't be condoned or at the least supported if Wikipedia is going to be successful. Editors have to feel safe here. I can't speak for Martin but if this were me I'd be walking away, not because its not fair, which it isn't, but because its not safe. I would urge that anyone who wants to condemn Martin look at every single diff on his contributions in the last couple of months.(olive (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC))
  • Point of note: the natural progression is, in fact, EA → RFCU/U → AN. Problem editors can be dealt with through community discussion on this noticeboard; that's a common practical aspect of today's community. RFAR is used only for those rare cases where every avenue to resolving a given matter has failed to the extent that the project is actively suffering. I find it harmful to build Arbitration—which in itself is intended to be a final port of call for the resolution of particularly poisonous disputes—into the standard user conduct DR process; we call upon the Committee to take the duty of resolving its internal conflicts out of its own hands only where it is absolutely necessary. AGK 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by FloNight

Shoemaker's Holiday, my statement did not say that Martinphi should be "dealt with by the Community". I said that ArbCom was the proper venue. And I also said in my statement that I wanted input from a broader section of the Community. You have made your opinion known. If others see a problem with Martinphi, then they need to let ArbCom know so we can make or modify any editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  • comment - I agree with Olive's first statement. Martinphi has been disruptive in the past, but his only disruption now is to Shoemaker's POV. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone even read the diffs before they decided to attack me? Or are you just deciding that the counter-attack by Martinphi's friends? For the record, I am under no sanctions regard I am not Science Apologist - as I believe some have mistakenly assumed - and this was my first statement of my concerns to Arbcom. So why am I being told that Arbcom knows full well my opinion, and doesn't want to hear what I have to say? Probably because they can't tell the difference between people whose name begins with the same letter. Feh! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I've refactored my original comment to refocus it on the fact that this problem has been dsicussed previously in other forums without conclusion. It doesn't seem like there has been any negative recent developments in Martinphi's conduct, so I'm not sure that this is the time or place to start a new discussion. MBisanz' suggestion for a user conduct RfC is a good one, not least because it takes the discussion out of the framework of a page that is intended to result in sanctions. Avruch T 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with those who have suggested other venues. I don't think any sort of agreement about a longstanding and controversial editor like Martinphi will be reached in an WP:AN thread, so perhaps WP:RFC/U would be a better venue. I will chip in my 2 cents: I have often found Martin difficult and frustrating in the past, but my sense is that he's made significant progress as an editor and has improved over time in terms of his approach to Wikipedia. But that's simply a gut feeling and I have not reviewed his recent contributions extensively, nor have our paths crossed recently in any meaningful way. MastCell Talk 20:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My intention is and was not to attack Shoemaker, but I do obviously question his motives. I had no desire to drag up diffs to prove my points to other editors. That would be an attack of sorts and that wasn't my purpose. I have been on some of the articles where both Martin and Shoemaker are editing , and I see that Shoemaker has a view of the situation that I cannot share, and which I at the very least find puzzling. A messenger has no involvement. Shoemaker you do. You are attempting to have restrictions renewed on another editor for a full year. If you are going to make the accusations you have, you will have to expect other editors to question why you would do this, and why would you continue when in the Rfarb there was so clearly so little support or interest. If other editors see my comments as an attack rather than the support, questions, and serious concerns that arise when another editor is attacked I will be happy to apologize. I can't withdraw my concerns on this issue nor will I support taking this any further. This as I have stated is not about adversaries on a fringe article, an old debate/concern that I think has seen great improvements. This is about a single editor and accusations that are unfounded and unproven.
If we really want the fringe article debate to improve further, when restrictions are applied and when an editor clearly improves in the ability to deal with those situations, then, it is of the utmost importance that discussion not be deflected back onto that old debate, and that the contributions of that editor are clearly studied and judged by impartial editors before that editor is dragged through the mud of yet another discussion. The unfairness of this, I'm afraid, I find quite mind boggling.(olive (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC))
Reply to Shoemaker. I absolutely do not conflate you with SA. I find SA to be a disruptive detriment to the project (even though I mostly agree with his pov). I read the statement you posted at Rfarb, and reviewed a few of the diffs that I did not find compelling. Hence, I do not support your recommendation/proposal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There are only 10 diffs. Why not check all of them? Above you said I was only doing this because of my POV. However, you have not actually reviewed the evidence I provided, so saying such things about me seems unwarranted - you have no way of knowing because you never checked my evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I checked enough of your evidence to find your statement on Martinphi uncompelling. Point out where he's really disruptive, 'cause I'm not seeing it. In asking for additional restrictions, it is your position to sell them to the observers (whether that's the Arbcom, a group of admins here, or any other venue). Make the sale! to this point you have not. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anther bold subheading

Why are we here? If you'd like an arbitration ruling enforced, there is a place for that. If you have concerns not covered by any arbitration case, as MastCell suggests, try requests for comment. This thread needs to be wrapped up Jehochman Talk 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for AfD closure

Could someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidents by handedness, with an eye to closing it? The nomination was based on an admittedly poor start, but since it was re-written the consensus to keep has been virtually unanimous. I'm asking for this because the article has been nominated for DYK, and will be ineligible as long as the AfD tag is on it. Lampman (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's closed now. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for a quick response. Lampman (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a minute - the discussion had only been running two days (three days short of required five) and is not unanimous. I appreciate the predicament re: DYK but that closure was a bit iffy. Nancy talk 11:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. This AfD should have been allowed to run its course, and most certainly shouldn't have been subject to a Non-Admin closure. The fact that closure seems to have been instigated in order to get it into DYK looks like an abuse of process. Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah crap, I assumed that it had run for the full period of time. Reopening, of course. Sorry guys. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It's reverted, please don't eat me :-) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, you were perfectly in your right to close it under the snowball clause, which "is designed to prevent editors from using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster". But neither is it worth stooping to their level; I'm sure it will resolve itself somehow. Lampman (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Lampman, three of the most recent seven !votes have been "delete" so I would beg to differ with your assertion that WP:SNOW can be applied here. I agree that then most likely outcome will be a keep but that is by no means a certainty. Nancy talk 16:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
No, maybe a probability of 0.00009. Lampman (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Silly vandalism of page

Resolved: Vandalism was reverted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The following page:


has silly vandalism (right at the start of the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RufusThorne (talkcontribs) 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification of restrictions between editors

Restrictions on editing of articles between Abtract, Collectonian and Sesshomaru

By agreement of a majority of the involved administrators, the restrictions here have been amended in the following way, and come into effect at the conclusion of this arbitration case:

Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to further amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

  • Matters between Abtract (talk · contribs) and AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) shall be handled according to the restrictions/remedies enacted by the Arbitration Committee.
  • Abtract (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. This restriction may only be enforced if violations are reported directly by either Abtract or Sesshomaru - it does not apply if violations are reported by any other editor(s).
  • Further remedies concerning Abtract, Collectonian and/or Sesshomaru may be enacted to include banning interactions with any other user, if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.
  • The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should any of these 3 users edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

+ + + + +

To whom it may concern, the above was discussed and agreed upon here by a majority of the involved administrators. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:The Enchantress Of Florence attacks on other editors

I was going to wait until this user got another warning but now I see that there are many in her talk page history, she's merely removed them (which is fine, I'm just saying that they are there.) In all the 200 edits of this user, I wonder how many are attacks on other editors. She seems to have a 'thing' about User:Crusio and because he said he looked at her contribs, is reverting him everywhere calling him a 'stalker'. I often comment at AfD and because I commented on two the same as her, said "Note to closing admin: posted by dishonest stalker who has posted uncivl displays of public animosity toward me for comments elsewhere"[23] Her tone she also keeps up about WP:BLP subjects [24] She calls someone else a 'stalker' [25]. She seems to have a very low opinion of the community as a whole [26]. This is just a selection out of the last 50 edits. If it were someone with more edits, I would make a WP:RFC. It is also not WP:WQA thing IMHO as it is very repeated. Some people also aren't sure about her prod removals, or about some recent AfDs she's started which they consider WP:POINT, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_Bella_(3rd_nomination)- but I didn't mind the AfD's because I agreed with them- I didn't think she meant for anyone to think the AfD's were right though.:) Sticky Parkin 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to blank that individual's posts from my user talk, per BLP. DurovaCharge! 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually reviewed this account a couple of days ago when I noticed the rather interesting self-declared husband and wife team attempting to tag team their way through an arbitration request. Their behaviour is a perfect example of why we have sometimes discouraged husband and wife editors from participating in the same XfDs etc. Honestly, I'm feeling rather inclined to block this editor for a few days. It's clear the warnings haven't made any impression and if anything the behaviour towards other editors is becoming worse and increasingly contemptuous. It's one thing tolerating a bit of disruption from people who actually help build and contribute to the project, but I don't see why we need to tolerate it from people contributing little in the way of encyclopedia building, and who are violating BLP, attacking other editors, and now, apparently, returning simply to revert without even attempting discussion and resorting to using edit summaries to make personal attacks and accusations without presenting any evidence, that I've been able to find at least. Sarah 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement here - it really does feel like the user displays classic examples of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Whether it's taking a closing admin to RFAR for closing an AfD in a way she did not agree with, or raising multiple other AfDs based purely on the outcome of that initial one, it's a constant disruption. An action that would prevent the current disruption would be helpful, although the civility questions that Sticky Parkin raises would remain. Gazimoff 12:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest a short block for disruption, with a joint RFC on the two of them if things continue. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked the editor 48 hours for disruption, too many worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable thing to do. Endorse block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This is hardly a reasonable or, in several cases, an honest discussion, and is dominated by unfounded allegations of bad faith masquerading as legitimate concerns. There is no evidence that my spouse, The Enchantress Of Florence made "pointy edits" or actually violated BLP policy, and no one has cited any. This nonsense grows out of a situation where she challenged Crusio's prodding of an article, and pointed out that Crusio's conduct apparently violated WP:BITE. Crusio responded by trailing her around Wikipedia, making inappropriate comments regarding her, escalating to one lengthy diatribe including a personal attack, falsely claiming that various mstters were sourced when they were not, and reversing her edits to other articles, including at least one example of outright vandalism. After much provocation, she described him, rather accurately, as a "stalker," leading to this lynching, in which she was not provided an opportunity to respond. The blocking administrator has not cited any examples for most of the supposed violations, particularly the claims of BLP violations. This is a gross abuse of administrator authority, and should be reversed without delay. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not just Crusio she's called a stalker though, she's called two other people at least a 'stalker', along with other comments in violation of WP:NPA. Sticky Parkin 17:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mr. Dautrieve is making a headlong rush to join his wife in a block; if they don't stop tag-teaming, I'd suggest indef-blocking both of them as disruptive meat puppets. Gwen has shown remarkable restraint in allowing her talk page to be used as a soapbox; I would have removed similar fulmination from my page. Horologium (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    I do not believe there is anything inappropriate in asking for a substantive response to a question about an action when no evidence, or other explanation, is provided in support of that action. I find it hard to view a response like this as anything but an attempt at intimidation. I would be interested in seeing ether policy or precedent in support of this suggestion, and I continue to await anyone's explanation of the BLP and "pointy" editing charges cited by Gen Gale without explanation. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Your wife was blocked for making personal attacks; repeatedly calling another user a "stalker" in edit summaries (she did so at least four times) is a personal attack. Due to previous incidents with real stalking on Wikipedia, such accusations are not taken lightly, and using the term to describe the actions of the editor in question is libelous. Additionally, her editing was disruptive; many of her edits were simply attempting to make a point, rather than serious policy-based discussions. (Please read that particular link; it's highly relevant.) This has been explained to you, and your attempts to ignore such warnings are tiresome. Horologium (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    At least with regard to the current incident, the user she applied that label to had announced his intentions rather clearly, and was systematically going through her contributions and reversing them, in at least one case resorting to outright vandalism, and had posted personal attacks on her. That is my initial complaint to Gwen Gale referred to asymmetry, a complaint to which I received no substantive response. If we are dealing with a "magic words" justification for blocking, then that should have been stated, and a specific advance warning given. I have read WP:POINT, and no one has yet cited an example of it; this matter has simply been judgment by accusation. Several of the accusations were outright falsehoods (e.g., an accusation of "mass" deletion proposals, when only two were made). As for your final point, I would note that no "explanation" has ever been given in substantive terms; the charge is simply restated, without any evidence. Lardner's "Shut up, explained," is an example of irony, yet it too often seems to be taken seriously here. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    Additionally, I would note that a variation of the term "stalking" is officially sanctioned as a description of the behavior of the other editors involved. [27] Is the basis for the action against her that she simply used the wrong form of the applicable term? I have reviewed WP:NPA and notice that the term involved is not listed as one of the sorts of comments about other editors that is forbidden per se, and WP:HARASSMENT declares that the behavior she complains of is prohibited. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Minos P. Dautrieve blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing. Reviewing this thread, Gwen Gale's talk page, and Mr. Dautrieve's stated intentions on his user page, this disruption has to stop. Wikipedia is not a court of law for your amusement; perhaps the social part of competence is necessary applies here - "Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door." Tan | 39 18:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Also potentially relevant, this past incident also involved EOF's unfortunate difficulties with civility. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Minos P. Dautrieve has requested an unblock on his talk page, with more of the wikilawyering he's exhibited here and elsewhere. I'm not inclined to unblock him, but because of my interaction with him above, I'll let another admin make the call. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told I've begun thinking of blocking them both indef for ongoing, blatantly disruptive edits and wikilawyering which have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia or following its policies in a collaborative way. I'm not even sure anymore they're two people and if they are, it's over-the-top meatpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think they are two people, but both are being very disruptive in numerous ways. A block wouldn't be a bad idea here. I'd not be inclined to make it indef though, since they aren't exactly SPAs, just rather passionate with the wrong idea about how things work. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think they're two people, Minos has more edits and considers what he says more. But they are two people who are erm, not behaving very nicely. They claim to have knowledge of the French wikipedia, wonder what their standing is over there? Sticky Parkin 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have since looked at their contribs and do think their syntax and typos don't match. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Two people. It might be necessary to block Minos from access to his talk page if he carries on. Doug Weller (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I got a taste of this user Enchantress, a few months back when she randomly removed some of the PRODS because another editor with whom she had a run in seconded those. She was extremely rude and uncivil in her comments and edit summaries. Its clear that the user Minos is her spouse and they are tagging up to get their way. I would suggest both of them blocked for at least a month, so that they get the time cool themselves down. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad backlog

There is a backlog dating back to the start of July at Wikipedia talk:Image renaming, I set out my own stance on this here, over a week ago, to no avail. Another editor, who's been waiting a while, thinks that the page should be protected (presumably to prevent further backlog). Can this be sorted out? It's obviously not a day-in-day-out type task that admins carry out, but I don't think it would take too long. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I least have the courtesy of a response, yes or no? Enough people get granted rollback rights; could this be looked into? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Intelligence

I believe that this article warrants a "speedy deletion" because it is about one journal article presenting a fringe theory. I am not sure that this "theory" would meet our criteria for includion in another article, given that it is a fringe theory with one source. It definitely is not significant enough to merit an article. I smell POV forking.

I have been involved in content disputes concerning a related article, Race and intelligence, and do not think it ould be appropriate for me to make the decision to delete, or to delete it, as some may consider me biased. I'd appreciate others looking into it and seeing if it really does meet the criteria. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is a fork, it is one of some 30 months existence; I therefore do not think a speedy delete is an option. Given the circumstances, perhaps it should go to AFD? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Article was Nominated for deletion back in Feb 2007, the result then was "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
After such a time, since it is still relying on the one source and it appears that there are still no other references available, perhaps it is time again to nominate it for AFD - and as that is a discussion/consensus based procedure then there is no bar on Slrubenstein nominating it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if someone else (working on the page) agrees it merits a nomination for deletion we will go that route. Thanks for the feedback, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This issue was already discussed and went nowhere. The underlying feeling was that it merited an article because there exists adequate numbers of news articles and references to warrant it. Recent criticism, besides Slrubenstein's, was based on the mistaken belief that the article was on the intelligence of the Ashkenazis (and not on the fringe theory) and therefor needed to be expanded or re-named. That didn't constitute a dispute. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh, you are saying the article is on a "fringe theory?" And that is not a POV fork how? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
AFD is not dispute resolution, it is a discussion on whether the article satisfies WP's notability guidelines - and this discussion belongs there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, well, they demonstrably have intelligence. It has been measured and compared to that of other groups. There have been numerous reliable sources with substantial coverage of the subject. What is is the issue here? Edison (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Not a direct legal threat as such, but this edit, made on User Talk:G2bambino by a user who has been broadly supportive of that user in a long running and acrimonious dispute with User:Roux appears to be fanning the flames towards a legal threat. Not sure what (if anything) should be done here. Mayalld (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I could be missing something, but I hesitate to call that a clear legal threat. Iffy, sure, but I'd rather hesitate to block over that sort of vague statement, absent a pattern of some sort, or something else to suggest a problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless User:Gavin Scott is out chasing ambulances on wiki, I've no idea what that about. It does not seem in the least threatening.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Gavin Scott is clearly baiting G2bambino, whom has been blocked for legal threats before. A warning would be in order. Tiptoety talk 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Amended: Ooops, he has not been blocked for legal threats before, I was thinking of another user. Tiptoety talk 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Legal threat? I don't see it. It's just a joke, nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that it is not a legal threat, but I am not sure it is constructive. Tiptoety talk 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it's meant to bait G2bambino. Afterall, Gavin is supporting G2 and/or opposing Roux (which ever ya choose). GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A legal threat is where someone indicates that they have initiated, or intend to initiate, legal action, or where they clearly threaten another user with legal action. Most things that are ambiguous are not legal threats. Indeed we get very few realistic legal threats on wikipedia. Most times that we block someone for legal threats, we could equally have blocked them for trolling and disruption.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about what has transpired here and quite frankly, I am taking the fifth! If any action is to be taken I would like an admin to explain to me what I did wrong and advise me on what I should do. Gavin (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks like heavy sarcasm. Annoying but not anything that needs official action unless there's more to the history than this. -Nard 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

C4v3m4n's Contest Page

Is this acceptable? Note that on Oct 22, C4v3m4n spammed invitations to this "contest page" to the talk pages of some 30 editors. I don't know if this violates any specific policy, but I do know that I don't like it. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Those don't bother me. I'm not keen on users setting up things like this privately, and I'm particularly not keen on any sort of spamming. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If we see dubious nominations at FAC, I suppose we will address it. However, it should be known that FAs are promoted because the articles (should) reflect the most comprehensive and authoritative sources available on the subject. Any articles on moustaches or facial hair, or anything really, are allowed, but what concerns me is the extra points for originality of content. That suggest WP:SYNTH. If an editor does proper research, the content should not be original in the sense that it has never been seen before, just brilliantly written. It would help if C4v3m4n became involved with reviewing FACs in preparation for this endeavor to better guide participants. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
And you probably don't like this contest by WikiProject Military history either. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with the contest. Not thrilled about spamming 30 people about it. Looie, besides the spamming, what is it about the contest that bothers you? Seems like a case of sticking our collective noses in where they aren't needed; am I missing something fundamental here? --barneca (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as a bad idea for users to be setting up public functionality in their private space. It's bound to get out of control. Anything in user-space that creates a need to advertise is going to be a problem. Doing things like this in Wikipedia space or WikiProject space is a whole different story -- that's public functionality in a public place. Looie496 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Does it really matter what title the page has ? If it's behaving like a project page, we'll treat it like a project page, if it "all gets out of hand", but at the moment, I see no problem with the page. Nick (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
All that Wikipedia public functionality started out as someone or other's private idea. Even something as fundamental to today's Wikipedia as the Manual of Style was originally one guy's little scheme (which some of us ignored until it was no longer possible). But that's the way it has always worked on Wikipedia. People try stuff out. If enough people think that the stuff is a good idea it endures and possibly gets shifted to the Wikipedia namespace -- otherwise it doesn't. And that's the way it should be. It'll be a sad day when we have to Seek Official Sanction before doing anything new. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting articles

Forgive me if this is a daft question, but is it possible to have an article's history split in to two? I want to do some cleanup at List of Presidents of North Korea, and have been digging through the history of the article: on 3 Feb this year the article went from this to this. What I'd like to do is have the earlier revision as List of heads of state of North Korea, and the newer version as President of North Korea, preferably keeping the relevant bits of history with each article. Is this possible or not? PC78 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While merging two histories is easy (via WP:HISTMERGE), splitting an article's edit history is ... extremely challenging and not generally worth the effort. Given the short amount of content on the page, just go ahead and fix it up. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
For your information, splitting histories involves:
  1. Deleting the page
  2. Identifying and restoring all revisions related to page 2
  3. Moving these revisions away
  4. Restore all other relevant revisions (some times there may be revisions which have previously been deleted - don't restore those)
  5. Rollback the redirect caused by the move in step 3
Not worth the effort. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-creation of deleted content

User:Leonapedia has re-created Leona Lewis on The X Factor after it was deleted earlier this year, here in his namespace. Is this allowed? Dalejenkins | 14:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, userfying of deleted articles to give the author a chance to work on it and bring it to a point where it will overcome the reasons for deletion is a common practice. So as a general thing, this is not a bad thing. In the specifics of the specific case, though, the purpose of this userification does not appear to be to allow for improvement, but rather to get around the AFD. So in this particular case I would say this would be a good candidate for A4 G4 - Recreation speedy deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Given the last edit message implying the purpose of the page was to dodge the AFD result, and the lack of any improving edits in the months since, I've gone ahead and tagged it for G4 deletion. This'll let an additional admin be the final judge on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That the editor hasn't sought to improve the article in nearly five months doesn't give me any confidence that this is his intention, and it's toast. --Rodhullandemu 15:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be undeleted as a matter of courtesy to the user. Articles created in good faith but subsequently deleted through AfD are commonly preserved in userspace; I have several such pages in my userspace, and I haven't edited them for years. I also don't understand why this article was deleted and not simply redirected to Leona Lewis with the history intact. Everyking (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Check your facts first. I made the page in my userspace after it went up for deletion the first time, but was saved. I guessed they were going to come for it again, so I made a copy I could work on in my userspace. There seemed at the time a concerted effort to get rid of it by certain editors; despite saying in the second AFD that they would merge with the main article, no part of it got put into the main article and much valuable information was lost. So I was right to save a copy to my userspace. And thank-you, Everyking. Courtesy has been distinctly lacking in my case - facts have not been checked and no-one even visited my page to tell me they were deleting one of my user pages, which as Everyking says, can be left quite happily. No-one bothered to tell me of the two AFDs on my userpage either. As Everyking says, I made the article in good faith, and I spent a very long time on it. I feel like I have been right royally shafted here. Leonapedia (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok then. As I see it, you have two options. 1) persuade User:Rodhullandemu to reverse himself, and/or 2) WP:DRV protest the deletion. I've also removed the resolved tag for now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion image backlog

Resolved: It's down to two images waiting for handling, at this point in time. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

At CAT:CSD there is currently a backlog of images. It would be nice if someone can come and deal with them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It happens from time to time. There're fewer admins who work on the images than on the pages. It gets pretty intimidating when there's 83 of 'em sittin' there, too. The image CSD are pretty straightforward, so feel free to tackle a bit of it if there's a problem in the future. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone know what happened to User:Zero0000? He was an administrator I used to interact with fairly regularly. Although we never agreed I thought he was a very talented sysop. I recently found myself scrolling through his recent edits and realized that he edited everyday until a little more than a year ago. Particularly worrisome is his very last edit in which he indicated he was going overseas for a few days. Anyways I think at this point we have to assume he has passed away and that it is time to hand over his administrative powers over to someone else. I don't want to make any suggestions or anything but isn't it fair to assume that Zero would probably want one of his friends to have them? Again I'm not implying anything but I'm sure he would especially appreciate the person who actually noticed his absence.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately adminship is not a hereditary peerage, which would doubtless annoy my kids (a) were I to have any, and (b) if they turned out to be as geeky as me... GbT/c 07:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I was joking about the giving me his powers part, but I am actually really curious as to what may of happened to him. He was a cool guy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Email him using the "email this user" function from his user page, and consider adding his name to this page. GbT/c 08:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
...cough, admin primogeniture, cough... KnightLago (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I can just see somebody stalking and assassinating an admin in order to acquire his or her admin rights. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoa Whoa, if you look in the French police report they eventually concluded that it was a random attack. They discounted the other evidence as circumstantial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Marco Lazzara autobio

I just stumbled into the Marco Lazzara article. It has been on since October 2007 with User talk:Marcolazzara2 as a main contributor. In fact, the only edits this user ever made are to his own article. I just left him an autobio notice on his page, but don't know what else can/should be done. -- Alexf(talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as he stays out of editing it, I see no reason to delete, as there is decent referencing. However, since he's in all the images there, I question whether he is the actual copyright holder of them. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see why you felt a need to template the article, or what you expect anybody to do about it. Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at the images. I highly doubt that the images of him performing were "self made" and I'm sure that a professional took the mugshot that appears in the infobox. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

All the photos say: "self made". Yeah, right. They are all professional or press. To answer above, I don't know what is gained by templating the article but it just feels wrong. And obviously lying on the photo copyrights to boot. -- Alexf(talk) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have boldly removed the template. Feel free to put it back if you also explain concretely what the user needs to do in order to satisfy you. It's unacceptable to template an article without stating explicitly what is unsatisfactory. Mere suspicions are not enough, because there is no way to resolve them. Looie496 (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U on G2bambino

I am requesting the outside comments of uninvolved admins at the RFCU on G2bambino. One user who was trying to help has removed himself from commenting; this needs to be addressed. Tiptoety has recommended that I seek outside comment, and one commenter has also requested that outside uninvolved admins comment on the issue. roux ] [x] 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha

Resolved: Block was good. — Coren (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to bring people's attention to this user who appears to want appeal a block resulting from my reporting a violation. I think that adding a section isn't enough to trigger the appeal.

Could people

  • either consider the appeal or do what is necessary to help set up the page User talk:Malcolm Schosha so that soemone can consider appeal.
  • consider the, to my mind, rather fantastical accusations of COI against the blocking admin in a couple of sections of the talk page. I'm thinking particularly of [28] and [29].--Peter cohen (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

URIs don't work in unblock templates, so I set up a template with his first sentence inside, the rest below it, so the page will now be seen by reviewing admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No time to review it myself, but FYI: if you put 1= in the unblock template ({{unblock|1=your reason}}), links will supposedly work. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It's been reviewed and declined. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: blocked by one month for edit warring

Can an admin please re-re-review the activities of this user. They have now been blocked twice for edit warring and reinstatement of FAN/POV material (see here), and have apparently tried to reinstate the material using an anonymous IP account here, and the first thing they do when the block expires is to reinstate the same sort of material in Rajesh Khanna ([30]) and Bewafai ([31]). Whilst I appreciate that they may be enthusiastic about this actor, I believe adding this sort of material is not in line with WP's policies on neutrality, POV, FAN etc. I don't know if this technically counts as vandalism, but I'd appreciate some feedback/intervention etc. by an admin. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I reblocked him for 1 month this time. The user is clearly edit warring. They are aware that their edits are in dispute, and yet they made them immediately after the last block expired. If the problem returns once the next block expires, please re-report them, and an administrator will take appropriate 16:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked indef as sock of Wallamoose, confirmed later by 2 CUs

A suspected sockpuppet of Wallamoose, JoeTimko is blocked indefinitely, but gives every appearance of wanting to improve articles. If he were unblocked, I'm willing to watch and reblock if necessary. I've asked the blocking admin if she has any problem with that (no reply yet), but this is new territory for me. How is this situation handled? Even if a checkuser found them to be the same, people sometimes improve their behavior. —EncMstr (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the history. On Oct 20, Wallamoose was blocked from editing even his own talk page. The JoeTimko account made its first edit on Oct 21. On Oct 27, the JoeTimko account posted an unblock request on Wallamoose's talk page. Why? What possible explanation is there? JoeTimko is free to explain this on his talk page. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my thoughts on this at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#JoeTimko. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In his latest post he more or less admits to being Wallamoose. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose unblocking. The issue is that there is currently a history of sockpuppetry. In order to support this unblock, the person in question would have to stop making new accounts or editing anonymously-via-IP for an extended period of time. We do unblock users who prove they are reformed, but creating a new account a few hours after the prior one was blocked is not reformation, it is flaunting the reasons for the block. If this person stops editing for a few months, and it can be shown that they have not created any accounts or otherwise tried to circumvent their original block, then we should allow them to operate one account in good faith. We have done this before, and it is the standard procedure. However, unblocking a repeat sockpuppeteer on his latest account on his "word" that he means to behave doesn't cut it... 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • At this point, I can't say I'd fully support an unblock either. The user doesn't really seem to be here to work constructively. Wallamoose and JoeTimko seem to be the same person, too. Unless this person just admits to socking and agrees not to do it again, I don't know that unblocking is wise. Still, EncMstr, if you're willing to keep an eye on the user, I'm not going to tell you that you can't unblock. I just think it's a waste of your time. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree there is very good evidence for sockpuppetry. That aside, his recent edits were trying to be helpful, even though some are copyvios. I feel he could be a net positive, especially if someone (me) follows him around holding a revert button. However, I respect Jayron32's wisdom: given extended time off would encourage his emotional investment to fade into a more impartial editor in the future. —EncMstr (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
All undeclared sockpuppets, should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been watching this unfold, and asked JoeTimko to explain himself, but all he does is evade a direct answer. Gwen Gale made a really good point during the discussions of a different (husband-wife meatpuppet) issue, that being the best course for folks like this is to simply fess up, apologize, and move on. Since blocks are preventative not punitive, there's no reason not to unblock when an apology and a promise of good behavior is made. However, in Joe's case, though see says he wants to edit and (presumably) behave well, he has resisted multiple opportunities to admit his transgressions, apologize and move on. With all that in mind, I don't feel comfortable with overturning the block. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Despite my better judgement, this user is adamant that he is not Wallamoose, and that it is a case of mistaken identity, and so I'm proposing that we consider ways of checking this. Is an SSP or RfCU appropriate at this time? Fritzpoll (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You may have misread his post. He did not deny in any way that he is Wallamoose, he only asserts that he is "User:JoeTimko" (still leaving wide open the question whether he is also "User:Wallamoose"). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser Raul has confirmed for me that JoeTimko is Wallamoose here - not a surprise, I know, but it means we can stop umming and ahhing about it. It is disappointing that JoeTimko/Wallamoose didn't simply 'fess up, since I might have advocated a return to editing otherwise. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, another CU came up with the same answer: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wallamoose Gwen Gale (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, given his copy-pasting at Camp Treetops, all of his contribs will need to be checked for copyvios. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Amridge University edits

For off-wiki reasons, I need this page (Amridge University) watched by any fellow admins involved in RC patrol, and also all edits by User:Justice4Me or any of future avatars the user might create. The =Controversies= section is a subject of a court case, and the user has been adding information that contravenes our policies on WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. I've already warned the user on his/her talk page, but cannot personally monitor the university page continuously. Some of content added that was added is potentially libellous, and I have deleted some of it recently. Thanks in advance. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Collectonian, on any page in Wikipedia; harass or wikistalk Collectonian such as by editing pages that Collectonian has recently edited; or make uncivil comments about or personal attacks upon any user.

These restrictions imposed upon Abtract shall be interpreted in a reasonable fashion so as to allow Abtract to continue with appropriate editing while preventing any further harassment of Collectonian. Any attempts to "game the system" or "wikilawyer" the details of the restrictions are unwelcome. Should Abtract violate the restrictions imposed upon him, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged here. Collectonian is urged to continue to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on October 16 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cacarlo92 , his disruptive IP and his image edits,

User:Cacarlo92 and his disruptive IP User: are really causing problems in relation to fair use images. Not only has Cacarlo92 uploaded multiple dubious fair use images (he's even, oddly, uploaded identical images under the same fair use rational which were deleted). Cacarlo92 removes image deletion tags, removes his own talk page warnings (yes I know he's allowed but it's hard to keep track of what he's doing). Sometimes he uses his IP to do the dirty work, be it to blank his talk page or remove huge image deletion discussions. Please help. — Realist2 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Planning ahead for U.S. elections on Nov. 4

It would be prudent to plan ahead for the U.S. elections on Nov. 4. The U.S. election has already spawned one arbitration case, and it would be nice to avoid a second one. We have had some limited success with things like the last Harry Potter release, which we can can think back to for ideas. I remember the main issue with H.P. was unsourced or poorly-sourced info being added before the official release. The difficulty was convincing editors to be patient and wait for news reports that can be used.

One idea I have brainstormed with some fellow editors is: find some neutral admins who will volunteer to be "custodians" on Nov 4. We could reassure them they can use their normal discretion to protect election-related articles for short periods of time (the crunch period will probably be less than 24 hours) if it becomes too difficult to manage articles by normal editing. Ideally these would be non-U.S. admins who have not been involved in the election articles in the past.

I'm hoping to start a discussion here, well in advance, to let us talk over the issues that we already can predict will occur, to try to reduce tension on Nov. 4. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we add to the sitenotice "Wikipedia reminds our American readers to vote" for that day? DS (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Planning ahead is an excellent idea, you can't be too prepared for anything, although the custodian idea seems a bit unnecessary, all admins should be neutral about things like this. As for the sitenotice, Why?--Jac16888 (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The difficulty in just saying "all admins watch out" is that too often everyone assumes someone else is doing it. This was a problem that Kelly complained about during the Palin incident - that there was a lack of neutral admins watching the affected articles. And who can blame them - it takes a lot of effort to be patient with new editors on controversial topics. So having a short list of admins who have already agreed to watch the articles would be great. We don't need to go through some nomination process- they can just leave a note here that they will be watching. The other thing that should be discussed is: how tolerant are we of short periods of protection until the election results come out. That issue is easier to talk about when we have the luxury of time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a decent enough idea, and if you tell me which articles to watch I'd be happy to help, for the record I'm English and have no idea who Joe the plumber is. As for protection of related articles, that could be tricky to manage, I imagine that the articles are going to attract a lot of new editors, some wanting to help, but a lot wanting to vandalise. Perhaps it would be a good idea to use short protection times, like an hour or so, just to head off any continuous attacks while keeping the articles open for as long as possible. It'll be interesting to see how this all goes down actually, wikipedia was a totally different place last election--Jac16888 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I am willing to watch a list of articles when available (mainly after 5 p.m. ET, but will pop in during the course of the day); perhaps a page should be set up identifying the key articles. Some of them are obvious, but some might be less so, particularly to those of us outside the US. New page patrollers might also be needed to identify and nuke duplicate articles. Risker (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I can do some article patrol in the evening as well- I plan to be situated in front of the tv watching the news. So, I can patrol a page. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I am often very active on Tuesdays, my class schedule being favorable for this. I'll try to get my homework done early so I can watch more. J.delanoygabsadds 04:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
As to the list of pages to watch, I would say that the pages listed on {{United States presidential election, 2008}} are probably enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll be around. Oppose the sitenotice bit though; America is not the world. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some elections going on in America? Gee.... you'd have thought there would have been a bit more media attention.... </sarcasm>. Excellent idea to plan now to get a few articles on various peoples watchlists - IOd Mishehu's recommendation seems ideal. Pedro :  Chat  12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And, for those who don't already know, you can use "related changes" to trak the changes to all the articles linked from that template: [32]. That may be easier than adding them all to your watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would totally support a full protection on all four candidates' articles and possibly the relevant election articles for that whole night. I just don't see any sort of productive edits coming in -- play-by-play state results, eager WP:CRYSTAL announcements, etc. All we'll need are the end results. Of course I know that pre-emptive protection is a no-no, but this might be an IAR case. What do people think about this? Would this get any kind of consensus? GlassCobra 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we could play an IAR card here but I think the message we send doing that is counter productive - Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia anyone can edit except on election night. I suppose if I actually cared less what the ex-colonies did I might be less biased...:). In seriousness, to be honest I'm not sure the harm that may come from "good faith but not very useful" edits is outwayed by our reputation as an open source and free to edit work during a time that will no doubt attract massive attention to the relevant articles. Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let the kerfluffles happen, stuff can be tweaked, undone or reverted as needed, meanwhile the project will likely pick up many new and helpful editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful to set up a "public watchlist" for hot-button articles relating to the US elections that are likely to get hit by contentious edits or vandalism. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo/publicwatchlist for an example that I set up a while ago; it's been a very useful tool. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Risker announced her intention to do that up above; hopefully the location of the watchlist for this will be named soon. It probably won't need to be that long -- the four candidates' articles, Public image of Barack Obama, Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, United States presidential election, 2008, United States presidential election, 2008 timeline, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Those are all that I can think of at the moment. GlassCobra 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Probably add 2008, George W. Bush, and related pages to catch overenthusiastic users "declaring" the winner ahead of anything official. J.delanoygabsadds 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Glad ya mentioned the GWB article. There'll be alot of visitors changing the Infobox prematurely. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest, as per Gwen Gale's comment above, that when the disruption gets significant that the articles get listed at WP:RFPP as per normal. That page may have the appearance of being a bit slow sometimes, but it is actually monitored frequently enough and also likely to pull in independent admins. Perhaps admins could make a special effort to monitor it at that time - all the pages are widely watchlisted by regular editors who know where RFPP is. I would suggest two more things: that the protections are kept relatively short, probably a few hours of full protection at most where necessary, and that no admin tries to pull any dramahtic 'special enforcement measures'. The protections are likely to go on and off by different admins over short periods of time, and this should be expected instead of being labelled a wheel war. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Guess we can add the Dick Cheney article, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) On a related note, it might be a good idea to place editnotices on some of the articles reminding editors that election day is not inauguration day and suggesting that proposed changes to templates such as {{Current U.S. Senators}} would be best placed on the talk pages of the articles. (No harm in preparing the code ahead of time, so long as it isn't used until inauguration). I'll create a few of the editnotices - for the template articles at least - if there aren't any objections. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

When your roommates vandalize the wiki

Resolved: until actual vandalism occurs there is nothing for the administrators to do here. Icewedge (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I use a home network. One of my roommate has declared an intention to vandalize the wiki. I use only one account and never edit as an IP. Any sort of CU would come back to me. This particular roommate might smile at me, say they will not vandalize the wiki and then go ahead and do it. So- what can I do? Bstone (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser wouldn't be performed on an IP without a legitimate reason, vanldalism not being on. If they vandalize on an IP, there is no way for us to make that connection. GrszReview! 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If your IP is static you could get it blocked with the autoblock accounts option tuned off. Icewedge (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Gotta give him a boilerplate warning first. "Hey roomie, welcome to Wikipedia. If you'd like to make an editing test, please use the sandbox. Otherwise, if I catch you vandalizing I'm going to hang you by your feet like a vandal-shaped piñata and beat you with a broomstick until candy falls out. Please contact me in my room if you have any questions." Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 04:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, Bullzeye, too funny! Bstone (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
TOV!!111! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is, zzzZZZ OMG ZZZzzz Bstone (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you find yourself getting caught in autoblocks or hard-blocks, apply for WP:IPEXEMPT. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest stealing his wallet or installing Cyber Nanny on his computer and block Wikipedia. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Slap him around a little bit. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going with Hbdragon's suggestion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
We are using a Comcast cable modem. I don't know how long the IP lease is for, but it must change at least from time to time. Getting a static isn't an option unless I pay much more money. Bstone (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You can always hijack his host file and set to :) Protonk (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Even after the lease expires, DHCP servers pretty much always renew the prior IP address to avoid router notifications, etc. —PētersV (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Comcast cable internet? For all intents and purposes, your IP is static. --Carnildo (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless, I don't think that this will in the end turn out to be that much of a problem for you either way Bstone. If your roommate does vandalize against your objections, in this thread it has been noted by the administrators that you share an IP with a potential vandal and such will not be held against you; if you do end up blocked you can always apply for IP-block-exempt. Icewedge (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, should be fine in the long run. Autoblocks might be a problem, but those are easy enough to fix. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the real question here is why do you tell people in your real life that you edit wikipedia. This is something we have to be ashamed of. Wikipedia isn't cool.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why the roommate is bragging about vandalizing. There's nothing funny or status worthy or social class worthy in vandalizing, at least in the conventional page-blanking, adding nonsense, sense. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes vandalizing wikipedia isn't cool, almost not as cool as telling people you edit it. Which is why I use a pseudonym.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know this is flamebait, but I'm personally proud of being a Wikipedia editor - I link it from my professional homepage and include it in my CV. Since when is spreading knowledge to the world something to be ashamed of? Dcoetzee 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Advocating incivility and poor behavior

Is this essay even remotely appropriate? GrszReview! 13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I'd MfD it myself if I wasn't at work. It's divisive and trollish; and there isn't even an attempt at deadpan humor or attempt to position it as satire. — Coren (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to defeat editors you disagree with. TalkIslander 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The essay is divisive, it is not acceptable. AdjustShift (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The CheckUser tool is granted to highly trusted and experienced Wiki users and it must be used with the utmost respect for privacy as governed by Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. CheckUsers must exercise sound judgement, balancing need to protect the community with privacy concerns. Breaches of this should be dealt with through the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission.

Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion. The users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—are reminded that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. All CheckUsers are reminded that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times.

For the Arbitration Committee,
RlevseTalk 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Move help, pls...


Hi again. Magog the Ogre made a page-move earlier today, changing Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China to Reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese government. As Dilip rajeev pointed out at User talk:Magog the Ogre, there were good reasons to keep the original name, so Dilip rajeev moved the article back to the original title. However, he says he's having problems moving the article's talk page back as well, and I'm not sure what to tell him to help. Could someone give both of us an assist here? Thanks in advance, again....Gladys J Cortez 09:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! How did you do it?Gladys J Cortez 09:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A redirect which has more than one edit or which points to a different article than the one to be moved over it needs to be deleted first. When you attempt the move a checkbox appears asking if you'd like to delete it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Bizzodattum Wuhmenlinz block

can an administrator block this user (User talk:Bizzodattum Wuhmenlinz) for this edit ([]), and remove the image. Lihaas (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Scythed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yoelmo (talk · contribs)

My simple, polite request seems to have gotten lost in the drama of ANI, so I'll try here. Yoelmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has succeeded in creating two fake album articles in the course of a few days of editing. For a new account, he has an uncanny ability to precisely recreate previously deleted material. He recreated Autumn Goodbye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which MSoldi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for. He has now created Fearless (Ali Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and AliPersonal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both of which are near copies of Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I believe was also an MSoldi hoax, and has been repeatedly recreated and salted. Can someone let me know the creator(s) of Interpersonal so I can analyze the histories and open a sockpuppeting or checkuser case? Or you can feel free to shout "QUACK" and block if you think it's appropriate after looking at the history.—Kww(talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, FisherQueen responded to a private request, and furnished the requested info. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#MSoldi has been filed.—Kww(talk) 13:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-listed discussion


Has the desired more thorough discussion taken place? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tap-tap! Is this thing switched on? Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines fleet


Something seems to have gone wrong with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines fleet; it hasn't got the right header, and that's mucking up the AfD log page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtRaschke (talkcontribs)

Fixed. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant newbie admin wades in butt-deep, gets eaten by sharks: film at 11.

Somehow, probably for the sake of a few typos, Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China found its way onto my watchlist. A slow-burning edit war there seems to have burst into a fast-burning one today, with four major participants: Asdfg12345, Ohconfucius, Dilip rajeev, and PCPP. Of the four, the most clearly-vitriolic is Ohconfucius, and he's been warned on the talk page to take it down about four notches. However, I also warned Asdfg12345 and PCPP earlier, because--from what I saw--they had both inadvertently broken 3RR. (This was as of the edits marked as 06:55 today.) Asdfg12345 does not believe he/she broke 3RR at any time, and left a (calm, civil) note on my talkpage to that effect. In the interim, however, Ohconfucius came back and changed everything back to his/her preferred version, leaving a rather (uncivil, OWNish) message on the article talk page.
I recognize that this is a content dispute, so I'm really only asking admin-ny questions, but I do have several: 1) Have I, in fact, misjudged that Asdfg12345 and PCPP broke 3RR? If so, could you explain what I missed? 2)(basic, lame q) If an editor reverts a whole bunch of another editor's changes, but does it in the course of one edit, does that count as a 3RR vio? If not, wouldn't that be a HUGELY effective way to game the whole intent of 3RR? 3)Does anyone have any advice about the best way to proceed here? I've encouraged talkpage discussion, but as you can see, it hasn't gone well. I plan to take the disputed Xinhua source to WP:RSN but other than that, does anyone have any suggestions?? Huge thanks in advance...Gladys J Cortez 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Catch! Tan | 39 21:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a 3rr vio. Stop the edit warring, either by talk or block or page protection, before you do anything else. Then homing in on whatever reliable sources there are to be had, one way or another, is by far the most helpful way to go. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanna watch that movie! ... but yeah, there's 3RR and all goin' around all abouts. If they persist, blocks to be had, but I would say that page protection might be more productive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There may be a 3RR violation here, but Gladys clearly doesn't understand the 3RR rule. The rule is against reverting the same article to the same version more than 3 times in 24 hours. There's no possible way to violate it with fewer than four separate edits to the same article. Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
NO. Its any four reverts, or four edits that are substantially the same as reverts, in a 24 hour period that trips 3RR. In addition, Gladys has wide discretion to hand out blocks like candy if thats what is needed to stop an edit war in progress.--Tznkai (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
According to other respected admins in this thread, who both tacitly and explicitly endorse my understanding of 3RR, you're clearly in error about what I "clearly" do or do not understand. Thus, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd strike that remark and resolve to moderate your tone in the future. Gladys J Cortez 02:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say a 1-week page protection, with talk page requests to the 4 participants to work it out on the talk page in the meantime, is a good idea. Oh, and since you are new, then perhaps you didn't know about the most important rule of page protection. Be sure to protect the worst version of the article possible. Everyone will expect you to do it anyways. 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, as it happens, protecting the worst, lamest, most glaringly off the wall version of the page can have amazing sway on editors to get along with each other. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Not always. There's a problem at Kaveh Farrokh where the article has been protected since the 4th -- the dispute is over whether the lead can call the subject an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics (his qualifications aren't in either) on the basis of what a reporter wrote in an article on the Voice of America website. Those of us who don't think that a lead can call someone an expert on that basis (or that the lead should call someone an expert on any basis) are stuck because the (POV from my POV) editors who have been trying to build up the subject are quite happy to keep the article as it is indefinitely. Doug Weller (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"Characterized by the Voice of America website as an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics but with academic and professional qualifications in neither" (citation, citation, citation) would be much lamer. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, to respond to Looie496, 3RR covers many situations, and not just reverting to the same identical version 4 times. From WP:3RR, and I quote, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, ". Also, the most important quote from 3RR, the one that often gets missed, is "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.". Cheers! 21:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind also that Falun Gong, and closely-related articles, are currently on Arbcom probation as listed here. That would seem to apply to this article, and all editors should be aware of the implications of edit-warring. The sanctions would appear to be weakly specified, but they are there. --Rodhullandemu 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is really confusing, but I think it will be fun to try my hand at the madness. This 3rr thing seems to have an element of "ignore all rules," because of the common sense dictum to hand blocks out like free meal coupons if the ruling admin deems it necessary. By the way, this is a good thing--wikipedia is made by people. But tell me if this violates 3RR: Editor A makes five changes to the article in five separate edits--let's say for convenience sake that they were all small deletions, of a paragraph, or a line, or whatever. Editor B looks at each of them, and reintroduces three of the deleted portions in another three separate edits. Has Editor B violated 3RR? If yes, then what if he, instead of making three edits to introduce deleted material, makes just one edit to reintroduce three of the deleted segments? Do his edits (or, 'edit' if he/she rolls them into one, as indicated by the latter scenario) count as "reverts" at all? Remember that the outcome in the same, just whether it's split over three edits or rolled into one. (By the way, of course Editor A and B are civil, normal, and well-meaning individuals. They exude warmth and positivity. Editor A had already explained his changes, and Editor B left clear and civil notes on the talk page in response, about what he had restored and why, and what he had left deleted and why, offering more avenues for follow-up discussion, etc. etc..) Please discuss!--Asdfg12345 12:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I dare to ask: what about in the case where Editor B doesn't introduce the deleted material exactly how it was--he may change it. How much does it have to be changed before it constitutes new material, so what he has done is actually a separate edit, not a 'restoration.' By the way, none of these rules would be necessary if everyone behaved intelligently, with respect for one another, and with sincerity. Since the whole idea of an admin system is predicated on the unreliability of those things though, I need to come here and ask these bizarre questions as a way of correctly understanding what my rights, responsibilities, and expectations are as an editor. By the way, it would be simplest if someone could just say "Don't worry, if you're doing the right thing and being good and normal, then it's usually not a problem. Just don't edit war."--Asdfg12345 12:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about the meaning of 3RR

I am surprised that there seems to be so much confusion among admins about the meaning of the three revert rule. The second paragraph of WP:3RR is very clear:

Contributors must not perform more than three reverts […]. A revert is any action […] that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert.

When Gladys warned Asdfg, this user had done only 3 edits to the article in the preceding 24 hours and therefore could not possibly have violated this hard limit. The user asked very politely for clarification, which led Gladys to ask here. Some of the responses are plain wrong or have nothing to do with the question asked (whether the hard limit of 3 reverts was broken, not if there was an edit war).

As their first edit on the article after several days, Asdfg made two consecutive edits affecting opposite ends of one paragraph [33]. There is no way this can count as more than a single edit: It was two actions, and because they were consecutive they count as a single revert (italics for technical terms from WP:3RR). Since then the editor made only one other action on the article [34]. For these two reverts they received a warning from Gladys [35] that said: "as of right now you are in violation of 3RR", implying that the editor had made 4 reverts, when even under a somewhat plausible misreading of the policy they had made only 3. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarity.--Asdfg12345 13:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet, it doesn't get more clear than this sentance, straight from WP:3RR, that everyone conveniently ignores: The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule. If a situation ever gets to the point where we are debating over which edits do or do not count as reverts, or which edits may or may not have "counted" towards the "3" or "4" per day, whatever it is, we have gone over the line. It isn't meant to be a book-keeping exercise, not is it an excuse for WP:WIKILAWYERing. If you are having the debate, an edit war is probably already occuring. The article should be protected, and people directed to the talk page to work out their problems in civil discourse. Final. End of discussion. We aren't here to hold trials over the exact intent and nature of edits, or which edits do or do not count. If the article is in dispute, and neither side is backing down in the main space, there is an edit war. 13:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are writing nonsense, and your urge to use bold and write "Final. End of discussion." should have alerted you to the fact. The passage you are citing merely makes it clear that the existence of WP:3RR does not entitle anybody to break WP:EW, a separate policy. If you want to warn someone for having broken WP:EW withouth having broken WP:3RR, then say so. Since when is it OK to cite the wrong policy (3RR) if you can't bother to remember the name of the one that actually applies (EW)? Is it so hard to understand that telling editors, with authority, that they are guilty of A, when they are really guilty of B, is bad because it's bound to lead to unnecessary drama? If you want to merge WP:3RR and WP:EW, go ahead and do (or propose) it. But don't just pretend it has been done. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Jayron, I suggest that you extend your repertoire of quotable policy sentences. "Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule" from WP:3RR is fine, but it's not from the original policy that authorises this. "[…] uninvolved administrators may […] block the involved offenders for a period of time" from WP:EW is what you really mean. It's better in the rare cases where someone did not claim it wasn't edit warring because it was only 3 reverts. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been a Wikipediaholic for about 3 years. Amazingly, I've never seen WP:EW before, though I've seen warring thrown around. Guess that means I've been a good little editor, yes? —EncMstr (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In my defense--realizing that the area was gray at the VERY least, I blocked no one and protected nothing, and afterwards sought to improve my understanding. If anyone's still preparing a noose for me, I've got an extra-fat neck so you might want to incorporate some elastic. <g>Gladys J Cortez 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Naw, Gutta percha will do and so 19th century. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's quite natural to confuse 3RR and EW. More evidence that the confusion is a general problem is being discussed here. Summary: Several WP pages tell us to go to WP:3RRN with EW problems, yet many of the admins populating 3RRN only act upon 3RR violations. I don't have much experience with 3RR, and I didn't check whether this is actually true. If it is, I wonder if this can be changed in order to take some burden off ANI. And perhaps 3RR and EW should really be merged, after all.
I just discovered that EW was promoted from guideline to policy less than a year ago, on the day before I joined Wikipedia, but probably long after many of the other participants in this discussion joined. This explains a lot, and I apologise for the sentence above that I have now withdrawn. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure revisited

Resolved: Closed by Scott MacDonald. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidents by handedness could be closed? It's run for five days, and the DYK nomination is about to expire. Lampman (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Um... Help?

So this page is Move blocked, and only an Admin can move it, so could somebody please move it "Giratina to Sora no Hanataba: Shaymin", Shaymin being the official English title... Moocowsrule (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

The page was protected due to move-warring. Has consensus for the new name been established somewhere? --Carnildo (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
What about this? (was 6 months ago) Gee, you took your time asking ;-) Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I just came across the article a few days ago, and since nobody moved it, I decided to post something on here. Plus yes that is the discussion regarding the official English title. Although now the reference is a dead link, I'm not QUITE sure that that's the actual English title, but I'm fairly positive. And also since the article itself uses Giratina to Sora no Hanatabi: Shaymin in the article (except for the title...), I'm pretty sure the official English title is "Giratina to Sora no Hanatabi: Shaymin". I'm just pretty surprised no admin has moved it in six months (according to what Monster Under Your Bed said). Moocowsrule (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

user:sarcasticidealist vs. user:[email protected]

Resolved: see below

Sarcasticidealist seems to think that Jay is an under-the-radar vandal who needs to be watched closely and reverted by default. I am a spurious editor who spends a lot more time on talk pages than editing articles. While I hav a fascination with WP:IAR, I find myself actually volunteering rules from other places to apply here. I think the status quo, where he wants to watch is fine. OTOH, I'm not convinced that he understands the meaning of a contradiction or the reliability problems with prophecy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [email protected] (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 October 2008

Sorry, to a completely uninvolved editor this post does not make sense. Can you provide diffs and say what you want us to do about the matter? Jehochman Talk 17:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Jehoch; we need diffs of abuse on Wikipedia. Why complaint, wherefore base? -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 20:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The opportunity to see these sorts of posts is about the only reason that I look at the dramaboards any more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


This is not a topic on sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, despite the fact that some appears to be going on, this is a general inquiry as to this user's past behavior.

Up until his first block, at least as far as I know, Walla appeared to be a good contributor, but then when he soapboxed in the form of a snipe on a talk page, things turned for the worse. He was warned that users might take offense to it due to the nature of the way the comment was written, and yet he still reverted. This resulted in a block for one week, and it might have stayed that way. Instead he asserted that his was the only opinion that mattered in the issue, that everyone else was wrong, and that the admins involved in the matter were abusing their powers(the typical argument for disruptive users, I might add).

He then later came back as a sockpuppet, causing disruption because of the addition of copyvios. He never admits at being a sockpuppet, and so far, after the checkuser confirmed he was one, plus the fact that the evidence just didn't add up(in his favor), the sockpuppet has not posted on its talkpage.

Per the above, and the conversations that occurred on the sockmaster's talk page, I would like a review of the general events that took place during the week, along with Wallamoose's behavior. I would also like to know if Walla did indeed wish to continue editing, and confirmed he would edit constructively, that he would be allowed to under that of a mentor.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 06:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just based on your account--the one that's apparently trying to AGF and be as sympathetic as possible--I'd say "absolutely not!" The last thing we need is another Warrior for the Truth, another user to scream "admin abuse! oh noes!" every time his opinion is called into question. I don't see how mentorship would solve anything (unless the mentor can physically stand over his shoulder and push the "power" button on WM's computer whenever he's about to do something negative--and even then, I'd be uneasy.) This does NOT sound like a user who needs to be here, and just because he may or may not have been "provoked" into negative behaviour, that absolutely does NOT mitigate the ensuing ranting, raving, copyvios, and socking. Maybe in six months or a year, if he can show us hard evidence of change--but now? No thank you. AGF, as has been said before, is NOT a suicide pact. Gladys J Cortez 09:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Gladys on this one. We have had cases in the past where recidivist sock puppeteers have been eventually unblocked, and where they have gone on to become successful and model Wikipedia citizens. I would be glad to share with you some of those in semi-private (seeing as they are now good citizens, there is no compelling reason to drag said names to ANI on an unrelated case). However, in every one of those cases, the user had to prove they were willing to play by the rules by stopping the rule-breaking behavior, that is, to cease creating new accounts while they were blocked. I would have no problem if Wallamoose took this course of action, I could support unblocking if it could be shown that Wallamoose were creating no new accounts to dodge his existing block. As yet, we have no evidence that he intends to stop creating new accounts, so we have no reason to unblock. I would disagree with Gladys's time frame; I think 2 months or so should be a reasonable ammount of time to revist the issue. 12:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in my experience, if a disruptive editor can get a grip and stay away from Wikipedia for two whole months, it shows they can be trusted to sway their own behaviour, even when it hurts. It's very rare to see someone do so after this kind of disruption and sockpuppetry but it can and does happen: Some folks do deeply misunderstand Wikipedia at first, stir up a big kerfluffle, then go, "Oops, grok." Gwen Gale (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that the blocking admin has prevented either user from editing their talk page, so it is impossible for them to comment. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you like me let Wallamoose edit his talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. At least not for awhile, like another week or two. Plenty of us have wasted enough time already dealing with him. —EncMstr (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a user pop up shortly after JoeTimko's last edit who has similar editing idiosynchronies to Wallamoose. Should I add to the checkuser case? The new user hasn't disrupted, as far as I could tell. Switzpaw (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Diffs please? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
some weird resentful edit summary, user was newly created after joetimko's last edit, similar subject matter interests (exotic foods, place locations, cartoon network), signs like wallamoose by putting four tildes inside of parentheses. Switzpaw (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
User:ChocoCereal? I can't quite make that leap. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
*shrug* The aforementioned editor registered about an hour after JoeTimko was blocked and went to town on a bunch of articles, and has the same tell of signing with a preceding parenthesis, characteristic of Wallamoose's accounts. I don't think Wallamoose intends to disrupt further, but I would expect him to come back and avoid detection. It seems like he will go to great lengths to avoid saying "I was wrong." I don't see it as a problem at this point, though if the new editor gets into similar trouble I'd suggest investigating this. Switzpaw (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to block an account making helpful edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Not even if it's evading a ban? I hear quacking.. *shrug* roux ] [x] 21:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I being thick? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey just trying to help out -- not sure how admins enforce what Jayron32 was suggesting above. Switzpaw (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) I doubt you're being thick, Gwen--sorry if you took that meaning. It's just a bit too coincidental, is all I'm saying. roux ] [x] 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, maybe it's Wallamoose but the parentheses aren't enough to go by and if the account is helping the encyclopedia, I truly don't care. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
check his talk page. that is why i was trying to avoid saying the suspect's name. Switzpaw (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I subject of some kind of investigation?(ChocoCereal (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

dude lay off the youtube videos. Switzpaw (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh oh. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this time he says he's indeed User:Wallamoose and is asking to be unblocked (but didn't put up an unblock template). He ends by saying:

I'm not going to sit on the sidelines for months to prove I'm "committed". I think that's the biggest bunch of b.s. I've ever heard. So is there another way we can end this and move forward.
Honestly, this is my last effort to do this in a way I think is reasonable. If it takes a fire with fire approach I'm going to go that route.

Given the background (disruption, blistering personal attacks, sockpuppetry), I think he should stay away from en.Wikipedia for at least two months. However, I'd like to leave it up to other editors and admins as to how we'll deal with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: the king was a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely

Administrators, my I raise your awareness... The king has arrived! Upperclass Wikipedian (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, what? roux ] [x] 13:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Blocked until the king can tell us what he's doing here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think he's saying we missed the rapture (again). — CharlotteWebb 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a delicious irony if you look at his userpage first, and then at the notice on his talk... roux ] [x] 14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Crystallized ashes haven't thrilled me since I was like, 20. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking more of "At least all my work will be of high quality, far, far beyond the qualities of other editors out here." coupled with a speedydel notice :P roux ] [x] 14:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I got that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look as if his high quality extends to his ability to spell properly. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This user has been blocked for "vandalism and username worries." As far as I can see, every mainspace edit was performed in good faith, even though there were mistakes. To classify it as vanldalism is misrepresentating the editor. And the username too is probably a borderline case that should have been taken to WP:UAA. I also see no block warning, nor an attempt to engage this new editor beyond the placement of one CSD template. While it may have been unlikely that the editor would have gone on to be a productive contributor, now we'll never know. Steve TC 15:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
These redirects from the article space were straight vandalism. Taken with the username, sloppy edits and the taunt which began this thread, there was not a hint this user planned to contribute helpfully to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't read that as a taunt, more an over-enthusiastic statement of intent (and I'm unable to see those deleted contributions), but I'm 100% happy to take your word for it. All the best, Steve TC 16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, new, good faith users don't start out by skillfully making article redirects back to their user page and dropping by AN to say hi. This is somebody's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, there are probably quite a few of us IP-only editors who are both familiar with the technical particularities of Wikipedia and enjoy reading the dramatic goings-on here on the AN. It's entirely possible (although perhaps not likely in this case) that an experienced anonymous editor may choose to register only when he or she progresses beyond WP:GNOME to engage in more varied editing. (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Chivas Regal could use some cleanup. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

While he has certainly raised a few eyebrows with his unusual editing style and familiarity with Wikipedia, I see no evidence that this is a vandalism only account. At the very worst his edits can be seen as enthusiastic not vandalism, and his mistakes in creating redirects to his userpage in article space isn't something that deserves a block, least an indefinite ‎one. If there is suspicion of sockpuppetry it should have been taken to WP:RFCU. 4I7.4I7 16:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a vandalism-only account. However, a thoroughly mixed brew of vandalism, disruptive editing, likely sockpuppetry and a worrisome username is wholly blockable. Perhaps you have this website muddled with Encyclopedia Dramatica? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The block log states "Vandalism-only account". I just feel the user should have been given a warning before being blocked outright. 4I7.4I7 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I've fixed the block log. If the editor requests an unblock I'll be more than happy to talk about it and unblock if the editor promises to stop the behaviour which led to the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, User:Upperclass_Wikipedian is a sockie. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Burhan Ahmed

I'm currently doing speedy deletions and I've repeatedly run into this user mistagging articles. He either uses a wrong tag or applies A7 tags on articles like Young Pluto which have sources and claims of notability that could easily check out. I've asked him to be more careful. Can someone keep an eye on him? - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I've left comments about two other mistaggings on his talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested ban


User:Avastik This user recently inserted blatant advertising into a WikiProject: Malware article, upon reviewing the user's contrib log, the account appears to exist soley to promote the Avast! Anti-Virus product. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy does it. They have not been disruptive since their first warning. I have left additional remarks.[36] Jehochman Talk 14:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll keep an eye out. Thanks. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Even speedier speedy deletion request

Resolved: Thanks, DrKiernan. Steve TC 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, earlier today an editor moved Quantum of Solace to Quantum of Solace (film) in order to use the original location as a disambiguation page. He/she now agrees that the film article should be moved back to the original page, with a toplink to Quantum of Solace (disambiguation), it being by far the primary topic. To that end, the editor has placed a CSD tag at Quantum of Solace to make way for the move, but this hasn't yet been done. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be a problem and I'd wait it out, but as this is the day of the film's release, the article is almost certain to attract a large number of visitors, and we shouldn't really have them confronted by a giant CSD tag upon visiting the original location. So if anyone can scrub this quickly, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Steve TC 15:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin Gwen Gale


This administrator has been causing an enormous amount of tension and discord on Wikipedia with one problem after another that's wasting a lot of editor and admin time.

  • Yesterday she posted "what the fuck are you thinking?" to another editor.
  • When she disputed an edit to an article's talk page she deleted the comment. Then when it was reposted she blocked the editor. When the editor stated on his user discussion page that he didn't agree with her, she blocked the editor indefinitely and when they still objected blocked she blocked him from editing his own talk page, also indefinitely. She never used any kind of ANI report or consensus to support any of these actions.
shocking allegation hidden for the sake of decency
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • In dealing with another editor recently she told them to "Have a cup of tea".

Gwen Gale is a world champion Wikilawyer and an expert at "gaming the system". When one line of reasoning doesn't work she quickly switches to another, and since editors and Administrators stick together no one has been willing to contradict her, although several editors have suggested alternative approaches. Someone needs to step-up to correct this disruptive and damaging administrator abuse.(Frolicking Hippo (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Snooze. Tan | 39 16:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Blocked. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Resolved? Pedro :  Chat  16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Tan | 39 16:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Its always amazing to see a brand new editor jump right in on a rather obscure page with his very first edit. If such new editors only knew how to post diffs of the admin actions they object to. Edison (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That was most likely User:Wallamoose. I do need some input in the above thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Wallamoose. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Harsh stuff 0_o SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm shocked. Of course if it had been cocoa or ovaltine that would have been more relaxing.. dave souza, talk zzzzz 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User's page appears under Category:...stubs


Hi there.

User:RealBigFlipsbrain has a \{\{martialart-term-stub\}\} in their user page, section 2. This is causing their page to appear under [] :

   * Uchi-deshi
   * Underhook
   * User:RealBigFlipsbrain

Is it possible to have this removed, as I do not think it is appropriate to have user pages listed in this category.

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I apologize if this is the wrong area to ask this. Thank you!

--Shouran (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the transcluded template. Normally, you would want to discuss this with the editor first, but in this case, the user has a long history of arguing with people over the contents of his user page, and they haven't edited in a while, so direct action is more appropriate. --barneca (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Barneca! Resolved. --Shouran (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves backlog

Anyone with some spare time care to tackle Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog? There is a least one that is controversial and requires an experienced, neutral editor to close and interpret consensus. Rockpocket 02:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse that - the "one" in question is a move made with a small number of editors involved which has now been contested by a significantly larger number. If we can nip this one in the bud it will prevent multiple edit wars, banning etc. etc. --Snowded TALK 02:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm closing the contentious one now, though it may take me a few minutes to go through the arguments. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. A nicely reasoned close to boot. Good work. Rockpocket 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy response much appreciated --Snowded TALK 08:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Badly-done TfD


I have just nominated Template:Paul De Million for deletion, the first time I have used TfD, and I seem to have done something wrong - it appears at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 1 but not in the list at WP:TfD. Could somebody kindly fix it, and let me know what I didn't do? Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's there now. The server cache was stale; the cache is not updated every time a transluded page changes. To purge the server cache, stick ?action=purge onto the end of the URL and it'll force the page to refresh all of its transclusions. The clock applet in User Preferences also lets you purge a page by clicking on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves backlog

Anyone with some spare time care to tackle Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog? There is a least one that is controversial and requires an experienced, neutral editor to close and interpret consensus. Rockpocket 02:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse that - the "one" in question is a move made with a small number of editors involved which has now been contested by a significantly larger number. If we can nip this one in the bud it will prevent multiple edit wars, banning etc. etc. --Snowded TALK 02:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm closing the contentious one now, though it may take me a few minutes to go through the arguments. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. A nicely reasoned close to boot. Good work. Rockpocket 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy response much appreciated --Snowded TALK 08:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Badly-done TfD


I have just nominated Template:Paul De Million for deletion, the first time I have used TfD, and I seem to have done something wrong - it appears at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 1 but not in the list at WP:TfD. Could somebody kindly fix it, and let me know what I didn't do? Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's there now. The server cache was stale; the cache is not updated every time a transluded page changes. To purge the server cache, stick ?action=purge onto the end of the URL and it'll force the page to refresh all of its transclusions. The clock applet in User Preferences also lets you purge a page by clicking on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this WP:OUTING?

Resolved: Consensus is that this wasn't outing. All that could be said about the matter has been said. VG ☎ 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Schizophrenia#Hgurling.27s_edits. A similar case involving User:Mathsci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was inconclusive (blocked for a week, lifted lesss than a day later). Is there a rule for allowing/preventing one from inferring real-life identity of an editor based on his user name, and furthermore, is it reasonable to base WP:COI determinations on such inferences? VG ☎ 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this toes the line without going over it. If someone self-outs on Wikipedia by making their real name their log in name it's certainly not anyone else's fault if it is noticed. Its not like using other methods to dig out a person's real identity, since they are clearly telling it to you. It's somewhat bad Internet ettiquette to do so in any circumstance, but I don't really see it as an eggregious violation of WP:OUTING. If you don't want anyone to know your real identity, then don't leave clues around for people, you know, clues like actually telling everyone your real name! 13:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Making those edits under that username is prima facie evidence that he is self-identifying as (or worse, impersonating) a specific professor of molecular psychiatry. "COI" is only a serious problem when it is covert and unrecognized. In this case we are fortunate to know which edits may benefit from closer scrutiny. Were the doctor editing under a non-personal name (say, "SuperShrink"), yes this would be considered "outing" (or "unproven speculation" actually). — CharlotteWebb 13:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. As long as there is significant evidence that this is the person's real identity, and there is some benefit to Wikipedia by revealing this fact, it is reasonable to bring it up. If this user had never touched any article in this person's area of expertise, I think it would be outing since Wikipedia would gain nothing from this fact being known. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
In that case nobody would have noticed or cared what the "H" stood for. — CharlotteWebb 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There are some things going on here that are distressing to me. My main "Wikipedia mission" is to reactivate WikiProject Neuroscience, which was pretty active until 2006 but then fell asleep. Currently most of the neuroscience articles suck pretty badly (with a few exceptions), and the only way to change that is to get people who know the subject to come edit them. That means creating a welcoming environment for people who are more used to writing in an academic framework--i.e., precisely somebody like hgurling, who has a very strong publication record. But look at what happens: he comes in and spends a few hours improving the schizophrenia and bipolar disorder articles by correcting errors and adding solidly sourced information. Within hours all the changes to schizophrenia are reverted, an unfriendly message is left on his talk page, and a discussion starts here about "outing". This is very frustrating. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason I started this discussion is that Hgurling's real-life was used as part of the rationale for reverting his edits. Some editors on this thread think that these actions improved Wikipedia; I have some doubts that the outcome improved Wikipedia, but I still assume good faith on behalf of everyone involved. VG ☎ 18:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not questioning anybody's motivations, I'm just unhappy about the result they have produced. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Hgurling's edits have been that helpful either. He's edited Bipolar disorder to advance the idea that it's mainly a genetic disorder, but did so without changing the existing references. I have some doubts that the same old references that were already present in the article suddenly support his/her viewpoint. Better discuss this at Wikipedia:OR/N#Genetic_psychiatry_POV_.28without_refences.29_at_Bipolar_disorder. VG ☎ 18:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
his edits just show the use of wording that in the context of WP amounts to OR, or drawing a general conclusion on the basis of evidence beyond what we normally do, orr the insertion of what he thinks obvious without actual references. Any academic might write that way, and it just take a little orientation to be accustomed to our conventions, which are necessary and appropriate in our special context. A little advice about our peculiarities is all that is called for. and an apology to him. DGG (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As for "outing", I regret the way I wrote that. All I knew was that a user named "Hgurling" was adding references to works where "H. Gurling" is a co-author. I found this fact relevant and wanted it to be brought out in the open, but I shouldn't have "assumed" his identity or made suggestions of WP:COI. Looking at what I wrote on his talk page, I also acknowledge that I could have greeted this new contributor, with potentially much-needed expertise, in a friendlier way. Sorry about that, what I really meant was to give "a little advice about our peculiarities". I stand by that I think the article as a whole was of better quality before these edits, but that there seems to be some useful content to be kept; this is of course better discussed at the relevant talk page. /skagedal... 10:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User strongly objects to having any Wikipedia entry about him

Here, there is somebody who objects a Wikipedia entry about him, and when he tries to blank the page, it is reverted. Please take a look. -- IRP 21:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How does one find out if that's really Jon Blake? Isn't threatening legal action, sorta over-reacting? GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone objects to having a book about them in a library, and went in, took that book, tore out the pages, and threw it in the trash, he would be rightly chastised and thrown out of the library. It's his fault he didn't find out the library's procedure for having a book removed. Likewise, this chap should be hit soundly with the cluebat, told to cease any legal threats, and informed of the methods by which he may get this article removed. It is weird that, while people would usually object to vandalizing a book or library, they think blanking the article is somehow acceptable. --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Assuming it's him, I have fully-protected the page due to edit-warring and will advise the editor to contact OTRS, but he doesn't get the say about whether we have an article about him. --Rodhullandemu 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I had 31hr-blocked him for simple vandalism for the repeated blanking despite warnings against doing so. If anyone thinks he would let the page stand for now and participate in an AfD or other process, feel free to unblock. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, keep in mind we don't even know if it's him yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A similiar situaton to this, occured about a year or so ago. In that case, the complainant was genuine & the dispute was long & messy. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This edit [37] makes me think we might need to invoke WP:DOLT. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The complainant may be genuine; the complaint may not, and I will leave that to OTRS team. I didn't realise this editor had been blocked, but see no reason to unprotect this page until the dust settles a little. --Rodhullandemu 21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, per the last two comments and WP:BLP, I've snipped a few unsourced things, a few WP:PEACOCKy things and a few WP:WEASELy things. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Take a look at the article. It has crap sources and suffers from POV. Can someone at least stub it for now? Comparing this to someone ripping pages from a library book is bollocks. Of there is a books in a library about you, it is written by an author with a real name who has a reputation to protect - and is likely to be accurate. A wikipedia article is more like someone placing a big graffiti board up outside your house and then allowing any anonymous passer-by to write anything about you. It can be very distressing if you have to watch it every day. Now, that may not be an argument for deleting on request - but we should certainly have sympathy and understanding for anyone who doesn't want an article. Even if we refuse to delete it, we should try to help, reassure, and watch for trouble. WP:DOLT is one place to get some clue here - but even non-libellous articles can cause stress and concern to the subject. I'd just ask people to have a little empathy here. And can we get some admins to edit through the protection and remove anything which is not scrupulously fair and sourced?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the article-in-question. IMHO, it should be deleted for lacking notability. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but it can't be speedied because it contains an assertion of notability; WP:PROD would take five days, and an WP:AFD likewise unless it was snowballed. --Rodhullandemu 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, we really ought to have a representative panel who can make quick decisions in cases like this. Because if we are going to delete the article in the end, the last thing we need is to prolong the agony for the subject, while a lot of people openly discuss whether he is significant or not. AfD is a toilet at the best of times, and to subject people who may already have been libelled by earlier versions of the article to that is extremely inhumane.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree in principle - there has to be an easier way. For now, though, in this case, would an AfD be in order? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) To continue Scott's analogy: an agry user blanking a BLP article is not like ripping the pages out of a book; it's much more like them turning that noticeboard around so it faces the wall. It can easily be flipped back; no harm done. As for how to proceed: one option would be to stub the article temporarily. An AFD would not be hampered by that - editors could simply review the history of the article. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I support an afd, the article should be in stub form until the decision. --Tone 22:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Don't legal threats mean we can invoke WP:OFFICE, if they contact the foundation directly? Dendodge TalkContribs 22:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That's what OTRS is for. Only the WP:OFFICE can take such actions on complaint, so it's not a case of us (editors) invoking it. If the article subject has emailed OTRS, this might follow, but not, as I understand it, of its own motion. Unless Jimbo or another Office bod (Cary, Danny) takes the action himself. --Rodhullandemu 22:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
By 'we', I meant Wikipedia - not necessarily us editors, and I did say they have to contact the foundation directly. Dendodge TalkContribs 22:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that OTRS != WP:OFFICE. Unless there's actual legal proceedings in process or in planning (not just "I'm going to call my lawyer!" comments) and the actual office gets involved, the OTRS volunteers cannot do anything that any other editor/admin couldn't do. We still have to work within local policies. Mr.Z-man 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question was blocked for "vandalism" which, given he was blanking a biography on himself that had terrible sourcing and violated BLP, is really not good. Also not good are the horrible vandalism notices on his talk page. This is a classic case of WP:DOLT. Now, I'm going to clean up his talk page, but can someone please fix the block notice he's seeing. He probably needs to be blocked in case he does wish to take legal action, but I suggest re-blocking with a summary of "until legal issues are resolved" or something soft (not a "threats). [38].--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the editor's user talk offering to nominate for courtesy deletion. DurovaCharge! 23:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the current stub, and would argue that he is notable enough to warrant an article. He's a public figure on the radio in the fifth largest city in Australia... and won an award. He may not like it, but he's a public figure.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
So fuck 'im then? We keep a horrible article when all the evidence shows it will be underwatched and poorly maintained?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Horrible? Hardly. Critical, perhaps. In the last week, while researching Rex Makin, an article which I hope is beyond reproach, although as yet incomplete, I came across User:Rexmakin/User Talk:Rexmakin, a blatant attack page for the same subject, and it had persisted for over a year. It was so bad that it had to be oversighted, and I will make relevant emails available to anyone who cares to enquire. Heaven forfend what would have happened if the real Rex Makin had seen that page; he would have injuncted us beyond all reason; and he can, and will. Meanwhile, this little storm in a teacup has been blown out of all proportion. From my views of the current subject, he has very little to complain of, legally or otherwise, and we, like compliant pussycats, have rolled over because of a legal threat that we don't even know has come from the subject of the article. Well, hot dog! The article has now been cut back to defensible material, but the brou-ha-ha, for a radio DJ, FFS, is completely out of proportion. His remedy is not to blank his page, although that might have been better-handled. He has been directed to OTRS. That is where it should be handled. About time we got some balls here. --Rodhullandemu 00:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Blake (broadcaster)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, this has not been handled well. I've left a note at the subject's user page that the article has been nominated for deletion. Nobody else had told him yet. Unless I've missed something, he was not informed how to open a deletion request or about the NLT policy. He was directed to OTRS at least, which is something, but it's disappointing to see that despite the page being a very borderline biography and a very viable AFD, instead of getting his actual options explained to him some people posted at his user talk while he was blocked to give what were essentially keep arguments as if deletion were out of the question. It's hardly in the site's best interest to treat newcomers this way. DurovaCharge! 00:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

All unsourced material in that article should be removed. I left a note on the talkpage to that effect. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've just added a protected template to the article. Is the consensus that the full protection should remain? Normally we allow editing while an article is at AfD so there can be attempts to improve it with sources and the like. And let's face it, this article definitely could use improving. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The article should be unprotected or taken down to semi, that way unsourced information can be removed, and sourced (if any exists in WP:RS/WP:V secondary independent sources) added. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree that the article should be unprotected. The purpose of protecting the article was to stop the edit war; once User:Blakey7 was blocked, the edit war stopped. We should now be able to return to normal editing. Having said that, I do not want to see anyone else edit-warring over this article. Risker (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done. Unprotected. Feel free to re-protect and undo my action as necessary. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: All information in the article is now at the at the least sourced/verifiable. Where to go from here is up to the AfD and perhaps OTRS if they are contacted. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this is the very simple process to follow in cases like this. It's all in the BLP policy folks. Stubify it completely to only whatever can be found in reliable sources and if needed decide through AFD if the article should be kept. There's no need for hand wringing. If BLP is followed strictly no one has anything serious to complain about. - Taxman Talk 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with bungled history merge


I've just tried merging the page histories of R-12 (missile) and R-12 Dvina, per the guidance at User:Hadseys/Organising/Moving_a_page#Fixing_cut_and_paste_moves. All went well till I stupidly rollbacked my last edit to R-12 Dvina (per step 5). We now have seem to have an infinite redirect loop with no content and no entry point for undoing anything. Ouch! I don't suppose I'm the first to have done this, but please tell me it's something that can be fixed, for User:GW_Simulations sake, who I was trying to help.  —SMALLJIM  14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the version preceding the one you reverted to (which was a redirection). Does that do the trick? Deor (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes it has, the articles appear to be nicely merged. I'd apparently lost all the edit histories so couldn't find anything to revert to. Maybe it was blind panic, but I'd prefer to blame it on a caching problem or database update delay :)  —SMALLJIM  15:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Xoxodarling24 elize

Xoxodarling24 elize is persistently posting links to non-existent files on Wikipedia after being told to stop. -- IRP 15:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC), modified 15:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be pedantic, at least one of the images does exist, but Imageshack is not a proper place for Wikipedia to link to. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that, but what I meant was that the image does not exist on Wikipedia, and that the user should not post links to images outside of Wikipedia. -- IRP 18:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Signature issue

Sorry if this isn't the right place to take this - it's a fairly low-level issue, but very distracting.

On the Help desk, I noticed that User:Yellow Evan has created a new sig which contains a string of articles he has created ... making it long, confusing, and horribly distracting (Examples: [39], [40], and [41]). I was going to post something to him about it; but I saw that two admins appear to have already contacted him, and he just blew them off (see here and here). Can someone else take a look, and let me know if I should just be thicker skinned and ignore such minor annoyances, or if perhaps more forceful encouragement should be given to the user to fix their signature (or perhaps, both - I should ignore more AND they should fix it). Thanks! --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well apparently he considers he is under attack and has therefore gone on a wikibreak. I suggest that for now, we simply remove the excesses of his signature manually. If he continues when he comes back then we may need to take further action, I don't know. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I left a comment pointing him to this discussion and asking him to reduce it. - auburnpilot talk 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

i changed it but it is not working for some reason. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox,Hurricane Hernan (2008) , Hurricane Ekeka (1992),Hurricane Elida (2008) 17:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

i got it to work now. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox,H , E,HE 18:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's still too long, see WP:SIG#Length, or:
long signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution,
x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I will make it even shorter. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox,H , E,HE 19:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is shorter. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,SandboxH EHE 19:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  • At 199 characters, it falls within the length parameter, but it is strangely laid out. At the very least, you should consider moving your user page link to the beginning of the signature. Having your userpage and talkpage, followed by your sandbox and three articles, is too much linkage. Your userpage already has a list of the articles you have created; that should be sufficient. Horologium (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed part of it and in think this is no longer an issue and I can take a wikibreak now. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 19:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli Extraterrestrials & UFOs Research Association

Resolved: Deleted GbT/c 19:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This page has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G7, however the creator of the page continually removes the db tag. If you are an administrator, please delete this page. -- IRP 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's been deleted. GbT/c 19:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Increase the Reliability of Wikipedia through Enforcement of Existing Policies


Any account used primarily for advocating pseudoscience, fringe theories or other kookery shall be blocked indefinitely.

This was originally proposed at ANI, but got lost in a larger discussion. The idea is that administrators should feel empowered to enforce core policies and related guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Fringe, against single purpose policy violating accounts. We already indefinitely block spam-only and disruption-only accounts. I think there is merit in having a discussion and consensus that we can refer to later. This resolution, if approved, would take the form of a community general sanction, and be listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions. Thank you for your consideration. Jehochman Talk 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. Verbal chat 21:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, under the stipulation that at least one warning must occur before indefinite blocking to insure that users are aware their actions can result in an indef block. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
My take on this is that disruptive single purpose accounts of any kind should be blockable indefinitely by any admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So your proposal is that any admin, having determined that an editor is promoting pseudoscience, fringe theories or anything defined as "kookery" is empowered to issue an indefinite block immediately? Does this constitute a ban? I'm not sure this proposal will help anything - inevitably, there will be a thousand follow on ArbCom cases and AN or AN/I threads. Its a recipe for drama by the metric ton. Avruch T 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, my worry would be, who decides what's "pseudoscience, fringe theories or other kookery"? I see an awfully wide net brewing up. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

← This may be overreacting. I would agree that this sort of editing strikes directly at Wikipedia's underlying goal, which I believe to be the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. I would also agree that this sort of editing behavior is easy to identify but relatively hard to deal with, for a variety of reasons.

But I see this blanket proposal as likely to lead to more argument, wheel-warring, etc, because its essentials are vague: "primarily"? And who defines "pseudoscience" and "fringe science"? That in and of itself is the subject of a lengthy, exhausting on-wiki debate.

Here's what I'd like to see: let's streamline our processes for dealing with the left end of the bell curve - the subset of accounts who are obviously here to promote or publicize a fringe agenda rather than help build a respectable, serious reference work. Less enabling, no more 27th-and-final-this-time-I-really-mean-it chances. On the other hand, there are quite a few editors who are capable of good work and collaborative editing from a non-mainstream point of view - let's identify them and bring them into the discussion rather than polarizing every little debate and driving everyone from the middle to one extreme or the other. I think this proposal, as worded, might be a bit too blunt to accomplish this. MastCell Talk 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the proposal clarifies that the advocacy occurs in "mainstream" articles, for - while advocacy generally constrains the encyclopedic method - its existence within "Fringe Science" and "Pseudo Theory" articles is not especially disruptive. Otherwise, yeah, banninate the damn "alternative perspective of reality" advocates!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Starts list...
I'm all for Mastcell's Less enabling, no more 27th-and-final-this-time-I-really-mean-it chances. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't quite as simple as it looks, I'm afraid. I've recently done some work in an area where there have been extensive and rather intellectually challenging debates about whether certain information is "fringe", mainstream, noteworthy or of questionable relevance. I've also seen some areas where it is nearly impossible to include well-sourced but contradictory information; or to factually describe certain "fringe" topics from the perspective of those who believe in their validity. Finally, I am not confident that all administrators have sufficient subject matter expertise to be able to personally make these assessments. That is why we have some of our various noticeboards. Where admins can be of most help, I think, is in providing support to our broad swath of editors who have concerns, but only if the administrator(s) involved can remain neutral and have a good grasp of the core editing policies and guidelines themselves. Risker (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Admin tools + editorial mandate = disaster waiting to happen. The wiki process should be doing the job of managing content, and if it isn't, admin tool use is not the answer.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
So what is? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This is why I would want to look much harder only at disruptive SPAs, rather than the PoVs they edit towards. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen has a good point. And the application of patience, common sense, and dialogue, not to mention WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:OR and resolve issues. Increased participation also helps, a fringe idea by definition has fringe adherence, simply go grab some outside opinions to add their voice. Look, everyone who has the admin bit should have at some point in the past dealt with a content dispute without admin tools. Just apply what you did then!--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reducing unnecessary wikidrama or disruption sounds like a brilliant idea indeed. Oh, and can we please add pseudoscepticism and postmodern philosophy explicitly to the list? More seriously, I still hope it's just a problem with my sarcasm detectors, but it does seem that a few other people also think this proposal may have been made in earnest. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd draft

When an editor repeated adds fringe, and it keeps getting removed, that is a sign of a behavioral problem. This not meant to be a content judgment by the admin. Here, let me repropose it. Jehochman Talk 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Based upon a consensus of uninvolved editors, accounts used primarily for advocacy of fringe theories may be blocked indefinitely. A consensus can be determined by discussing the editor's conduct on the appropriate noticeboard, such as the Admins' noticeboard/Incidents or the Fringe theory noticeboard. Accounts shall be warned prior to application of this sanction.

Does that help? Jehochman Talk 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  • No. You are conflating behaviour with content. Risker (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no way to get around that. Shall we let editors pour endless amounts of crap into the encyclopedia, or shall we stop them? How exactly do you propose stopping persistent violations of content policies? Jehochman Talk 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Persistent advocacy of an agenda in violation of Wikipedia's core content policies is already described by tendentious editing, and already is (or should be) grounds for administrative action. I don't think we need another formulation of WP:TE; we just need to take these abuses of Wikipedia almost as seriously as we take incivility, and it will be fine. MastCell Talk 22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
        • What I am hoping to do here is raise the visibility of exactly that problem. We have perfectly good policies, but admins are not doing enough to enforce them. They get bogged down in endless litigation, so they enforce things like civility that are more clear cut (Oh, look, a naughty word. BLOCK!). Jehochman Talk 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. Now it sounds like something that's worth trying. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) I agree with Risker and Mastcell. Make any good faith PoV blockable and all you've got is yet another spin on Conservapedia. There's too much likelihood of self-selection when an editorial consensus in and of itself carries the weight of a swift block. The worry is disruptive SPAs and I would be all for quicker and longer blocks for any disruptive SPA, whatever their PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC)Unconvinced we take incivility all that seriously, and my objections above are still relevant here. I think MastCell's suggestion about sorting the essentially malicious users from the good users is smart, but not something that can be solved with Wikipedia policy making, but proactive behavior on the part of ALL users.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be incapable of deleting articles that violate our core content policies, as I have learned on more than one occasion. How can we justify banninating editors when we can't even deal with the content?
"Crap" is in the eye of the beholder. I look at some of the heavily controlled fringe articles, and see poor articles that inadequately explain what the topic is about, largely because whenever anyone tries to explain it, they are hounded as SPAs and fringe editors. Some of them are, yes, but some of them are not. There are some articles where determined editors and admins have successfully fought off the inclusion of balancing information for extended periods, usually in good faith, but probably not in accordance with the same policies you propose to enforce here. Risker (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Whilst I see where is is coming from, and have some sympathy with with those battling kooks, there is a huge danger of this being used by people who prefer SPOV to NPOV to run off their opponents. Gah Gah. No. You want a secularliberalpedia, go make one.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

3rd draft

Based upon a consensus of uninvolved editors, accounts used primarily for tendentious editing may be blocked indefinitely. A consensus can be determined by discussing the editor's conduct on the appropriate noticeboard, such as the Admins' noticeboard/Incidents, the Neutral point of view noticeboard, or the Fringe theory noticeboard. Accounts shall be warned prior to application of this sanction.

This version is simplified, per MastCell's comment above. Jehochman Talk 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Spot on. I would support this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman...this is NOT needed, really. We already have the policies and guidelines in place to address this. Risker (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not lack of policy; the problem is lack of enforcement. I think we do need this to encourage enforcement, and to provide cover for admins who try. Jehochman Talk 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you both, truth be told. The policies are there, but following through on them is often very weak. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) comment - I see this as more of a reminder to admins (and others), and should maybe be included in the 'new admin guide' or whatever, and maybe added as an explicit section of the various essays and guides people use to help them explain our culture to new/recalcitrant editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Still runs into conflation of admin tools and content decisions, something we should be VERY cautious about, a trait not particularly in good supply in the admin corps right now. Scott makes a good point: theres no clear lines drawn about what is fringe, according to who, when, and why. Furthermore, WP:SPA and WP:TE are essays, not policy, and for good reason.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
How does the third draft have anything to do with content? (not a baiting question) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, less explicitly so, but SPA and TE both refer to the POVs (which is a content thing) of various accounts. Aside from the dangers of trying to divine the intentions of others across the internet, TE has been used repeatedly to label stubborn editors of minority viewpoints (a content thing), with no clear distinction on when some editors are being reasonable in their minority view point, and others have a behavior that would be disruptive and tendentious even if they were advocating a mainstream opinion. --Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with your take on that. I do think anything to do with good faith content should be thoroughly skived from any blocking policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC)There actually are reasons why WP:TE isn't policy, but it isn't because the feelings expressed there don't have wide support among wikipedians. It is because TE doesn't describe limitations on behavior or expectations on content. TE describes one particular insidious method of disruption. We are also not enjoined from making this policy and marking the essay as supporting policy. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
TE has a lot of good material in it, but see my comment above.--Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This is much better. We need something that isn't just "file an RfC and watch nothing happen" but we don't need a license to kill. It's been said above that content policing and admin tools are a bad, bad fit (and one that would cause me to be much more skeptical at RfA's). But we do need something. We can't just throw our hands up and say, "disengage or trawl through DR" Protonk (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about that. Maybe user RfC isn't the best place, but consistently separating the behaviours from the content is very important. Most of our dispute resolution is content-oriented: Noticeboards for BLP, reliable sources, notability etc; WP:3O; a large amount of the mediation that is done. It is much easier to redirect inappropriate behaviour when the content issues are being addressed in a neutral and objective manner. Risker (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: this entire direction of thought is an invitation to disaster. "tendentious editing" is a very broad term indeed, and could apply very widely indeed to many people who happen to be interested in one or another side of an issue. Even the much stronger "Disruptive editing" is normally subject only to blocks of increasing length unless it reaches to the level of outrageous vandalism. this is a major step down, and I do mean down, the path to arbitrary action and destruction of NPOV. I would suggest that before we do this we either a/eliminate the existence of arbcom, which is the one group that ought to be doing things of this nature, or b/define consensus as we do for ban, where any one administrator objecting can prevent a ban, or c/redefine WP as an encyclopedia where no controversial topics will be permitted. DGG (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe WP:TE needs more talking about first. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading that, it's a good essay. The general advice there is by and large excellent, but I really don't see how it will ever become a guideline firm enough to be used as a base for blocking or similar actions--such things need more than impressionistic standards. Purely as an illustration, there are experienced editors here who in good faith consider that the actions of some of those opposing over-credulous articles on fringe topics have engaged in activities of the sort discouraged there. DGG (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes and I'm one of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yah, I was just about to warn you for that. Face-smile.svg Okay folks, this clearly has no consensus. I think we can stick to existing policies and try to figure out how to encourage better enforcement through discussion and education. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 02:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I guess I should say then, I'm one of those who thinks that while most "fringe" topics are indeed codswallop, some worthy PoVs and sources have indeed been kept out of core articles with the very same tactics these drafts were in good faith written to end. Hence, my wariness about linking blocks with content. Behaviour and verifiable sources are the pith to building a helpful tertiary source through open editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading this thread is like finding a little time capsule in the backyard. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing got promoted from proposal to guideline two years ago, and went through basically the same evolution during initial drafts. Recommend reading and using it. DurovaCharge! 09:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Durova has this; the page exists at WP:DISRUPT, all we have to do is use and refer to that page. This new draft is largely a duplicate of that page. 12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A giant f-bomb explodes on a civilian field while the cavalry officers sip coffee in the tradition of General George B. McClellan, unwilling to deploy the troops.
Well, what do you know! May I ask why people aren't bothering to enforce this important policy? Yeah, it takes a lot of work to dig through edit histories and figure out who is being disruptive. Of course it is much simpler to block the first editor who gets frustrated and drops the f-bomb, or equivalent. How do we go about promoting the fair enforcement of WP:DE? Jehochman Talk 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Step 1: Go to WP:RfA and support candidates who have shown cluefulness and maturity, because they will have the judgement to make these kind of determinations. It's a bit more complex than automated vandalism reverts and WP:AIV reports. And candidates with a proven track record of experience and judgement in controversial areas often run into frankly ridiculous problems at RfA and need all the help they can get. MastCell Talk 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Following Durova's helpful nudges, I can only say, let's think about this, I've been blocking rather a lot for disruption and nothing's been overturned: Are admins being too shy or am I being too hard about it but nobody wants to nettle me? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I see two different potential approaches here. One is to use administrative tools to block violations of content policies (e.g. the fringe component of NPOV, and OR). I agree with Tznkai in this regard - I think it is dangerous to give admins or even ArbCom enforcement over this (I DO think we need a more effective conflict resolution process for content conflicts, but it should be through mediation not binding arbitration); we need to have faith in the wiki-process that many editors over time will eliminate editors. We need to empower the community, not disempower it (the real problem is that the community still does not have enough active editors with good research skills or expertise in different fields, and the solution is to try to recruit more Wikipedians who are committed to serious research and have expertise in underrepresented areas). The second option is Durova's, which is to treat this as a particular kind of violation of a behavior policy. These are the policies administrators (and ArbCom) traditionally police and I am much more comfortable with treating the problem this way. Being an administrator does not make anyone a more knowledgable person and it is not for us to police right or wrong views. We do have tools to ensure that the real power at Wikipedia - the open community of editors - can function effectively. That is why we block vandals and people who violate 3RR. I am comfortable with our taking actions to keep the process working. I am not comfortable with our judging the merits of content. That is precisely what the wiki-community itself is supposed to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The approach we took when we drafted WP:DE was to step aside from judgments about particular POVs and look at the behavioral issues that surround the problem. The end result is much more powerful because it also addresses POV pushing on mainstream views, which operates according to pretty much the same tactics. By focusing on the behavior instead of the POV it also provides safe haven to editors who personally hold fringe views yet learn the wiki way and participate appropriately. Here's a question: some posters to this thread are referring to DE as policy. Actually it's a guideline. After two years, is it time to promote this to policy? DurovaCharge! 22:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Insomuch as it would help thwart disruptive SPAs, which for me is the true worry stirring up this thread, yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, simply becaus on its merits it is important enough to be a policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---) For what it's worth, I'd like to add my opinion on the larger picture here. And, I'd like to compliment the image that was added to this conversation! It's nice when someone occasionally illustrates their point, literally. :)

I strongly oppose any policy which bans/indef blocks a user immediately without precondition, even if a "consensus" is reached by some definitive measure before ample warning is given. Wikipedia is a collaboration of efforts, with which it's own success is embedded within not policy, but people. The more Wikipedia grows, the more policy is added through amendments or new policy all together. Single Purpose Accounts have obtained a bad name save per the few unfortunate that use them for POV reasons. What about the editor that registers simply to work on horse related articles, or the editor who registers simply to upload their photographs? Granted, the common sense idea is that these good faith editors would never be inconvenienced by such policy, however I'd like to call attention to the fact that the more verbiage we stuff into our mantra, the more opportunity for wikilawyering and reading policy "by the letter" we indirectly create. With our current system, our massive base of established editors realizes these harmful SPA's soon enough, and damage to Wiki's is never permanent by way of revert and/or rollback. The user is given the chance to change through guidance. Please note my stress on guidance here. I have a special experience that I'd like to point out, although I'm not particularly fond of it. I was blocked about year ago for 1 week because I was using sockpuppet accounts to push POV into articles that was eventually considered vandalism. It's all in my histories and a constant reminder I keep on my talk page. By all rights, I could have been indef blocked/banned right then. In fact, my pride took such a beating that I completely stopped editing for almost an entire year. With a policy like that which is being debated here, people like me would have even less room for guidance and reform. If it wasn't for the words of a certain user, and a subsequence period of time for me to reflect on my own viewpoint and gain a higher level of maturity and tolerance, I might not have come back as the vandal fighter I am now. Not speaking for myself, but for the countless number of future editors out there that may start off on the wrong foot, I'd like to advocate that even if a few of them turn out to be highly valuable contributors, and save a few more least become vandal fighters like myself and contribute to a positive affect in regards to this project, I can't condone such policy that would ultimately make the jobs easier for a few short term, but possibly have dire consequences long term. People have no idea what Wikipedia is all about until they learn, and we have to do everything in our power to ensure they have every opportunity to find what a valuable project this truly is, regardless if it takes a few extra minutes. I mentioned that damage to the Wiki isn't ever permanent, it isn't; but damage to the future community surely is. Thats my rant :) DigitalNinja 21:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm very glad you've reformed and returned. You make an excellent point: good faith efforts should always be exerted to work with an editor, before resorting to restrictions. Also, minimally intrusive actions should always be considered if they're feasible before turning to more restrictive options. So page ban or topic ban or 1RR before siteban, if there's good contribution elsewhere to justify it. The disruptive editing guideline was crafted to balance two competing needs: to give editors such as yourself a fair chance to show your good side, and also to minimize attrition from productive editors--who do walk away from articles and from the entire site when disruptive behavior goes unchecked. It's great when difficult editors reform; whatever magic does that, I'd like to bottle it and share a few rounds. And btw, thanks for the compliment on the illustration. :) DurovaCharge! 22:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm glad to be here. I think the magic that causes difficult editors to reform is simply time and tolerance. Reforming a difficult editor is going to be difficult, and restrictive policy isn't going to change that. A few dashes of understanding, guidance, patients, and good will creates all the magic needed when used with common sense. If all else fails, sure, indef block, but lets not put it in words so to speak. Sometimes the best policies are the unwritten ones. :) DigitalNinja 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a fine line. The first page I edited was a hornet's nest of conflict. During my very first weeks as an editor I was threading through the dispute resolution links trying to understand mediation, content RFC, conduct RFC, etc. Tried all three approaches and none of them helped. Later on when I got a bit more savvy I looked back through the history and realized one of the people I'd been trying to reason with had been actively sabotaging mediation--going into my posts to insert little typos and grammar errors into statements I had written, then following up afterward asking me to 'calm down' (my statements had been perfectly calm except for his doctoring). Eventually one editor got sitebanned after two years of disruption to various topics (he had lots of socks and had been hopping IPs) and another got indeffed for disruption. Neither had added a single valid reference to the article, although one had mocked up a PDF to look like a scholarly journal, stuffed his POV into it, and had tried to cite himself on a sock IP. It was nasty and had driven several productive editors away. Imagine being a newcomer and asking an admin's help for the first time, and getting a bland answer from the admin saying there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with copyediting, and having to follow up with "But he's trying to use the United States Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as a copyediting guide for French medieval history. Doesn't it look like there's a problem with that?" The admin didn't follow up. Eventually I got the article to FA, then cowrote WP:DE because I really wouldn't wish those initial months on anybody. I'm a stubborn git; most people would've quit. DurovaCharge! 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, this notion of hearing the tale of Jeanne D'Arc told in the English syntax and style of Joe Kennedy's clever insider trading scam seems wildly thrilling to me :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---) Durova, thank you for the comment on my user page. I replied there as well. Furthermore, I think you completely understand where I'm coming from, and I certainly understand your points as well. I believe I would be inclined to support whatever ideas or solutions you come up with in this manner. Best regards, and good luck! If I can be of any assistance, I'm more than willing to help. DigitalNinja 02:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

An Admin sent me here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Another admin has stepped up to do the userfication. Closing this 01:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Administrator User:Mangojuice has sent me here. All I really want is to userfy a block of articles that the admin deleted after an AfD Discussion so that I can continue to work on them, develop them, and hopefully prepare them for re-introduction. The admin has refused to do so because the admin is a volunteer and does not have time to do it.

Personally, I don't think any action should be taken against the admin. I just want the articles userfied to User:Paulmcdonald/articlename. But since the admin has continually refused to cooperate and is starting to express what appears to me to be hostility, maybe the issue does deserve some third-party attention.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be slightly disingenuous in your description of his approach. He refused to undelete and userfy the articles because he doesn't have time to do it "if you can't be bothered to show even one reliable source on even ONE of the articles, to indicate to [him] that it might be minimally worthwhile". GbT/c 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing especially hostile with Mangojuice's refusal that could not be explained by irritation at your pestering him, to be frank. Indeed, I can't help but feel that he's correct that if you're unable to show a single source that would bring even one of the articles back into the realm of the notable, there's no reason why he, or any of us, would userify any of them. — Coren (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It looks to me as though you're trying to get a Wikipedia article for every coach in the history of Geneva College. Since taken altogether, their whole athletics history seems mostly non-notable, it's unlikely articles on each of these coaches would ever be taken as meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Meanwhile, they've been deleted through AfD and I see no reason to put them into user space until you can come up with reliable, independent sources supporting notability for each article. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul, you might have better luck with one of the Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles than with this lot. Sincerely, the skomorokh 21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a reason to restore them: because an editor in good faith, who's been around for 2+ years and has 8000+ edits, asked us to. The time spent explaining why we can't be bothered would have been enough to just do it. If he's willing to risk his own time working on articles that may never make it to the article space, I'm willing to spend 3 minutes giving him his shot. I'll userfy them for you, Paul. Hang on if I don't get them all; I may be called away in real life in a few minutes. --barneca (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well said barneca; that is exactly the right sort of attitude administrators should express towards requests for assistance. Thank you, the skomorokh 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Posts like this, in their lack of any assumption of good faith, can grow tiresome for any volunteer. Snarky comments like, "Personally, I don't think any action should be taken against the admin," after a string of non-notable, unsourced articles have been deleted through AfD are also wholly unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If you must know, my frustrated response was because of [42], where the admin shows non-cooperation (of which there is a regrettable history). I really don't care if action is taken against the admin, I won't agree with everyone--I just wanted the articles userfied so I can work further--but rather than actually do that, the admin sent me here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
So Mangjuice says, "If you want to gripe about me, WP:AN is the place. I'll delete any more of it that you post here" yet you post there again anyway, see the post deleted as starkly foretold and cite that as some kind of a worry? After creating a string of articles about non-notable topics which stirred up 72 Afds some of which then had to be deleted through a mass AfD, why would you start attacking Mangojuice instead of trying to understand why someone might have gotten a bit weary? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks, this is a non-issue. The reason we have LOTS of admins is in part because one may do what another is uninterested in doing or unable to do. We all have to use our judgment, and sometimes we have different judgment. I assume that is why Mngojuice sent Paul here, there is no need for Paul to take it personally or for anyone to question Paul's coming here. Mangojuice has better things to do, so s/he didn't do it; another admin is happy to do it and will. Case closed, everyone is a winner. A word to the wise, however, Paul: you have been here long enough to be watching the articles you care about and watch AfD. If you think you can save an article pegged for deletion, the time to act is BEFORE it is nominated for deletion. There are ways to anticipate this kind of thing.... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Bug in the Template:RFC list footer template

There is a problem with the RFC list footer template, and I did try to fix it by substituting the template, but RFCbot revert my changes. I do not know who is the rfcbot operator, I hope this is the right page to call for assistance. See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Bug_in_the_Template:RFC_list_footer_template. fixed Smiley.svgMaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article about me

Resolved: CU results indicate the request was made by the sock of a blocked troll. VG ☎ 14:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank each and everyone of you who to took the time to write an article about me. I really appreciate it but enough is enough, I do not wish my life's story be compiled by any Tom, Dick and Harry. Sure, it's in the news and all, and the article on me passed your so called notabilty requirements. That said, I would really feel better than to have anonymous ill wishers dictate my life.I have had enough with people making absurd rumors about me. Calling me in the night, posting me used condoms. Why do you give my haters a forum? The article in question is magibon. Thank you. Magichan (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion. I will drop a note on the above editors talkpage of same, with a suggestion to read up on the relevant guidelines. LHvU (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The AFD in question had run for 5 days, so I just closed it. The preponderance of editors expressed a clear "Keep"; the few delete votes seemed to run counter to policy. Given the potentially contentious nature of this, I left a long explanation at the AFD page in question as to the rationale (beyond the fact that there was a clear consensus) why the article should be kept at Wikipedia. If Magichan has further concerns, he/she should consider using the OTRS system to contact the foundation, or better yet, to work with other editors and use the talk page of the article to bring up concerns. All involved should continue to abide by WP:BLP and insure that all information in the article is given neutral treatment and is verifiably cited to reliable sources. 14:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that User:Magichan contact WP:OTRS to establish her identity. Given the circumstances surrounding the AfD, there is some doubt as to the real identity of User:Magichan. The AfD has already been closed as WP:SNOW keep, and the user that started the AfD has been indef blocked as agent provocateur. VG ☎ 15:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, User:Magichan should establish her identity first. AdjustShift (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's inaccurate. The AFD was closed according to the letter and spirit of policy; it had run over 5 days (actually, 5 days and slightly less than 1 hour) and so was eligible for a close. I weighed the opinions of all involved, and closed it based on the consensus discussion. There was no invoking of WP:SNOW in this case; in any case, given the sensitive nature of the subject, WP:SNOW would have been a bad idea... These kinds of discussions need to be carried out in order to give sensitive situations like this their due. 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What an interesting concept. If the real Magibon joined, proved her identity, then asked for a deletion, what would happen? FX (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Who knows?. VG ☎ 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Woah. I'm glad I'm not notable. FX (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the request was made by a troll impersonating her. See CU results. VG ☎ 14:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

request for restoring the page


you deleted the page Pushpendra Nath Pathak due to notability problem. Now this person has been announced BJP candidate for Madhya Pradesh legislative election 2008 from the Maharajpur Seat please use this reference for check the notability []. If you think this is enough please restore the page.[]. mentioned on SR#18 and seat no.48

Aminami (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the page in question is Pushpendra Nath Pathak. I would suggest listing at deletion review, although without knowing a great deal about the subject I am not sure that it would get restored - generally political candidates who have not been elected and have no other claim to notability are considered non-notable. If he gets elected, I expect that he would easily qualify, however. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC).

External links in opus and related articles

The Opus the penguin,Opus (comic strip), and Berkeley Breathed all have an inline external link to the humane society page with the final panel here. The general policy is not to use inline links but I think in this case it's needed for completeness and continuity of the text. Any comments? please reply on my own talk page where it will be copied to the articles' dicussion pages if nessecary.--Ipatrol (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If the links are relevent to the text of the article, then perhaps they could be included in <ref> tags; however WP:MOS and WP:EL are clear, external links should not be used as part of the main text of an article... They should only be used as references or as part of the EL section (if they qualify) and not merely as "pipe links" to external websites. 19:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Article copied to userpage

I was browsing through a category and saw User:Buzzindustries's userpage in where it shouldn't be, only to find out that he had simply copied Brad Pitt's article onto his page, categories and all. Just thought I'd let an admin know. -- Ozzel (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:UP#NOT. Tan | 39 05:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal details warning template?

I recently noticed that someone had started a topic (which was subsequently removed) on WP:VPR which included their personal details. I have a vague recollection of a similar post being replaced once with a templated message about not posting one's own personal details and a link to WP:RFO if the user wanted it, but I cannot seem to be able to find that template (I think it might have had a picture of headphones on it). Could someone point it out to me for future refrence and add it as a new section to the user's talk page? It Is Me Here (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning for such things would be {{Uw-pinfo}}. MBisanz talk 13:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, done. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Userfied page help request

A user recently created an article without any content at Dad and Dave, rather than adding an A3 tag to the article I moved it into their userspace in the hope that they would develop it and move the article back. I thought this had the potential to cause less drama than tagging the page for speedy deletion. Unfortunately I was mistaken, the article's creator is not pleased and from their comments would appear to very much like to have the page moved back into main space. Could somebody please delete the original location of the page at Dad and Dave (which was created as a redirect to the userfyed page) so that this will be possible. Guest9999 (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've tagged it as an A3 candidate. I guess given the circumstances a general discussion of my conduct might be wanted/required. Guest9999 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The only problem with what you've done, that I can see, is that you moved first, and asked questions later. It wasn't helped by a seemingly experienced editor creating a blank page in the mainspace, when they should, it could be argued, have known that it wouldn't have lasted long, instead of creating it in their userspace first and then moving it over. So it looked like you moved it whilst they were then fleshing it out...why their material was lost, I don't know - either the back button or an edit conflict warning should have been able to prevent that. GbT/c 14:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to comment on the rather irate nature of the user's replies to your post on their talk page, but you probably should not have done anything to an article that was five minutes old and had a {{construction}} tag on it. If it was a few hours old and hadn't had any edits for awhile, sure, but there was every reason to believe that the user was still working on and expanding the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC).

Image:Maria Isabel of Braganza.jpg


This image was poorly transferred to commons, without any source/author. The local duplicate has been deleted and i can’t access it. Would it be possible to restore it so that i can transfer the information correctly? Thanks in advance. EuTugamsg 14:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted. Tag {{db-i8}} when you've finished. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 14:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Another admin deleted it again before i got the info. Please restore it once more, i won't forget to tag it afterwards. Again, thanks in advance. EuTugamsg 17:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
All done. Thank you. EuTugamsg 18:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM and Date Autoformatting/Delinking and the process of policy change

WT:MOSNUM has become rather interesting of late for those that don't follow it. In the last few months, Tony and others have proposed that date autoformatting (DA) should be depreciated from WP, and have given a quite valid list of reasons to do so (the two primary ones, due to how DA is overloaded on wikilinking, is that it creates over-linkage in articles, and that non-registered users and those that have not set a date preference could potentially see a whole mix of styles). (I will state that I completely agree with said reasons - I'm not trying to fight against this change, only the process of how its being done). Though Tony and others have informed various Wikiprojects about this and have stripped wikilinked dates from FAs and the like, it wasn't until early October that the MOSNUM was actually changed to call DA "depreciated", which at that point brought in a few vocal people against that change, but their challenges to it seemed to be brushed off, pointing to a discussion that maybe up to 20 people were involved in and claiming to be consensus. Myself and others asked if there should be an RFC on this point, but that also seems to have been brushed off, with those behind it suggesting that all the date stripping they've done in the past on thousands of pages have only brought a couple of complaints. That may be true, and my gut tells me that there is a consensus for this, but the lack of demonstration of this is what keeps those disagreeing with DA coming back and asking for such demonstration. Of late, there are also issues of what dates should be linked and how (eg, the various day and year pages), and the fact that these actions and discussion have seemed spurred the MediaWiki devs into providing a DA approach that doesn't use wikilink, and suggesting that stripping dates completely may not be helpful (instead using a passthrough template for the time being to allow bots to convert to the new format when its ready).

Here's not the place to go into the issues of DA'ing or the like, but I do feel that there's a general cabal-like atmosphere brewing at MOSNUM that needs to be addressed. Over the last few day a {{disputed}} tag has been added and removed to the text of the DA being depreciated, forcing User:MBisanz to protect the page. This seems likely completely unacceptable behavior on a policy/MOS page, and the fact that any attempt to get a wider discussion is waved off concerns me. I know from trying to work a version of WP:FICT through that any change felt like it had to go through 20 committees and a general election to get in place, and that's just a guideline in progress. I don't know if more significant involvement to help settle issues at MOSNUM is needed here. --MASEM 15:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we get into it here, is there a centralised forum for discussion on this? WP:VPP/WT:MOSNUM? the skomorokh 16:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that wider discussion is required on this. I think date-linking is a good thing, and the methods used to ram the unlinking through were dubious at best. roux ] [x] 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion of the actual change in policy has been mostly confined to WT:MOSNUM. Again, I'm not talking about the policy change itself but the method that it has been done by. --MASEM 17:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Make an RFC, and people will discuss it. If you're having trouble keeping things cool, drop a line here for some help. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with continuous OR-pushing?

Resolved: Good advice, thanks guys. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm dealing with an editor who is systematically ignoring the no original research policy, insisting on the authority of unreliable online sources and constantly promoting his own personal views on an article. He's ignored all the advice he's been given by other editors, and a mediation has failed due to the mediator giving the case up as hopeless. There's no indication whatsoever that he's willing to abide by NOR or NPOV. The underlying problem is essentially one of POV-pushing through original research. Do I have any realistic options other than a user RfC or arbitration? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I object to those types of threads, you know the first thing we are going to do is look at your history and work out who the editor in question is. Can I suggest you do the decent think and tell that editor, that they are the subject of discussion at AN/I. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking anyone to do any detective work or intervene here; I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of the situation; I'm simply asking whether there are any options other than RfC or RfAr in this kind of situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
If mediation has failed, then it seems those are the only two options left. If he has ignored advice that's been given to him, I don't think an RfC would get a whole lot done, but it's worth a shot, as if nothing else it'll be one more thing to show ArbCom what you've tried to do. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean a user conduct RfC? Article RfCs are pretty hopeless, in my experience; they just tend to be ignored, particularly if the articles are in specialist subjects, as this one is. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the suggestion is for a user conduct RfC, which in my experience are no more effective than article RfCs. But the ArbCom usually claims that one should be done before requesting arbitration. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, that seems logical. (I suppose from ArbCom's point of view it's a matter of exhausting dispute resolution before going to them.) Thanks for the advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just go to ANI and ask for a block on the basis of disruptive editing? I know who you're talking about, and in my opinion a block would be a good thing. Looie496 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to give the impression that I'm trying to systematically knock out editors who disagree with me - I'm not. The dispute is a bit more complex than the recent issues with Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) which I recently raised on AN/I. The issues in this case have perhaps been less exposed to public discussion so far. I'm inclined to think that a user RfC would help to clarify the problematic behavioral issues concerned, and could provide a final opportunity for the editor in question to take account of feedback. He seems to be an enthusiastic contributor but seems to have no understanding at all of the prohibition on original research. Carrot first before stick? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Моя прекрасная няня

Why am I told that this page is one the blacklist? I was going to create a redirect to List_of_foreign_adaptations_of_The_Nanny#Russia. --eugrus (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It has non-standard characters used in page move vandalism in it. I can override that blacklist and have created the redirect for you. MBisanz talk 13:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! :) --eugrus (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, that title shouldn't be blocked. I've trimmed down the overbroad blacklist entry. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist candidate bios

Please watchlist the candidate biographies for Obama and McCain. The protection for both was recently downgraded to semi. There are MediaWiki editing notices on each warning that POV or unsourced edits or BLP vios may be met with a block without further warning. Zero tolerance is probably the only option in lieu of returning them to full protection. Let's not be forced to re-protect them if we can avoid it.--chaser - t 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I just rejected a RFPP request for both asking for either full-protection or replacing them as today's TFAs. As I've stated before, I'm uncomfortable touching political articles because I have strong opinions, so I'm going to echo Chaser's request for more eyes. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
John McCain is currently fully protected. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 08:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we use the same level of protection for both to be consistent? --Tone 08:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes: move and semi. Full protection on a main page article isn't exactly the ideal way of introducing people to the ways of the wiki or Wikipedia. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Neither is "X is teh gay lol"... Or maybe it is, nevermind. Everyme 09:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ur So Gay could be though, if there was a dedicated Katy Perry fan 718smiley.svg --NE2 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should not have one on full protect and the other on semi. I'll put McCain on semidougweller (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well? ... As of right now, Obama is still on semiprot, while McCain is still on fullprot. Btw, I'd still argue for fullprot in this very exceptional case. For once having two mainpage FAs fully protected vs. this kind of stuff, even if it lasts only a few seconds is a no-brainer. Please fully protect both articles. This is not an ordinary situation. Everyme 11:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have formally requested temporary full protection for Barack Obama. Again: Any admin declining to fully protect in the face of this reality is personally responsible for letting the inevitable happen. Everyme 11:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I really don't know what the fuck you're kidding about there, nor do I give a flying fuck. Everyme 13:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • He meant The_Sky_Is_Falling_(fable). VG ☎ 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Everyme, cut it out. It's bad enough that you've decided to run around left, right and center shouting "disclaimers" about how you're going to "hold all admins personally responsible" for failing to do your bidding without descending into invective simply because people raise an eyebrow at your somewhat dramatic approach. GbT/c 13:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as the admin who fully protected John McCain some hours ago, I am more than happy that, now there are more eyes on the articles, another administrator was bold enough to reduce the level of protection. I would like to remove the semi-protection on the talk pages of the two articles, as well, despite our earlier episodes of apparently organised vandalism, if there are sufficient people who will stand by to quickly RBI. They will likely need to be semi-protected again in about 8-10 hours, but it would be good to open things up a bit for at least a while. Is there support for this? Risker (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
We can try and see, but I fear the talk pages will be unusable to be honest. -- lucasbfr talk 14:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There you go: we tried.[43] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Since the Obama article is already up to over 500 hits a minute, (up from 440/min the previous hour), there may be little benefit. Incidentally, that link, to the most popular articles in the previous hour, gives some good ideas about what other pages to watch. Risker (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, are you suggesting full protection? -- lucasbfr talk 15:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul fully protected the article. -- lucasbfr talk 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
A reasonable choice to make. --Tone 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf, User reverted my comments from deletion discussion page, tagged me SPA innaporopriately, repeted history as vandal

Resolved: This is not the complaints department. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf put an irrelevant discussion up about how much he was derided for his perceived aggressive edits in this [] (sorry, don't know the right tags) discussion for deletion page. I responded that his complaints were not on topic and I responded by moving them to the discussion page of that discussion page. His response was to undo my edits and remove my comments and label me an SPA. I may not be highly involved in wikipedia but I am not an SPA, I have edited several articles on several subjects. I don't think this behavior is acceptable and I think that he should be warned or punished for it. Deleting someones on topic comments in a discussion is never acceptable. --Brendan White (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Additionally, you should avoid labelling editors as "vandals" (especially "repeted[sic] history as vandal") unless you have actual evidence of vandalism. We do not have the power to punish people and will not act on requests to punish people. Finally, if you are bringing someone here to complain about them, please inform them that you have done so. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, and sorry if I did it wrong,I responded on my talk page rather than his but he was told he would be reported. --Brendan White (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Brendan White has just been blocked for 3RR on this very case. Nothing to see here. --Damiens.rf 15:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That does not absolve you of post warring, you just caught him in misunderstanding the rules because he is a fairly new editor, You still deleted his post from the talk section, that or you filed a false claim against him, you pick which violation of policy you committed -- (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
IP blocked. -- lucasbfr talk 17:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Garry's Law

Resolved: Article deleted.

Hi. I tagged this for speedy deletion, but the tag has been removed once by the author, and once by an anonymous IP address (single use account). I've reverted the article twice, but don't want to fall into a 3RR, so could someone please review ? Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And another editor now seems to be running into the same problem on this article... CultureDrone (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, for future reference, should I be reporting this sort of thing at WP:AN3 instead of here - even though 3RR hasn't actually occurred yet ? CultureDrone (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say WP:AIV (I don't think 3RR would be applicable on a speedy notice, since the author is supposed to contest on the talk page, not remove the notice) :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Molehill, but I am disturbed nonetheless....

User was blocked for this. Commiseration comes from User 2 in the form of this. Personally, if that's the sort of thing that even the briefest and most sulfurous brain-fart of User 1 might emit, I would change "tomorrow" in User 2's sentence to "sometime after the heat death of the universe" and might--just might, mind you--descend into personal invective of the sort that managed to escape the internal clue-filter of the editor in question. (Yes, I am aware that this is beyond-trivial, but "oh, you can get unblocked tomorrow" is NOT, IMHO, the message these drive-by jackals should be getting. A pat on the head, if administered at all in these cases, should be given with a fair-sized housebrick.) Just leave it, or...? Gladys J Cortez 18:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Eerily enough, I saw the edit in Gladys' second diff, and went to the trouble of writing a comment on the vandal's talk page, and hit save, but Wikipedia freaked out at that moment, and I thought it was molehilly enough that I didn't bother to rewrite it. I've gone ahead and left a comment that any potential, hypothetical unblock-request reviewing admin will see. The editor leaving the "commiserating" comment appears, from their edit history, to be a good faith editor guided by an opinion on today's page protection who may not have considered the content of the edit very closely, and who A'd a little too much GF. I'd just leave it, myself. --barneca (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I also felt more or less obliged to comment because I think bad advice ought to be corrected whenever possible. Should the editor who made the remark be contacted? It probably isn't necessary. ETA: Congratulations, Gladys, on your restraint with the cluebat. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Justin(Gmail?)(u) 22:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I recently stumbled on a user by the name of AllmusicGuide (talk · contribs) editing the Thriller article. I can't think of the term, but I wanted to alert others of a possible account owned by a company. I've been having internet problems, so I might not be able to myself. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

One edit so far, minor changes to track timings to match the entries. Paradoxically, s/he hasn't changed them all to match. I'm prepared to not go for the jugular but will invite the user to edit under a different account name to avoid blocking as a role account. --Rodhullandemu 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I reported the user name to the user name notice board about 15 minutes ago (I didn't see this discussion). — Realist2 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Role account, that's what I was thinking of. Thanks for handling it, I'm still shaking the rust off from retirement. I'm marking as resolved. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 22:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ABCNews EH clarification needed

ABCNews EH (talk · contribs) I was discussing this on the admin irc channel, but I never really got a straightforward answer, while the discussion on UAA was removed, so I'll post it here for wider community input, since it doesn't really fall squarely under any one guideline/policy. I'm at a bit of a standstill in my interpretation of our conflicts of interest guideline, our spam guideline, and the username policy. My concern, as well as a few others', was primarily with ABCNews EH (talk · contribs), an editor for ABC News who registered an account and has been adding links in the form of references back to articles. On one hand, several editors have pointed out that this is a good thing; for, it helps source our articles, it's best to assume good faith and not bite, and it's not really advertising since ABC News is well-known.

However, on the other side of the issue, because is a for-profit corporation with ad-based revenue, it's in their best economic interest to drive hits to content by paying someone to add links to them here; moreover, had it been a podunk site adding backlinks to themselves, one might argue they would have been treated differently. Forbes had an article on this practice last year, pointing out in the section on Comedy Central that we're a significant click-magnet. The article also gave some tactics for sneaking links in, this being one of them.

Personally, I think that given the current state of our conflicts of interest and spam guidelines, the actions are promotional in nature. Had the person been adding sites other than, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. But, if it is indeed the case that the addition of links back to the editor's site is not independent of producing valuable content, I would also think that the username, in its current state, violates the username guideline, since it contains a company name and is being used to promote it. However, on the latter point, some editors have stated that it shouldn't be blocked, because they believe it's not harming anything and that it's okay to state one's affiliations in the username. Again, I'm not sure what the consensus is, if the policy's inaccurate, if it applies to this situation, or what.

I really don't care either way, and I'll completely defer to whatever consensus that there is/will be/has been. I really just would like to know for future reference so that I don't make mistakes by taking action where action shouldn't be taken (I've postponed taking any action in this case). That way, the appropriate changes can be made to the respective policies/guidelines to accurately reflect consensus and practice for other editors just as confused as I am. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 22:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My view is here. As an aside, a courtesy note would have been decent of you, slakr. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It is theoretically beneficial to Wikipedia to have a staff member at who is willing to work with us and perhaps even do mundane things like help us to clear photo permissions. (This editor added some external links on November 3 that appear promotional). Our anti-spam defences are very strong, and clearly they were triggered by this editor's recent contributions. This editor has talked to somebody at the Foundation office and the Foundation appears to have some sympathy for their participation here. (Perhaps without fully grasping that such a user name sends all the spam systems into red alert). I'd wait to see if this user edits some more and, ideally, responds to conciliatory comments left at User talk:ABCNews EH. When issues like this come up at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard the tendency is to ignore the spammy user name and try to figure out whether the person will join in discussions. This is not the practice everywhere in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This person clearly is being above board, is a professional, has apparently been in contact with the OFFICE, and isn't destroying the place, I say we work with this subject matter expert to try and improve the 'pedia. MBisanz talk 23:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
All the same it would be better for him to link to the sources ABC use, rather than his employer's take on them. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Roux and User:G2bambino

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Both parties notified of their editing restrictions. Tiptoety talk 03:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There are now two RFC's on these two editors, both filed by their respective other. (RFC on Roux filed by G2bambino, and RFC on G2bambino filed by Roux). They both ask for similar "sanctions" to be applied to the other editor. Both editors have previously agreed to 1RR restrictions and both editors have violated their 1RR restriction.

In light of this I propose the following sanctions to be applied to both of the editors. (evidence in support of the need for sanctions is already supplied by Roux and G2bambino respectively on their RFCs).

I ask that both the community G2bambino and Roux look at these restrictions and consider them as a possible course of action, noting that both editors requested similar restrictions on their RFC to be applied to their respective other.

  • The restrictions are to last for 6 months, enforced by escalating blocks which will also reset the six month limit.
  • 1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed.
  • Both editors when editing, are required to stick solely to guidelines and gain consensus for any unique interpretations of existing guidelines and/or implementation of new ones, again to be broadly construed.
  • Both editors when editing are required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator.
  • Both editors on article talk pages are required to stick solely to content.

I've created this here as with two RFC's filed by each other, I feel it is productive to have this discussion in a centralized location. —— nixeagle 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

On a minor note, the RfC for Roux isn't certified correctly. There's no evidence of trying and failing to solve the dispute before going to RfC - this would need to be done within 48 hours. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, yes it is. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This seems reasonable and productive though I would suggest point 3 be similarly restricted to monarchy-related articles. I hate to restrict their ability to be bold and IAR in articles where they have no interaction. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I like this idea. The RfC has turned once again into a battle ground between roux and G2b and as such it is clear something needs to be done. Tiptoety talk 19:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I would like the two RfC/Us to either be merged into one (an idea I supported from it's first proposal) or, failing that, go on as they are. I have been under generally the same restrictions as those outlined above, and (save for one slip up on 1RR a couple of weeks ago) am happy with the result, on my part. Roux, too, has been on the same restrictions; his edit warring has ceased, and the rude edit summaries have as well. However, his incivility, attacks, and tendentiousness persists on talk pages and elsewhere. I agree with Looie496's remark below about durations; but, if there is to be a difference between Roux and I in that regard, I would offer the suggestion that Roux's 1RR restriction expire earlier than mine, but those on etiquette continue for us both until whatever time is deemed appropriate, if any. --G2bambino (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh.. no, if you're going to make claims here you really should be truthful. You actually violated the 1RR on at least three occasions: here and here on Commonwealth realm on 2 October, and here and here at Coat of Arms of Canada on 1 October, and then here. Another editor makes a revision in between, and G2bambino revertshere. I reverted here then G2bambino reverts for the second time in violation of his restriction [44]. You also have absolutely no leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of tendentious behaviour. I've said I'll abide by these restrictions if the total time period is shortened; otherwise the implication is that my mistakes are on the same level as your three-year pattern of WP:DISRUPT. roux ] [x] 21:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The above claims of 1RR breach are flimsy at best. Further detail, if desired, is located here. --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
How beautifully formatted. Pity it's none of it true. roux ] [x] 22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - subject to my comments below, I had a thought. 6 months (which is what I proposed to G2, due to the length and breadth of his tendentious editing) is 1/5 of his tenure here. I'd agree to the above conditions if they were similarly proportional to my tenure here. 1/5 of six months (my first edit with an account was April 29, 2008) is six weeks. I'd be willing to round up to two months. roux ] [x] 20:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting a few quick things. I will be responding to the RfC/U in more detail:

  1. G2bambino essentially stated explicitly that this RfC/U was a threat, after I finally got sick of it here. (Just keep hitting 'next edit' for the rest of the diffs). This collection of 'evidence' had been sitting around in his sandbox since approximately 1/2 hour before he filed a MedCab relating to a dispute we were having. Hardly evidence of trying to resolve anything in good faith, particularly since he agreed to remove it (and did, here, only to put it back as soon as I opened the RFC/U on his behaviour. The mediator for that MedCab, Mayalld summed up his views on G2's behaviour during and after that case here.
  2. Almost everything posted by G2 is taken out of context, with selective quoting. I urge anyone reading it to actually look at the diffs and note the large differences between what was said and what was quote.
  3. His 'desired outcome' is practically a word-for-word copy of what I had requested of him; I had asked for six months based on the length of his tenure here and the equally-long pattern of WP:DISRUPT on articles: POV pushing, edit-warring, and then arguing in circles on talk pages until people give up. You might want to ask users like DoubleBlue and User:Jeff3000, both of whom have had to deal with his behaviour, and both of whom have given up at various times.
  4. I don't dispute that I've made mistakes. But there's a massive difference between a 3-year pattern of tendentious editing, and mistakes from a 6-month-old user which are almost solely in response to that tendentiousness. Imposing the same restrictions on both is overkill. roux ] [x] 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree that equal restrictions is not really the fair way to go. Is there any evidence that the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behavior from Roux extends outside of this particular set of articles with this particular editor? If not, he should not be faced with the same set of restrictions imposed on an editor who's history of disruption reaches across many articles over the span of many months or years. لennavecia 20:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the restrictions are really just things that good editors do automatically without being forced to, I don't see the point in nitpicking about durations. Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Jennavecia, please look at the RfC/U on Roux for the evidence of incivil behaviour on his part beyond simply the two of us. --G2bambino (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
yep, a couple of isolated incidents. roux ] [x] 20:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jennavecia. It'll be worsening the problem if you're going to impose new restrictions equally on a reasonably new editor, and a long-term problem editor who has an extensive history of tendentious editing, wikilawyering and/or avoiding sanctions. If this is the best the community can offer, then indeed, this is not the place. If problems are persisting, then go to ArbCom so that a more fair resolution is found on these issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Jennavecia and Ncmvocalist. After reviewing this, I don't see symmetry in the actions of G2bambino and Roux. I see G2bambino's extended and consistent history of inappropriate edits and semi-trolling. In Roux I see a newer editor who for the most part is neutral and adds well sourced contributions that I see improving over time, and feel that Wikipedia would suffer greatly if we were to lose them. Roux admits he's made mistakes and tries to learn from them, whereas G2bambino I see becoming defensive and, in the long span of his edits, not making an effort to seriously address the complaints leveled at him. In the discussions between the two, it seems that G2bambino provoking Roux rather than mutual hostility. The edit where this feud began, here, follows this pattern well. Another point I think is noteworthy is that G2bambino has been using the RfC against Roux as a threat - a practice I find contrary to the beliefs and spirit of Wikipedia. In summary, I cannot endorse that these two very different editors with seemingly very different motivations be treated in the same way. Before anyone else adds support, please look at more than G2bambino's edited quotes of Roux. Look at the longer span of Roux's edits, the expertise behind his contributions, and the neutrality with which he edits. I feel an injustice is being done here if we impose restrictions on him for G2bambino's claim, the potential of which has been a source of blackmail since this story began. - FlyingToaster 06:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - FlyingToaster said it all, really. You simply cannot treat a reasonably new editor in the same way as you would an experienced editor who is actively engaging in disruptive editing. I guess my problem here is that I feel that I am seeing improvement from Roux, especially in his admission of mistakes - but I can certainly not say the same for G2b. That RfC/U was and is particularly ridiculous, mostly because they admitted it to be a threat, and also because it seems they had it hanging around for a long time in their sandbox - not a good move in my books, because that certainly would feel like a threat if it were directed at me. You might want note to the series of misquotations, quotations out of context, and edited quotations that G2b is spreading all over the place. Upon first glance it can indeed appear that they are both equal parties in a game of chess. However, after some more digging it is obvious that this is not true. You simply cannot treat an editor with a clear and unquestionable history of disruptive editing the same as a new user, who in my mind, whilst not always necessarily doing the right thing, always trying to. Roux impassioned outcry seems more of a response to being provoked than any sort of lust for hostility, whereas I cannot make the same judgement for G2b. In summary, I strongly support the aforementioned restrictions applying to G2b, but I strong oppose the restrictions being applied to Roux. An injustice is being done here, and I'm pretty sure it is by G2b. neuro(talk) 07:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with sanctions as proposed, Roux is formerly PrinceOfCanada, both users are tendentious editors and seem unable to leave each other alone. If we can't agree on that then arbitration is the next step. G2bambino is following the classic path to self-destruction right now. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to admit I'm rather shocked by what I'm reading here. "Admitted to to be a threat"? "Impassioned outcry"? "Actively engaging in disruptive editing"? Where is this coming from? There was no admission of threats; the evidence "hung around" in my sandbox for a time because a) I was adding to, editing, and organising it into a report, and b) because I thought Roux's insults, flippancy and sarcasm might ease up, seeing as it was pretty regularly being brought to his attention, and by different users and even admins. It, however, did not, and his comments here, to a completely different user, were the final trigger for me to go ahead (as well as my being satisfied with the organisation and layout of the RfC/U). What I've done in the past is done and paid for, many times over. Keep the restrictions in place now, or don't, it doesn't matter; I offered my vote of support above, and, as was said earlier: "the restrictions are really just things that good editors do automatically without being forced to," anyway. But, I don't like the sense I'm getting from some of the commentary above that consistently speaking to people in derisive tones, making unfounded accusations, and literally and repeatedly telling them to shut up, grow up, and go away, all while adamantly denying any responsibility for conflict and crying foul about AGF and civility, is somehow the result of victimhood and is therefore excusable. --G2bambino (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"Admitted to to be a threat"
"Though I'm very close to going ahead with it, I can still be persuaded to change my mind," "Here's the offer: one more chance to show me it won't be necessary to file the RfC/U." -- These are both more-or-less veiled threats.
"Actively engaging in disruptive editing"? Where is this coming from?"
See: Talk:Commonwealth realm, Talk:Autumn Phillips, Talk:Prince Henry of Wales, Talk:Prince William of Wales, Talk:Monarchy of Canada, Talk:Royal Burial Ground, Talk:Canada, Talk:Governor-General of India, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Talk:Republicanism in Australia, Talk:Monarchy of Australia... shall I go on?
"because I thought Roux's insults, flippancy and sarcasm might ease up, seeing as it was pretty regularly being brought to his attention, and by different users and even admins."
Really? A couple of isolated incidents, mostly related to your disruptive behaviour, is 'regularly'? Honesty is a good thing, you know.
"his comments here"
Right.. I made a mistake, I admitted my mistake... and someone kept on harping on at me and castigating me for my opinion.
"were the final trigger for me to go ahead (as well as my being satisfied with the organisation and layout of the RfC/U)"
Yes, it's got beautiful plumage.
"What I've done in the past is done and paid for, many times over."
Really? That would be why there are how many blocks against you for doing the exact same thing? That would be why, whenever an argument comes up, you argue people in circles until they get worn down and give up? That would be why your behaviour hasn't changed one whit in three years?
"and, as was said earlier: "the restrictions are really just things that good editors do automatically without being forced to," anyway"
Well since you don't do any of those things without being forced to, and even when you are forced (e.g., your current 1RR restriction), you don't follow it (while, naturally, requiring others to abide by it)...
"consistently speaking to people in derisive tones"
Only to you, G2. Only to you. And only after you demonstrate for the nth time that AGF with you isn't required, as you consistently show that you're not acting in good faith. Unless refusing to provide sources is acting in good faith? Or refusing to abide by what you require of others? Or deliberately trying to force arguments away from content? Or any of the other endless wikilawyering that you engage in on a daily basis and have done for three years? These are the acts of someone working in good faith?
"making unfounded accusations"
It is endlessly fascinating to me that when I provide diffs of your behaviour, it's 'unfounded accusations', but what you say is to be taken as gospel.
"while adamantly denying any responsibility for conflict"
In fact, I've clearly said that I know I haven't acted perfectly, and someone else has pointed out "I feel that I am seeing improvement from Roux, especially in his admission of mistakes." Your projection of your failure to evaluate your behaviour honestly isn't my problem.
"crying foul about AGF and civility, is somehow the result of victimhood and is therefore excusable"
"disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behavior from Roux," -- that's coming from one of the people supporting me. Doesn't sound like they're trying to excuse it.
Bottom line, G2, is that I do recognise when my behaviour has been not up to the standards required here. The fact that you don't is no reason for your usual projection onto me (and other people) of your shortcomings. I have agreed to the restrictions--with a shorter time limit for me--in order to end this stupid BS. Do I think it's fair? Categorically not. I am doing what I did at Commonwealth realm with regards to 'personal union', namely giving in to a position I don't agree with just to end it. You can choose to go along with the proposed restrictions, or not. I choose to so that I can get back to productively contributing to this project. It's a pity that I'm terrified to go near the articles I love so much because I know how you will behave--how you are still behaving--on talk pages. It's a pity that I can't contribute where I have an intersection of both knowledge and interest because I know that I will just get sucked into endless circling semantic arguments until I give up. You win. You can go ahead and push your POV anywhere you like, as I am completely withdrawing from all articles related to royalty and monarchy. I give the hell up. I can't do it anymore. I can't be sucked into these ridiculous arguments. I can't be subjected to the scorn and derision you heap on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. I can no longer be bothered. I love WP, but you have soured it for me in such an enormous way that I'm reconsidering my involvement with the project, period. For now, I'm just going to withdraw from the articles you 'contribute' to, and let someone else deal with your tendentiousness, wikilawyering, and disruption.
Nevertheless, I will remain under the restrictions Nixeagle has proposed, until Christmas. There will be a note to that effect on my talk page, with users directed to Nixeagle if they feel I have breached it.
I am done with this ridiculous bullshit. I hope someone with more strength than I is able to teach you why your behaviour is so incredibly, incredibly antithetical to everything WP stands for. roux ] [x] 17:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Your rudeness was brought to your attention by no less than eight separate users, some more than once, giving you ample opportunity to improve your attitude; and those were only the ones who chose to speak to you about the matter. But, you did not. Presenting another opportunity to convince me that you could modify your approach is far from a threat, and it most certainly was not intended as one.
Yes, you certainly have admitted that you haven't acted perfectly. However, you always seemed to maintain a denial of your penchant for uncivil and toxic commentary, considering yourself to be predominantly in the right and painting yourself as a poor and hapless victim. Even above you resort to the same pattern, with still more of the snide and irritating sarcasm coexisting with attempts to pin the blame for your rudeness on others.
It is to be regretted that you feel doubt about participating in Wikipedia, but please don't believe that you haven't poisoned the atmosphere here for others, including me; so sensitive are you that every edit, every comment was like walking on egg shells, never knowing what would set you off. Whatever you choose to do here, I hope you will come to be able to control both your sensitivity and your temper; from my observation, it would go a long way to helping both yourself and the project. As for me, I make no excuses, nor blame anyone else for my transgressions, and for them, I apologise; I will continue to do what is necessary to further rectify my modus operandi. All the best, --G2bambino (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You really should consider going into writing sitcoms. roux ] [x] 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal modification

As roux has already agreed to voluntarily submit himself to these restrictions until christmas, and there is no word from G2bambino on his opinion I have a modifed proposal.

Most of the concern on the proposed restrictions is that it is not fair to have the same length restriction on both editors as G2bambino has been disrutipve over a longer period of time (This appears to be the general concensus I see here). So, let me propose that we place G2bambino under the same restrictions as proposed above, for 6 months, and place Roux under the same restrictions as proposed above for 2 months. Roux has already agreed to approxematly that time frame.

Thoughts? G2bambino, are you willing to do so voluntarily? You both have already agreed to the 1RR previously. The above additional restrctions are nothing that good editors don't do automatically.

Failing voluntary acceptance, what does the general community think? —— nixeagle 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nixeagle, I already offered my vote of support for the proposal above, and I have not changed my mind. I still think there should be a longer watch on Roux in terms of civility, but otherwise I am fine with the arrangements. --G2bambino (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
IMO, a 1-month wikibreak from those articles-in-question, would've done Roux & G2bambino a world of good. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it really wouldn't, because the issue is G2's behaviour, a pattern which has not changed since he began editing here. Either way, it's immaterial, as I am no longer editing those articles. The bully wins. roux ] [x] 18:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
In the real world, I'd be tickled pink over seeing 2 monarchists disagreeing. However, it pains me to see it here. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


1RR violation
G2bambino has also already started with the low-grade incivility and obstructionist practices previously documented here and here.
  • He has placed a tag asking for references on information that is well-referenced without noting why on the discussion board. He left a comment indicating that he "has an appointment to keep", yet posted no rationale for these tags in the ensuing 3 days. If someone is too busy to justify posting tags on a topic that he knows is controversial, then I suggest he forego it.
  • This evening, seeing no justification for them, I removed the tags, pointing out that the tagged statements are taken from quotes that are sourced at the end of the sentence. Once again, G2 added the tags, despite the statements in question being taken almost verbatim from the sources1:20, 1 November 2008. This time he did add a statement that these statements were not supported by the sources, but nothing to suggest alternatives. He complied with the request for minimal civility by posting a minimal statement stating that the sources did not appear to support the statement.
  • On Talk:Canada#Unsupported_claims_in_government_section, he now continues to refuse to cooperate with the other editors. The discussion speaks for itself. Hairsplitting about the interpretation of legitimate sources, refusing to answer clear questions, complying minimally instead of broadly with civility conventions, refusing to interpret Monarchy in Canada broadly, etc. The discussion seems to have now been reduced to the proper use of wikipedia tags as opposed to constructive ways of improving a simple sentence; this is the usual legalism and stalling, not a discussion of content.
This is chronic behaviour. 1RR violation, POV pushing on Monarchy in Canada (in this case, on a Feature Class article), refusal to engage in constructive discussions, legalistic interpretations of broad restrictions, refusal to limit the discussion to content, etc. It's clear G2 will not comply with the self-imposed restrictions and continue with the disputed behaviour whenever someone posts sourced opinions that he disagrees with.
I recommend the terms of the restictions be enforced. I think the speed of the violation, the expreience of the editor, and the repetitive nature of these violation be taken into account. Goodday suggested a 1-month block; sounds good. It would be good to follow that up with the usual restrictions.
Users who endorse this summary:
  1. --soulscanner (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Endorse My interactions with G2b on this wiki have been limited - in large degree, because one of my goals has been to avoid interactions with G2b on this wiki. From my subjective experience, the interaction is simple: acknowledge the supremacy of the British monarchy in all things Empire, or be prepared for endless discussion along the lines of "depends on what your definition of 'the' is" (did I get that Clinton quote right?) It just never stops - and it's just so much easier to walk away. Again, only from my subjective experience, the be-all and end-all is that all articles must reflect the fact that the Queen of England calls the shots in all circumstances. This may be true in some arcane sense, but it simply does not reflect current reality - which is what we're here to describe, right? And the arcane sources are readily to hand, whereas common reality is more difficult to describe because we all know the sky is blue, so who bothers to write it down? So we end up where "have long maintained" is tagged as {{dubious}}, when the history dates from 1926 or so. OK, 82 years is not really "long" - how does one counter that? I haven't really figured out what the word means, but "tendentious" springs to mind. It would be nice if this would stop, or at least abate. I could go on but, well, I tend to do that... :) And to the farther above, I would definitely support an asymmetric G2b - PoC/Roux set of restrictions. Franamax (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Franamax's summation of G2Bambino's editing and talk style. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It does appear to be a bit of wikilawyering; clearly the intent of the restrictions were to avoid warring over monarchy-related issues; whether that is the theme of the entire article or a simple word choice. Though I have some familiarity with G2bambino's Canada-related edits, I am not completely familiar with the user's previous mediations/blocks/RFCs but I would be surprised at an initial 1 month block. The proposal above was for escalating blocks for violations and I believe G2bambino has already been blocked for this violation for 24 hours and that I support. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I will point out that there were multiple violations here. However, the important thing is that we have time to build a consensus on the discussion in question without being sidetracked into legalistic discussions of Wiki procedures. --soulscanner (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else think that someone is banging their drum a litle loud? Gavin (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hold on there folks. I did not call for a 1-month block. I recommended that G2bambino & Roux take a 1-month Wikibreak from the Canadian monarchy related articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are a whole lot of things I could comment on, but all I will say is:
  1. I've already agreed to self-imposed restrictions until 1 Jan 2009. If the community feels that those need to change in any way, I will bow to consensus.
  2. G2bambino agreed to restrictions for six months, and broke two of them (1RR as noted above; civility in edit summaries, specifically "and/or assumptions of bad faith") in less than 24 hours. I leave it for the community to decide what, if anything, that shows.
  3. As far as I am concerned, this entire mess is over for me. I cannot waste any more time or energy dealing with G2bambino. His history is crystal clear, his behaviour has not changed since 2005, and I have to trust that the community will take whatever action it considers necessary.
  4. I don't want to be unfairly accused of CANVASS again. so perhaps someone else can ensure that all those who commented on both RfC/U are properly notified of this thread; I don't know if everyone kept the page on their watchlists or not, and may have not seen that this thread exists.

I don't think I will have anything further to say in this matter. - roux ] [x] 19:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Objective and Subjective information

For those editors who would like to assess the situation I provide the following table.

Metric G2bambino Roux
Experience 44.8 months 6.1 months
Block Log 13 blocks (Jun 2007 to Oct 2008) 4 blocks (Sep-Oct 2008 with G2bambino)
Agenda monarchist radical bias monarchist no detectable bias
RfC complainants 5 cerify, 7 endorse (=12) 2 cerifying dispute
Mediation no effect, unrepentant agreed to self-imposed restrictions

Roux is more than willing to make his discussions completely civil, but has been provoked and baited. Roux has already agreed to 2 months restrictions. In my view no restrictions are needed, but what more evidence of good faith do administrators want. We can use the logic of the Judgment of Solomon.

The evidence also shows G2bambino is very effective at getting wikipedia articles to endorse an extreme monarchist agenda, with stories from other users giving up and leaving unsupportable information in articles. There is no fairness is giving both the same restictions. In the final analysis, only G2bambino need be restricted. It should be at least proportional to the above metrics, especially that past mediation has not worked.

It should be a full block given the failure of mediation and the bias. A restriction from G2bambino editing in wikipedia would support the objective of the encyclopedia. It is not a punitive action as it does not hurt the person. Since Roux agreed to 2 months, G2bambino should be restricted 2mths x (13 / 4) = 6.5 months --Lawe (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend that both take a 1-month Wikibreak from the Canadian monarchy related articles. However, I'm just one voice in all of this, so their faiths are in your folks hands. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Both editors accepted

Noting that both editors have agreed with the above proposal, I'm going to restate the proposal here.

  • The restrictions are to last for 6 months for G2bambino and 2 months for roux, enforced by escalating blocks which will also reset the six month limit. The starting time of these restrictions will be as of this time stamp 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
  • 1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed.
  • Both editors when editing, are required to stick solely to guidelines and gain consensus for any unique interpretations of existing guidelines and/or implementation of new ones, again to be broadly construed.
  • Both editors when editing are required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator.
  • Both editors on article talk pages are required to stick solely to content.

All of these things here are things that good editors should do by default. I know I'm the one that started this proposal, but as both parties have agreed to the restrictions and the majority of community members posting here have agreed with the modified proposal) it is a fairly obvious close. Please direct comments below. —— nixeagle 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, I would like someone (unless there is objection) to close the RfC/U I opened on G2 immediately, and close the one he opened in 14 days. This ensures that both are open for the same amount of time, which I feel is fair, as it allows the community the same length of time to comment on each. roux ] [x] 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
ETA: please do not do this until G2bambino is off his block and has had a chance to comment. roux ] [x] 04:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Comment - I'd like to add one more condition to the list. It was originally expressed at Roux's RfC as:

  • "When engaged in conversation, is required to respond to direct questions"

That sounds like to much of a command. I would retain this restriction, but reword it:

  • "Must actively engage with editors on talk pages and edit justifications, to be interpreted broadly"

This would address the cited problem of a) evasiveness in justifying changes that alter meaning and tone of article passages substantially; and b) evasiveness in acknowledging requests to justify changes c) evasiveness in acknowledging and addressing cited sources that contradict the editors personal POV; d) using dispute tags before actively engaging in dialogue to resolve problem on discussion pages; e) legalism in interpreting restrictions on him and in Wikipedia guidelines. Here are a few recent examples related to the Canada page , just to be clear:

  1. Evasiveness in edit justification[45]
  2. Evasiveness on discussion page[46][47][48]
  3. Disruptive use of dispute tags: Canada page[49][50]; User page[51]

These are all behaviors that can probably be classified as low-level incivility. They are generally not problematic in isolation, but lead a toxic environment if done repeatedly or used as a strategy to push forward a personal POV in articles. It would be a good idea if G2 would avoid these behaviors, as they lead to the perception of bad faith whether it is intended or not, and may explain his adversarial relationship with several editors. I don't know about Roux; I haven't had many dealings with him, but they are certainly commonsense restrictions that should really apply to everyone. --soulscanner (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


  1. --soulscanner (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - soulscanner, I worded the desired outcome in that way in order to avoid G2's evasiveness. Putting him under that restrictions ensures that he will have to respond directly when, e.g., someone asks him to provide sources, rather than avoiding the question. roux ] [x] 02:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Soulscanner, if both parties will agree to that, that is fine, however I don't think that is as easy to interpret/enforce then what I've listed. I know think (and have not yet been told otherwise) from the discussion here that both parties have agreed to the original restrictions, with a minor dispute over length (which is resolved as far as I can tell). —— nixeagle 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Nixeagle... no, I do not agree with soulscanner's proposed change. roux ] [x] 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I figured that this is why it was omitted. However it's worded, I think evasiveness and obstructionist behavior is the issue. I'm making note of it here. --soulscanner (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason I omitted it in the original proposal was because it is vague and hard to figure out. I was afraid that it would generate more heat then light. (With both parties or outside parties saying that someone is being evasive... someone has to sort through the mess and see if the proposal would apply... way too much work). The guidelines in the original proposal were meant to be 1) things that good editors do anyway, and 2) (the important bit) fairly easy to tell if there has been a violation. —— nixeagle 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


It looks to me like this can be wrapped up... both parties have agreed to this proposal, and it's time, is it not? I suggest we mark this as closed and notify the parties and call it done. ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do. I also see no objections to archiving the RfC/U on G2. I obviously have no objections to the one on me being archived, but as I said above I think it should stay open for 14 days more in the interests of fairness. roux ] [x] 03:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18

I'd like to request a neutral, third party to close this.

Besides the fact that the current person attempting to close this commented in the discussion, they are, for some reason, suggesting that the comments presented which aren't in "straw poll format" should be discounted (and don't even note the opposes). I think that this directly flies in the face of consensus. - jc37 03:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remain neutral in your requests. Under the discussion which established the straw poll per Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Request for Comment; and which was later extended perWikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Instead of tossing out ideas.... The RFC only counts only supportive votes per discussion (link above): the opposes don't even make sense to be counted as a quantitative value, and for the rationale is that because these proposals are currently so dynamic in nature (several of them changed during the RFC) that many of the reasons for opposition can easily be corrected in the next phase of the proposal process. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
While I welcome clarification, that currently doesn't make sense, since the point/intent of the RfC was to eliminate all but 5 proposals in a sort of sudden death match. So attempting to determine consensus on each proposal (and the parts thereof) would quite seem appropriate.
(And incidentally, the AN is a place for expressing opinion, which I what I did, after noting my request.) - jc37 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm centralizing discussion at User talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure. There's more discussion to add context to this situation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Noting that another "involved" editor has reclosed the page. (The "more discussion" noted above is a comment by that editor.) - jc37 04:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I really would like to see other eyes on this. - jc37 04:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
And note that other editor is one of the proposed "final 5". And that editor has been changing the various proposal pages to reflect this closure. So while Wikipedia:There is no deadline, it's starting to look like a "fait accompli" to me.
And since this involves deciding on the format of the Main Page, I would think that actual consensus would be appropriate. - jc37 05:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not Canvass. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to read over WP:CANVAS. And also note that this is the admins' noticeboard, not a user's talk page. Noting my concerns is quite appropriate here. - jc37 05:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion ChyranandChloe linked above pretty much sums up the situation. The page stated from the beginning that participants should review the designs and place up to five supports. There were support, oppose and comments sections for each proposal. The set end time was for 12am on this day UTC. Jc opted not to participate in the given format, to instead place his broad comments in the "General comments" section at the bottom of the page. He was told that the "top five proposals from this stage will be combined and worked on, so it would be in your interests to Support the proposals with features you mentioned." Jc then stated that he would "allow whomever closes this to please take [his] comments here into consideration concerning the above." It is an unrealistic expectation that his comments be compared to all of the open designs to determine which five to place his support under. He should, as everyone else did, have placed his support under the designs he most liked. Regardless, as was noted in that section multiple times, these five designs will be the foundation for the final design (or two) that will go up against the main page in the final community poll. All comments from this poll he disputes will be taken into consideration in the final design. However, for the matter of determining the final five, it was clearly stated from the start that it would be the five with the greatest support. He did not dispute this until after it was over. لennavecia 06:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Note. Due to what I deem to be repeated statements and direct accusations of bad faith by User:Jennavecia (see the talk page discussion), I am choosing to avoid interaction with the user unless required for clarification. Good faith discussion with User:ChyranandChloe is ongoing.
And I still strongly request that a third party be the one to close the page, and not any of us who have commented on the page. - jc37 06:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I am declaring a freeze on discussion between myself, Jennavencia, and jc37 — until two neutral party users can improve the situation. We are beginning to recirculate our own reasoning. And if we cannot recognize each other's logic, then therefore the discussion will only transgress into a mess of quotations. In a way, this is for the benefit of the neutral user, which has to read two and a half pages of direct discussion, and several others for reference.
*for the sake of comic relief* Don't forget to remain neutral when you canvass. I won't be able to, because I live in the wrong time zone — see you tomorrow. Links are as stated above, discussion is centralized on User talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you realize, Jennavecia, that your argument basically boils down to "it was clearly stated from the beginning that we intended to violate Wikipedia's core principles"? Conducting a plurality vote and deeming its purely numerical outcome "consensus" (while ignoring constructive comments) is unacceptable. —David Levy 07:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say we were ignoring constructive comments? لennavecia 13:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You factored them into the "consensus"? You didn't merely tally the votes? —David Levy 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I and others already stated that it is practically impossible to do that. The comments were too broad, too vague to attempt to figure out which five designs to apply them to. If he wanted them to be in support of specific designs, he should have placed his support under those designs. His comments, and all others in that section, will be taken into consideration during the current phase of design. And as someone else pointed out on CandC's talk page, even had we attempted to figure out which designs to place his support under, the final outcome would not have changed. لennavecia 02:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You're missing my point. I'm not saying that the poll's responses were incorrectly assessed. I'm saying that the entire poll (and the objective on which it was based) was improper. Please see my other replies below. —David Levy 03:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Ya know, feel free (David or anyone) to attempt to go through the comments and accurately and fairly apply them to five designs. I don't think it's possible. All the comments will be taken into consideration during the next phase of design. But there is, as far as I can tell, literally no way to figure out which five designs any of the commenters in the general section would want their support applied to, or that any of them, other than Jc, even expected their comments to later be applied to any designs for the purpose of which ones would go on to the next phase. لennavecia 16:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that you asked people to vote for designs in their entirely (with the objective of eliminating designs in their entirety). I stated this before the poll began. —David Levy 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
First off, what possible constructive outcome are you trying to achieve by arguing against the principle of an RfC that has already been planned, held, and closed? I'm sorry to hear your concerns but it's far too late to argue against the methodology. Your point that votes "violate Wikipedia's core principles" cannot apply to this situation: a "purely numerical outcome"is perfectly applicable to a purely numerical decision - 25 proposals to 5. It's appropriate here. As User:Jennavecia noted re User:jc37's comments, it would be unfeasible and subjective to apply generic remarks to all the proposals. PretzelsTalk! 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't believe that this poll can lead to any constructive outcome, and I stated that before it began (so I don't know why you're acting as though I waited until now to weigh in).
Yes, counting votes to arrive at "a purely numerical outcome" is a means of making "a purely numerical decision." Among other things, I'm criticising the strategy of seeking a "a purely numerical decision" in the first place. —David Levy 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The poll is over. Your discussion was voiced before the watchlist-notification, and you have made no attempt in the main discussion. Furthermore, the consensus wasn't in the numerical outcome, the consensus was in what we were to do with the numerical outcome. The rationale, as you have probably heard, is that since so much decision rests upon personal preference it has proven impractical to discuss over twenty proposals. Therefore we decided to measure this aspect though a RFC/Straw Poll with supportive voting. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The poll is over.
Indeed, it is. What's your point?
Your discussion was voiced before the watchlist-notification, and you have made no attempt in the main discussion.
What main discussion?
Furthermore, the consensus wasn't in the numerical outcome, the consensus was in what we were to do with the numerical outcome.
On the project's talk page, Jennavecia referred to the numerical vote count as "consensus." But I'm not interested in debating semantics.
The rationale, as you have probably heard, is that since so much decision rests upon personal preference it has proven impractical to discuss over twenty proposals.
And this is one of many reasons why a "competition" was a very bad idea (as several of us warned at the very beginning, citing lessons learned during the last main page redesign). I believe that you and I are in agreement there, but we disagree on how to resolve the issue.
Assuming that it's possible to salvage this debacle (of which I'm far from certain), my opinion is that the best solution would have been to initiate a discussion in which the designs' individual elements were evaluated, leading to the creation of one consensus-based candidate. It even would have been okay to collaboratively remove some of the designs from display ahead of time, provided that all of the key elements were represented.
Instead, the "competition" continued; people were asked to vote for an arbitrary number of designs in their entirety (with the goal of eliminating an arbitrary number of designs in their entirety). So if someone loved one element of a design but hated another, too bad. He/she had to vote for all or nothing as a package deal. Such methodology is highly flawed, as is the idea of counting people's votes (instead of analyzing the reasons behind them).
Therefore we decided to measure this aspect though a RFC/Straw Poll with supportive voting.
A request for comment's outcome cannot be purely numerical, and a straw poll's outcome cannot be binding. I realize that this poll was conducted with the best of intentions, but it was procedurally improper and largely unhelpful. —David Levy 02:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with David Levy. (Though, in the interests of transparency - which has been lacking throughout this process - I not happy with the winning designs, in my own, subjective opinion.) I think this poll has focused too much on campaigning and self-promotion than it has on seeing eye to eye and discussing various aspects of design on their merits. I would have set this up as different sections dedicated to different issues, listing pros and cons of each, and inviting the community at large to opine (and add more pros, cons, and topics). I would have held a moratorium on actual page design until we knew what we wanted, what we didn't want, and what we knew we were unsure of. Instead, some users barged into the process with a pitiful amount of pre-planning and a minimum of openness. (It's possible that they announced the redesign in July, when I was on WikiBreak, but transparency should be continuous.) Some users - names should be obvious from comments above - have tried to retroactively justify this mess, which is both un-wiki-spirited and has resulted in unfairly chosen designs and strong community disapproval. (Transparency does three things: 1, it ensures equality and fairness, the wiki-way; 2, it brings in new ideas, and it's easier to discard bad ideas than create good ones; and 3, the more people involved, the more votes the new design will get in the inevitable faceoff with the current MP.) I think the designs need to be scrapped, or at least put on hold, until such time that we can discusses and form a consensus on what needs to be done before we do it; attributes of the page rather than entire designs.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
We've tried to be as transparent as possible, but at every turn, in attempting to draw attention, we're told no. The process, which we realized long ago is jacked, has been criticized, but no real guidance of where to take it, and now it's a little late. When I submitted my design, I was not aware of how the whole thing started or where it was going, though I was surprised to see it moving so slow and with so little community input. As far as the idea of deciding what the best features are from each and then working on one design collaboratively to put up against the main page, that's exactly what we're doing now.
So basically, what it boils down to, is a whole lot of IDONTLIKEIT shooting us down at every turn in an attempt to get more comments from the wider community. Repeated notices at the CP apparently went unnoticed. A watchlist notification was shot down by David. Neutral talk page messages were called canvassing and MZMcBride threatened to block. It's dozens of designers trying to get the process to move, but it's just halted. That's how it's been for weeks. And now this big stink is taking place because jc didn't feel like putting his support where he wanted it.
The poll was a vote on potential. Which design has the overall layout you like? Comments on features, like portal lists, icons, introductions, duel featured articles, etc, which can be added and removed from any design, will be used to determine the final design features. So this poll was a matter of determining which designs showed the most potential and had the most popular overall look. And from there, we work with those five most popular designs and take all comments into consideration to determine what are the most popular features to work into one or two designs, as a group, to take to the final community discussion against the main page. The poll told us which were the most popular layouts and gave a great deal of comments on what people like and don't like. If you look at the comments, there are supports that say "I like this, but I don't like that, and this other things would look better if it was this way." And opposes that say "I like the thing there, but I don't like this thing over there, or that thing at the bottom." Valuable input that will hopefully lead to a design that will blow the community away.
That said, what exactly would any or all of you like to see as far as where this process goes now? لennavecia 03:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
We've tried to be as transparent as possible, but at every turn, in attempting to draw attention, we're told no.
Nonsense. The lack of participation is due entirely to the proposal's poor implementation; people feel as though they'd be wasting their time. And now we're asked to prop up this mess because otherwise...people will have wasted their time.
The process, which we realized long ago is jacked, has been criticized, but no real guidance of where to take it, and now it's a little late.
Several of us realized that the process was broken before it even began, and we offered advice (much of it based upon lessons learned during the last redesign) back then. We were ignored. When the watchlist notice was proposed (before the polling began), I offered advice on how best to dig out from under the rubble. Once again, I was ignored. Now you're claiming that "no real guidance" has been provided?
When I submitted my design, I was not aware of how the whole thing started or where it was going, though I was surprised to see it moving so slow and with so little community input.
Meanwhile, some of us weren't the least bit surprised.
As far as the idea of deciding what the best features are from each and then working on one design collaboratively to put up against the main page, that's exactly what we're doing now.
No, it isn't. You just eliminated most of the designs in their entirety, and now you're "opening" editing (which purportedly was barred) on the remaining five. Various elements might be modified/reintroduced, but you're working from base designs selected via a highly flawed process (and still not unifying them).
So basically, what it boils down to, is a whole lot of IDONTLIKEIT shooting us down at every turn in an attempt to get more comments from the wider community.
The last main page redesign drew an ENORMOUS amount of feedback with less exposure. Pointing out that Wikipedia's core principles are being set aside in favor of ill-conceived plurality voting isn't an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which applies to deletion arguments, incidentally); it's a citation of WP:NOT and WP:POLLS.
Repeated notices at the CP apparently went unnoticed.
No, they didn't. People examined the proposal, found it to be in a state of disarray, and left.
A watchlist notification was shot down by David.
I possess no such authority. I opposed the notice, and you failed to achieve consensus for its inclusion (and I've explained why). But again, the last main page redesign succeeded without such a notification. (Only the final discussion was advertised via the watchlist.) And this proposal already has received a watchlist notice (which primarily served to fuel the chaos).
It's dozens of designers trying to get the process to move, but it's just halted.
Because it's broken.
And now this big stink is taking place because jc didn't feel like putting his support where he wanted it.
No. This "stink" is taking place because you conducted a poll that necessitated such responses. Who knows how many users declined to participate in the poll because of its counterproductive (and downright un-wiki) format? I certainly did, and I was one of the most active participants in the last main page redesign.
People aren't holding you back; you're driving us away (albeit unintentionally).
If you look at the comments, there are supports that say "I like this, but I don't like that, and this other things would look better if it was this way." And opposes that say "I like the thing there, but I don't like this thing over there, or that thing at the bottom."
...none of which played any role in the outcome. But again, I'm not saying that it should have; I'm saying that the entire poll was improper. Without the artificial constraints, we could have received infinitely more useful input to carry to the next round. Instead, we have scattered comments made by users willing to take part in a winners-take-all plurality vote.
That said, what exactly would any or all of you like to see as far as where this process goes now?
I've continually answered that question, and I've continually been ignored. So have many others. —David Levy 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll try explaining this another way. Your average WP user cares about the Main Page. It's the door to their contributions, their project. However, they are not user interaction specialists or graphic designers. Holding the poll this way gave them something visual to gauge, which I think made responding a whole lot easier. It also lets users actually see what a feature would look like, instead of everyone imagining it differently and then being disappointed. I understand this kind of logic doesn't usually apply, but for a design change it makes sense.
If the poll was flat-out to decide the next main page, I agree, it would be inappropriate. The point is that now, we can look at the reasons given for supporting each proposal, and see what is popular and what works. From that, we can build something far better than all of the existing work that will be a feasible update. PretzelsTalk! 03:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone has objected to the idea of allowing users to see the various submissions and comment on them. The problem is that they were asked to cast votes for designs in their entirety (with the objective of eliminating designs in their entirety). People who liked and disliked various elements of a particular design were forced to either support or oppose all of them, and this discouraged both overall participation and the particular type of feedback needed most (comments on specific elements). —David Levy 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with the statement that it hasn't been transparent. There was a watchlist notice for quite a while back when designs were being accepted. Everything took place on-wiki. We don't require massive advertising for the inner workings of other projects or processes. Nothing that has happened in the proposal to date is meant to have any direct impact on anything outside the proposal. I would ask people who want everything to get tons of people involved to stop kidding themselves. When tons of people get involved, the chances of something productive happening goes way down. "Involve tons of people" was the strategy initially. It ended up with tons and tons of talk page discussion that will probably never be read again, and it ended up with a crapload of designs, which made evaluating and comparing them all the more difficult. The whole project however, has been mismanaged from the get-go. It started without any clear plan and any suggestion for a plan or guidelines was either rejected or ignored. For a while it seemed like the plan was to just accept designs until people stopped submitting them. Now, I have no idea what the plan is. Last I saw, the 5 designs chosen after the RFC were going to be tweaked, then all 5 used in the final vote. Now I see that's not the case. The previous comments I read were incorrect, the plan changed, or people are just making it up as they go. I currently suspect its the last one. Mr.Z-man 03:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in debating semantics just as much as you are, David; however you the primary opposition before the Watchlist notification at the time, and therefore are entrust you with "striking it down." Jennavencia misspoken when she stated the count referred to the consensus. I wrote the RFC/Straw Poll and therefore I believe I hold the authoritative voice over how it is defined. RFC is a misnomer, I chose and promoted it because Wikipedia:Straw polls failed to pass. The consensus was never in the numerical value, it was in how we were to use it. The main discussion I am referring to is the root proposal page WP:MPRP. You never voiced your opposition there, where it was being proposed; and I believe it's too late now. The RFC/Straw Poll is over as of two days ago. So my question to you is: what you want to do? Now you can take apart each of our statements and we can discuss each point of disagreement; and become ourselves disagreeable. Or I would like to hear your plan of action. Other than that, I see little purpose in discussion with you when I believe your primary interest is nonconstructive criticism. I advocate HereToHelp's plan to discuss our goals, link here. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
First: I hold no grudges against anyone, nor accuse anyone of bad-faith, and if anyone feels that I have acted in such a way, I sincerely apologize. I do not advocate discarding any proposals (anymore - I might have said so in the past but I am now clarifying/updating my position) but rather putting any design work on hold for a few weeks while tensions settle (already in progress) and we decide what we want out of the new design; the "Goals" proposal. The final five were selected in a fundamentally flawed fashion (yay for alliteration!) but do contain useful design ideas. I also agree with Pretzels' comment above: "[Your average WP users] are not user interaction specialists or graphic designers. Holding the poll this way gave them something visual to gauge, which I think made responding a whole lot easier. It also lets users actually see what a feature would look like, instead of everyone imagining it differently and then being disappointed." The caveat, though, is that so many things had changed it was impossible to sort them out. Such, once we get a little further on, we can "prototype" ideas by taking the current MP and changing only one thing at a time. But first, let's put the past behind us plan. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Now that I've had some time away, I've re-read everything, and the thing that really bothers me here is the complete lack of good faith for my concerns.

I've now been accused several times of essentially not liking an outcome, and so, complaining after-the-fact. I've been accused of being only concerned that my suggestions were not taken under consideration. I've repeatedly been accused of bad faith. (Among several other things. For example, to my utter surprise, I was actually accused of canvassing for posting here at WP:AN.)

All this because I went to someone's talk page to ask them to clarify a closure (since it only was listing "votes", and only "support" ones at that), at which point I noticed that the closer had participated in the discussion. And after initial interaction with them, in which they avoided several times my question of their valid reason to close the discussion even though they commented (as, unknown to me, an WP:IAR rationale may have applicable), and only at that point, I reverted the closure. They responded, and reverted me with an edit summary "resolved". It indeed was not resolved, and so I reverted a second time.

At this point someone who is so involved that they have a proposal up for discussion decided that my reversion was "ridiculous" and re-closed, and proceeded to "push forward", and modify all related proposal pages as well, in an apparent attempt at "Fait accompli" (which I note that arbcom has denounced several times).

At this point, I did not continue reverting (though perhaps it may have been appropriate per the current guidelines on closing discussions according to WP:CON). Instead I attempting to continue to "discuss", facing continued accusations, bad faith, and just, in my opinion, a real lack of understanding what consensus is.

As my concerns continued, I posted a notice here, in the hopes that a.) someone neutral might close the discussion), b.) just more eyes on this, because it really seems to me to be a problematic situation, especially in regards to the lack of understanding of what consensus is, in particular by User:Jennavecia, and c.) To express at least an abbreviated form of those concerns here. Note that I didn't incially post to AN/I, since my main goal was more eyes and WP:3PO, not WP:DR. Though eventually it became clear that such a post perhaps would be appropriate, so I posted a notice at AN/I to look here.

If nothing else is resolved from this, I would like the following to be re-affirmed and made rather clear. (As I believe has been recently stated in a recently closed Arbcom case.)

No one should ever be attacked for requesting clarification.

Look, I understand the difficulty in trying to get people together to decide on something as important as the "face" of Wikipedia: the main page. At times, it can be like trying to swallow a piano whole.

But that's all the more reason to do this correctly. Because it's going to be just as difficult to "undo" or to "re-do".

How do we do that on Wikipedia? By consensual discussion. Can a framework be set up to help guide the discussion to keep it at least somewhat focused and on track? Sure. Can tools like "a competition" be used in order to help promote contribution? Sure. But the determinations of such should still all be based upon Wikipedia's policy of consensus.

That's my concern.

Incidentally, I suppose I should note that one of the 5 that they chose in their closures did have much of what I was preferring stylistically. And I believe I noted rather clearly at the time of my comments (not only just after the improper closure), that my comments were made with the belief that consensus would be the process used in closing. So trying to paint a picture of "sour grapes" on me simply doesn't hold up to the evidence. Though I believe evidence of bad faith by others, which has been directed at me, easily holds up.

I hope this clarifies. - jc37 05:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This clarifies a lot, I believe. The closure referrers only to the Straw Poll. My primary concern was that: we posted note at the top of the Straw poll telling you when it was going to be closed, we had several threads discussing how we were going to run the Straw Poll, and when you revered the closure: it flew against every notice and compromise we set forth. Myself and Jennavencia assumed ignorance and bad faith, because your actions disregarded such a basic principal as a notice that we've posted at the top of the page. Of course one reason for this transgression is that we've expanded the issue far above this basic principal. And as David, HereToHelp, Pretzels, Jennavencia, and myself has expressed — I believe now we are questioning the legitimacy and fundamentals of the entire operation.
From my understanding David and myself agree that the proposal has fundamental flaws, we have an agreement that our interests now is to reduce competition mentality, and I believe we may have an agreement that we aren't going reopen the Straw Poll. However, we disagree on how to proceed with the proposal. One of the most confusing aspects is that I do not know what David wants to do. The Straw poll is over, and therefore criticizing really has no purpose other than to promote disagreement. I am currently advocating HereToHelp's plan of going over our goals (link here), however I believe that "discarding" the proposals is a poor choice. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
And to me, you're (plural) disregarding "such a basic principal" as consensus. And perhaps I read the notice too quickly (I haven't gone back to read it since), but one can have 5 finallists, and still have that determined by consensus rather than "votes".
Anyway, as it stands right now, if deemed "closed", then the "straw poll" should not be considered "binding", since there are enough concerns to fairly declare it "rejected" or at least "no consensus" to support. It seems now that you're suggesting that all comments will be taken into consideration for the 'next step", correct? And if so, then no whole proposal should be considered disqualified, nor any single proposal to be qualified.
As has been suggested, I think that more discussion at this point is likely a good thing. - jc37 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You have yet to explain how you expected it to be done, Jc. How did/do you expect your comments to be applied to the designs in the format of the strawpoll? You named one design, but stated you liked that aspect of all designs, which, if I understand correctly what you were referring to with "four box design", would have also applied support to my design. Then you stated you liked one aspect but didn't like it, so there's not much we could have done with that. So, as I have requested several times before, what did you expect to be taken from your comments? Which designs did you want your comments applied to, and why could you not just add that support yourself, as everyone else did? لennavecia 07:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
That than presume based on recent past experience, let me give good faith another chance...
Is this a good faith request to explain how one can look at the substantive content of commenters' comments and discern consensus thereby? - jc37 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I am in full agreement that this proposal is against a number of principals. However I am against discarding the results. If you have an alternative plan, which details more than just discarding these results, I am very intent on hearing it. Otherwise there appears to be little purpose in an ongoing discussion with you other than to prove either one of us wrong, which I believe promotes further transgression and disagreement. We have a ongoing discussion in Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal discussing this point on procedure, and I believe you may have interests in joining. My interest, of course, is getting this proposal going; not upholding principals which I haven't been able to reasonably apply. Right now I am asking you to get off your moral highroad. There is a world that does cater well to consensus: from which the decreed action is undeniably accepted and justifiable. There has been a compromise prequel to your arrival, and I apologize that you have not been allowed to develop it. In shot, I am asking you to leave your bitterness behind and look at what needs to be done rather than should have. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
"Moral high ground" - Hm, probably guilty as charged. "Bitterness" - not so much.
"not upholding principals which I haven't been able to reasonably apply." - I'm sorry to hear that you havenn't. And on that front (at least) I'd be happy to help with how consensus can indeed be applied.
"There is a world that does cater well to consensus: from which the decreed action is undeniably accepted and justifiable." - Yes there is, and that world is Wikipedia. Except in cases where we are deciding on whether to grant individuals more responsibilities (such as RfA or arbcom elections), all determinations on Wikipedia are done through the consensus model. This isn't something to wave away because someone decides it's "too difficult". If you or I cannot see a way to determine consensus in a situation, then we should wait for someone else to. It's how this works. And if there is a time or deadline in place for the closure, then that's a "backlog", and one can either place Template:backlog on the page, or else post to WP:AN, in order to request that "someone" close the discussion. If it's felt that a discussion is "too big" to determine that way, then it's merely a situation of breaking the discussion down into parts, determining consensus of each of the parts as a part of the whole.
Honestly, I am concerned that neither of you seem to understand how distinct a problem your suggestion to ignore the consensus model is. I honestly hope that this lack of agreement with a fundamental Wikimedia Foundation issue doesn't spill over into any other determinations you (plural) might make, such as closing other discussions. Jennavecia seemed to rather clearly indicate thast she feels that "votes" is the way to close any discussion. That, sincerely, greatly concerns me. - jc37 06:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I uphold Wikipedia's model, and have no intentions of spreading this incident else where. If you were there when we established the RFC/Staw Poll, perhaps you could have provided something better, I'm not sure. For one thing, we didn't come up with it overnight. Of the hurdles, one I'm surprise you haven't thrown was WP:NOT#DEM — it was one big thing we had to take care of. We have our rationale for the purpose of the RFC/Straw Poll, and have not strayed from it. Bitterness is subjective, thanks to HereToHelp we're kind of throwing it around to establish something better than disagreement. Thanks for joinng the discussion link above, we'll continue if you wish there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

N00b got pwned, and admin covered it up

See log summary. Didn't y'all learn from the last time this happened? Apparently not. Well, maybe yes. (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll copy it to incidents as I'm curious but you'd get more respect if you wrote a little more maturely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, there's a number of deleted edits by that user which match that of two other users. Not the best summary but I can live with it. It's not the same as the other incident. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the terseness. Basically "Go eat dinner, Jeremy" is an impolite log summary, especially given the possibility, however small, that the user might be someone other than Jeremy. (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a consistent pattern with a long-time vandal. It's not likely at all to be anyone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)