Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive164

Scjessey harassment

I have asked user:Scjessey to not post to my talk page several times [1], [2], [3], and to keep relevant discussions on the article's talk pages. The last time I warned him that I would report him for harrasment if he did it again. Evidently he did not care, as he posted again [4]. CENSEI (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for you and Scjessey to leave each other alone, I'd say. That's my first read, but I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires collaboration. Telling people to stay off your talk page is almost never a reasonable thing to do. Also, blanking a section with an edit summary of "removing trolling" is hardly a polite way to ask someone to not leave messages. How about just ignoring it and you two leave each other alone? Or is there something else you're hoping gets done here? Friday (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I understand Friday's point in principle, I have to say that (a) Scjesey's last 3 posts to CENSEI's talk page could be reasonably considered "baiting"; (b) saying someone is "trolling" your talk page is pretty much guaranteed not to improve a situation, and (c) I've asked people who were obviously only interested in pestering me to stay off my talk page before I've even blocked one who didn't listen, but don't tell anyone, as I'm pretty sure that broke a rule. Disengaging is a reasonable step in a heated dispute. I'll echo the "ignore it and leave each other alone" sentiment, with the added note that if someone is obviously posting to another's talk page to goad them, some here might consider that disruptive and act accordingly. --barneca (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey should have left me alone when I asked him to, not continue to harass and poke me. In a nutshell

Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.

. I will be more than happy to leave him to his thing if he would leave me to mine for the time being. CENSEI (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to thank Friday for informing me of this discussion. Secondly, I would like to say that this concerns a content dispute that involved CENSEI deleting text from the Dana Milbank BLP and then edit warring over it. My first message on CENSEI's talk page pointed out the problem with the first edit, and the response was edit warring and name calling. I dismissed the edit summary-based "threat" and posted again because of CENSEI's incivility. I won't waste any more of my time with this individual, but I recommend that he/she be "educated" about how to behave in a civil fashion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, this is not the place to talk about the edits to Dana Milbank, this is where we discuss why you continued to harass me on my talk page after I asked you 3 seperate times not to. The edits you made on Dana Milbank were grossly NPOV, and I was not the only user who agreed with that assessment. I would suggest you read up on civility, harassment and NPOV. CENSEI (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Leave each other alone" means "Leave each other alone". Starting..... now. --barneca (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will throw in a special door prize for whichever editor allows the other to have The Last Word. Go back to making edits that are "grossly NPOV". MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we want "grossly NPOV" edits. --NE2 22:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AN page proposal

(Well we've been here before with nothing beyond discussion, but let's try again : )

What would you (plural) think about us turning WP:AN (the main page) into a (protected?) nav page, which would list all the subpages (as sort of a directory, or index, or table of contents)? It would make things easier for everyone, and I think that we'd be more likely to see the subpages more correctly ustilised.

I think that this would help with every page/subpage of AN. Better to have the main page as a directory to point everyone in the right direction, than for this page to be (as it often is) the one-stop shop.

To clarify: This page (and its history) would be moved to a sub-page. (Consensual discussion can come up with a name.) And then this page would become the navpage/directory for all the subpages.

Thoughts/concerns welcome. - jc37 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am no admin, but it sounds like a long-overdue move to me. Brilliantine (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually have another similar proposal for how we could work things better. We could have a number of different AN subpages, each dealing with different editorial problems. We could have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Editors, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Admin problems (to be used when people have concerns about admin behaviour), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Meta requests and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Miscellaneous requests. This would have a few advantages, with admins able to concentrate on the areas that they have expertise in. It would also significantly reduce the size that each pages gets to. WP:AN could be an index of each of these subpages, and AN/I would no longer need to be used, or replaced with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Urgent admin intervention. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(I also have a proposal for AN/I on the talk page.)

But regardless of how we (re-)purpose the subpages, I still think we need a directory as the most likely "first stop" (here). (As you seem to agree: "WP:AN could be an index of each of these subpages...") So, at least for now, to keep this discussion sane, let's just focus on discussing this page being repuposed as a directory. A ReOrg to the subpages is a different discussion altogether. - jc37 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we couldn't do away with AN altogether without additional boards - there would be too much pressure on the current boards if we did that, so I think it would be good to discuss options for complete reform. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought ANI should be known as 'User Conduct' and this one, as a subpage, could be simply 'General'. I would strenuously oppose there being an AN/Content board - for me, that would be an example of exactly what wikipedia shouldn't be about. Brilliantine (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we get content issues brought up here all the time such as BLP concerns, off wiki legal concerns, image copyright concerns - a central place to discuss these would be good. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already a BLP board. The thought of yet another place begging for content disputes to be inappropriately shopped around to gives me the heebie-jeebies: keep them in talk space or as an RFC if they cover a wide range of topics, says I. Copyright etc fair enough... Brilliantine (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a masterlist of noticeboards somewhere (not just admin ones), but I see that Wikipedia:Noticeboard is a redirect to something I've never heard of. I suppose Category:Wikipedia noticeboards is the closest we have. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it's a great concept! This board is difficult to navigate at times due to long issues. Warning, though, that if we make a Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Misc, that's the board that will get all the traffic. Nobody wants to read instructions, it seems, and if they're angry, they're even less likely to bother. KrakatoaKatie 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I say this every time someone suggests drastically changing how AN works - Why does it need changing? Is it broken at the moment? Not convinced ... I think the current set up works fine, particularly as it's less busy now then it was a year ago (as with Wikipedia in general). Neıl ☄ 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, size was one of the issues we were discussing some months ago, but there are plenty of other issues for change. I'd support almost any proposal, so long as it cleans all of the noticeboards up (and there is reason to do so). Would anyone like to provide a comprehensive list of discrepancies that might be fixed with x amount of change? Synergy 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I support turning AN into a navboard, but I think there would need to be somewhere to post the kind of miscellaneous notices that AN is needed for. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd find it much more useful to extract all threads into subpages, one per topic, similar to the AfD logs.
  I have only been active here a couple of times, but found it very hard to follow my topic due to the noise, i.e. high number of other edits to this page. If every topic is in its own subpage I can watchlist it, and look at every diff if the discussion gets too confusing to just see at a glance which comments are new.
  There's a possibility of name clashes when creating a new topic page, but if they are prefixed with the date (e.g. WP:AN/2008 August 13/AN page proposal) that should be acceptable.
  The sub topics could then be classified however one likes, by having one or more AN pages that list or transclude all open issues.
  --Amalthea^Talk 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• God, yes. AN and ANI need to be reorganized like AfD or DRV's main list pages are. It would not only make it easier to track individual topics, but people could be referred directly to the old discussion when it drops off the main page, instead of having to sort through a bunch of archived pages full of stuff. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above, this would seem to have consensus. But I'd like to give it at least another day before making the move, just to give everyone who would like to comment (for or against) that opportunity. - jc37 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is no where near enough support to make such a major change. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start by creating pages for some of the suggested redlinks above, and see what people think at that point? Cirt (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(To Ryan) - actually the only naysayers at that point were Neil, and you had a conditional support/oppose. Everyone else appeared to support. But even so, I still would like more comment (as I noted). - jc37 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support and for a similar measure at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. seicer | talk | contribs 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

first things first

Not at all to interrupt what is above, but I'd think it would be good, before we dive into solutions, that we explicitly find consensus on what the problems are, if any. How about a project page? We could examine on that page what the strengths and weaknesses of the noticeboards are. We could easily make drastic changes, without understanding this clearly, first, and simply make things worse, if we don't stop and first agree on what the problems are. I can think of numerous solutions to problems that I perceive, and I perceive plenty, but ... it's like trying to decide what medicine to take when you haven't figured out what disease you've got. Sure, in desperation, we might do that. But I don't think it's a great idea. If there is a solution to some of the problems that is described above that is easy to implement, that is reversible, that does no damage, sure, we can do this simultaneously. But some of the truly major problems, I suspect, won't be solved merely by splitting up the noticeboards into subpages, unless other aspects of the process are also examined and reformed. The very purpose and function of the noticeboards should be examined. And I don't even want to go into that here, I think we should do what we should be good at: describing consensus, neutrally, on a page, that would have its own Talk page where open discussion takes place and the project page where consensus is summarized, revised, etc. Not signed, the project page is a report of the community participating on the topic. --Abd (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I very much oppose doing away with this noticeboard and splintering discussion onto a half dozen other boards; the last thing we need is yet another noticeboard (I don't have time as it is to read the 38 pages linked on {{Editabuselinks}}). I must a agree with Neil's comment above, in that this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. The Editabuselinks templates already serves as a list of noticeboards. Doing away with WP:AN will only increase the traffic on AN/I and reduce the number of eyes on topics sent to other, less trafficked noticeboards. I also don't see any benefit to an AfD style noticeboard, with each issue created as a subpage that is then transcluded here. That's overly complicated compared the current system and creates more problems than it solves. - auburnpilot talk 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the vandals which plague this page will find it easier to vandalize several individual pages, requiring protection across a wide range of pages. Corvus cornix_talk 01:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting over

• The thread directly above is exactly why my initial proposal was (and is) merely for moving this page to a sub-page and using this location as a navpage. Nothing lost, and everything gained. Instead we have people hung up on ReOrg plans for sub-pages and the like. - jc37 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, I'm going to archive this and start over. Perhaps with a straw poll. - jc37 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, might be best to make it simple, and post a notice at central locations to get wider community input. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment, uncivility and POV editing by User:Cityvalyu

Something should be done about this editor and fast. His continual POV pushing edits and harassment of other editors, that do not favor his POV and are trying to maintain NPOV, is rampant. You can not try to come to a consuses, because he feels that anything that does not blatantly support his POV is simply the POV of the other editor even when sourced. His harassment then spills over to the editors talk page (see User_talk:Jmedinacorona) where he then tries to further push his point of view without end, using words stating he's using WP guidelines in editing and that everything said to him is lies. The talk page of 2008 South Ossetia war also contains discussion other editors have had with his edits, reverts and NPOV. Below are just a few examples of his edit style:

1. Extensive weasel insertion
2. Claims to remove weasel words then adds some of his own
3. More weaseling
4. Here he even admits to posting non neutral views
5. See diff then read his edit summary, NPOV? In who's eyes?
6. Here he makes a controversial revert and says in his summary to talk about such reverts in the talk page, where it was already being discussed for consensus, yet he makes the revert despite it.

I'm through with dealing with him now. I have spent way too much time having confrontations with him and it has destroyed any pleasure I found in trying to contribute to this wiki. Do editor's on WP really have to put up with someone like this constantly pushing their view and then following it up with harassment? I think this kind of incessant behavior discourages the participation of all and as a new editor myself, it has nearly discouraged me from participating further. I did not come to WP to have verbal confrontations of this caliber, I came to try and contribute as I can within WP guidelines. Thank you for your consideration and hopeful intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedinacorona (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

16 hours and counting and not a single comment on my request, yet those immediately preceding and those following appear active. Should I take this as consensus that my complaint has no basis?--«Javier»|Talk 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You should take it as consensus that this is a "simple" content dispute and you should follow dispute resolution instead of here. — Coren ^(talk) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. It's a "simple" content dispute. Then this is normal behavior if it is so "simple" and I decline to be involved in this kind of "simple" dispute when my reason for contributing was to improve articles, not get involved in verbal warfare and abuse. Thank you for confirming my understanding of WP after having gone through this episode. Peace. --«Javier»|Talk 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move done wrong - possibly controversial

Resolved

 – Page moved back, discussion open on article talk page if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A user has moved Virginia Tech massacre to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre, but the associated talkpage has not been moved. Also, there appears to be no discussion on the talkpage about this move, which may be seen as a controversial move. D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see ElKevbo (talk · contribs) moved it back. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all "controversial". Just moving the article to a title that doesn't contain local slang, but the official title of the school. Wouldn't you move an article called List of tallest ppl to List of tallest people as the original title contains a colloquialism? I am apologise for mistakingly not moving the talk page, this shall not occur again. Dalejenkins | 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Virginia Tech" is not local slang. I doubt that many people know the actual name of the university. The move is pedantic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dale, we call things by their most commonly-known name, when we can. Friday (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that Virginia Tech's own web page uses "Virginia Tech" nine times (including the title of the page) and "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" only once (at the bottom in small text). Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I never knew Virginia Tech as anything but Virginia Tech. Perhaps I'm missing something here. It doesn't seem like slang. "Tech" is just an abbreviation. how do you turn this on 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I was just passing through on my way to read Laugh-out-loud cats. Wait a minute... where is my article? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Colon, close parenthesis. --barneca (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Our spam filter is now blocking spam in edit summaries

FYI: our spam filter now appears to block spam addresses in edit summaries even if the domain is not in the page text. I just learned this the hard way. It's probably a response to all the shock site spam recently left in edit summaries by vandals; some will crash browsers. I'm glad we have this now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm... this news is a bit old. And Grawp now just drops off the http:// piece of the URL, bypassing the filter. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently new; try saving an edit with avril. on. nimp. org (remove spaces) in the edit summary. --NE2 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Aparachik question

How do I find out, easily and quickly, whether or not an article has been through an AfD? I know the recreated articles are speedies, but how can you tell? Utgard Loki (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The simplest option is to do a search for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/name of article, which should hypothetically bring up any AfD discussion if the title is the same. One could also look at the (deleted) history of the page and see if an AfD tag was applied, which should give a link to the discussion but that's a little tricky for a non-administrator. Risker (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is still the problem of knowing whether the new article is substantially the same; you might have to ask an admin to look at the previously deleted one and advise. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Risker's suggestion will be fastest. You can also try alternative capitalizations and/or with/out the middle name/initial. (Seen too much of that at DRV when someone really wants the article to exist and won't take no for an answer.) You can google search for mirror articles for recent AFDs. A major fraction of blatant recreations come very soon after the initial article is deleted. Having found the prior AFD, you can at least read it to determine what the concerns were. If you think the same concerns apply, it is worth getting an admin's attention. GRBerry 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

you can also of look at contribution lists--this gets the most persistent of the POV ones. But as John says, the problem of seeing if they are the same is real--usually they are essentially the same, sometimes they are new ones done in perfect innocence, and occasionally the problem is actually fixed. I hope all admins actually deleting the G4s are especially careful to always check the previously deleted article there. For the related problem of articles under slightly different titles, only a high level of suspicion and a good memory help.

• Off topic comment, slightly. I just tried Risker's suggestion with the article Self-hating Jew, which is mentioned in two threads above. [5], [6]. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-hating Jew didn't bring up anything. It's an AfD page that doesn't exist. So... just let me get this straight. Not only do we have an article called, for god's sake, of all things, Self-hating Jew, which has incidentally existed since August 2005, but that article has also never been AfD'd? Really...? Actually, in 2005 it was a decent enough stub, like this: "'Self-hating Jew' is a derogatory polemical label typically used by politically conservative Jews in the United States to describe left-wing Jews who publicly criticize the government or policies of Israel, such as George Soros and Noam Chomsky." [7] But people have been, cough, helping Wikipedia by expanding it ever since, and now it's looong, and not decent at all. It starts like this: "'Self-hating Jew', or 'self-loathing Jew' [sic!], is a term used to describe Jews who feel hatred toward their Jewish identity." That's the entire lead there. And the article has a section called "Proposed psychological basis". And... and... [/me breaks down. Cries. ] OK... so, did I misunderstand Risker's instructions? Alternatively, while I don't really know my way around AfD (don't like it much), could I use "antisemitism honeypot" as a deletion reason? Or, third idea, am I supposed to spend the rest of my life arguing about consensus for re-stubbing it on that talkpage? Or, fourthly, help! Bishonen | talk 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

  Yep, never AFD'ed under that title. I won't guarantee anything about prior titles on the same concept before this 2005 creation - or any of the 15 redirect pages. (Which incidentally don't include the alternative phrasing bolded in the article.) There have been related CFD discussions for affiliated categories, and is a current one for the latest category incarnation. GRBerry 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  OMG the redirects. I said "help me", not "depress me"! :-( Bishonen | talk 23:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

• A "what links here" search in the Wikipedia namespace can help to find discussion where it was linked. See here. And GRBerry's suggestion of looking under the redirects is good (click on the "links" bit next to each of the 15 redirects). I'm guessing there was a reason to mention the article's redirects in Talk:Racism/Archive 12, Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 25, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive281, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive406. Going back to the 'Wikipedia' namespace links for the current article, it is linked from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive17 (that must be old!), Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 3, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 18, Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues (the only AfD to mention this, it seems), Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 21, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 23, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive467. Possibly there is something relevant in all that. More likely the same arguments are getting recycled. Hope it's not all too depressing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  WAAAAH! Bishonen | talk 23:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

• Holy cow! That thing hasn't been AfD'd, and it has grown tentacles, gone cancerous, and metastasized, and there is nothing anyone can do about it? See, I used to argue that the creation of carefully stated articles like that was an invitation to a launching pad for hate, stupidity, and offensive stupidity, and people used to say, "Oh, you deletionist, you! Why do you hate users? I'm sure it won't get bad." It's like creating Miscegenation and saying, "Oh, don't worry, I'm sure that racists won't show up and make it a hate platform. Wikipedians will keep tabs on it." Yeah, sure. By inches, it gets absurd, and then, from absurd, it becomes an atrocity, and all in the name of a concept that is intellectually bankrupt and, as much as it is culturally current it is culturally nebulous. It can mean anything and everything, so the article starts to serve the most motivated, and the most motivated aren't always the most... neutral. Geogre (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the easy solution to roll it back to an acceptable state and then protect it? Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Without consensus, both of those are pretty naked power moves, and protection should be used very rarely. If we have an ongoing storm of vandalism, then protecting won't raise an eyebrow, but what these articles generally get is a "consensus" on their talk pages (e.g. "I can give X ghits to the term! It's obviously used to mean X and Y" -> "It also means" -> "We need a list of notable people who 'have been called' this" -> "And here's my least favorite Jew"), and the people who disagree get either exhausted by the many accounts arguing or just run off. After there is a "consensus" on the talk pages, it becomes impossible to retrieve the sane version without AN/I complaints, and then, if you're an admin with any history at all, those who do not like you will reflexively show up to make the complaints into a case.

The point is that RFC's fail. AfD's are possible, but they're likely to fail. Hard power is a bad idea and a self-destructive one, and all this because an unwise "meme" got an article. At least that's my opinion. Geogre (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea how much, how strongly, I agree with you here. There have been dozens of politically-loaded phrases that have gone through "no consensus" AfDs over the past few months. I could link some of the AfDs, with their bloc voting and lazy closes, but reliving all that would cause the salty river of my tears to join Bishonen's, so I won't. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[/me hands tissue box round. ] Bishonen | talk 11:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

xxxxx made in ENGLAND!!!!!

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Special:Contributions/207.248.44.241

This anon IP has been going around to various talk pages of music genres and rather forcefully asserting that they are from England and England only, going as far as to repeatedly remove mention of other areas without discussion. If not a troll, far too agressive. Zazaban (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Mr.Z-man 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comments from article talkpage...

Hopefully, quick question but, is there a reason why someone's comments would be removed from an article's talkpage but, not show up in the history of said page? This is specifically in relation to the conversation here. I'm trying to WP:AGF and all that but, I can't find any evidence of a contribution by this user to the page in question. If consensus of the admins is that the person is just "trolling" than I'll start a vigorous compaign of ignoring. Otherwise, whatever help or advice can be given is greatly appreciated. I bring it here because to my knowledge admins are the only ones that would be capable of removing the material and the contributions plus you guys are normally much more familiar with things like WP:BLP and such than I'm probably ever going to be. Either way thanks in advance. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't have any deleted contributions either. I'd suggest asking what IP or account they made the comment under, otherwise, they appear to be confused and/or trolling. Shell ^babelfish 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it involves Brandon Link/Lang, it might be tempting to see trolling. On the other hand, this could be something as simple as a newbie not understanding an edit conflict, and your text replacing theirs - and the lack of visible contribs may not mean much when it's an IP. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Captain picard's bald head"

Resolved

 – blocked MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A new user, Captain picard's bald head, has been removing wikilinks to "cactus", using the edit summary "(Removing backlinks to Cactus because "Z A I N E B R A H I M = R A P I S T w w w . a v r i l . o n . n i m p . o r g"; using TW)". I would like to inform the user that this is inappropriate. However the user's talk page has been deleted and protected. Axl (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Block by Luna-Santin as a VOA. Thanks for the heads up. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Very similar vandalism about 6 hours ago from

Gnomeliberation front (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Examtester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

both of whom have now been blocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton (again)

Resolved. Blanked & protected, please observe WP:DFTT ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for bringing this here again, but I've got serious concerns about the behaviour of calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Incivility concerns (amongst other things) were brought up not so long ago here, and he was given a 0RR restriction for edit warring. Now, his incivility has continued, and I think we need to consider putting Calton under a civility parole. Recently, Calton removed an editors leaving Ramble[8] - not really sure why to be honest, many users who are upset on leaving leave a message similar to this on their userpage. He then proceeded to slow edit war on the page to keep his empty version live [9] (forgot to log in), [10], [11], [12]. Now, I consider the next bit the serious aspect - He was clearly baiting Folksong with this edit; "Poor baby. Would you like a tissue?". After I and Tiptoety had warn him about this, his flippant attitude continued in threads here and here. Now please note - I did also warn Folksong here for making threats after Calton had left his nasty talk page comment, but the fact of the matter is that we would never had users making threats if Calton hadn't continued his uncivil attitude. I really believe it's time for a civility restriction at the very least, or some other community based sanction that will help Calton be a lot more collaborative. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Before anyone automatically leaps to the defense of a fellow admin -- the default position around here -- some actual facts. "Flippant" apparently means "not regarding admin buttons as some sort of tin Sheriff's badge" -- or, more specifically, not automatically standing up and saluting when Ryan Postlethwaite barks orders -- as Ryan Postlethwaite once again is under the delusion that unquestioning obedience to his authorityis required. As for his false claims of baiting, he conveniently leaves off that my message was a response to this -- and also conveniently leaves off Folksong's vandalism and Folksong's threat of violence. His response to this unacceptable behavior? Soothing words to the ones making the threats. I'd say the latter shows he's less interested improving the encyclopedia and more interested in exercising petty authority and enacting petty vengeance, and is the LAST person whose judgment should be trusted in this matter. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Christ, someone should block you for that post alone. Tan ǀ 39 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? And that would be because of what, exactly? Questioning Ryan's self-proclaimed authority? Responding to false or overstated charges? Noting Ryan's double standard regarding users who level threats of violence? Help me out here. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

They weren't soothing words - I told him that he'd usually be blocked in that situation, it was a final warning for him to cut out the attacks. But the point stands that this wouldn't have been an issue if you hadn't have gone around blanking his userpage. Note, I didn't see the diff that Folksong posted to your talk page, so I apologise, but there was still no need for any of the previous actions, or the baiting after. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Responding to vandalism and threats of violence with rationalizations and "just chill out dude" doesn't strike mena as much of a warning -- certainly not on the same scale as left on MY page. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is resolved. I believe that Ryan and Calton might justly now be characterised as being in dispute, and I feel it would be best for Ryan to distance himself from Calton and vice-versa. It is clear to me that both are committed to the encyclopaedia and not here to advance an agenda or pursue personal aggrandisement, so I would advocate disengagement at least for a while, please. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Easy enough, since I never cross his path, he always crosses mine, in search of some new way to exercise his self-proclaimed authority. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think concern about Calton's actions makes me in dispute with him - the only reason why I spotted this was because I was reverting vandalism from Calton's userpage, and went to investigate the guy who did it further only to come across this situation. Maybe Calton doesn't like me, fair enough, I don't think he's so bad personally and appreciate the work he does here, especially relating to anti-spam efforts. Calton slating me when I bring up concerns doesn't mean I'm holding a grudge against the guy - the only time I've ever looked at his contributions has been when I've been doing work at UAA (I think there were a couple of concerns I've had there)), and in this instance when I reverted vandalism from his userpage. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Based on your interactions with me -- from your complete unwillingness to do more than issue orders without the slightest justification or actual explanation, your quick resort to threats, your automatic assumptions of bad faith, and your latest attempts to force me to kowtow to your personal authority -- I'd say that I have very good reason to doubt your claims of not holding a grudge here. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, meant resolved w/r/t the Calton/Folksong debacle. As for the Calton/Ryan P. clash, yes, some distance would be useful. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not, since the actual page in question -- User:Folksong, not User talk:Folksong -- remains. --Calton | Talk 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• So does User:J.A.McCoy. WP:MFD is always open. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: I think clicking here would make most of your troubles and concerns presented here fade away. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since Calton basically went on a short wikibreak during the last thread about him, things pretty much just tapered off. Is he under 0RR or not? Someone needs to inform him if this is the case. –xeno (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Every admin who pays attention to what Calton does ends up saying "this is not okay". Calton responds along the lines of "of course it's okay, you're not okay". They are then In A Dispute^TM, and apparently that makes Calton untouchable by that admin. I believe that Ryan's warning to Calton was perfectly acceptable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Forgive me for asking a stupid question of Carlton, but why were you reverting a change on a user's own userpage? To follow this up, why did you respond in the manner that you did on that user's talkpage? I would be keen on understanding your justification for such edits. Many thanks, Gazimoff 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, shall we fully protect User:Folksong for the time being, until an MfD is called? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• This matter is not resolved and I don't believe User:Folksong is the issue. The issue is Calton's rabid incivility. He is a "spam warrior" par excellence, but he takes it way too far. Once he found he couldn't use the old {{temporary userpage}} tag to get rid of userpages, he started prodding, now he simply blanks pages. Frequently (though far less than half the time), the users come back and unblank their pages. How many users don't come back because of Calton. When a user questions Calton he or she undoubtedly gets a most vile treatment. If an admin says "stop" or "warning" or "You're cruising for a block Calton", the response is always to the effect of "Oh yeah, the big admin telling me what to do, yes Sir" or worse. If he is actually sanctioned, as he has been here at least twice, he simply leaves for awhile. I am convinced that Calton's many contributions to the project are completely offset by his incivility and he needs strong action from this forum to require him to behave by basic standards of civility...--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, I mixed two concepts I fear. Calton is guilty of incivility in his spam warrioring, yes; but the blanking of pages he does on the claim that the user is "nonexistent", part of his personal war against allowing non-editors to have userpages regardless of content.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You mixed two concepts, and you tailed off towards the end of your first post, I believe. Or did you mean to say that "he needs...Doug"? _Gb^T/c 16:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case, wherever the venue, the edit warring has to stop. As I stated above, if consensus was reached for 0RR in the previous thread, than he needs to be informed and it needs to be enforced. –xeno (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ha, you're right. Underlined text added to complete the sentence.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting)

• Consensus was reach, and as he was informed of that thread, and this, there's no way that he doesn't know that. The activities that brought this thread into being, however, weren't a breach of that sanction, but were as a result of his edit warring over the blanking of material he thought inappropriate, rather than bothering to take it to MfD - that, and his "blank non-user's page" behaviour (and it's clear from his contributions that a number of those non-users subsequently return), aren't covered by the earlier restriction, but should be, as he's just gaming the system by not XfD'ing the pages in the first place.

I'd support any sort of civility restriction, and any sanction which viewed his blanking of pages he doesn't like as vandalism (as there are mechanisms open to dealing with them that everyone else avails themselves of with little difficult). Unless it's enforced, though, it's pointless - as with the last discussion, whenever too bright a light is shone on his activities, he simply keeps a low profile for a couple of weeks, then gets straight back to what he was doing without any modification of his behaviour. If a conclusive message can come out of this discussion then at least he can consider himself on a final warning, and will adjust his behaviour accordingly. _Gb^T/c 07:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support a civility restriction, as I did the last time Calton's behavior came up. Calton's incivility is extraordinary, and he's been behaving this way for years. Block him for at least 24 hours for each uncivil comment and maybe he will start to change his behavior. I doubt that anything weaker than that would have an effect. Everyking (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We must be clear too that "getting into it" previously with Calton does not bar an admin from taking action. Some of the comments above suggest people think Ryan is in a "dispute" with Calton and needs to take a step back. My God, you can't talk to Calton as an admin without him escalating it; and everyone involved, Ryan, myself, Tiptoety, etc, have generally held off on blocking Calton and each time bring it here. None of us should have to do this each time though as Calton's bad actions are habitual. If Calton takes issue with an admin's actions he can of course bring it here himself, but Calton does not need us to lay out a carpet for him and create a gauntlet for the admins to run each time. The fact is that certain admins have seen what Calton does, so we watch him. All of the admins, and I think I can safely include myself, are generally easy to get along with. But Calton's actions are detrimental to the project and he must be stopped. I suggest we need to consider a community imposed ban prohibiting Calton from editing any userpage, except to nominate it MfD and further restricting what he can post on usertalk.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By MfD, you are including CSD, I take it? He should be allowed to nominate any page, including userpages, for CSD if it fits the criteria, but if the tag is removed (either by another editor (other than the creator / user themselves) or speedy is declined by an admin) then his next step should only be to either (i) nominate it for XfD, or (ii) leave it alone. Blanking userpages on the grounds that he thinks it's a "non-user's page" should be treated for what it is - i.e. vandalism - and dealt with accordingly.

As for user talk, as long as he is civil he shouldn't be unduly restricted, but the restriction should be there to stop him harranguing other users for "insulting his intelligence", as he sees it, or "disagreeing with him", as others see it. _Gb^T/c 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• He edit warred on User:Folksong. imo, the 0RR restriction should apply to everything, whether be it userpages, UAA reports, CSD tags, adding block tags, etc. And he does need to be formally informed that this restriction is in place, while it's pretty clear consensus was reached no one made the a call and set it out for him (presumably because he had gone on break). –xeno (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess he should be allowed to place one appropriate CSD tag, if one applies, but he needs to strictly follow the criteria or he's being disruptive (in other words, U2 applies only if Special:Listusers does not indicate a user for the page). If he starts tagging long strings of pages, with U2 and one of them shows up on Listusers and Calton's blocked. He can't PROD userpages anymore (that rule just changed), so we don't need to worry about that. I'm not sure how much rope we should give him on user talk, there's a lot of damage he can do there. Obviously he needs to be able to communicate with other users but he shouldn't use that as an excuse to send lots of spam warnings regarding the corresponding userpage. I think we need to make it clear that we'll block him if he's uncivil. The problem we're going to face though is that Calton is going to tag a lot of pages with G11 and they're going to be borderline cases - I suggest that if a reviewing admin believes the page might likely survive an MfD, he should be warned and if necessary blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Malik shabazz is deleting my RS on Post-Zionism and New Historians despite my addtional ref on talk page

I told him this was RS, I replaced my initial RS by Nudve's and have provided addtional RS on talk page.

I told him he can not delte an RS because he doewsn't like it, but if he has any complaints go to talk page. Since he has any, he keeps deleting it eveytime for newlly invented reason.

help! --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see #Shabazz is deletig my ref of "self hating jew" from New Historians and Post-Zionism above. Is anybody going to intervene and stop this trainwreck? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say a block (of Shevashalosh) is definitely in order. I count 5 reverts in 2 days on New Historians and Post-Zionism. However, last time I blocked an editor for revert warring on similar articles (one who actually broke 3RR in a single day), the block was overturned and accusations of POV were thrown around, so I won't bother here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. If it resumes, a very steep escalation would be in order IMHO; this person does not seem to grasp the idea of collaborative editing. --barneca (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So sad. I must say it was time for this block and yes, if this carries on the next block should be much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not finished yet.

Nobody explained her it was forbidden to take a suckpuppet when you are blocked. So, she took one : User:Shmonaesre. Note she didn't hide but if you read the diff's, the last one is not encouraging.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the new account (including prevent account creation) and warned Shevashalosh that if she tries it again, a long-term block will be in order. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon has now blocked Shevashalosh indefinitely for legal threats and sockpuppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX on various noticeboards and archives proposal

Resolved

 – Discussion has been moved to a policy proposal page. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I have added {{NOINDEX}} to Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all. --Random832 (contribs) 03:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it until we get consensus. At minimum if we are going to add anything like that we need to add a big fat pointer on the template that there is a search tool on the toolserver. And we need a hell of a lot of assurance that that tool won't go down as tools so often do. I suggest putting a discussion about this on AN rather than here which isn't as likely to be noticed. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My intent was not to open a discussion. It's unacceptable for these to remain visible to google. And there IS a "big fat pointer on the template that there is a search tool on the toolserver", there are in fact four links to that tool; perhaps you noticed them when you made the edit? --Random832 (contribs) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(above was moved from WT:AN --Random832 (contribs) 16:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

---

I was thinking it may be a good idea to do this. There is a LOT of negative information on living people by name liberally over the years scattered across these--sometimes just plain bad, sometimes in good faith discussions, but all the same findable by search engine. Yes, I know that our internal search somewhat sucks still, but the benefit of our own searching isn't as valuable as not screwing people by their names being found in negative connotations on this site buried in some archive. If the search function is too busted for some, we have lots of very skilled people that can fix it if they wanted to spend the time on it. So, simple proposal. {{NOINDEX}} on every notice page plus archives/talk on the header today:

Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Biographies • Conflict of interest • Ethnic and cultural conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Neutral point of view • Original research • Reliable sources

At a dead minimum, the ones in "red" to start as they're most likely to touch on BLPs. rootology (T) 13:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree to do this, but I think this proposal would be better at the Village Pump. At least make a note there, if you haven't already. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WT:AN pointed people here, but a reference at VP wouldn't be bad either. MBisanz ^talk 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think we need to get the gorram search function fixed before we start noindexing the whole place. –xeno (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree strongly with Xeno. I have no objections to no-indexing if a) we have a working search function b) can guarantee that tool will stay functioning and c) add a prominent note at the top of the relevant pages about how to search for people who aren't aware of it. b is the easy step. a and b need to happen first. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• NOINDEX them all, and add the Community Sanction Noticeboard to the list. I had added the NOINDEX tags to them last night, but have since been reverted because it "makes it harder to search the archives along and reduces general levels of transparency."[13] This response indicates a need for improving the internal search function, and has nothing to do with transparency.

• We are depending on Google and other external search engines to do work that needs to be internal. Can you imagine any other responsible organisation using a publicly available search function to document concerns about clientele (in our case, subjects of articles) or personnel (in our case, editors)?
• On a daily basis, editors complain about "incivility" on any number of noticeboards and talk pages. People get blocked, sometimes even banned, for saying unkind things about other editors (or in some cases, about subjects of articles); we are told that the validity of their words does not excuse the lack of "civility"...and yet we as a community do not apply the same standards to the encyclopedia.

• There is an attitude amongst many individuals that people who get banned or blocked "deserve" to be named and shamed publicly, and it is the blocked/banned individual's "fault" that Google searches turn up pages suggesting they behaved unacceptably on a top-10 website. The veracity or validity of the complaint is irrelevant to whether or not these posts are searchable outside of Wikipedia.

• The real life identity of a very significant segment of our editing population is easily linked to their Wikipedia activities, either directly (real-life name as username) or indirectly (by making real-life name available on userpage, etc.) Few of these individuals made that information available expecting to be publicly castigated for failing to follow the rather arcane behavioural rules of Wikipedia. We keep these complaints about editors on pages that often rank highly in search engines despite the fact that many of them relate to editors who are easily identifiable in real life.

• This information is available to current and future employers, colleagues, clients, police and other security forces, and so on. Is this the kind of thing we want to have following our teenage editors who go on to mature behaviour? Is this what should happen to academics who have spent years in the parry-and-thrust of more direct debate than is permitted by our "civility" policy? Do we want people to be branded "troublemakers" in the outside world because they just don't fit in here?

• Discussions assessing the "verifiability" of negative information about the subjects of our articles are spread all over the place, and again are searchable outside of Wikipedia.
• For whom are we trying to make things transparent? Our editors? The information is searchable within Wikipedia already; if people can't find it, improve the search function or help them learn how to use the current one. (I have never had to resort to Google to find information on Wikipedia, and I am hardly a genius when it comes to searching.) Why does the world at large need to know that User So-and-so was blocked for being rude to User Such-and-such, after a 20kb discussion on some noticeboard? It has nothing to do with the quality of the product - the encyclopedia.
• Our current system highlights the negative editor information (messages on user and user talk pages, noticeboards, etc) over and above any positive editor information (contribution histories, key articles, etc.). It's time that we as a community model the behaviour we expect from our editors. With indexing of noticeboards, our behaviour management process includes promotion of pejorative information about individual editors; we know these pages are highly ranked but we allow them to be widely available, despite the fact that individual editors are frequently blocked/banned for identical behaviour.
• Summary - Fix the problem - our internal search function - instead of publicly smearing the subjects of our articles and the editors who produce them. --Risker (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Risker (and with several others further up); NOINDEX now, and work on fixing the internal search next. Personally, I am of the belief that the only pages in Wikipedia that should be indexed are article pages and category pages. Everything else is internal workings that does not need to be catalogued by Google/Yahoo/whatever search engine. Horologium (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be incredibly damaging to internal functioning if we don't have a search function. I agree completely with the sentiment but it isn't acceptable unless we have a search function. I also strongly object to Risker's claims that anyone here thinks that blocked editors "deserve" to be "shamed" This sis a straw-man argument which no one has ever claimed but is repeatedly brought up. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a search function, JoshuaZ, it can definitely use improvement, but it does work and it does pull up everything I have ever looked for, including information on noticeboards. I was able to do a very indepth summary of evidence using information from noticeboards, for the Tango RFAR without once resorting to an external search engine. Having this information widely available is not necessary, even with today's search engine. Removing the ability to search externally will promote the improvement of our internal search function because it becomes a high priority. Risker (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to reply to the other part of JoshuaZ's comment: Please look on this very page to the thread entitled "Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz" for some examples (and no, I have no opinion on whether or not he should be unblocked). There are others right here too, including the discussion of removal of a permission from a reformed but formerly blocked editor. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. Should the discussions happen? Yes, I think so. Should anyone google searching for the name "Greg Kohs" get to this page or its archive (or the archives of those other pages listed in the thread)? No, they should not. Risker (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that we have another search specifically for the noticeboards, which is linked in the navigation box. --Random832 (contribs) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I did not know about that. That seems to be functional for AN. That at least takes away the AN, ANI 3RR and CN archives but not the other noticeboards. I'd also strongly prefer that that link was much larger. In any event, I have no objection to putting the Noindex into the Template for the noticeboards. But we need a better search function to use it on the noticeboards other than those 4. (I also think we should wait to get a bit more input in general before taking this large a step) JoshuaZ (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• NOINDEX must come first to end the harm being done, and perhaps by preventing external search engines from indexing non-article spaces, Necessity will enter the scene trailed by her child Invention, and we will see in short order a leap in internal search functionality. What short-term difficulty some administrators may have with searching non-article space is far outweighed by the ethical obligation to reduce people's exposure to the distorting effects of search engine publicity. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• NOINDEX is far more important than improving the internal search function and should come first. Anything we really need to find can be found via search and what links here. There is today no need to use external searches to find relevant internal data, it is merely a habit that many have acquired along the way. If a specific location becomes challenging to search, have someone build or modify a toolserver tool. GRBerry 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. We shouldn't be broadly disabling useful functionality for the sake of a few identified people who might prefer Google had a little less to say about them. I understand blocking AFDs and certain focused discussions, but blocking entire noticeboards goes too far for me. Even if we have an internal search as good as Google (and let's be honest, we aren't there yet), I'd still want to maintain Google functionality for people who prefer that interface and the broader comparisons it allows. Most of what is discussed at AN is not harmful to identifiable people, and of that portion which is, a significant fraction is no more harmful than they deserve (if someone is a consummate trouble maker all across the web, there is no reason for us to conceal that fact). The discussions of identifiable people under circumstance that might well warrant redaction are sufficiently few and far between that I can't see how that justifies mangling the searchability of all the other noticeboard content. This simply doesn't pass a balancing test of justification versus negative impact. Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"[A] significant fraction is no more harmful than they deserve ..." Thank you for proving my point, Dragons flight. We aren't here to punish people, even if they are complete jerks, or totally incompetent. We might block them or ban them because they cannot work within our system. Overtly and consciously publishing their misdeeds is the internet equivalent of The Scarlet Letter. Risker (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And your point? You seem to want to protect everyone, even complete trolls, from the justifiable and predictable consequences of their actions, but you have no concern for protecting the rest of the internet from them. We don't go out of our way to publicly chastise people, but neither should we go out of our way to protect them. Dragons flight (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment So I'm not asking for links to BLP/copyvio/oversight material but where is the demonstrated harm that would cause us to want to eliminate a helpful means to search wikipedia? Protonk (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be posting at length to this discussion tonight. At least, I would like to, if I can locate a particular location where the central discussion is located. Is it here or there or where? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be the central discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a centralised discussion Brad, you'll have to make one. What to NOINDEX isn't just an admin issue. Why not use Wikipedia:What to noindex? WilyD 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about a challenge? Maybe I'm wrong about this issue, but before I might conceed that, I'd like a demonstration that a real problem exists. Give me four or five examples of people who if you put their real name (and only their name) into Google then you get a negative noticeboard discussion within the first 20 or 30 hits. If having these archives are really profoundly distructive then such examples ought to be easy to find right? I've already tried several well known trolls and none had a noticeboard hit in their first 30 google hits. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've created a proposal here. Discussion may continue on the talk page there, so as to not fill up WP:AN. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Image talk:Recycle001.svg

Resolved

I tried to put a db-talk tag on Image talk:Recycle001.svg and the template said it wasn't an appropriate tag for the Talk page of a commons image. How do we get this page deleted? Corvus cornix_talk 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I likely would have deleted even if you'd left the G8 tag on the page. ~ BigrTex 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor still pushing

Resolved

Please see this discussion at McMartin preschool trial. ResearchEditor is continuing to push a POV, after a topic ban on satanic ritual abuse (above for anyone who missed the original discussion). Specifically RE is attempting to put undue weight on a non-peer reviewed news publication that reports on child abuse accusations (Treating Abuse Today, second from the bottom). This is at the expense of and in opposition to a 400-page report and analysis of the trial from Prometheus Books. The quote RE wishes to insert would give credence to the idea that Ray Buckey was guilty of molesting nearly 400 children in a variety of public locations and beating a horse to death with a baseball bat, but somehow after 7 years of investigations managed to get away with it. Reliable sources and a recantation by a witness illustrate that the McMartin preschool trial was a moral panic and should be portrayed as such. Even had Buckey access to his friend's special effects studio and a horse farm, this does not mean that he faked supernatural powers or killed a horse. This is why I would support a blanket ban on a variety of pages related to SRA and the memory wars, including dissociative identity disorder, false memory syndrome, multiple personality controversy, Michelle Remembers and the McMartin preschool trial.

Also note that ResearchEditor is attempting to insert a reference to a publication that s/he knows is not on par with Prometheus books - see Talk:SRA archive and reliable sources noticeboard.

Also note this section of Michelle Remembers, I'm really sick of being blamed for this because I happen to be the only editor willing to read many university-press books and scientific journal articles in order to raise the standard of the page from this to the current version. Seriously, it's not like I'm engaging in original research on these pages, all of my edits have been based on and sourced to reliable sources. I edit according to what I read, I don't edit according to what I think. Yet still I get pegged as "a POV-pushing editor" as if I were the one trying to impose undue weight. This isn't me being a big meanie, this is me relying on appropriate sources and conventional interpretations of policy, being able to demonstrate that ResearchEditor's interpretations and attributions are incorrect. WLU (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why ResearchEditor has not been banned in all SRA-related articles. I cannot speak for the articles unrelated to SRA that I don't edit: (1) Dissociative identity disorder, (2) False memory syndrome and (3) Multiple personality controversy. However, I do know RE's bahavior in (4) Michelle Remembers, a book which claims that Satan himself appeared to a woman; a book that started the SRA panic, as well as his behavior in (5) McMartin preschool trial: an iconic case of SRA claims. I would support an extension of the ban in these two articles. —Cesar Tort 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:east718 to reconsider whether there was support for a ban from related articles; I think there was, but I was involved in the discussion. Hopefully he will correct himself. Mangojuice^talk 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Reviewing the histories, the posts occurred before East718's posting to RE's page(McMartin, Michelle Remembrs and East718) and the decision has been amended [14] and RE made aware. I think this is resolved and have tagged the section. WLU (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the addition of other pages to the ban is inappropriate. I have not even had a chance to defend myself about the actions at Michelle Remembers or McMartin. Treating Abuse Today is a serious journal and a reliable source. I posted this at the page recently -TAT is a reliable publisher. Many respected researchers have published there. See here.

The quote I wanted to install simply was a balancing quote "What surprised me as an investigative journalist was that nobody looked beyond the seemingly fanciful nature of the disclosures. Nobody tried to interpret what the disclosures might mean through a child's frame of reference and perception. Nobody searched for plausible explanation....children talked about...improbable events like jumping out of airplanes and seeing a horse killed. Yet, investigators did not track reports that Raymond Buckey had a friend who ran a special effects studio or that Virginia McMartin's sister owned a horse ranch." This is not unreasonable and adds to the article. There are several quotes in the article from biased sources from the other perspective. Both CesarTort and WLU have an interest in seeing my edits banned from these pages since they have an opposite perspective. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread is closed, RE. Just follow MangoJuice advice: present your complaint to ArbCom. (BTW, we don't want you banned because you think different. Biao has exactly the same pov of you and we don't want him banned. It's your pov pushing what left the community with no more patience.) —Cesar Tort 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent}WP:SHUN. No need for drama, no need for replies. With no response from the community there is no reason to consider this an issue. It's obvious that no argument can change things, so why bother? WLU (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Biao has stated people left the page because they were "shit on." He basically refuses to edit the page because of his treatment there. The both of your edits created an environment at the page that made sure no contradictory positions were allowed to edit. Anyone whose edits disagreed was brought to AN. The page is now a one-sided joke. With only one position allowed on it. This type of page makes wikipedia look like a joke. The extremist view of panic being the only allowable theory has allowed for the ignoring of 30 - 40 peer reviewed journals as sources and 10 or more books. If anyone had look at either of your edits and done a full investigation, it would have been very clear that your edits pushed an extremely skeptical POV, not allowing any other point of view to exist. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is me trying to get your attention, Mr./Mrs./Miss or whatever admin (Time off all the "block User:XXX" drama)

Resolved

 – Page restored without personal information — E 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please restore the article Hip hop music? Apparently, User:Kevin deleted the page almost an hour ago per "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: rm email address in edit summary". Does it really take that long to get some cleanup done? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Restored (link) — E ↗^TCB 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem may have been the large number of edits in the article (over 3,000) that needed to be restored - from what I understand, some people's systems (and sometimes even Wikipedia) tends to choke. I believe I have restored the article minus the problematic edit. Or actually it looks like two of us tried to restore it at once - hopefully that worked out ok. Shell ^babelfish 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, both you guys did a nice job. Thanks for the swiftness. 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a bit of a potential trap - I deleted but never got the usual confirmation screen, just an internal error message. At that point the page still seemed to be there, probably because of my browser cache. Now that I know it can happen, I can do a refresh to see what mediawiki actually did. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

English nationalist

Okay, so this is getting pretty ridiculous... All he does is slant articles favorable towards England and complain about everywhere else. I can't tell if whoever it is is being serious or if they're just trolling for the sake of trolling, but they need to stop. There's already been attempts at warning him, but he just deletes them and then tells people not to post on his talk page or he'll "report" them. I hate nationalists with an undying, vehement passion, so it would probably not be good for me to try to intervene because chances are good that I wouldn't be able to restrain myself (just looking at the contribs is like fingernails on a chalkboard), not to mention the fact that I've been pretty much inactive for the better part of two years and have no idea how to go about handling it... Would someone mind taking a look and finally shutting him up? --(Flying Ninja Monkey) ^(Banana!) 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is difficult to see whether this account is driven by some nationalist ideal or is simply trolling. It is made more difficult by the fact that they appear pro-British when arguing against the claims of other sovereign nations, but prefers to refer to the constituent countries when editing within UK based articles. I suggest placing the relevant warnings on their talkpage, and bringing back here if they continue to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have issued a clearly-worded civility reminder to the user. (Ironically, one of this editor's first contributions was to chastise someone for expressing a political opinion on a talk page.) caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Robert Kaufman and Robert Kaufman seem to share a disturbingly large amount of content. I grant that I didn't compare word for word, but I think this may qualify as a copyvio. Before I do anything though I would like a second opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a clear violation. The source for the web page includes "meta name="copyright" content="© 2005 Robert Kaufman Co., Inc.", but no licensing terms. It doesn't even matter whether it matches word for word -- it matches too closely. Looie496 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this article. east718 // talk // email // 06:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

An audio conversation with User:Newyorkbrad

Hopefully this may be of sufficient interest to warrant a small 'heads up' here... I'd like to encourage folks to have a listen to the latest 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' which is an interview with newyorkbrad covering all sorts of stuff.... We're planning a sort of panel discussion in a fortnight or so (which means anything up to a couple of months!) - which any and all are invited to attend, submit questions, topics for discussion etc. - swing by this page if you'd like to get involved.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I've seen some pages get vandalized with the exact same vandalism serveral times from widely different IP addresses. Some of them mentioned /b/ so I went on there (my god...) to try to find the vandalism threads. I found a few, and I dealt with two of them by removing the revision that the poster was asking people to save. However, this took a long time/placed a huge strain on the servers and I am likely the reason why Wikipedia was running so slow a few minutes ago. (*cringes*) Should I just semi-protect the pages on sight, or should I wait for the vandalism to get out of hand? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotecting is definitely a better idea than voluntarily viewing /b/. It also would have been much simpler than bothering with history cleaning that wasn't otherwise necessary, imo - those things can be a pain in the ass (as well as a bit hard on the servers), and of course breaking the links to the vandalized revisions won't have prevented new vandalism. Use your judgment, of course, but I don't think vandalism needs to actually be 'out of hand' to justify protection. -- Vary | Talk 05:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, I saw someone requesting vandalism on a page that had not been vandalized yet, so I removed the revision. (not before like a million people vandalized, though). Should I preemptively semi-protect it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, gotcha. I'd say yes, in this case. I take it there are admins who watch The Colbert Report with laptops in front of them to be ready to protect any articles that get a mention. I'd stay under 24 hours, though, and increase it if they don't lose interest. -- Vary | Talk 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Colbert Report :D Keegan^talk 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor still pushing

Resolved

Please see this discussion at McMartin preschool trial. ResearchEditor is continuing to push a POV, after a topic ban on satanic ritual abuse (above for anyone who missed the original discussion). Specifically RE is attempting to put undue weight on a non-peer reviewed news publication that reports on child abuse accusations (Treating Abuse Today, second from the bottom). This is at the expense of and in opposition to a 400-page report and analysis of the trial from Prometheus Books. The quote RE wishes to insert would give credence to the idea that Ray Buckey was guilty of molesting nearly 400 children in a variety of public locations and beating a horse to death with a baseball bat, but somehow after 7 years of investigations managed to get away with it. Reliable sources and a recantation by a witness illustrate that the McMartin preschool trial was a moral panic and should be portrayed as such. Even had Buckey access to his friend's special effects studio and a horse farm, this does not mean that he faked supernatural powers or killed a horse. This is why I would support a blanket ban on a variety of pages related to SRA and the memory wars, including dissociative identity disorder, false memory syndrome, multiple personality controversy, Michelle Remembers and the McMartin preschool trial.

Also note that ResearchEditor is attempting to insert a reference to a publication that s/he knows is not on par with Prometheus books - see Talk:SRA archive and reliable sources noticeboard.

Also note this section of Michelle Remembers, I'm really sick of being blamed for this because I happen to be the only editor willing to read many university-press books and scientific journal articles in order to raise the standard of the page from this to the current version. Seriously, it's not like I'm engaging in original research on these pages, all of my edits have been based on and sourced to reliable sources. I edit according to what I read, I don't edit according to what I think. Yet still I get pegged as "a POV-pushing editor" as if I were the one trying to impose undue weight. This isn't me being a big meanie, this is me relying on appropriate sources and conventional interpretations of policy, being able to demonstrate that ResearchEditor's interpretations and attributions are incorrect. WLU (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why ResearchEditor has not been banned in all SRA-related articles. I cannot speak for the articles unrelated to SRA that I don't edit: (1) Dissociative identity disorder, (2) False memory syndrome and (3) Multiple personality controversy. However, I do know RE's bahavior in (4) Michelle Remembers, a book which claims that Satan himself appeared to a woman; a book that started the SRA panic, as well as his behavior in (5) McMartin preschool trial: an iconic case of SRA claims. I would support an extension of the ban in these two articles. —Cesar Tort 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:east718 to reconsider whether there was support for a ban from related articles; I think there was, but I was involved in the discussion. Hopefully he will correct himself. Mangojuice^talk 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Reviewing the histories, the posts occurred before East718's posting to RE's page(McMartin, Michelle Remembrs and East718) and the decision has been amended [15] and RE made aware. I think this is resolved and have tagged the section. WLU (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the addition of other pages to the ban is inappropriate. I have not even had a chance to defend myself about the actions at Michelle Remembers or McMartin. Treating Abuse Today is a serious journal and a reliable source. I posted this at the page recently -TAT is a reliable publisher. Many respected researchers have published there. See here.

The quote I wanted to install simply was a balancing quote "What surprised me as an investigative journalist was that nobody looked beyond the seemingly fanciful nature of the disclosures. Nobody tried to interpret what the disclosures might mean through a child's frame of reference and perception. Nobody searched for plausible explanation....children talked about...improbable events like jumping out of airplanes and seeing a horse killed. Yet, investigators did not track reports that Raymond Buckey had a friend who ran a special effects studio or that Virginia McMartin's sister owned a horse ranch." This is not unreasonable and adds to the article. There are several quotes in the article from biased sources from the other perspective. Both CesarTort and WLU have an interest in seeing my edits banned from these pages since they have an opposite perspective. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread is closed, RE. Just follow MangoJuice advice: present your complaint to ArbCom. (BTW, we don't want you banned because you think different. Biao has exactly the same pov of you and we don't want him banned. It's your pov pushing what left the community with no more patience.) —Cesar Tort 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent}WP:SHUN. No need for drama, no need for replies. With no response from the community there is no reason to consider this an issue. It's obvious that no argument can change things, so why bother? WLU (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Biao has stated people left the page because they were "shit on." He basically refuses to edit the page because of his treatment there. The both of your edits created an environment at the page that made sure no contradictory positions were allowed to edit. Anyone whose edits disagreed was brought to AN. The page is now a one-sided joke. With only one position allowed on it. This type of page makes wikipedia look like a joke. The extremist view of panic being the only allowable theory has allowed for the ignoring of 30 - 40 peer reviewed journals as sources and 10 or more books. If anyone had look at either of your edits and done a full investigation, it would have been very clear that your edits pushed an extremely skeptical POV, not allowing any other point of view to exist. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is me trying to get your attention, Mr./Mrs./Miss or whatever admin (Time off all the "block User:XXX" drama)

Resolved

 – Page restored without personal information — E 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please restore the article Hip hop music? Apparently, User:Kevin deleted the page almost an hour ago per "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: rm email address in edit summary". Does it really take that long to get some cleanup done? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Restored (link) — E ↗^TCB 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem may have been the large number of edits in the article (over 3,000) that needed to be restored - from what I understand, some people's systems (and sometimes even Wikipedia) tends to choke. I believe I have restored the article minus the problematic edit. Or actually it looks like two of us tried to restore it at once - hopefully that worked out ok. Shell ^babelfish 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, both you guys did a nice job. Thanks for the swiftness. 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a bit of a potential trap - I deleted but never got the usual confirmation screen, just an internal error message. At that point the page still seemed to be there, probably because of my browser cache. Now that I know it can happen, I can do a refresh to see what mediawiki actually did. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

English nationalist

Okay, so this is getting pretty ridiculous... All he does is slant articles favorable towards England and complain about everywhere else. I can't tell if whoever it is is being serious or if they're just trolling for the sake of trolling, but they need to stop. There's already been attempts at warning him, but he just deletes them and then tells people not to post on his talk page or he'll "report" them. I hate nationalists with an undying, vehement passion, so it would probably not be good for me to try to intervene because chances are good that I wouldn't be able to restrain myself (just looking at the contribs is like fingernails on a chalkboard), not to mention the fact that I've been pretty much inactive for the better part of two years and have no idea how to go about handling it... Would someone mind taking a look and finally shutting him up? --(Flying Ninja Monkey) ^(Banana!) 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is difficult to see whether this account is driven by some nationalist ideal or is simply trolling. It is made more difficult by the fact that they appear pro-British when arguing against the claims of other sovereign nations, but prefers to refer to the constituent countries when editing within UK based articles. I suggest placing the relevant warnings on their talkpage, and bringing back here if they continue to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have issued a clearly-worded civility reminder to the user. (Ironically, one of this editor's first contributions was to chastise someone for expressing a political opinion on a talk page.) caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Robert Kaufman and Robert Kaufman seem to share a disturbingly large amount of content. I grant that I didn't compare word for word, but I think this may qualify as a copyvio. Before I do anything though I would like a second opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a clear violation. The source for the web page includes "meta name="copyright" content="© 2005 Robert Kaufman Co., Inc.", but no licensing terms. It doesn't even matter whether it matches word for word -- it matches too closely. Looie496 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this article. east718 // talk // email // 06:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

An audio conversation with User:Newyorkbrad

Hopefully this may be of sufficient interest to warrant a small 'heads up' here... I'd like to encourage folks to have a listen to the latest 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' which is an interview with newyorkbrad covering all sorts of stuff.... We're planning a sort of panel discussion in a fortnight or so (which means anything up to a couple of months!) - which any and all are invited to attend, submit questions, topics for discussion etc. - swing by this page if you'd like to get involved.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I've seen some pages get vandalized with the exact same vandalism serveral times from widely different IP addresses. Some of them mentioned /b/ so I went on there (my god...) to try to find the vandalism threads. I found a few, and I dealt with two of them by removing the revision that the poster was asking people to save. However, this took a long time/placed a huge strain on the servers and I am likely the reason why Wikipedia was running so slow a few minutes ago. (*cringes*) Should I just semi-protect the pages on sight, or should I wait for the vandalism to get out of hand? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotecting is definitely a better idea than voluntarily viewing /b/. It also would have been much simpler than bothering with history cleaning that wasn't otherwise necessary, imo - those things can be a pain in the ass (as well as a bit hard on the servers), and of course breaking the links to the vandalized revisions won't have prevented new vandalism. Use your judgment, of course, but I don't think vandalism needs to actually be 'out of hand' to justify protection. -- Vary | Talk 05:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, I saw someone requesting vandalism on a page that had not been vandalized yet, so I removed the revision. (not before like a million people vandalized, though). Should I preemptively semi-protect it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, gotcha. I'd say yes, in this case. I take it there are admins who watch The Colbert Report with laptops in front of them to be ready to protect any articles that get a mention. I'd stay under 24 hours, though, and increase it if they don't lose interest. -- Vary | Talk 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Colbert Report :D Keegan^talk 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Denying speedies

Hi there guys!

Although the vast majority of the articles I nom for speedy are in turn deleted, sometimes they are denied. In the spirit of learning from your mistakes, I would like suggestions on how I might be notified of this. I don't want to put too much load on admins already spending their time at CSD but I also don't want my talk page to look like I nominate everything I see for CSD.

Any suggestions? Are there any bots that monitor when CSD tags are removed? --mboverload@ 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Best bet is to use a common edit sum when making CSDs, like "Nominated for CSD". If it is declined, then the edit sum will still be in your Special:Contributions, if it is deleted, then there will be no entry. MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If you add the page you've tagged to your watchlist, then you'll be able to see which are deleted and which are denied. If I refuse a speedy delete request, I (like others) try to remember to leave an edit summary with reasons (e.g. "decline speedy, clear assertion of notability" or "decline speedy, reason given for deleting a redirect isn't one of the criteria, try WP:RFD"); if not, try asking the declining admin on their talk page. I think the onus is on you to ask why, rather than on the declining admin to tell you, otherwise the workload gets too high. That said, if I found someone who clearly didn't understand the criteria I'd probably let them know... There are bots notifying page creators of speedy requests, but none that I know of that notify nominators of declined requests. Bencherlite^Talk 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I frequently inform users about declining speedy deletions. In addition, I never decline a speedy without a useful edit summary explaining why it was declined. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of speedies are declined when an AfD would be logical, but let's also remember that some of the "declining" is vandalism and hyped authors trying to "OMG don't delete hes a real guy in my class n hes awsum," so following is a good idea. I've also seen some admins who have denied for less than strong reasons (like, "but we need more one line cricket stubs on guys who played one match in 1804!"). Utgard Loki (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Speedies should usually be declined if there is any question about their applicability. I know what you are saying but we do have to accept the fact that everyone starts out at some point and that proper speedy deletion procedure helps us keep new editors while keeping bad articles off. As frustrating as it may be to do in practice, that procedure suggests strong deference to the page when weighing a speedy deletion request. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually leave a {{sdd}} or {{sdd2}} template for people when I decline a speedy. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting templates. A shame they don't mention PROD though. Rmhermen (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually decline speedies that are under A7 when the article has at least some assertion of notability (whether it is completley valid or not I am not sure). I usually leave an edit summary stating that and mention that it could be prodded or taken to AFD if desired. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but the easiest thing to do is just watchlist everything you tag. If it's deleted, you'll never see it again so it won't disturb you; if it's declined, you'll see the tag being removed in your watchlist. This also means you can see right away if a deleted page is reposted. – iridescent 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody?! "If you add the page you've tagged to your watchlist, then you'll be able to see which are deleted and which are denied" (!) Bencherlite^Talk 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just testing... – iridescent 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what Iridescent said. You'll also see if the page creator comes along and removes your tag, or adds a hangon. Watchlists are a wonderful thing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's baaaaaaaaaack

Remember WP:AMA? Just was tipped off about this. Enjoy. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Same person as last time? Daniel (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they will be just as effective as before. Thatcher 13:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm sure. And Daniel: Not sure. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. AMA ran into the normal doldrums that happen with projects like that, and thus became vulnerable to being crushed. My comment has been that the crucial mistake that was made was organizing on-wiki. I have no idea if the people in this new initiative have sufficient knowledge and resources to pull it off, but, ultimately, something like this is going to be necessary, because existing process can be murder on users who are either innocent, or whose offenses were far short of deserving the response that arose. I think the problems can be resolved, though, without external organization; but the jury is out on that, as far as I'm concerned.

There are two kinds of wikilawyers: the process demanders and the political advocates. We recognize, easily, those who attempt to manipulate decisions through making purely legal arguments. What is harder is dealing with wikilawyers who are skilled at appealing to the knee-jerk responses of editors, in nondeliberative environments, and the latter are actually more dangerous. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AMA was vulnerable to being crushed due to it's own activities and organisation, something everybody who proposes amazing fixes to possible problems finds. Advocacy is all very well and good, but absolute power corrupts; where ostensibly well meaning advocates forget that being well-intentioned doesn't put themselves above process nor on a moral high ground, then they lose perspective. The second category of wikilawyering you identify is pretty easy to spot, easier than the first category which at least have some form of validity they can refer to. Minkythecat (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Intregity"? Deor (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AMA was, from my perspective, defectively organized, not only the matter of being vulnerable by being on-wiki. Wikipedia process works spectacularly well in certain ways ("amazing") but, actually, it's pretty understandable -- nevertheless it also sometimes fails. The second category of wikilawyer (really a political skill) might be easy to spot, for those who are looking, but seeing it does not necessarily fix it, in fact, describe it and you could get blocked. The only editor I've actually accused of this was Fredrick day, and he made it pretty easy for me to get away with it, sort of. I'll note that I was blocked as a result of looking at, and describing, the possible implications of some recent posts of his to AN. (It's part of what he does: toss shit and some of it sticks.) Did I make mistakes? I'm sure. Everybody makes mistakes, and since I try new things and express new ideas, I probably make more mistakes than more cautious editors.

However, there is this strange thing. Some voluntary process is set up. If it is not efficiently organized, it will waste some editor time. But it's voluntary. The editors decide if they want to waste their time. What was the hurry to shut down AMA? Similarly, Esperanza? These both created a kind of bureaucracy, but the bureacracy wasn't essential to what they were doing, it's merely the first way they tried to go about it. With time, those who supported the activity would have learned to do it better. No, these were User:Abd/Rule 0 violations. When there are Rule 0 violations, they must be punished, societies have been doing this for millenia. But, of course, giving Rule 0 as a reason for the punishment violates Rule 0. So there will be some other reason.

When there was a dissident candidate for the board of the IEEE, the board realized that defects in their standard voting system could cause a spoiler effect, and the candidate might win. So they implemented Approval voting. When the danger was past, they went back to their old system. Why? Well, there was what they gave as the reason and then what was probably the real reason. The official reason was that most voters were not using the ability to add extra votes. True. That's normal for Approval. However, it costs nothing to allow the extra votes, the same ballot is used, and it is easy to count the extra votes if they are cast, and they are only cast, unsually, when a voter sees them as needed. The real reason? S.O.P. The board was acting to preserve its power to control the next board elections through its preferential nominating power. It's so common that it's hard to even condemn it. Those who have excess power almost always believe that the power is merited, and they might even be right.

But the lesson of history, still being developed, is that broader distribution of power benefits a community, if mechanisms are in place that allow the best in people to come out, instead of the worst.

Injustice on Wikipedia (or the appearance of injustice) is gradually destroying the project. Many long-time editors have left, citing the poisonous atmosphere. We can sail on, believing that everything is fine, or we can start to identify the problems and seek solutions. If we destroy every attempt to correct wrongs, because the attempt is itself defective, as it will almost certainly be, we will never be able to move beyond our limitations, and I can predict what will happen, probably in no more than a few years.

So I was blocked. Big deal, eh? However, there is this strange disconnect. If I actually did what I was charged with doing, it would be very important to get me out of here, quickly, or, alternatively, to educate me. Without education, without my understanding what I did wrong, I will repeat it. And so will most editors in the same position. We desysopped Physchim62 and Tango, not because they made mistakes, but because they were unable to recognize them as mistakes, after it should have become obvious through extensive discussion. Therefore holding access to the tools was dangerous. If we had some way of moving past the obstacles that prevented them from seeing it (it wasn't really very complicated, but the political situation was complicated), we would still have the advantage of their substantial experience and hopes for the project. How could we do this efficiently? I think I have an idea, and I'm trying it out. It's not started yet, but the page is there, and if you are interested, watch it, it's User:Abd/RfC. It will not be obvious to most people why this would be any different than what we already have, but it will, if anyone participates. And I'm seeking for as many of those who criticized my work to participate. I'll moderate it, since it is designed for my benefit. If I screw it up, I'll get some bad advice, as will anyone who controls advice in a dysfunctional way. If this fails, I will have wasted my time, and a little time of those who choose to participate. If it succeeds, though, it is possible that it will have demonstrated something very important: a way to find true consensus efficiently, without having massive debates. That is, in fact, the real problem here: inefficient process. Standard WP process is highly efficient in certain ways. But when it comes to negotating consensus in certain areas, it can break down very badly and becomes extraordinarily inefficient. And, in fact, our article process, seen from the point of view of overall effort expended, is really broken in situations where there is serious controversy, so an article goes back and forth. And that is mostly wasted effort by those involved, and those who are trying to defend the encyclopedia against POV-pushing can get pretty cynical and burned out. --Abd (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the "I'm a revolutionary martyr, here to make Wiki amazing by getting my amazing system implemented, oh by the way I was unjustly blocked by the way" message has been well received by now. Minkythecat (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

hey but he does offer free banking, I guess that's why he's keen to solicit people's email addresses.... --87.113.67.19 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day, IP blocked. – iridescent 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But...but... it has passive voice, so that makes everything better! You see, "it" "has been found" that "many" difficulties were <insult> <insult> <insult>, and so the project. Any form of the to-be verb plus a past tense verb = passive construction. Watch for it. Nearly every time you see it, someone's up to no good. Geogre (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SwirlBoy39 ACC flag

Resolved

 – Flag returned, access restored SQL^{Query me!} 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I recently found that SwirlBoy39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had access to the ACC flag. Now, this wouldn't normally be a problem, but he has previous been community banned as Bugman94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's created numerous socks, which can be found in Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bugman94. I'm all for offering users a second chance (I think I supported his unban request a few months ago), but I don't think it's a good idea to give a tool which allows the ability to create far more accounts than is possible to normal users to a user who has been known to disrupt the project with serious socking previously. A review would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• In principal I agree with everything Ryan says above. However, SwirlBoy39 has reformed, and has done some tremendous work at ACC. Yes, he was banned, but that is genuinely ancient history. I wouldn't support the removal of ACC status. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Users can reform, and I agree in many ways SB has - but with the history of socking he has, I don't think he can be trusted with the tool in the long term. There's plenty of other things he can do without having access to this flag. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I should note that the ACC tool is in no way backlogged. Users that haven't had previous sock issues can easily handle the requests. There's no urgent need to lower the standards to give users with a socking history to have access to this flag. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. It just seems strange to me that all this is being dug up now, nearly a year after the sockpuppet accounts were tagged. Has there been any evidence of abuse in the time he had the flag? It just doesn't sit right with me. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that with his socks, he's been known to abuse the ability for users to create new accounts. One example is here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, having the account creation bit is really only of use to a massively abusive sockpuppeteer. Basically, any editor can create six accounts at a time and over a number of weeks, that can accumulate to quite a lot. If he were ever to abuse this, checkuser would be able to pretty-much detect and nail the entire sockfarm. I'm not particularly worried, and besides, Swirly is now well past all that stuff and I'd hate to see him permanently 'branded' for his past transgressions - Alison ^❤ 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, of course it can, but also creating a quiet account here and there would also be silent. Checkuser doesn't show everything, espeically if the user isn't vandalising in pattern. I think he can develop trust on wiki, but when someone has a history of relatively serious sockpuppeteering, they can develop trust in other areas. There's plenty of other users who do account creation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But "creat[ing] a quiet account here and there" has absolutely nothing to do with the ACC bit; he can do that either way. Rather, I see this as an ideal way for him to regain the trust of the community - Alison ^❤ 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

He can regain the communities trust in many other ways. There's plenty of areas he can work in, many others indeed. We can be slightly picky with who we give the ACC flag to, given that so many people have access to the tool - many, many other users can easily deal with the accounts that SB can't deal with. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Have you checked to quantify how much ACC work he's done to-date? You see, he's had the ACC bit for quite a while, and there have been no issues. Bringing it up now, and for no clear reason makes it look like an exercise in humiliation. I know that's not your intent, Ryan, but it could easily be seen as that, esp. by Swirly and that would be seriously disheartening to him. Like there's never going to be any redemption - Alison ^❤ 02:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alison. Working in this area without any problems is a perfect opportunity for Swirlboy to regain trust he lost last year. Working here is no different to working in other areas. how do you turn this on 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Alison as well. Removing the ACC flag does nothing to prevent him from creating socks if he so desired. Just leave it be IMO. Though, he hasn't hit the throttle since late May. –xeno (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When was he unbanned? Months ago? Last I checked, an overturned ban wasn't supposed to be like a felony conviction that followed you around for the rest of your wiki-life. If he's not doing anything wrong, why take action against him? Besides, creating abusive socks using your main account is pretty much the height of stupid when it comes to sockpuppetry. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree, return the flag to Swirlboy, there is absolutely no indication he has misused it. Prodego ^talk 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Ryan, you've already gone ahead and removed it. With due respect, while I won't wheel-war over the matter, that was more than a little hasty here. And the message you left in the logs was somewhat of a damning black-mark against him. I feel that that was totally unwarranted here. I've been watching over Swirly since he was unbanned and working with him on issues, and there's been very little I can fault him for - Alison ^❤ 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ryan, with all due respect, consensus is against you here. While he was banned a while ago, he has shown that he's reformed, and removing the ACC flag from him seems punitive rather than preventative. Swirlyboy has more than "served his time", so to speak, and I think holding the fact that he was banned 6 months ago against him is unfair, and his flag should be restored. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(Apparently Ryan P can't reply for a bit, his internet is down.) - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

SwirlBoy does good work on ACC, last time I checked. Someone give him his ACC flag back if he's going to use it (and he has needed it at times). While you're there, take my flag; I don't need it and the current ACC system is a joke. But that's not SwirlBoy's fault. —Giggy 10:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was going to be brought up, and I've been hesitant to posting. There are other tool admins who can keep an eye on him if there is evidence of potential misuse. Since there isn't, it should be returned to him Ryan. Synergy 10:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored Swirlboy's account creator flag per consensus here. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So an admin brings this here for a review and people's thoughts. Consensus is, it's not a problem - and from my outside view, it should be removed WHEN an offence occurs, not via an admin using a crystal ball to think an offence might occur. possibly. At some point. The fact said admin then unilaterally removes the access against any semblance of consensus here before "losing" net access smacks very much of "I think this, please validate my view. Oh you didn't, never mind, I'm right anyway". Minkythecat (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I originally proposed that SwirlBoy be unbanned, and I can certainly say that since that proposal was passed by the community, he's improved no end. This removal is punishing him for past transgressions, when they are just that: in the past. His conduct is not a current problem. When or if he does abuse this tool, we will take action; at present, however, this is a purely penal measure, with no solid preventative element. I support restoring SwirlBoy's tools. Anthøny 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would also support a restoration of SwirlBoy39's ACC tool. Revoking the ACC tool just because he was banned for sock puppetry when SwirlBoy has reformed does certainly sounds like he is being punished. Actions like these should only be done as a prevention from multiple misuses, not punishment. Though, if SwirlBoy was recently unbanned, then I would highly oppose a restoration. But in this case, he has shown he has reformed and I would assume he will not misuse the tool. -- RyRy (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• absolutely support Swirlboy's tool access. No indication of poor behavior. RyanP's actions both in creating this report, and removing the tool with no indication of problems is the kind of abusive admin action that we DO NOT NEED. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• The tool removal was dealt with in the appropriate forum for an off-wiki tool, and is back as it was. Also, Swirlboy got his flag back (Agree on both cases, personally, as I said on the mail list). I'm going to mark this as resolved now. SQL^{Query me!} 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gdewilde

Resolved.

Before being full protected, indef blocked User:Gdewilde used his talkpage as platform to launch personal attacks against me and another user, Guyonthesubway, quoting me out of context and/or misrepresenting the context, and refactoring my remarks. Since the page is full protected, I cannot respond or otherwise defend myself, so I'm wondering if someone would be willing to blank the section in question. Thanks for your consideration. Yilloslime (t) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 03:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, for what it's worth, he's using his blog at yahoo. (Do a google search for "Arthur Rubin", and the blog appears toward the top.) Nothing we can do about that, but it seems interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for quicker response at WP:RPP

Hello -- I hope you won't mind me asking this, and that it won't seem like nagging -- I do fully appreciate that nearly everyone here is a volunteer, and so things are done on a best-efforts basis, but when recently I was dabbling with recent changes patrolling, it was frustrating to encounter problems due to a delay in getting a page protected by admins. Yesterday, the article Folie à deux was reported at WP:RPP at 20:42 UTC. It was semi-protected 19 minutes later at 21:01 UTC. In that time, there was a veritable onslaught of vandalism from multiple IPs. Earlier page semi-protection would have helped considerably. Would it be possible please to place greater priority on page protection requests? Many thanks. — Alan^✉ 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

19 minutes is not a long wait at all. In fact, that's probably one of the quickest response times I've ever seen for RPP; vandals sit at AIV for longer than that. - auburnpilot talk 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What then would be an appropriate channel in a case where the vandal edits are coming really thick and fast, so where 19 minutes is a long time (see the page history)? Should I just take it straight to AIV? I eventually did, but only after a while, because I assumed that the RPP (which someone else raised) would in itself get a response. Thanks. — Alan^✉ 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While other admins would probably disagree with me, I'd take something like that to WP:AN or WP:ANI. These two noticeboards receive much more attention than AIV/RPP/UAA. Before my RfA, I always checked the deletion log when I needed the quick attention of an admin. Spot one making deletions and leave a note on his/her talk page; you'll get an even quicker response. - auburnpilot talk 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. — Alan^✉ 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

National-Anarchism

Requesting page protection for this troubled article. The last thing we need is for people to think it's acceptable to spam the external links section with foreign-language weblogs. Ottre (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection would prevent any work on the article, and this is one editor edit-warring against several others. I've given them a 3RR warning. A block could follow, if necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange vandalism at Project Chanology

Resolved

Hello. I have no idea what noticeboard to post this at, so I decided to put it here. Project Chanology seems to have some strange sort of template vandalism. I can't find anything that looks like it would cause it in the article's source code and no edits in the history appear to have caused it. Anybody know what is going on? Captain panda 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, protected, blocked etc some time ago thanks. Refresh your cache. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

not repaired. not a cache issue for me, never went there until after seeing this report. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything. What's the problem, exactly? --Deskana (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

now it's clear. it had some strange quote about owning souls and a bunch of numbers in a block. It's the common template vadalism that's been happening the past couple of weeks. I couldn't figure out what template was causing it though. and I don't know why I saw it after zzuuzz fixed it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future you can use this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=[article title]&action=purge .-Wafulz (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Please can someone archive the first 25 threads on this page? I am unable to load the whole page at the moment. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) will archive some threads later. D.M.N. (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD tidyup

Resolved

This AfD about a band was closed as Delete, but the four associated articles (about their recorded output) were not. Could someone delete them, please? Ta. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) : Doing... --Rodhullandemu 19:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hut 8.5 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of IP address from history page

I accidentally made a comment on the discussion page of Paramore without remembering to log in first. Could someone please, please, please delete my IP address from the history page? I would very much appreciate that. Please. Thank you. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators can't "remove" just one edit from the page's history. Only oversighters can "remove" edits from page histories, but there has to be a good reason. Oversight is usually done for privacy reasons. I would assume this is you? Anyway, I see no reason why it should be "removed" in the first place. You can easily just sign in and replace the signature with your signature. What's so important that you want that one edit "removed" anyway? I see no harm in just replacing the IP's signature with your signature, saying that you weren't logged in in the edit summary. Either that or you can just leave it alone and continue the discussion. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He wants it removed because some WP "watchdog" sites use slipups like that to personally identify editors and admins (as best as an IP address can do) Protonk (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made the edit admin-only for now. Please email oversight-llists.wikimedia.org to make the removal permanent. east718 // talk // email // 07:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been oversighted - Alison ^❤ 09:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User edit warring, removing maintenance tags

• diff1
• diff2

User:Koavf doesn't have consensus on talk page, behaviour reminds me of WP:OWN. Insertion of categories like "conflicts in 2008" is a pushing of unsourced info (I can't put a citation needed tag near a category)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

again diff this can now be even 3RR --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

edit the tag was indeed not right, I didn't notice that. I didn't know the meaning of the word "spurious" when he tried to tell me it's not right --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I haven't gone into this disagreement in depth, but it's easy to see that you yourself recently reverted the article no less than six times within 24 hours. Note also that Koavf is right and you're wrong about the tag {{Unreferenced}}, which s/he keeps removing and you keep re-inserting: the article is far from unreferenced. Your edit summaries suggest that you're using rollback to revert edits that are far from clear vandalism. That would be misuse of the rollback tool. And finally, have you told Koavf that you're discussing him/her here? That would be courtesy. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

P.S. I see you admit above that the tag was wrong. That's good, and I hope you will continue to check what tags say (=not just what your opponent says about them) before you put them back so many times. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Omar Khadr

This doesn't need admin attention specifically, but admins are often experienced editors, so I thought I'd bring this by here. It's pretty simple: The article on Omar Khadr has 33 photos. It's kind of jaw-dropping. The issue was brought up on the talk page not long ago, but didn't get any responses. A significant number of the pictures aren't of Khadr at all, but merely of other people who have gotten involved in the controversy. Some really extreme trimming needs to happen, and I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to start, so any thoughts would be appreciated. --Masamage ♫ 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Start a new section on the talk page, list the images and the reasons why you are going to keep/remove each one. Remove the images you don't think fit, one per edit with a meaningful edit summary, referring to the discussion on talk. See who disagrees, enter into a one-on-one or centralised discussion with that individual, as appropriate. Do not edit war, and report any disruption or edit warring to the appropriate places. --Stephen 01:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed by clicking the above link. Both William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction in the case now ceases to be in effect.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathan Jay Williams?

I really have no idea if this is the right place, but I noticed that Nathan Williams (talk · contribs) has his User and User_talk located at Nathan Jay Williams (talk · contribs). Now I'm not quite sure how to proceed with this user. He seems to want to change his username. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest try talking with him about getting an actual name change first; if he doesn't want to do so, then the user/talk page need to come off redirect. You might also point out that he can change his signature to include the Jay if he wants without actually changing names. Shell ^babelfish 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sec 1971

I'm a little concerned about ths user's comments. Apparently they're upset over having to source everything: "Could I put the phrase "George W. Bush is half lizard, and eats babies for lunch while fingering his own ass" on my website and call this a reliable source? Probably not, but that's basically the way most of the editors here are siting their sources. Make up your minds, are require deletions to be DISCUSSED FIRST before finalized. We're not Nazis here, common knowledge is common knowledge. Would I need a reference to say that Bill Clinton was threatened with impeachment due his liaisons with Monica? I think not, because everyone knows this....." Comments like this are concerning, but unfortunately I don't know what to do. Is this just a rant or something more serious? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the discussion in context on that user's talk page, he seems to have engaged constructively with you on the issue of sourcing and editing. I don't think this is something requiring administrator intervention or monitoring. --MCB (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A little help needed

Can an admin please delete List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. It needs to be deleted so that List of current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees can be moved to List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. (Per a new consensus). Thanks, -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See discussion here for more information. D.M.N. (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please post requests like these at WP:RM. Thanks, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hi. Question - have the categories changed somewhat ? If I went to WP:CATS, I could click on the box on the right and get an alphabetic list of categories starting at a particular letter. Thats all seems to have changed ...is there a problem or ahs the structure been changed ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify further, clicking a letter gives a 'from' / 'to' option - if I enter something like 'Books', then instead of a list of categories starting at 'Books', I get a list of 'xxx' to 'yyy', and I then have to repeatedly select to drill down further and further, rather than just being able to scroll through. Also, on the first page after clicking on the letter, there seem to be a lot of articles listed as redirects....CultureDrone (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and found it somewhat more difficult to use, or at least requires a lot more clicks to get where I need to be with no apparent added benefit. Anyone know the reason for the change? Stardust8212 13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ick. Not good. Agree with Stardust. Why? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lordvader2009

I've templated him, some of the image bots have templated him, other's have left him a personalized message, I've left him a personalized message, and even threw in a last {{uw-copyright4}} warning. His reply to all these have been to blank his talk page. But as can been seen from the log he's went ahead and uploaded two more copyvio's that have already been speedied. I'm guessing asking him kindly to stop isn't going to work. Q ^{T C} 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much of a problem here. Sure, he's blanking his talk page which is pretty unreasonable behavior in and of itself, but his "evils" aren't that great either - just two copyvio uploads. I edit in the same circle of articles as them and am willing to clean up their messes. east718 // talk // email // 06:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Two blatant copyvios and about 20+ odd images he failed to provide even basic copyright and source information to. Q ^{T C} 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot alert

The bot User:JAnDbot has been incorrectly changing or deleting interwiki links in articles on my watchlist. The latest was the article Micropropagation. I have had to revert at least two other edits from this bot on other articles. I appreciate the author's good intentions in making a bot, but as can be seen by his talk page, other people have been finding similar problems with the bot's edits. The bot author states on his talk page User talk:JAn Dudík, "If you have something about my bot, please leave diff or link, in other case I'll ignore your cries."

I request that an administrator look into this, since replacing correct interwiki links for a language to ones that lead to incorrect pages in that language is an insidious form of damage.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
WriterHound (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if the error is on the other end:

• Micropropagation → fr:Culture in vitro → Tissue culture
• Micropropagation → nl:Weefselkweek_(plant) → Plant tissue culture

I don't really have a proposed solution, but it's possible something needs to be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot seems be *correctly* removing a link to a non-English article in a case where that article links back to a different one than the original. In fact, its treatment of Micropropagation seems correct to me. Micropropagation is specific to plants, and the link tofr:Culture in vitro was matching it up with a more general article on the French side that was not appropriate. It is normal to block bots immediately if we see them making mistakes (since their feelings can't be hurt) but I'm so far not seeing any error by the bot. I haven't studied the previous comments at User talk:JAn Dudík, but I did leave a note for this editor on his Czech talk page asking him to come here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On the French side, it says translated, "In vitro culture (also called micropropagation). . ."

The whole thing seems a bit confusing.

WriterHound (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot is working correctly when doing autonomously. The things discussed on my userpage are whein I try to solve mixed interwiki using assisted bot. I have list of articles which are linking to article en:A, list for en:B etc. from these list I am trying to solve it. When article en:A links to fr:C but fr:C links to en:B what can I do? When I solve it bad, somebody could repair it. I have solved many articles ando only few of them were bad. JAn Dudík (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jan, first of all thank you very, very much for all of your work on Wikipedia. Obviously, we are all volunteers here and other people do not always appreciate the hard work that many of us put into editing.

WriterHound (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets disrupting AFD

Resolved

 – Maxim has closed the AfD & deleted the article

A few sockpuppets appear to be disrupting this AFD with firm arguments to "Keep" the article. Removing their arguments would result in the article being "Delete". It might be worth closing the AFD as "Delete" now to avoid any further socks/IP's disrupting the !vote. D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the AfD needs an early close, since admins who work on closing are generally pretty perceptive about sockpuppets/meatpuppet/SPA participation. On the other hand, I think someone could make a decent WP:SNOW case that there's no way the article will be kept. But what does need to happen is an immediate edit of the article to remove serious WP:BLP violations, and I'm going to do that right now. --MCB (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a decent knowledge of boxing, and the article appears to be a clear-cut hoax. I have cast my !vote at the AfD as such (along with my reasoning/evidence). If some other intrepid admin wants to close out the AfD for the snowball it is, I would appreciate it. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment of User:Erwin85

Resolved

I can't do very much, as I'm on my phone, but could someone please take a look at User:Erwin85 and User talk:Erwin85. Someone seems to have it out for him. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

All accounts and IPs involved have been blocked. GlassCobra 21:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz for full discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – It is clear MyWikiBiz and Thekohser are not getting upblocked anytime soon. There is no consensus on broader issues or under what conditions might Thekohser be allowed to edit at some time in the future, but positions are entrenched, an increasing number of participants are strident in their language, and little further insight is being generated. Those wishing to engage Thekohser in further dialogue can do so at his user talk page, where he is able to respond. -- Martinp (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Global blocking now active

Please see Wikipedia:Global blocking for more information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Suggested admin edits

Credit to Giggy, borrowed text and idea from his post at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

I suggest that MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked (the message recieved when you're globally blocked and try to edit here) be created/modified, modeled after commons:MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to John Reaves (talk · contribs) for doing this. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also suggest that {{unblock}} be modifed similar to [16], to add an option for removing a global block. See also See m:Steward handbook#IP address blocks for some more information. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Resolved

 – It's been done - already! Thanks for the fast response! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother, folks - if one of you has time, would it be possible to email me the Wikitext of editing marks, a deleted article? Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

somebody help

somebody help about Texas_census_statistical_areas . I think the image in that page isn't right. Bbadree (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why ask for help here? Either fix the problem yourself, or bring it up on the Discussion page of the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete these edits

The user Legal and free, jk (talk · contribs) has already been blocked, but his edit history contains slnder against user Zain Ebrahim111. I think these edits should be deleted, instead of simply reverted. I don't have time to do this myself right now, so if another admin can look into this I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll do it the next time I visit WP. Mindmatrix 15:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The range of articles may mean that a developer will be required to remove the edit summaries. However, since this appears to be a well known vandal it is possible that such a situation might occur. However, if there is a sysop with a lot of time available (not me, I regret!) and a liking for the delete/undelete buttons then let them at it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email to oversight. It doesn't strictly meet the criteria, but its close, so they may do it. Mr.Z-man 15:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on oversighting the said revisions. To quote Special:HideRevision:

Potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.

It's minor, petty vandalism. If the person in question is personally offended, then I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, I do not wish to do this. Note, I've also been targeted by this vandal, but felt no need to oversight the revisions regarding myself. Deskana (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism needs more attention

Resolved

 – Revert, block, ignore. No outstanding issues here. Anthøny 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I trolled the Boobs on Bikes article 24 hours ago, a recent event covered in world media and until now nobody reverted it. Imagine how small but relevant articles is still trolled right now for months or maybe years. --Kuka Beludo (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Reverted. - auburnpilot talk 15:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My nickname itself is trolling in portuguese, wasn't to be blocked minutes after created? --Kuka Beludo (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok? Blocked as requested. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring from User:Wikiarrangementeditor

This user has long history of edit warring and is more or less a single purpose account. As far as I can see every edit has either been promoting the Nissan GT-R or trying to make a competitor look worse. I have some history with this user and as such do not want to issue a block. However I do feel that one is in order. While this user has not explicitly violated 3RR since the last 1 week block they have continued to edit war and have made no attempts at discussion. I am not currently involved in the dispute, as difficulties working with Wikiarrangementeditor on the Nurburgring lap times page caused me to pull the page from my watchlist. I think more eyes on this matter would be beneficial. --Leivick (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Any reaons you posted this both here and on ANI? I replied there. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

Please check this section, [17] What makes Wikipedia involved with these hassles?--Puttyschool (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

People are usually reluctant to delete material from talk pages, because it makes the discussions hard to follow for later readers. (By the way, I changed the section heading here to something informative.) Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete the section from talk page--Puttyschool (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ángel Matos Accidental Move

Resolved

In moving Angel Matos to Ángel Matos, I accidently put a comma in the title. Now it's at Ángel Matos, and needs an admin to move it. Please do so because this guy is all over the news -- he just kicked an olympic ref in the face on purpose. Sorry about the error. --Visitweak (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed automatically by USer:Redirect fixer --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It was me, actually, but no matter. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fake vodka

I created this article. I hope it's a suitable topic for Wikipedia because I saw a documentary on it last year, and have seen news stories about it since then (I provided a reference). But I would like help to improve it; I'm not sure I've done everything right.--Smocksmeagel (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We appreciate your enthusiasm. For some simple steps to improve your article, check out the links that ChiragPatnaik left on your talk page. If you are still having problems or if you have specific questions, check out Editor Assistance. Those are the best places to get some advice on starting out here. (In contrast, this noticeboard is reserved for problems that specifically require administrators, things like blocks and protecting articles.) Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a widely used term for fake vodka: "samogon", or moonshine, in English. I think your content would make a welcome addition to Moonshine#Russia or Moonshine#United Kingdom, but there's no need to create a separate article based on one reference. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Llywrch

I've got concerns about Llywrch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He recently protected his user talk page with the summary "no needs to edit this page". Now, that wouldn't be an issue if he was planning to leave, or not edit for a while, but he's chosen to start to make attacks in edit summaries ("wasting time, as if anyone cares; go bicker over a loser like BetaCommand!). I left him a warning, and unprotected his talk, yet he's decided to remove my warning (not a problem), but yet again protect his user talk. That isn't what I'd call good admin behaviour, and I'd appreciate more opinions about what to do. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like he's gone a bit off the reservation, but perhaps temporarily. Obviously the talk page protection and the incivility are not long-term sustainable conditions but for a few hours just letting him blow off steam on his talk page, so long as it is limited to there, might be the best idea. Can anyone see what appears to be the precipitating event? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish there was some sort of way of stopping Llywrch for protecting his user talk short of desysoping him. I want to talk to him. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 03:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I can tell, it started with a rather innocuous exchange at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Linking to years, again four days ago. Nothing there seems nasty enough to cause the erratic behavior, so I'm thinking something happened in RL. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can get a hold of him, perhaps we can find out. That is the main problem. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 03:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Try using the e-mail link on his user page. Recently he said this is the best way to contact him. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep discussions onwiki. I have e-mail enabled but I have only used it once: when User:Nishkid64 set me attachments for 1964 Gabon coup d'etat (currently at FAC). I really don't like private discussions. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he is well aware that some people would like to speak with him; presumably when he is interested in listening he will make himself available. Perhaps when he awakens tomorrow morning he will have calmed down. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fake vodka

I created this article. I hope it's a suitable topic for Wikipedia because I saw a documentary on it last year, and have seen news stories about it since then (I provided a reference). But I would like help to improve it; I'm not sure I've done everything right.--Smocksmeagel (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We appreciate your enthusiasm. For some simple steps to improve your article, check out the links that ChiragPatnaik left on your talk page. If you are still having problems or if you have specific questions, check out Editor Assistance. Those are the best places to get some advice on starting out here. (In contrast, this noticeboard is reserved for problems that specifically require administrators, things like blocks and protecting articles.) Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a widely used term for fake vodka: "samogon", or moonshine, in English. I think your content would make a welcome addition to Moonshine#Russia or Moonshine#United Kingdom, but there's no need to create a separate article based on one reference. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Llywrch

I've got concerns about Llywrch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He recently protected his user talk page with the summary "no needs to edit this page". Now, that wouldn't be an issue if he was planning to leave, or not edit for a while, but he's chosen to start to make attacks in edit summaries ("wasting time, as if anyone cares; go bicker over a loser like BetaCommand!). I left him a warning, and unprotected his talk, yet he's decided to remove my warning (not a problem), but yet again protect his user talk. That isn't what I'd call good admin behaviour, and I'd appreciate more opinions about what to do. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like he's gone a bit off the reservation, but perhaps temporarily. Obviously the talk page protection and the incivility are not long-term sustainable conditions but for a few hours just letting him blow off steam on his talk page, so long as it is limited to there, might be the best idea. Can anyone see what appears to be the precipitating event? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish there was some sort of way of stopping Llywrch for protecting his user talk short of desysoping him. I want to talk to him. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 03:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I can tell, it started with a rather innocuous exchange at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Linking to years, again four days ago. Nothing there seems nasty enough to cause the erratic behavior, so I'm thinking something happened in RL. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can get a hold of him, perhaps we can find out. That is the main problem. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 03:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Try using the e-mail link on his user page. Recently he said this is the best way to contact him. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 03:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep discussions onwiki. I have e-mail enabled but I have only used it once: when User:Nishkid64 set me attachments for 1964 Gabon coup d'etat (currently at FAC). I really don't like private discussions. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he is well aware that some people would like to speak with him; presumably when he is interested in listening he will make himself available. Perhaps when he awakens tomorrow morning he will have calmed down. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot: User:Redirect fixer

This bot reacts so fast to pages being moved that it frequently copies move vandalism. I've left the bot owner a message, but this seems like quite a large problem in that vandalism to one page is spread to a very large number of other pages before the original vandalism can be fixed. --Muna (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect fixer is not a bot, it's a process built into the MediaWiki software. It is supposed to change the links back when the move is reverted, however it appears the admin that reverted the change deleted the page and restored it, instead of moving back. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 08:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I brought up what I think is the same issue here ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/...and One Classical

Hi,

could someone help me out here? I just nominated ...and One Classical for deletion using Twinkle. It did not create the AfD page, however. I also cannot create the page manually, because it is on the local title blacklist. Does this have anything to do with the three dots at the beginning of the title? How do I get the article to be AfD'd?

Regards,

Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You sure? Try again. I was able to edit it and save it. Metros (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It did not work when I tried. Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because admins such as Metros are immune to the title blacklist, but it can be edited by anyone once it is created. And yes it is probably due to using the same punctuation three times in a row. A recent discussion here involved the use of "!!!". Note that a true ellipsis "…" is okay because it is one character (U+2026). I don't doubt there will be a wave of pagemoves in the near future to satisfy the same people who are infatuated with n-dashes. — CharlotteWebb 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The big picture - WikiMedia Foundation's Executive Director's latest report to the Board of Trustees

Newer admins that care about what's going on in the big picture but don't know where to look may be interested in Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director's latest report to the Board of Trustees. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheaper than sleeping pills (but less fun.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia plagiarism issue (McCain allegation)

Wikinews has this article

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_investigates_claim_McCain_plagiarized_speech_from_Wikipedia

which addresses the issue but seems to have little comment from Wikipedia people. Abbarocks (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Request review of my deletion action at MfD

Resolved

 – Guy closed the discussion as delete, any further comments about my action are welcome at my talk page--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I commented at Wikipedia:MFD#User:Sam1957.2FKenny_Marks then later learned that the page under discussion was a blatant copyvio (I had not noticed the lyrics). I recommended speedy G12 but after 2 days nobody had taken action so I deleted the page myself and then requested an uninvolved admin review my action and close the discussion. Nothing has happened, though a non-admin has questioned my request that the closer be an admin. Request ratification of my action or that someone take appropriate action to undo it, in either case it would be nice if someone would close the thread. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a straightforward G12 to me, the content is clearly a series of copy-pastes with no evidence of license release. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AN and ANI restructuring discussion on talk

Please take notice of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Individual_discussion_subpages.3F. It's scope is broader than it sounds by the title, it involves moving this page and creating a directory page as well as changing the archiving system of ANI and possibly AN. Please keep discussion there.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Worryingly, the discussion has bypassed "do we need to fragment ANI into thousands of subpages" and gone straight on a handful of admins discussing "how shall we fragment ANI into thousands of subpages?". Agree with Doug, please take notice of the discussion. Neıl ☄ 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden protection

I extended Will Beback's semiprotection of the article yesterday at the time of the announcement to 24hrs. That protection is about to expire. Should we go ahead and extend semiprotection, or wait and see what happens? Keegan^talk 07:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It'll almost certainly need sprotection again, but let's leave it for now as long as it's not too bad. WODUP 09:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Recently the semi expiration was updated to indefinite; not sure if we need to go that far, but no harm playing this one by ear. It should have quite a few eyes on it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Title blacklist request

I was trying to edit Talk:Magic Ban Removal!! Hyde and Closer (main article is Magic Ban Removal!! Hyde and Closer) to place WP:MANGA's {{manga}} template on it, and I got a message about it being a bad title for Wikipedia? Can someone please fix this? -Malkinann (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I created the page. You should be able to edit it now. WODUP 08:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've tested it, and I can edit it now. :) -Malkinann (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was the !!! that triggered the filter, as there isn't much else there that would cause concern. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Alexbot malfunctioning

In accordance with the notice on User:Alexbot, I am reporting a malfunction with the bot. Alexbot has twice removed valid interwiki links on Seibert (History) and Siebert (History). These are valid interwiki links to the same pages on the German Wikipedia. Life of Riley (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the bot is causing any problems elsewhere - of the last fifty edits, those two pages are the only two it's having trouble with. I'd suggest contacting the bot operator to see what's going on. If the problem continues, you can always add {{bots|deny=Alexbot}} to the top of those pages and the bot *should* stop editing them. We can also block the bot if the problem continues or escalates. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will use the bots deny option if it continues. •Life of Riley (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be because the de: page has a dab template when the en: just has the surname template. For some reason Alexbot (who has an account at de:) has not removed the return link from de: to en:. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bidness

Please see this user's contributions: [18]. I have issued a level 3 vandal warning regarding his disruptive edits -- in essence, he is throwing around threats and silly warnings along the lines of "It is recommended that all who have contributed [to x article] be banned forever." He also seems to be trying to bait other users by being combative on talk pages. I am keeping an eye on him and will block him if he continues. Don't need assistance at this point, unless someone thinks I'm being too hasty. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Your actions look good to me - I'd probably have blocked him by now, it looks like he's got a history of this nonsense. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing

Resolved. Click "Show" if you really want to. John Reaves 00:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has become aware that Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) (not an administrator) has accessed and used the accounts of two administrators, Chet B Long (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). We also believe that Chet B Long and PeterSymonds may have accessed Steve Crossin's account too. In the case of Chet B Long, we believe that Steve Crossin encouraged the exchange, and Chet B Long in an act of exceedingly poor judgement sought not to let him down. In the case of PeterSymonds, we believe that he accidentally revealed his password, which prompted Steve Crossin to try accessing his account. Steve then told Peter that he knew his password, and Peter allowed his password to stand unchanged. Steve used Peter's account to perform non-controversial administrative actions, but without the approval and trust of the community, and in PeterSymonds' name. Such behaviour is outside the standards that administrators are expected to follow in keeping their accounts secure, and the Arbitration Committee considers this grossly inappropriate conduct.

While we have no evidence pointing to inappropriate administrator actions being carried out by Steve Crossin while accessing these accounts, there is still an issue of trust here. In addition, we have been informed by multiple people that Steve Crossin has been sharing chat logs of a private communication between himself and other users, including Arbitrator Deskana.

All parties made a full admission of fact, and both Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have already voluntarily resigned their adminships. Given the information above, it is clear Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have retired "under a cloud", and as such, should only have their administrator access granted again via application to the Arbitration Committee. Whilst all three are valued editors, their actions were grossly poor in judgement. We are considering Steve Crossin's position, but do not feel any other sanctions are necessary in respect of the two administrators at this time. The community may wish to discuss their own sanctions, if appropriate.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I missed all this drama... Pity about all this... Steve: Hope you got some good understanding and learnings from all this. Take care, kiddo and thanks for your help during mediation. A Lesson Is Learned But The Damage Is Irreversible ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

The Committee and Steve Crossin have been in considerable dialog this last week. It is mutually agreed that a long term break by Steve from editing would give him a chance to reflect on matters, and the Community a chance to do likewise.

Accordingly Steve has agreed to a formal long-term break, with strict conditions, following which at his request the Committee will consider whether he might resume editing. He and his wife have agreed that neither will resume editing or other significant involvement, whether with existing or new accounts, without the agreement of the committee, and that the Committee's decision may be to ask the community. He is aware that any breach of the agreed conditions will result in enforcement by blocking.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Why The Hell Has Somebody Blocked Kevin J For Adding Accurate Facts to The Bill Clinton Page?

I looked at his facts about Sally Perdue and Bill Clinton, and they were very much accurate. They didn't violate any BLP policy and had a reliable source. When I went to the user's talk page, I also saw that he had been blocked. It seemed like the user blocked him for nonsense. Telling people to lay off is not harrassment in anyway. Harrassment is when you intentionally annoy somebody and continue to write on their page. From what I saw, this user did no harrassment and it was immoral to block them. If I had a Wikipedia account, which I don't desire to have at the moment, I would add this uer's facts back to the Clinton page in a heartbeat.

I am requesting a block for the rude harrassers who personally attacked the user's talk page and got away with it: Bercude (whatever their name is) and Keeper 76. From what I have seen, THE USER DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. BERCUDE AND KEEPER 76 WEREN'T BLOCKED FOR BEING RUDE AND BIAS, YET YOU STILL WOULD BE WILLING TO BLOCK THIS RELIABLE USER FOR NONSENSE? YOU PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on it, perhaps just a sixth sense or something, but SOMETHING TELLS ME THIS IS KEVIN J EVADING HIS BLOCK. --barneca (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC) (aka (evidently) Bercude)

Indef block for User:Kevin j?

Actually, this might have been a tactical mistake on Kevin's part; a look thru the contribution history of this IP address shows it's been "backing up" Kevin j in content disputes, requests to desysop other admins that have crossed Kevin's path, and complaining about Kevin's blocks since December 10, 2006. Indeed, every single one of the IP's edits is backing up Kevin j Sorry, I exeggerated here; don't want this to be a loophole --barneca (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC), and on talk pages he always pretends not to be Kevin. As long as 1 year ago, the IP was patiently explaining HOW USING ALL CAPS DID NOT MEAN HE WAS ANGRY, JUST THAT HE WAS EMPHASISING SOMETHING.

I'd like input from others first, but based on this pathetically obvious sockpuppetry, Friday's ridiculous AN thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#I'm requesting a notice Be Issued to Tvoz and Plushpuffin to Respect the Neutral Point of View and Good Faith Policies (moved from talk)), and Kevin's previous history of rabidly attacking every single editor who disagrees with him about anything, I'm proposing an escalation of the 1 week block to indef, and blocking the apparently static IP address for, say, 6 months or a year. He's here to fight, he's been doing it for a year and a half, and I don't see what good a "final" chance is going to do. Anyone object? --barneca (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. Tan ǀ 39 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - Seems the only way forward. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block on Kevin j. A lengthy block on the IP address may be in order, as well, based on the contribution history. Horologium (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support, Kevin J's hostile and uncivil behaviour warrant at least a lengthy block for him. As the IP address also seems to be wholly used by him, a comparable block on that seems logical. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - I hope non-sysops are allowed to !vote here! John Sloan (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) I'm too involved! John Sloan (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Absolutely 100% no offense intended (I'm sort of one too sometimes), but we probably ought to make sure to get some input from people that aren't stalkers of Keeper's talk page too, to make sure this is completely on the up and up (and, as well, make sure it looks like it's on the up and up.) --barneca (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

One more comment then I'm going away. I'm about to go offline. I'm not on Keeper's talk page quite often enough to identify all the usual suspects; I think Shoemaker's Holiday and Horologium are independent, outside opinion; I think I've seen the rest of us on Keeper's talk page often enough to qualify. I just suggest an admin who is definitely not one of the "gang" take an independant look at this, and if you agree, please change my block of his account to indef, and change my block of his IP to a nice long block consistent with what appears to be a static IP. --barneca (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I've never interacted with this user. It might be best to get a quick checkuser on the IP, but, frankly, it's really obvious from even a brief analysis of Kevin j's talk page that the writing styles between him and the IP are identical. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be around for awhile, taking a look now. Kevin (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the users contribs, and behavior here and elsewhere I have reblocked indefinitely, and blocked the IP for 6 months. I'm definitely uninvolved, despite the similar username. Kevin (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

“ I have done nothing to get myself blocked, and I even reverted the edits I made to the Clinton page to respect the three-revert 24 hour rule. Is this Tvoz trying to diguise themselves with their IP address by chance? I myself have learned well about the strategy you are trying to use to get me blocked, by disgusing yourself as another user and making look like more people are defending your claim. It's really not fooling me. Kevin j (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC) ”

This is hilariously disingenuous, especially considering Kevin j's earlier edit to the AN (above), accusing Tvoz of sockpuppetry. Sorry, I don't mean to gloat (too much), but this user has wasted a lot of my time (and my patience) recently. -- plushpuffin (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Allow stewards to deadmin based on community consensus

See here. (crossposting across noticeboards). NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. I will take part in that discussion. It will be an important discussion. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Griot

User talk:Griot needs to be restored. It was mistakenly included in the temp user category. -- Ned Scott 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The full history, that is. -- Ned Scott 23:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Ned Scott 00:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser

I'm not really sure where to post this, but I figured AN was a good, noticeable spot with lots of knowledgeable users.

I was just about to send an e-mail to another user when I saw this message for the first time:

A (non-public) log of this action will be kept for abuse prevention purposes via the Checkuser function. The log entry for an email does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the email. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators ("developers") can verify the recipient account, which CheckUsers can only see in hashed form

Was this always the case? Is this a new change? I've gotta say, I'm a bit upset about this. Why on earth does a checkuser need access to this information, and where was it documented that they would get access to this? -- Ned Scott 07:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this yesterday - I guess/suspect it only records the fact that X sent an email to Y, at D time rather than anything more specific. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, but I don't see how that would help a checkuser. And to correct/clarify my original message, I would say I'm less upset and more.. confused and concerned. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The message says that the recipient, title, and contents aren't visible to CUs, but I suppose date/time, user, IP, and browser information would be. WODUP 08:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The information is user-so-and-so sent an email at such time to a user -- we see a hash of the username so that we can identify multiple emails to the same account, which could be indicative of abuse. We don't see identities, content or subject of the email or any other information that we wouldn't see when looking at a user's edit to a page. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's alright.. -- Ned Scott 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It may have some utility to detect (or verify claims of) email harassment/bombing, though honestly I'm not sure how often that would come up. I don't think there's too much cause for concern until/unless the content or subject of the email become accessible to other users (hashing the recipient's name is a nice touch, though). – Luna Santin (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See bug 15103. MER-C 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I would hope everyone already knew better than to use Special:Emailuser for "private" communication. — CharlotteWebb 14:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How else are you supposed to communicate with another editor if you don't know their email address? Corvus cornix_talk 20:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Their user talk page? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Having seen this somewhere else, I'd suggest emailusering them saying "Please email me back, I'd like to discuss something" since once one is out of the WP system, MW can't track it. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Local title blacklist exception

Template:" ' " needs to be a redirect to Template:Double single double (which is too long a name to be useful), to match {{" '}} (Template:Double single) and {{' "}} (Template:Single double). When I try to create the redir it says the following:

Unauthorized

The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.

If there's some form of actual abuse in the history of that page name, then it can simply be protected after being created.

The templates are pretty self-explanatory, but the short version is that the current revision of WP:MOS recommends using non-breaking spaces between adjacent quotation marks, and this is absolutely terrible advice, as it violates the semantic integrity of the page by mixing content and presentation, 1996-style. It really has to be done with CSS, and these templates do that. See the templates themselves for clear examples. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Precendent: {{!}}, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, would you mind clarifying what you mean by "mixing content and presentation", and why it's a problem in this context? I have no problem with these templates, I'm just wondering what the actual reason is why a SPAN tag is superior to a nonbreaking space here given the identical appearance. Or if that discussion happened somewhere else, please point me to it if you like if it saves time. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The character string "'" is not the same as " ' "; when visually spaced apart with CSS, the actual content remains, correctly, "'". See CSS and Semantic Web for more information on why something like this matters. Basically, this is needed for the same reason that CSS positioning is needed in lieu of HTML table-based layout of visual elements, and that old presentational (not content-related) HTML elements like <font> are deprecated in favor of handling presentation in CSS. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I don't see any problem with creating the redirect, feel free to slap me if I'm incorrect :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Range block on Soccermeko

Soccermeko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't let up one bit on his disruptive editing since he was banned in March. Since then he's been the subject of three Checkuser requests and 13 SSP cases (latest one here). He edits primarily from two dialup ranges in Atlanta, so it would seem that Kww's proposal for a rangeblock would be a no-brainer.

The only thing that gives me pause is that his IP is Level 3. Although from what Kww told me only five edits out of the last 200,000 from those two ranges are constructive, the fact this is a major backbone provider is the only thing that kept me from softblocking those ranges immediately.

I believe, however, that considering the negligible number of constructive edits, it's worth the risk of collateral damage. I thus propose that the ranges be softblocked for at least two months. Thoughts? Blueboy96 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what I meant: I scanned the last 200000 anonymous edits (about 3 days), and 5 of them were valid edits from that range. I don't have the ability to scan the last 200000 edits from a particular range. I think a couple month's softblock on two /16s is quite reasonable, still.
Kww (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

sound of crickets chirping
At the very least, it looks like there won't be a vast upwelling of opposition if you put the blocks in place, Blueboy96.
Kww (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And today, a fresh sign of an absolute lack of remorse.Kww (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith, you try to prove the impossible. Besides a probability of similiar edits, you cannot think of any other reasons why I should be block. I can edits and if you don't like then worry about somebody else. The rules of sockpuppetry do not apply to me due the fact of me not having a sockpuppet. However it may apply to you because User:Kww and User:Blueboy96 could be sockpuppets, you already make similiar edits. 4.154.4.169 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Soccermeko. You've just made our case for us. Ranges 4.154.0.0/16 and 4.129.0.0/16 are now softblocked for 2 months. Blueboy96 18:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've narrowed the block to 4.129.64.0/21 and 4.154.0.0/21. Based on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soccermeko, nearly every IP falls within there. If there's still substantial disruption, then I think we can consider extending the ranges. Spellcast (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice

We need small advice. On talk page of article Talk:World War II persecution of Serbs user Kirker has writen comments about non-existing edit warring or better to say about edits of banned user which has been reverted. I have deleted comments of Kirker from talk page because of Wikipedia:Banning policy (it is not possible to comment edits which do no exist), but other user has reverted my deleting. Agreement [22] is to ask administrator comment if my deleting is OK because of Wikipedia:Banning policy or his revert of my deleting is OK because of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. We all will accept administrator decision ! --Rjecina (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Put a little more simply, is it acceptable to comment on changes suggested by a banned user? If not, should comments by editors in good standing be removed? AniMate 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, comments shouldn't be removed if somebody has replied to them (not unless they are patently offensive in some other way) and nobody is obligated to enforce a ban by removing comments. If the end result of the discussion is improvement of the article, this outweighs other considerations (most of the time). — CharlotteWebb 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What makes the attempted removal frustrating is that Rjecina is removing the comments of an editor in good standing who is discussing issues raised by the banned user. Apparently, his view is that if the sockpuppeteer raised the issue we are no longer allowed to discuss it. AniMate 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor in good standing :)))) He is your wiki friend with who you are editing articles.

He is not discussing issues raised by the banned user which in 9 months before ban has not raised this issue but only after ban but writing false comments about edit warring.

My points is: We are having article with which everybody is happy until user banning. After banning this user is writing provocations and wise users are falling in trap to start edit warring and nationalistic heated debates. Bravo

Second point is: Kirker has been very clear:

"Adding and removing "genocide" from the title are NOT minor changes. I would suggest that the edit-warring on this subject be suspended while consensus is sought...."

Because there is no "Adding and removing genocide" or "edit-warring" his comments of banned user action need to be deleted.--Rjecina (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that it doesn't matter what a banned user says, since their edits are likely to be reverted on sight. Another user can make exactly the same edits, but everyone takes responsibililty for their own actions. Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not a banned user has made a suggestion on a Talk page. Any non-banned user can make any suggestion or proposal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I just being paranoid (Copyright question)

I've posted this here since if I'm right the images in question may need to be retagged from free to fair-use, edited or deleted.

The images of the Melbourne Airport Terminal (Image:Melbairterm.png, Image:Melbairterm1111.png and Image:Melterm2.png) were uploaded by EuroKick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with the images classed as self made however the images used for the Airlines and Airport are copyrighted which means that the PD license on two of the older images are incorrect and the other doesn't have a license on it. Am I correct or incorrect? Bidgee (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly all three are problematic. The inclusion of various corporate logos in the lower right corner would make all of these images non-free to begin with, and given it is just a layout of an airport, would be easily fair use replaceable. Good find. MBisanz ^talk 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tiger Airways logo may attract copyright, but most of the rest probably don't. Logos, especially just text-y logos, are usually trademarked but not copyrighted. Here, though, it's probably sensible to overwrite all the names with plain text, since (at least one of) the logos are copyrighted. WilyD 14:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I'd say all but the International and SkyWest airlines are debatable as copyrighted, in any event, looking at EuroKid's talk page, he clearly does not understand our image policies or image licensing rules. I might support a prohibition from him uploading images for the time being. MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I know that text (even colours) can be copyrighted (Here in Australia at least). I'll make a new image removing the need for logos. Also with the layout of the airport, does it mean that I can upload as a Free-use image or do I have to tag it as a fair-use?. Bidgee (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee, in the US the FAA releases a lot of free maps of airports that are used in most of our articles, is the Australian government has an equivalent system, that might be the best (and easiest) source. MBisanz ^talk 16:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not these are even self-made is questionable, has anyone checked the airport website to make sure these aren't copied? Mr.Z-man 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not on the website, but those images were uploaded in 2007, so the website may have been updated. I've tagged for CSD and we'll see if anyone objects. MBisanz ^talk 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org may help but ATM my internet connection is playing up[23] Bidgee (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat regarding a Lasik eye surgery group

In the past the article Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance has been a BLP problem, with partisans of the council or its adversaries wanting material to be included about their respective lawsuits. The war has involved addition of *external links* that would certainly be defamatory if the same material were included in the text of a Wikipedia article. Until now, the most recent uproar was the indefinite block in March, 2008 of the editor LasikFraud for statements you can still see linked on his Talk page. For example,

• ...will request that the victim add in Wikipedia editors as defendants. The same edit has the phrase, To this day, Wikipedia's editors have continued to serve as a mouthpiece for Glenn Hagele, by actively enabling him to post announcements of his lawsuits against his patients."

The page has been quiet for several months. But just today a new editor Brentahanson made this comment:

You may certainly complain to Wiki Administrators board. I hope that you will keep a written record of your complaint because this is precisely the information that is being sought in discovery for this lawsuit. http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/lauranell_burch/legal_docs/2008-07-July/burch-motion_to_compel_discovery_00.pdf

Suggesting to Wikipedia editors that they should keep records because what they do may be subpoenaed *does* sound like a legal threat. Brent Hanson is connected with the Lasik Fraud group, as you can determine from its web site. The Lasik Fraud group has been charging misbehavior by the eye surgery council which is the subject of this article, as well as its director. It is reasonable to believe that Brentahanson is a reincarnation of the indef-blocked LasikFraud account. I am planning to indef-block Brentahanson until such time as he withdraws his legal threat, but am offering the situation for review here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll block right now for the comment below mine, which on its face does sound like a threat against the community rather than an advisory. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 03:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in for the record. As far as WP:NLT goes, I think we traditionally treat "my friend/associate/whatever will sue you" as a legal threat, just as blockable as a more direct threat, as it seems to cause many of the same problems we wish to avoid. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Danke, Luna. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

BH

"Brent Hanson is connected with the Lasik Fraud group, as you can determine from its web site. The Lasik Fraud group" Ed, what is "The Lasik Fraud group"? Is that shorthand for "I don't know what's going on"?

With regard to your statement "I am planning to indef-block Brentahanson until such time as he withdraws his legal threat", well guess what? I'm not suing anyone. Dr. Lauranell Burch is the one who is suing Glenn Hagele and CRSQA. Your problem is going to be with her lawyer if she decides to go after Wikipedia. I certainly don't control, her, but if she asks my opinion, I would recommend that she name the editors of Wikipedia as defendants for all they have done to help out Glenn Hagele on his campaign of defamation against LASIK patients. I did make copies of a few pages on wikipedia and sent them over unsolicited to Dr. Burch's attorneys so that he can see the history of what's been going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentahanson (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about how others think, but i consider this a clear legal threat, worded so as not to literally appear to be a literal one, and good cause for an indef block. Anyway, WP keeps records of all edits and othr actions, so there's no need for any editor to be warned to preserve records, and I think further communication about this should go to the Foundation. DGG (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Good block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brent Hanson is named in the document he cites, as the one who allegedly revealed personal information about Hegele (instead of, as Hagele apparently claimed, the defendant, Burch), and his comment above seems a tad distorted. Burch is being sued by Hagele, but has countersued. I saw nothing in the document that indicated any hazard to Wikipedia, but it does indeed look like he's pushing or recommending inclusion of Wikipedia editors as defendants, so I agree with the classification of this as a legal threat. Hanson seems confused about our process. I rather doubt that Burch's lawyers would be so foolish.--Abd (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine

Hi, can we get a few admins watchlisting Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine? Per this source and this source, the singer and his attorney are pursuing legal action against people that are perhaps even discussing the incident, by the look of it, even getting Youtube videos of him outside the concert itself (i.e., fair use stuff, him interacting with fans outside the performance) pulled under legal threats. Someone at Richardcheese2 (talk · contribs) that may or may not be him has tried to remove references to the incident[24]. The section was unsourced, so I just added the link to the source--given the legal hot tamale it may be admins should take over this and watchlist it. rootology (T) 04:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked user:Richardcheese2 per the username policy, pending OTRS verification. Interestingly, the same user both claims to be, and not to be, Richard Cheese. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The source might be a little thin; I'm not familiar with Geeknewscentral, so others will have to judge. The section heading could also use some work; maybe "controversy" or "Coverville 2008 performance" or some such. I added a properly formatted references section, which parsed the link Rootology added. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 05:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Geeknews may be on the thin side, but Techdirt I think was reputable. But I could be wrong. No opinion either way on the article or content. rootology (T) 05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like user:Richardcheese2 may not be the man himself after all. User:76.124.169.190 has taken up the fight while he's blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also declined to unblock an IP caught up in an Autoblock of Richardcheese2. I added a ref to the article, but we're gonna need more on the incident in question if it is to stay. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

<--all seriousness aside, I'm profoundly disappointed that hot tamale is a redlink. Keeper ǀ 76 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(off-topic) Redlink fixed. Needs work, but it's a start. — Satori Son 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's beautiful, Satori Son! My work here is complete </offtopic> Keeper ǀ 76 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:YeaahMATE123

Resolved

 – _Gb^T/c 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:YeaahMATE123 looks like an attack on a person (or multiple people), but it's so incoherent that it's hard to tell. It is, however, the only edits of the User whose Talk page it is. Should this be deleted? Corvus cornix_talk 07:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of any merit on the page or in its history, deleted under G3. _Gb^T/c 08:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship on Bigfoot article, even Bigfoot Talk page was reverted

I'm here to report that there is someone on here who is censoring certain things about Bigfoot, claiming that I'm someone else and that people who shoot at Bigfoot is pure silliness, spam, worse. The links provided prove that there are people out there who will shoot anything that moves, which could get someone killed. Links are http://www.lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/bigfootshootings.aspx and http://www.highdesertbigfoot.com/Shooting-Cases.htm Because I'm here, it is a good chance that I may end up harassed, blocked for reporting this censorship. Someone I know gave me the links and told me what has been going on here. One of the reverted "silliness", "spam" links was a hunting/gun magazine that had asked its subscribers if they would really shoot at a bigfoot, while other reverted "silliness" reported that police officers have shot at Bigfoot. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• ZOMG! Censorship! Suppression! Oh, wait, it's just another lame edit war. As you were, then. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in no "edit war" at all, thus is why I came here. Seems the proper thing to do. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me those links are not to reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I present this one: http://www.wtvynews4.com/news/headlines/12443276.html - TV News: Teen dresses up as Bigfoot, nearly gets SHOT! Really appreciate the help. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC) :)

The recent hoax in Georgia (US Georgia) has got people asking about other people shooting at Bigfoot. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The OP is engaged in a novel synthesis from (unreliable) sources. No problem, though, I'm sure discussion will help him to understand our views on this, we'll see how we get on from there. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The two of us is discussing this matter. Again, thanks for the help. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

horns.aiff Jtrainor (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What is "horns.aiff" ? Going now to Endorse Wikipedia. You guys earned it.205.240.146.233 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GaXa8tSBE Jtrainor (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• BIGFOOT IS REAL--MONGO 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning a user I don't particularly like: review invited

Resolved

 – This is the wrong venue, the discussion has now been wrestled down to a single locus

I've warned Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), someone of whom I'm not terribly fond, about disrupting AFD again, this time with inserting a gigantic inline image into AFDs (example diff). I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Was it done multiple times, or just the one time? If it was just the one time, I'm not sure what you're wanting; ask Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles not to do it again and move on. It's certainly not block worthy. - auburnpilot talk 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He replaced it after removal several times, and this isn't the first time people have asked him to stop disrupting AFD in other ways. There was a fairly lengthy ANI thread recently - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was merely following the example of another editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media who was not reverted. If it is okay in one instance, then it seems odd to suddenly go after someone else elsewhere. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I found it obnoxious in the Catsuit AfD -- and that's, I think, where Le Grand picked it up. No one pulled it then; I don't see a reason to give him a hard time about putting it up *in the first place* in that other AfD. As for continuing to restore it when two users removed it and it wasn't, ya know, essential to any sort of argument . . . that's kind of a pain in the neck. Le Grand has a trigger finger for Undo when people with whom he often disagrees removes/alters his content -- Kamino, Thumperward's talk page, this AfD... Meh. --EEMIV (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose, I believe added it there, and given the precedent, i.e. lack of confrontation and in fact that that discussion did not close as delete, it seemed okay. Given that as admitted above, A Man In Black does not like me, I found his reverting it to be in bad faith/conflict of interest. Now if someone neutral like a Wizardman or DGG said it was unhelpful, then I would be okay with that. The bottom line is I found the nomination and argument in this particular discussion outright confusing given that we are talking about characters who appear in games, manga, and anime, who are mentioned in both published guides (reliable primary sources) and the occasional review, and for which the article provides out of universe information about who voiced them for example. I agree that the article should be referenced better, but is clearly discriminate and covers fictional characters that are notable by appearing in mutiple different kinds of works of fiction and for which we can verify the information. Now I cannot always make such claims in these fiction discussions, such as a number of the recent Warhammer ones; however, as I can this time, it just struck me as taking the whole deletion of fictional character articles too far and what I am saying is that if we do not delete articles for which we already had a clear keep close, then I am going to be willing to concede some of those Warhammer like ones. It is meant as a wake up call that it is time we all come to our senses and start working out compromises in these discussions and maybe even come to a means of making an actually passable fiction guideline. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is rather the sort of conduct I'm meaning, as Le Roi is saying here that he was right to put a giant picture of a fish in the middle of an AFD argument (or otherwise disrupt AFDs) because his argument in the AFD was right, and only people who agree with his AFD argument are allowed to criticize his conduct, with the implied accusation that the criticism of his conduct is a trick to try and undermine his argument. It's a distraction tactic, and a particularly effective one, given the fact that people's eyes tend to glaze over when they see what looks like another inclusionist/deletionist fight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so, the fish sucks ;-). Frankly, I think more disruptive was his return to the "copy-and-paste-but-change-some-words-to-reverse-what-you-said" nonsense, which he's been repeatedly asked not to do. Or restoring the fish when it was deleted. But for the first fish itself, he was just aping another editor who wasn't warned for an image that wasn't removed. --EEMIV (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think renominating an article for deletion that closed as a clear keep or editing someone else's posts is more disruptive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"I think [foo] is even more disruptive, so it's license for me to be as disruptive as I want as long as it's less disruptive than [foo]!"

This is tiring, and I don't see a clear way to put a stop to it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The way is for all of us to stop assuming bad faith and making pointed accusations against each other and actually focus on the articles under discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you did not oppose it (remove it and warn Father Goose) in the previous discussion, suddenly going after me is hypocritical. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And my example diff was totally wrong anyhoo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

As I said on your talk page, I do not see how posts like this or this (scroll down) are somehow actually constructive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks more like two editors who should actively try to stay away from each other than anything else. Seems a bit petty. - auburnpilot talk 18:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors who have decided that it's best to try to stay away from LGR. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Count me as one of them. He's fine to work with outside deletion debates, but inside them he behaves in a pretty unproductive fashion. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The below is exactly why nothing has come of this to date. Le Roi derails any conversation of his conduct with a conversation on his beliefs, and deflects any criticism of his conduct as ideological disagreement. Any attempt to engage him ideologically is derailed by his empty reversals or repetitive filibustering. It's exceedingly frustrating to deal with him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black, I will try to discuss with you at User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#Disrupting_AFD. If nothing comes of it, then I will happily stay awar from him and hope that he will do the same. My actual hope, however, is that as I indicated there, all of us on the various sides of these debates can finally come to our senses and begin working out a real and good faith compromise regarding these fiction articles. Let us finally put an end to the back and forth in these debates and see where we can actually agree to something. I have faith that on the inclusionist side DGG and I are ready to do that, and I think Judgesurreal777 and Protonk and possibly EEMIV can do so on the deletion side. Here is what I propose as my threshold for notability. It is fait accompli that a large segment of our community comes here for articles on fictional characters, locations, and weapons. A sizable segment of these readers also create and contribute to these articles. Therefore, a fictional topic (character, location, weapon, etc.) is notable and at least worthy of a redirect without deleting the edit history if it meets under any of the following:

Look, I'm not interested in arguing with you here about notability. Nobody is.

Your conduct in service of your ideological goals is disruptive. The problem is not the goals, it is the conduct. Specifically, one of the major parts of that conduct is derailing any discussion of your conduct with discussion of your ideology.

Edit warring to force discussion of your ideology here is exactly the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated thread about notability

A Man In Black, I will try to discuss with you at User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#Disrupting_AFD. If nothing comes of it, then I will happily stay awar from him and hope that he will do the same. My actual hope, however, is that as I indicated there, all of us on the various sides of these debates can finally come to our senses and begin working out a real and good faith compromise regarding these fiction articles. Let us finally put an end to the back and forth in these debates and see where we can actually agree to something. I have faith that on the inclusionist side DGG and I are ready to do that, and I think Judgesurreal777 and Protonk and possibly EEMIV can do so on the deletion side. Here is what I propose as my threshold for notability. It is fait accompli that a large segment of our community comes here for articles on fictional characters, locations, and weapons. A sizable segment of these readers also create and contribute to these articles. Therefore, a fictional topic (character, location, weapon, etc.) is notable and at least worthy of a redirect without deleting the edit history if it meets under any of the following:

1. Appears in multiple major works of fiction, i.e. a character, location, or weapon that appears in a game, comic, film, television series, novel, and/or toy is notable as of the millions of fictional characters, locations, and weapons only a fraction also appear in other adaptations of the story. Only so many video game characters have been made into action figures; only so many video game weapons have been made into life size replicas.

2. Is a main protagonist or antagonist or is titular in nature, i.e. Soul Calibur the sword in the game Soul Calbur or Mad Max the character in the movie Mad Max.

3. Appears in a published encyclopedia. Only a handful of fictional franchises have achieved such a degree of notability that published encyclopedias exist specific to those franchises, although general fictional character encyclopedias also exist for the really notable fictional characters. Anything suitable for a paper encyclopedia, even if technically a primary source is technically encyclopedic and therefore suitable for the paperless encyclopedia that purports to be the ultimate general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedia, and almanac.

4. Lists of characters, locations, and weapons for which the individual characters and weapons may not be notable enough for their own articles but provide collective notability and serve as a compromise for those who want articles on these characters and those who do not should be acceptable as lists of characters, locations, and weapons are to fiction articles what the periodic table of elements is to the article on elements or a list of Academy Award winners is to an article on the Oscars.

5. Lists, including the "in popular culture" ones, provide a navigational function similar to a category.

6. In all of the above, so long as the material is verifiable in either although preferably both reliable primary and secondary sources, the topic is worthy of inclusion in some capacity if even only as a redirect. Multiple novels and published encyclopedias constitute considerable coverage in reliable primary sources. Usually reviews exist for such works that contain at least some mention of the fictional characters, locations, and weapons. As spinoff or sub-articles, dissertations need not be written on these specific aspects of the work of fiction to justify inclusion. Blogs and web-forums do NOT constitute reliable sources.

7. If a fictional topic is in an article title for which something with greater real world notability exists, rather than deletion editors should boldly write an article on the subject with greater real world notability and possibly move/merge the fictional content elsewhere, i.e. the example of Arathi, Abhuman, and Commander Dante.

The above would mean that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horus_Heresy would be kept, but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/High_Lords_of_Terra would not be. I would be amendable to a compromise whereby something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_minor_characters_in_Xenosaga_(2nd_nomination) is kept as it is covered in published strategy guides, the first discussion closed as "keep," the characters are mentioned in reviews, and the characters appear in games, anime, and manga, but something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marneus_Calgar is not as I cannot make such claims for that article. So, any wording that would allow for the above would be acceptable to me. So, I will see if I can get anywhere with A Man In Black, if I can't so be it, but otherwise, it is time we all sit down and see if we can come to a real and honest consensus regarding these fiction articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This content, while exhaustive, is very much misplaced here. Take it to WT:N, WT:FICT. This is not the forum to hash out and seek approval of your definition of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what we need to be doing negotiating on Notability and Fiction. It is time we all actually start to have the constructive discussions and stop the unproductive ad hominem approach. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So do it. Rather than wasting your time and our having the same fights every day on random AfDs because the guidelines say something that you don't agree with, argue to get the guidelines changed in the proper forum before there's any more bad blood. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to get others onboard to have that discussion rather than wasting all of our times with nominating AfDs that just turn into "fights" rather than arguments, i.e. instead of going back and forth unproductively in AfDs, let us pause from that and focus our efforts finally on ironing out a legitimate compromise on fiction that we can all live with. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be an excellent debate to have elsewhere, but, for the third time, this is a wholly inappropriate forum for it. — Satori Son 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Time_to_compromise and Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Time_to_compromise where this discussion may continue. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations/SRA in the Netherlands

Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account dedicated to getting a separate page about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. S/he has created several pages for this purpose (Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands and some redirects for spelling). I became aware of the page and wikified it; ultimately there wasn't much there, so I redirected to list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#the Netherlands. C1963's contribution history is a series of page blanks, reverts, and basically a concerted effort to have an unnecesary separate article. The discussion at Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#The Netherlands has been less than productive. I have dealt with this a while, but now I'm thinking perhaps the community might want to comment. WLU (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since October 2007 I contribute to Wikipedia. From the first moment on I have been harassed, threatened and insulted. Biaothanatoi e.g. implied that I would be a pedophile, because I knew some personal information about the author Benjamin Rossen (that was in the Dutch newspapers), but for Biaothanatoi who did not know that it was enough to compare me with a pedophile. Rossen wrote critically about the debauchery scandal in Oude Pekela and people who strongly believe that children were ritually abused by satanists in Oude Pekela circulated rumours that Rossen was a pedophile. Until then I contributed on the satanic ritual abuse page. After the insult of Biaothanatoi and the fact that he obviously was not open for reasonable arguments, I decided to make a separate page about Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Biaothanatoi harassed me there a few times, but since January 2008 I have never heard from him again.

However, August 2008 WLU eliminated my whole contribution on the page Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, replaced it by his own point of view and redirected the page to the Satanic ritual abuse page. Because I noticed that the version of WLU was not an accurate and neutral report of the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, I undid his contribution and tried to explain why people who read his contribution would be misinformed. He replied with new redirections of the page after he again replaced my contribution with his own point of view, with three strike warnings and with threats of blocking me from Wikipedia.

I do not mind where the information on the Netherlands is placed (on a separate page or integrated in the main page on satanic ritual abuse, but I do mind what the content is, because I want that the people who read the information will be informed about this matter correctly. Since I am doing research into satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands for more than a decade now, I am very familiair with the situation in this country. Based on my research, I can proof that the information WLU is providing is wrong. Criminologist1963 (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crim1963's complaint about Biaothanatoi's "pedophile" accusations on the authors of some RS, as you can see in this ongoing discussion. —Cesar Tort 14:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The content I worked with to produce the section of list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#the Netherlands is what Criminologist1963 placed on the various original pages s/he has created or reverted to. My actions were to wikify, link, use citation templates, re-word, condense references using the ref name tags, and generally manipulate the same text to say the same thing in a manner that was neutral, did not venture a position or opinion, and was of the appropriate tone. C1963 pointed out where the text was in error, I edited accordingly and suggested s/he could edit in the same fashion (i.e. rather than reverting wholesale). I have pointed out the flaws in the original text to C1963 several times, as well as the disclaimer that everyone agrees to have their text mercilessly re-edited, as well as the policy and guideline origins of my contributions and the reasons behind my edits. Several admins have weighed in, including User:Orangemike and User:Dbachmann (dab). It seems like a pretty clear case of ownership and a complete unwillingness to even read, let alone edit, according to wikipedia's policies. I've been accused of hiding behind anonymity, not knowing the sources (despite working with the sources and text provided by C1963), vandalism, and assertions that C1963 is the only person smart and knowledgeable enough to edit the page. And now we're here, because all of my assertions and wikilinks to policies have not had a dent. I don't care what Biaothanatoi did a year ago, Biaothanatoi has not been involved in the recent discussion and is completely irrelevant to the current one. Anyone interested in the guts of the debate can read Talk:List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations#The_Netherlands and this version of his/her talk page. WLU (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently SRA in The Netherlands is blank, SRA in the Netherlands is a content fork with the section list of SRA allegations#The Netherlands ([25]), and I'm getting a headache. WLU (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I already asked Crim1963 to revert the blanking. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that I blanked Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands and Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands is that one page dedicated to the situation in the Netherlands is enough. Remember that the reason to make those similar pages earlier, was due avoid to the vandalizing on the original page. Biaothanatoi did not find the alternative page, but WLU did. When he started to destroy both that page and the original page, I had to make a third page, which was destroyed almost immediately by WLU.

By the way, I just saw that Wikipedia says that it does not have an article with the exact name Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands and that is fine with me. I hope that the one who did that, could do the same with the page Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, because that page again has been redirected to the main article about satanic ritual abuse and replaced with the biased text of WLU. As said before, one page on the situation in the Netherlands is enough: Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Criminologist1963 (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to verify the information I have provided in the article on the page Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, you can contact the people mentioned in this article. If necessary, I can give you their email addresses and telephone numbers. They all speak and understand English. I also can scan some of the articles, but most of them are in Dutch. Criminologist1963 (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You can not verify the information on a page by talking to a person. Verifiability is ensured by the use of reliable sources. The sources are not the problem with the page. The problem is the continued reverting to content forks on multiple pages. The problem is this and this request for deletion which is inappropriate (the redirect to the list is appropriate). The problem is not verification with reliable sources, it is the tone, original research, promotion of a conclusion and content forking. Multiple contributors have redirected to a variety of different pages, and you have never discussed why. Lid, Aecis, Eleland, Daniel Santos, Moreschi, me, Cesar Tort, Sceptre, TexasAndroid, Malcolmxl5, Woody and Orangemike have reverted or redirected your original text to either the satanic ritual abuse page, or the list of allegations. You have yet to justify any of your edits based on the policies and guidelines I am citing. The problem is not verification, it never has been verification, and I have never pointed to WP:V as a policy to worry about. The problems are WP:TONE, WP:SS, WP:CFORK, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and now WP:3RR. WLU (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now a 3RR report. WLU (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not the issue. The issue is that your version of the discussion in the Netherlands is not accurate and that the people who read it are misinformed! Wikipedia is supposed to be an internet encyclopedia and people must have to be sure that the information in this encyclopedia is correct.

Therefore again, do not destroy my contributions, because they are an accurate version of the discussion. If you do not believe me, contact the Dutch people named in my contribution. Some of them are mpd therapists, others are critics of them, but I am 100 percent convinced that they all will confirm that the information I have provided is correct and that your information is wrong!

By the way, if I knew how to report you WLU, I would do the same with you. Criminologist1963 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are the issue. If the information in the list is factually incorrect, I am willing to correct it and have done so in the past. Your contributions have never been "destroyed", they have been modified to be in line with the policies and guidelines to ensure information is of a uniform high standard. You are missing the point, suggesting I contact the researchers is a red herring and indicates fundamental flaw in your understanding of wikipedia. You are free to report me, but you appear to have absolutely no idea what I should be reported for. WLU (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean that you contact those researchers. I meant that an objective arbiter from Wikipedia contact these researchers.

The policies are not the issue and you know that. The issue is that people are not informed correctly about the discussion in the Netherlands when they read your text. That is a very serious matter.

Since a few months, the objectivity and neutrality of Wikipedia is questioned in articles in Dutch newspapers, such as NRC Handelsblad. The authors say that many of the articles in Wikipedia have incorrect information and when they try to correct the articles they are confronted with laymen on Wikipedia who eliminate their contributions, saying that it did not fit the policies of Wikipedia. When I read this, I thought 'hey, where have I heard this before?'. I hope you understand that such articles in national newspapers are killing for the reputation of Wikipedia as an objective encyclopedia. The only reason those articles are published is because of you and other laymen at Wikipedia, who are not open for arguments from experts when they tell you that your texts are factually incorrect. Criminologist1963 (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

William P Young vs. William P. Young

Resolved

 – Talk page redirected to clear up confusion. _Gb^T/c 07:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Need someone with more experience than me to sort out the link redirects on this one. William P Young and William P. Young both have pages. Not sure how to delete one of them to clear this up. Also not sure of Wiki standards for which one should be kept and which deleted. Thank you for you time. C. Williams (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

William P Young appears to be a redirect (created last month) to William P. Young...are you sure those are the two articles you were talking about? _Gb^T/c 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, William P Young is a redirect to William P. Young. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Although, that said, I've just noticed that Talk:William P Young didn't redirect to Talk:William P. Young, so perhaps that's where the confusion arises. It does now. _Gb^T/c 07:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio - Permission granted issue

Resolved

 – thanks

I'd be grateful if an admin would consider removing a copyvio notice placed on Wessex Institute of Technology. In short, there was on the face of it copyvio from the wessex.ac.uk website at the time the notice was placed ... wessex.ac.uk has now posted a GFDL permission for all text on its site, here. If there are further steps required by wessex (such as OTRS) then now would be a good time to surface them. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As the person who placed the copyvio tag, this all seems to have been sorted out now so I see no problem in the tag being removed if an administrator agrees (assuming the copyright notice is ok). Verbal chat 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice removed. nancy ^(talk) 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OuijaBoardOuijaBoard

Resolved

 – The planchette has come to a halt on "Indefinitely blocked" _Gb^T/c 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if he saw that coming? Keeper ǀ 76 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at the contributions of OuijaBoardOuijaBoard (talk · contribs)? Besides occasional bouts of vandalism, he/she has created a TON of fake flag images and is playing some sort of game in his/her user space. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL?? You backstabbers! Now you must apoligise!! NOW --OuijaBoardOuijaBoard (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... this guy needs to be blocked. His contributions indicate that the vast majority of his edits have been to sub-pages of his own user page, which he's using for who knows what most likely disallowed reason. His other edits have included removing well-cited information against consensus [26] and then complaining about his removals being reverted [27], and generally making a nuisance of himself. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What I do on my userpage is personal and private! What is wrong with it? I am not doing anything wrong on it! --OuijaBoardOuijaBoard (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking or memorial site. Wikipedia is not your web host. Corvus cornix_talk 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but since anyone can view or edit one's talk page, it's neither private or personal. You're going to need to go offsite for that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not treating it as a webspace provder, blog or social website, I was just collecting results for a game for a future wikipedia article. --OuijaBoardOuijaBoard (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed several of OBOB's subpages, which were apparently dedicated to either playing some kind of game or to recording game statistics, and I have left notes on his talk page regarding tendentious editing and use of user pages. If he wishes to create an article, then he can go ahead and do so; he doesn't have to wait to have all the relevant information (and should note that articles should not be merely lists of statistics). Hopefully OBOB will take his concerns regarding article content to the appropriate article talk page(s) and settle in to contributing usefully. If he instead continues to be disruptive, he may be blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And I deleted the main userpage. Totally inappropriate usage of userspace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked indefinitely. Has anyone gone back and looked through his contribs? Obviously a disruptive editor and a serious negative for Wikipedia. Game over. Tan ǀ 39 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Block Endorse: I agree with What both Exploding Boy and EVula have said. This user clearly cant understand the policies of wikipedia and looking at the contributions hasnt really grasped the ideas of wikipedia. The contribs are mostly to his userpage and his user talkpage. Not many constructive edits looking at each individual contribution most of them have been vandalism. I say most because some have been on the border line between ok and vandalism BountyHunter2008 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if one can stretch their good faith boundaries enough to include this user, Wikipedia:Competence is required pretty much sums this up. Tan ǀ 39 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are just a few of his stupid edits [28]Removing basic english to make nonsense [29]

Insulting a rock band aka Aerosmith [30] Changing Olympic page[31] [32] creation of American Flag mixed with Iraq flag. [33] Weird Island drawing of a flag. There are many many more contribs like this. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block Good job, Tan. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

user:toppertoy

On RC patrol, I notice that toppertoy has filed a checkuser request (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia) which shows substantial Wikipedia experience, even though the toppertoy account is only a few days old and has only a couple of contribs. Something doesn't smell right here. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm investigating it now, have blocked a whole host of accounts and will be commenting there as soon as I've finished. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think a check request is suspicious, you can note it on the RFCU page. Toppertoy would not be the first person filing a CU who turned out to be a sock himself. Thatcher 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Smoddy's checking has turned up several sockpuppets, here. It looks like Toppertoy (talk · contribs), _Hippohitter (talk · contribs), and Hoppyginko (talk · contribs) have made some content edits. Several accounts were used for apparent vandalism/harassment, including _Pootle456 (talk · contribs), _Hottofu (talk · contribs), _Type3421 (talk · contribs), Werta45 (talk · contribs), and _Gyrocheck (talk · contribs). Several sleepers have also been blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, just coming in here and finding out I was accused of being a sock! I must admit I had been edititn a while as an IP and beame familiar with what DRV was, but that doesn't mean I was a sock of Kitia! S/he took the disruptive purpose to editing, while I try to be as civil as possible! I'm glad I cleared my name, at least. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 03:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that I make absolutely no comment about those allegations other than that it is not a question that CheckUser can answer. I don't wish to give the impression that I have "cleared your name" or taken a position either way on the allegations. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of abusive sockpuppetry

Block details explained, wrong forum for complaints dealing with private data. MBisanz talk 13:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Krimpet has recently accused Kristen Eriksen of abusive sockpuppetry. While I concede that I'm somewhat emotionally involved in this situation (please see [34], and my issuance of a barnstar to this user), I nonetheless find this accusation to be completely unfounded, and the demand of an explanation to be unreasonable, since (1) If "Crimp It!" isn't an abusive sockpuppet of Kristen Eriksen, the latter almost certainly doesn't know what "Crimp It!"'s ip address actually is, or who operated "Crimp It!". It is unreasonable to expect any user to look at a troll account such as "Crimp It!", then divine its operator's purpose and explain how the operator managed to obtain an ip address sufficiently similar to the user to merit the checkuser conclusion that they "attend the same university". The only possible response to such a question that an innocent user could offer would be mere conjecture. (2) There are many plausible explanations for this occurrence. If Kristen Eriksen were editing under her own real name, then her behavior on-wiki may have been sufficient to identify her in real life. Alternatively, she might have told other students at her university that she edits Wikipedia. In either case, a troll could then have obtained an ip address at her university in an attempt ruin her reputation on-wiki and in real life (if her username is indeed her own real name.) It's no secret that some of Wikipedia's best contributors are stalked online and in real life, and that trolls have managed to obtain the real-life identities even of editors who clearly edit under pseudonyms. In the case of Kristen Eriksen, a thread concerning this editor was started on Wikipedia Review the very day after Kristen Eriksen made her first edit. While some respected editors do contribute to Wikipedia Review, many trolls post there as well -- the latter have had fully one week to formulate their plans to destroy a editor who has undoubtedly been a productive and valuable contributor. It was in consideration of this very sort of situation that Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore were written. Wikipedia:Assume good faith instructs us to treat contributors who do good work, who contribute valuable content [35] [36], who revert vandalism, who offer cogent (if somewhat naive) commentary concerning issues coming before the Arbitration Committee [37] [38], as good faith users, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Note that merely being wiki-stalked by a troll who managed to obtain a similar ip address does not constitute "clear and convincing evidence to the contrary". Conversely, Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore provides guidance in the manner in which trolls, such as "Crimp It!", are to be removed from the encyclopedia -- by blocking them, deleting their edits, and hard-blocking their IP's if necessary -- not by banning good-faith editors who are the subject of trolling, simply because they "attend the same university" as the troll. To quote Alison's post on Wikipedia Review: Yes, a checkuser was run on the Crimp It! account. I subsequently ran one myself, as it happens. Sometimes these things get formally reported, and sometimes they don't. Right now, the CU folks are in extended discussion on it all so I'm saying nothing In this context, it was improper for Krimpet to circumvent the consensus-building process amongst checkusers, then announce to the world that "Crimp It!" is abusive sockpuppet of Kristen Eriksen, even though Krimpet herself doesn't hold the checkuser privilege. I would therefore request that User:Crimp It! be deleted until this matter is resolved. John254 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC) You're way off base and this is a specious request. (signed, one of the CUs who investigated this matter at Krimpet's request) ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Everyone else is waiting for this to be released in full - can you please do the same? ViridaeTalk 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC) With all due respect, Lar, it would have been far better if nothing had been said about this on-wiki until checkusers were willing to discuss the matter. To allow these sorts of insinuations to be made against productive contributors by users without checkuser privileges, then refuse to provide any actual checkuser results, is quite corrosive to the editorial environment here. John254 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I have the utmost respect for Krimpet, Alison, and Lar. All good editors, all good administrators. Why was this checkuser information released before the actual checkusers had the chance to discuss it, why was action taken before something solidified? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Let me just start by saying, John, that I'm more than disappointed to discover that you've been discussing me here on WP:AN by reading about it on Wikipedia Review. Next time, a note on my talk page would really help. As I stated there and now re-iterate here, a checkuser had most definitely been run and we are still discussing details relating to the matter. The question was initially raised as to whether one had ever been run in the first place. It had, and I have no problems clarifying that. However, I'll re-iterate that I will not discuss this matter further as it relates to an editor's private information. In honesty, broadcasting the whole thing from the highest-high on WP:AN pretty-much guarantees that the person(s) in question will gain maximum exposure, with ensuing maximum drama. In future, regardless of the veracity of your claims, I strongly recommend that you actually ask a checkuser first of the status of the case before engaging in speculation, as you have been doing here. If you think someone is unjustly identified as a sockpuppeteer, contact a checkuser discreetly and state your case. Bringing it here will not achieve that end - Alison ❤ 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Umm, and your new userbox really doesn't help matters at all - Alison ❤ 03:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Um, no. If there were such a great concern over "an editor's private information", then this never would have happened on-wiki. The accusation having been made publicly, it deserves a public response. John254 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC) There is plenty of concern, I think you'll find. Bottom line is that Krimpet *did* consult a checkuser before making that call and was not making it on the basis of absolutely nothing, as you imply above in your "she is not a checkuser" comment. Bringing it here just maximizes the whole drama. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? The exoneration of the individual in question, or the public excoriation of Krimpet? Because from my perspective, one is a private, discreet issue and the other is very much public - Alison ❤ 04:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Accusations on editors talk pages and sockpuppet taggings are not, by any reasonable construction of the term, a "private, discreet issue" -- they are public speech, visible to the world. My intention here is indeed "The exoneration of the individual in question", not "public excoriation of Krimpet", especially since it is beyond my capacity to effectively excoriate a respected administrator and developer such as Krimpet for a single good-faith mistake. John254 04:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I declare, how many times have you linked that here, now? Quite a number of people were unaware of the whole matter until you brought it up here. Not only did you bring it up here, but you attached the whole matter to trolling, stalking, "destroying editors" - the lot! If that's not drama-mongering, then I don't know what is. A sockpuppetry tag on a userpage may be in public space, but its far from shouting it from the rooftops, as you are doing here - Alison ❤ 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Open and public discussion in an appropriate forum is far preferable to uncontested insinuation. I refuse to accept that accusations of sockpuppetry can be made by administrators, userpages can be tagged as sockpuppets of editors, but we cannot speak a word of the matter on this noticeboard. My description of "trolling, stalking" etc. was necessary to provide a plausible innocent explanation for the ip address similarity alleged. John254 04:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I beg to differ, frankly, given that it could easily been contested had you ... errm, contested it! It's that simple. And as to your drama-stirring statements; nope, sorry. Ok, I'm done here, as this conversation is going nowhere - Alison ❤ 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I wasn't aware that just pressing buttons and making a few inflammatory comments on an RFAR makes one a "productive user". --Random832 (contribs) 03:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Well, surely quality contributions of encyclopedic content [39] [40] do, then. Somewhat modest to be sure, but she has only been editing for a short period of time. (Though I wouldn't disparage the efforts of users who donate their time to defend Wikipedia against vandalism.) John254 03:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I just have to wonder how a "new" user finds RFAR in two days, is all i'm sayin'... --Random832 (contribs) 03:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC) We can hardly invite users to edit without registration, then, if they should ever create accounts after a significant period of unregistered editing, hold out their knowledge of Wikipedia as evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. John254 04:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) This report looks like naked retaliation directed at User:Lar and User:Alison over the User:SlimVirgin arbitrations. This thread is highly disruptive and should not be continued in this venue. If you have concerns about the arbitration cases, please address them on the case pages. Starting a thread here, to generate maximum drama is a poor choice. WP:AN is not part of dispute resolution and should not be used to carry on political battles. Jehochman Talk 03:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC) This has nothing to do with open requests for arbitration, except perhaps incidentally as the user accused of abusive sockpuppetry commented on them. The allegations against Kristen Eriksen are not currently before the Arbitration Committee. John254 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC) It is well known that you are among many who are a proxy badhand for SlimVirgin. You are not fooling anyone with this attempt to stir up more drama against Alison and Lar. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC) What the bloody hell? I'm a "a proxy badhand for SlimVirgin"? This isn't goddamn Wikipedia Review. John254 04:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Are we going to drag omnibus/SV-Lar to every discussion involving these users? Let's keep this on-topic, folks! Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Ugh - can everyone please quit that mud-slinging, from all sides? It's of no benefit to anyone - Alison ❤ 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I'm shocked at the personal attacks and lack of good faith here. And from admins even! Ugh is right. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Look. CUs don't always give details out. We run checks because people have reason to run a check, and not always because of a request on RFCU. Routine socking doesn't require ArbCom involvement. Crimp It! is an impersonator/badhand account. The CU evidence makes it likely that it's a sock of KE. Several CUs have looked at it and it's sound. There isn't really more to tell. The tagging Krimpet did is as sound as other tagging we do. Krimpet could have blocked KE as well but chose to merely ask (we usually block sockmasters for a short period to slow down disruption) for an explanation. That's reasonable too. Why anyone would listen to the rest of this is beyond me. Someone's trying to stir up a tempest here. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC) And with this my two above questions are answered. I consider this resolved in my mind, Krimpet did the right thing. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC) This situation is far from routine. We usually don't have "Several CUs" review the same check -- this level of review, and off-wiki discussion is generally reserved for fairly major problems. If, however, there is multiple checkuser review, an accusation wouldn't be made publicly until the review was complete. If a checkuser result is "likely", but not "confirmed", this implies that the ip addresses weren't identical, and that the result couldn't have been derived solely from a check of the "impersonator/badhand account" -- Kristen Eriksen had to be independently checkusered as well. Yet Kristen Eriksen shouldn't have been checkusered personally without behavioral evidence that the "impersonator/badhand account" was her -- and if the check was performed anyway, a "likely" non-ip-match result is meaningless, since the fact that two editors have similar ip addresses doesn't imply that they are the same person all by itself. And no, impersonating an administrator while MFDing an editor's userpage doesn't even remotely imply that the impersonator is the editor whose userpage they nominated for deletion. John254 04:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Too much wild speculation (and I said I'd not comment further, however ...). When the editor was initially checked, the checkuser could easily have run a check of the institution's IP range. They're usually quite narrow in many cases. This would have shown up other editors, including possible Kristin, so it's factually incorrect to state that " Kristen Eriksen had to be independently checkusered as well.". This is simply untrue, and thus your subsequent statements are pretty-much flawed as they're based on a false premise. It might be an idea to step back for a minute and think this one through again - Alison ❤ 04:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Even if there was a manner by which to obtain the checkuser result, without checkusering Kristen Eriksen directly, this doesn't resolve the central issue of "the fact that two editors have similar ip addresses doesn't imply that they are the same person all by itself." Surely we're not going to checkuser a troll account, then sweep up the accounts of every editor at the same institution, and block every editor with some tenuous connection to the troll (by being the subject of trolling, for example). In actual, ordinary practice, we only block users for "bad-hand" accounts if (1) there is a direct ip match, leaving little doubt as to the identity of the account's operator or (2) the "bad-hand" account is used to in some way harass or disparage users with whom the alleged operator is in conflict, which, in conjunction with a "likely" checkuser result, provides clear evidence as to the offending editor. There's no motive here -- Kristen Eriksen was never involved in any conflict with Krimpet. John254 05:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC) You're still in wild speculation mode. Quite honestly, it's quite routine to check an IP range of an institution when there's a suspected "bad hand" account. Doing so often throws up a horde of previously blocked or sleeper socks. Happens every day. I don't want to discuss technical details of this case, but you're attributing far too much to the whole checkuser matter and you're claiming knowledge of the internal workings and processes of checkuser here on enwiki that, quite simply, you have no idea of. Seriously. You just don't know. As I've already said, now might be a good time to reflect some more on this before commenting further - Alison ❤ 05:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) My claim that "the fact that two editors have similar ip addresses doesn't imply that they are the same person all by itself" is not a statement about the internal workings of the checkuser process, which is something of a black box to most of us, but rather how the results are used, a subject with which, as an editor of over two years tenure, I am quite familiar. Being an outwardly good-faith user at an institution from which an obvious troll also edits does not, ipso facto, make you a troll -- to suggest anything less is McCarthyesque suspicion-mongering. I stand by my userbox. John254 05:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Question: how do you know it's all about IP addresses? Checkuser actually examines quite a lot more technical data than just IP addresses. And yes, you've been repeatedly making statements about the workings of checkuser; both technical and process. These are the points I have been addressing in many of my previous comments. Ok, definitely done now. This is going less than nowhere - Alison ❤ 05:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) You may be examining user agents too, or who knows what else -- but the bottom line about checkuser is that it provides results as to technical relatedness only. Then we peons get to examine the (tersely-worded) technical finding, "confirmed", "likely", "possible", etc, and combine that with behavior evidence in arriving at a final determination. To quote our own checkuser policy, CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way or an editor was behaving in a way that appears suggestive of possible disruption. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not). Checkuser is a form of technical analysis, and does not usurp the community's role in deciding those really tricky questions of behavior such as "did a user nominate her own userpage for deletion, by impersonating an administrator with whom she had no apparent conflict?" John254 06:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC) We usually don't have "Several CUs" review the same check -- this level of review, and off-wiki discussion is generally reserved for fairly major problems. That's not really true. The checkuser email list is pretty active, and it gets its fair share of "I can't quite figure this one out for sure, come take a look and help." And multiple checkuser operators often review the same check; we don't have to be asked or told to review each others' work, and it happens as a matter of course. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC) John, how the hell can you complain in one post that Krimpet was "circumvent[ing] the consensus-building process amongst checkusers" and then say in another post "We usually don't have "Several CUs" review the same check"? I'm sorry to conclude that you are just trying to stir up trouble. The technical findings here are what I would call  Likely; based on the improbability of a random editor choosing to annoy a new editor being at the target's location and choosing to annoy using an account name that targets a prominent admin, I would say there is a strong possibility that, at a minimum, these two editors know each other. Blocking one and asking for an explanation from the other was entirely reasonable. Thatcher 06:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC) There's no logical inconsistency in claiming that (1) "We usually don't have "Several CUs" review the same check" (even if such review is actually somewhat more common that I had believed) and (2) If multiple-checkuser review is ongoing, such that checkusers would refuse to discuss the results until the review was complete, Krimpet shouldn't have publicly released the result anyway. "Asking for an explanation" is problematic, since there would be no means by which to verify such an explanation without requiring the release of information that users(s) are unlikely to be willing to provide, and the utilization of off-wiki investigative resources that Wikipedia's administration doesn't have. Any explanation offered by a user who we distrust sufficiently to accuse of abusive sockpuppetry will, of course, not be accepted at face value. We either have evidence of abusive sockpuppetry or we don't. Having one's userpage nominated for deletion from the same university that one attends, by a troll impersonating a well-known administrator isn't such evidence, and shouldn't have been treated as such. John254 12:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, the argument that since an event is unlikely in the absence of abusive sockpuppetry, its occurrence indicates that such abuse is probable is fallacious, since the relevant probability is the likelihood of abusive sockpuppetry given that the event did occur. Please see prosecutor's fallacy for a further explanation of this problem. John254 12:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Plus I'd have blocked Crimp It! as a username block, being clearly a homophone for Krimpet. This is needless drama. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC) The block of that user occurred before the checkuser request was performed, was based on obvious evidence, and is not contested here. John254 12:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC) For the record, I'm aware of the major issues with this situation (I made Krimpet aware of the account off wiki, and before that, had asked another admin for a block based solely on the phonetic variation of the name as a probable attempt at impersonation), and I had asked Krimpet to explain the edit almost directly after. It now appears that you have fixed the template and I would like to know if this matter can be dropped. Let the checkusers handle this. Synergy 12:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

who is the real parent account here?

Was the sockmaster account previously someone else we know? Kind of an odd first edit, they were after and knowing where to ask for Rollbacker after exactly one hour, and this is a heck of a defense for a simply new 2-week old user. Who is this really to merit such a defense? rootology (T) 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

She says she is 18 and edits in the nude... Since the comments on her talkpage mentions a college ip address, there is the possibility of there being some of her friends (especially the female ones) being persuaded to contribute to the encyclopedia under the same circumstances... Why shouldn't guys people wish to extend Good Faith? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Always AGF, certainly. But a new user within a day of their joining wading into asking for rights and helping on Arbitration in 48 hours?[41][42]? This is just like User:Janeyryan, someone who has a history here. I was asking who the known parent was (if any) in this case since Crimp It! account was clearly troublemaking. rootology (T) 13:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My good faith doesn't extend to those who can weasel their way around WP in only a matter of hours. Even if they are 18. And in college. And female. seicer | talk | contribs 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

...and nude! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

...and loves you! Mike R (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't safe to assume that "Kristen Eriksen" is female. Looie496 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So why are we blocking again? I think I missed it. seicer | talk | contribs 14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See the Accusation of abusive sockpuppetry section above. Basically, "Kristen Eriksen" is suspected of creating a sock puppet named "Crimp it!", in order to attack User:Krimpet. Looie496 (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked, but the account Crimp It! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is and CU has determined a likely relationship between the two accounts. Kristen Eriksen has been asked to explain the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, but that does explain a lot. Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, most everyone missed the irony in every comment I have made in this section (excepting the previous one - and this one). There really does need to be a "caustic" icon... LessHeard vanU (talk)

Wait. You mean the "." symbol isn't commonly recognized as denoting irony? --CBD 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Fe"! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<-Rootology, I checked this editor quite early, being suspicious that someone would target a new user for Grawp-like 4chan vandalism after less than 48 hours here. I think it is safe to say that there is no other identifiable account here. If there was, it would lend extra weight to the argument that Crimp It! was an abusive sockpuppet rather than a "friend/roommate/etc" at the same location. I personally think this person is trying to put one over on all of us (and succeeding quite nicely, too). Given the IP findings here, the middle road of blocking Crimp It! and asking for an explanation from Kristen seems most appropriate. Thatcher 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

I've been on the road the past couple days (making a pit stop at Starbucks as I type this, actually) and, erm, I don't understand why this ended up as a huge discussion here on AN. Everything pertinent has already been said above; I asked Lar to check out that account that was impersonating me, and he told me that this doppelgänger and Kristen were operating from public IPs from the same university, a conclusion I see other checkusers now agree with. I think this is clearly a pair of good hand/bad hand accounts intended to poke fun at those userboxes I deleted a few days ago (I'm almost 100% sure I know who's behind it, for that matter - the same upstanding citizen that created a page about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica). Barring some incredible explanation from "Kristen," I think we can safely say they've been caught, and the matter can be considered closed. krimpet✽ 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the userboxes... I think that's the final piece of the puzzle, then. John254, you've been duped. Let me paint a picture: Someone is annoyed about userboxes being deleted, user creates a sockpuppet to put (broadly) similar userboxes on their page, and creates a vandal (with a name based on the admin who deleted the userboxes) to attack them and their page with the userboxes. --Random832 (contribs) 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The ED theory fits with the 4chan vandalism noted above as well. Thatcher 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)