Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive151

Book/Magazine cover fair use change?

In perusing all of the related policies, I can find no mention of the previous community rule that book/magazine covers are only acceptable fair use in articles about that book/magazine issue and are not allowed to be in other articles since that is merely decoration. Has this policy been changed? I know that when working on one (never-completed sadly) FA a while back, all the pictures of book covers/magazines that were referenced (and discussed) in the article were disallowed since the article was not specifically about them, and this amounted to "decoration."

Could someone please clarify the current thinking about this? The related noticeboard has been ignored for quite a while and no one seems to know for sure. Thanks, breathe | inhale 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FU#Images_2 paragraph 8 hasn't changed. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

All that says is "it MAY be appropriate" if it doesn't have it's own article. Not terribly clear. That's also a very large departure from the former thinking that that never was appropriate. Now it's just a weasel statement.breathe | inhale 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it the only part that's set-in-stone is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."; paragraph 8 is part of the "this is a guideline, not policy" section of WP:FU. I'd suggest asking Carcharoth or Giggy who are both pretty well-versed in the intricacies of fair-use & copyright. – iridescent 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's directly below the section heading labeled "Unacceptable use". Corvus cornix_talk 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know - what I'm saying is that "Unacceptable use" section is in the "guideline not policy" part of WP:FU. – iridescent 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:WIKILAWYERING. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok stop it you guys, perhaps a more concrete example would help. At the end of an article is a list of related books. An image of a book cover of one of them is next to the list. Is this acceptable? And my god are you telling me there are only 2 users who know what is going on with this policy? Eeek. breathe | inhale 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends, Depends, Depends. Strictness of enforcement on WP:NFC has definitely stepped up, but book covers may be acceptable depending on context. An article on a guy who's fame comes from illustrating book covers, for instance, could almost certainly justify one or two book covers. A guy who merely writes novels is less like to be able to, and an article on HD189733b probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. WilyD 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Your list of related books example is arguably a fair use in terms of US fair use provisions, but IMO clearly fails wikipedia's policy, specifically "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no, Dr. Seuss could reasonably use a book cover to discuss his artist style, since he drew his own book covers. Or maybe the inside art, or art from somewhere else. All his art is likely to be copyrighted, though, and if that article plans to make FA status, it'll need extensive discussion of his artistic style. WilyD 22:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Which would fall outside the "list of related books" example, non? You are, in short, talking about a completely different use of an image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. User:breathe made a funny (read:wrong) choice for indenting his second question - I was responding to the original question. Yeah, it's hard to imagine how a "list of related books" could justify using a cover ... WilyD 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to stop the arguing :) Sry. breathe | inhale 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries eh? A contentious area, but asking is always the right choice. WilyD 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. breathe | inhale 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I will note that Wikinews has successfully driven out the anti-fairuse crowd recently. Perhaps we should do the same? According to Anthere, even using fairuse in buildings and biographies is possible and would not violate foundation policy. The only reason we do it is to pacify free-culture extremists. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban this user

I'm here to ask of the administrator's to impose a ban on a user named mcelite. This person adds data that are from his or her point-of-view or opinion. This person is also a vandal. I would like for all of you to ban this person. Thanks. Fclass (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. It would be helpful if you included links to DIFFs so we can perhaps see what the problem is. seicer | talk | contribs 02:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

After only a few seconds of looking I found this strong personal attack by Fclass. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, after looking at the talk pages of the two it's clear that Fclass needs to tone down the attacks. Wizardman 02:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget I asked. I have another question. How do I archive my talk page? The archiving the talk page article is vague and confusing. Fclass (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. You want your hand held? Here is a step by step guide for you. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being followed up at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

I've just requested speedy deletion of Hot 30 Countdown since it's a recreation of a previously deleted article (see discussion above about this article as well). Somehow, this was sent to AFD, consensus was "delete", yet it was overlooked for three years [1]. Then someone changed the AFD summary on the talk page from "delete" to "keep". Not too sure what that's all about. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how it went unnoticed back in 2005, but the recent article (admin only) was substantially different from the previous version (again, admin only). I don't think it met G4, which only applies to: "a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." - auburnpilot talk 05:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Book/Magazine cover fair use change?

In perusing all of the related policies, I can find no mention of the previous community rule that book/magazine covers are only acceptable fair use in articles about that book/magazine issue and are not allowed to be in other articles since that is merely decoration. Has this policy been changed? I know that when working on one (never-completed sadly) FA a while back, all the pictures of book covers/magazines that were referenced (and discussed) in the article were disallowed since the article was not specifically about them, and this amounted to "decoration."

Could someone please clarify the current thinking about this? The related noticeboard has been ignored for quite a while and no one seems to know for sure. Thanks, breathe | inhale 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FU#Images_2 paragraph 8 hasn't changed. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

All that says is "it MAY be appropriate" if it doesn't have it's own article. Not terribly clear. That's also a very large departure from the former thinking that that never was appropriate. Now it's just a weasel statement.breathe | inhale 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it the only part that's set-in-stone is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."; paragraph 8 is part of the "this is a guideline, not policy" section of WP:FU. I'd suggest asking Carcharoth or Giggy who are both pretty well-versed in the intricacies of fair-use & copyright. – iridescent 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's directly below the section heading labeled "Unacceptable use". Corvus cornix_talk 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know - what I'm saying is that "Unacceptable use" section is in the "guideline not policy" part of WP:FU. – iridescent 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:WIKILAWYERING. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok stop it you guys, perhaps a more concrete example would help. At the end of an article is a list of related books. An image of a book cover of one of them is next to the list. Is this acceptable? And my god are you telling me there are only 2 users who know what is going on with this policy? Eeek. breathe | inhale 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends, Depends, Depends. Strictness of enforcement on WP:NFC has definitely stepped up, but book covers may be acceptable depending on context. An article on a guy who's fame comes from illustrating book covers, for instance, could almost certainly justify one or two book covers. A guy who merely writes novels is less like to be able to, and an article on HD189733b probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. WilyD 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Your list of related books example is arguably a fair use in terms of US fair use provisions, but IMO clearly fails wikipedia's policy, specifically "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no, Dr. Seuss could reasonably use a book cover to discuss his artist style, since he drew his own book covers. Or maybe the inside art, or art from somewhere else. All his art is likely to be copyrighted, though, and if that article plans to make FA status, it'll need extensive discussion of his artistic style. WilyD 22:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Which would fall outside the "list of related books" example, non? You are, in short, talking about a completely different use of an image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. User:breathe made a funny (read:wrong) choice for indenting his second question - I was responding to the original question. Yeah, it's hard to imagine how a "list of related books" could justify using a cover ... WilyD 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to stop the arguing :) Sry. breathe | inhale 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries eh? A contentious area, but asking is always the right choice. WilyD 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. breathe | inhale 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I will note that Wikinews has successfully driven out the anti-fairuse crowd recently. Perhaps we should do the same? According to Anthere, even using fairuse in buildings and biographies is possible and would not violate foundation policy. The only reason we do it is to pacify free-culture extremists. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban this user

I'm here to ask of the administrator's to impose a ban on a user named mcelite. This person adds data that are from his or her point-of-view or opinion. This person is also a vandal. I would like for all of you to ban this person. Thanks. Fclass (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. It would be helpful if you included links to DIFFs so we can perhaps see what the problem is. seicer | talk | contribs 02:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

After only a few seconds of looking I found this strong personal attack by Fclass. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, after looking at the talk pages of the two it's clear that Fclass needs to tone down the attacks. Wizardman 02:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget I asked. I have another question. How do I archive my talk page? The archiving the talk page article is vague and confusing. Fclass (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. You want your hand held? Here is a step by step guide for you. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being followed up at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

I've just requested speedy deletion of Hot 30 Countdown since it's a recreation of a previously deleted article (see discussion above about this article as well). Somehow, this was sent to AFD, consensus was "delete", yet it was overlooked for three years [2]. Then someone changed the AFD summary on the talk page from "delete" to "keep". Not too sure what that's all about. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how it went unnoticed back in 2005, but the recent article (admin only) was substantially different from the previous version (again, admin only). I don't think it met G4, which only applies to: "a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." - auburnpilot talk 05:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes

This arbitration case has been closed and the full final decision is available here. In short, the remedies passed were:

• Special enforcement on biographies of living persons: a special enforcement on biography of living persons (BLP) articles is authorised, whereby administrators uninvolved with an article may, for that BLP, "use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy". Administrators are authorised to utilise their protection and blocking tools as necessary to ensure that the article complies with Wikipedia's BLP policy, and are also directed to actively counsel any editors whos actions fail to comply with the BLP policy. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so; appeals against restrictions put in place may be made to either: the relevant administrators' noticeboard; or, the arbitration committee directly. Before any article-based restrictions are extended to an individual editor, this counselling must take place: restrictions put in place should be logged at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log, with relevant links to attempts to counsel the editor. The full text of this special enforcement is available here.
• Alansohn restricted: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year, whereby he may be blocked for making any edits judged by an administrator to be be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, for "up to a week in the event of repeated violations". The full text is available here.

The final decision and remedies should be reviewed in full, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 22:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Per that decision Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log is now "live". Remember to be specific when logging! MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision this close has ongoing problems. Until such a time as there can be demonstrated consensus among the community the will enforce the decision "imposed" here, the "Special enforcement on biographies of living persons" section cannot be considered remotely enforceable. - brenneman 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is clear consensus by the community or authorization by the Committee, modifying any sanctions imposed under this remedy may result in suspension or revocation of admin privilleges by the Committee. Arbitration decisions are binding - this remedy is therefore enforcible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you speaking for the arbitration committee, Ncmvocalist? Arbitration is not legislation, not is it administration or policing. It is actually meant to be a part of dispute resolution. I shouldn't actually have to say that, but hey. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be exactly those things, but it's a distinction without a difference. It's binding, per the foundation principles. Why is it binding? Because it gets enforced. How? It gets enforced by admins who carry out the enforcement. If no admin can be found to carry out the enforcement, it won't be enforced. There are a lot of admins, so it is hard to imagine a situation in which things would go unenforced. Further, any admin who actively works against (by undoing or wheelwarring) enforcement is liable to find an ArbCom member asking a steward to remove their bit in fairly short order. No particular steward has to do so, (stewards are volunteers too) so if no steward did then the removal wouldn't happen. But there are a lot of stewards. I think it's no secret that not everyone agrees with ArbCom completely on every matter, but they are, after all, ArbCom. We elected them, for the most part, or acquiesed to their appointment. Things would have to go pretty far downhill, I would think, before you would see a situation in which no admin would enforce remedies, most admins would undo them, and no steward would remove the bits of admins who undid them. It could happen, and it's the ultimate check, the consent of the governed withdrawn, yes. But I don't see it. I think it's no secret that I myself have some issues with the current ArbCom, some things I think they could do better/differently/more promptly/whatever, but I've removed the bit of an admin at ArbCom request before and I'd do it again if asked. If I ever got to the point where I wouldn't, you'll know about it, believe me. Everyone will. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The remedy has passed, and until such a time that the committee removes or alters the remedy, BLP articles are subject to special enforcement, and should be logged at the appropriate place as stated by the committee. Arbitration decisions are binding and administrators that take actions that are based on the decision are not in any position to be sanctioned, unlike administrators that reverse the action without consensus who will be sumarily desysopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that admins that consistently take inappropriate BLP actions under the shelter of this remedy, will also end up desysopped. That is my interpretation of what ArbCom are saying. Enforce BLP more as both editors and admins, but arbcom will be watching and taking action (following appeals) if there is consistent abuse of the remedy. Nothing so far prevents people following the process outlined, getting in with "their" actions first, and then logging "their" actions in an attempt to prevent reversal of those actions. My views remain the same: admins should remove material that is problematic, and should then advise and guide, but should not try and directly influence or take part in discussions on the talk pages. They should also abide by any consensus that results from any discussion on the talk page. It boils down to whether admins should be mediators or enforcers. Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What if there is a consensus to violate BLP? Should an admin abide by that? _{1 != 2} 15:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be an apparent, temporary, local "consensus" to violate BLP, but such "consensus" cannot be allowed to stand. BLP (whether you call it foundational, core, derived from foundational, whatever you like) is so fundamental that no consensus can override it. Where there is difficulty is not with the idea of overriding BLP, but with whether a particular matter is within scope of the policy and how the policy applies. There is room for disagreement there, yes, and those of good faith may well disagree, but not room for disagreement about whether we should abide by BLP. It's just not debateable. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I am very disappointed that you keep repeating this forced meme. Yes, WP:BLP can be overturned. Any time WP:BLP removals violate WP:NPOV or any other core foundation principles, WP:BLP must yield. Again, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, it is a suicide pact that we must live with. WP:BLP is nice when possible, but it is not essential. Furthermore, there is significant disagreement on what that policy means and how it is applied. Attempts to POV-push through use of this policy will be met with great resistance and hostility. Attempts to create SPOV (sympathetic point of view) will be similarly met. And no, not all ArbCom remedies work. If you recall, the MONGO external links remedy was an utter disaster for the same reason this one will be -- it allows far too much discretionary action. We cannot allow subjects of BLPs to treat us as a spin machine, there will be no memory holes for their personal convenience. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully, which is why I don't think this finding is such a radical departure from what we already do. _{1 != 2} 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course BLP should not be over-ridden. But who can reliably judge whether local consensus is correct or not? It boils down to telling people they are wrong. Which is fine as long as you are not wrong yourself. It requires high levels of confidence in your own opinion, the skills to back up your own opinion, and the knowledge that others will back your actions up. And even then, you might still be wrong. The classic BLP problem is the removal of "negative material". Judging whether negative material should be removed or not, there are a range of possible responses. Safest is to remove the material and direct discussion to the talk page. But if consensus emerges for a wording that (say) the subject of the article objects to, what then? Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong!  :) ... no, actually, you're correct. Not sure how to resolve interpretation issues easily, tis not an easy problem. But still BLP itself can't be overturned by consensus, just like NPOV can't. Only interpretation of it is amenable to debate. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, and the community may after all interpret the ruling by deciding its unworkable and divisive, and has a tendency to encourage the POV deletion of well sourced material. The community will in that case make its views known at the next arb com election. DGG (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that it takes two or three years to effectively change things through arbcom elections. The tranche system was put in place in order to keep an institutional memory, but I think that it is now contributing to inertia. Three years is an eternity on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The last time I checked, there is nothing to say we must honor the subject's wishes unconditionally. If there is a debate and the general consensus is that well-sourced, NPOV material is pertinent, then in it goes. Again, BLP musn't be used as a spin mechanism. Otherwise, we'll have every whiner from around the globe wanting to POV slant their article in the best possible light. That is unacceptable. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The trick is to try and distinguish from those who want material removed because they think they can game the system, and those who are genuinely upset and concerned about the material and don't want it in the article. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the two (though sometimes it does seem obvious). People say that "reliable sources" is an objective way to resolve that conundrum, but the trouble there is that many people point to newspapers as reliable sources, but then you have to distinguish between responsible newspaper coverage, investigative journalism (which can go either way), and tabloid journalism (reporting stories just to sell papers). Newspapers are reliable sources for news, but not always for encyclopedias. The trouble is that articles on living people often rely on newspaper reports and articles. See below for my evolving views on this, and a possible "meta" solution for certain types of BLP problem. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The trick is to handle all BLPs fairly, neutrally, accurately, and verifiably, regardless of what the subjects thereof may or may not request. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could move your reply to the thread I started at WT:BLP? Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Externalise the debate

My view is that one way to tackle the problem of BLP material that is reliably sourced, is to push the issue one stage further back. If external entities (be that businesses or the subject of an article) want to challenge the insertion of a particular piece of information that is sourced to a reliable source, then instead of challenging this on Wikipedia, the entity concerned needs to go on the public record (a press release on their website, newspaper interview, book, blog, and so on) and refute what that reliable source has said. This moves the conflict from Wikipedia, back out to the media "out there". Wikipedia can then continue to document and report both sides of the controversy, while still weighing the pros and cons of each source. Eg. A blog post by subject Y refuting what author X said in a book, or what journalist Z said in a newspaper article, might carry less weight than subject Y successfully getting a retraction or letter printed by the newspaper, or subject Y writing a book that include a refutation of what Wikipedia has been including using the other book as a source. Unless this is done, then Wikipedia becomes part of the problem of media bias, instead of standing outside things and documenting and synthesising the sources to produce an encyclopedia article. Anyway, this is way off-topic now. The debate should move to WT:BLP. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Template Help

Hi. Can an Admin please add “flag alias-naval = Naval Jack of the Netherlands.svg” to Template:Country data Netherlands please? Thanks. Red4tribe (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

 Declined The consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships is to use naval ensigns, not naval jacks for articles that use {{navy}}. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. And there are several better places to make this kind of request than here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please tell me where those other places are instead of just leaving me hanging? Red4tribe (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk is probably appropriate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I would say that putting {{editprotected}} on Template talk:Country data Netherlands would have been the most direct course of action for this kind of request. But I would have still answered the same way—the WikiProjects use naval ensigns, not naval jacks, for infobox identification. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ok. But I already did ask this on the help page, and they told me to contact an dmin, so I thought this would be the best spot. Red4tribe (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but the top of this page has a big "Are you in the right place?" section to find better subpages, and that would have led you to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which would have led you to use {{editprotected}}. Anyway, no harm! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the top of the page does not say anything about where to go to request edits to protected pages. As far as I know, Red4tribe posted his request in a reasonable place. {{editprotected}} isn't suggested at the top of this page; perhaps it should be. Neıl 龱 08:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Grawp Eradication Program

Hi. Please see this proposal at the Village pump for proposals. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. So far, two main ideas have aquired some support from the community:

• Edit summary blacklist
• Rollback all contributions

Any further input is welcome. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I like both, but it's worth noting that our boring-but-inventive friend tends to make 10 good, correct, useful edits before s/he/it goes on a spree. Reverting all (typically) 20 edits undoes the 10 pieces of crap, but also 10 things we like. Grawp is actually providing a net benefit at the moment, AFAICT. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What about [rollback all moves] instead? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If only he'd give up the HAGGER???? vandalism then we'd have a productive editor...RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback all is an extraordinary move and its use should be limited to only a few select admins for use is obvious, blatant, and harmful vandalism. Such a command would cause massive issues with articles and discussion pages if used on a non vandal account. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not very difficult to write a script to click all the rollback links on a user contribs page (its not very hard to just click them all manually either with tabbed browsing). Pagemoves are a little trickier, but not hard. Mr.Z-man 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into that. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's already a script. See User:Voice_of_All/Specialadmin/monobook.js. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but blacklisting edit summaries is not possible ..--Cometstyles 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? We can do it with links...there's got to be a hook, it'd be a fairly simple extension. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We tried to get the devs to do this in April, but it never eventuated, but there is a bug which was started then, you could comment on it ...--Cometstyles 02:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever patterns for the edit summaries we would blacklist he would work around it quite soon. The same as with the articles titles blacklist. I suggest making move protected all the established articles (say more than 6 month old with more than one contributor to them). There is no reason to move say Sun to anything else and moves, like say, Kiev to Kyiv while may have valid reasons should go via WP:RM anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggested this a while ago (permanent move protection), people were pretty opposed. John Reaves 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

While we certainly can't stop Grawp copycats by banning their favorite edit summaries, we at least could block summaries with links to shock sites faster than GNAA registers new domains, if we make some kind of summary blacklist. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless we'd block any kind of URL to be displayed in edit summaries, I'm not sure how we're supposed to be able to block all shock sites from being mentioned. --Conti|✉ 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It costs a few bucks to register a domain. If each new domain can only be used once, sooner or later people will decide it's not worth the effort. --Carnildo (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not opposed to blocking URLs in edit summaries... seems to me a fairly sensible thing to do, unless I'm missing something... - Philippe 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that being able to blacklist URLs in edit summaries is an excellent idea. And not just to combat Grawp. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly excellent reasons for being able to include them in deletion summaries, though; I'd be very opposed if any change meant losing that. There are legit reasons for having at least partial URLs in edit summaries, such as "www.whoevers-blog.com is not a reliable source", but I'd say it's worth the loss.

Uh oh, what have I done? There are countless reasons to have URLs in edit summaries (linking to diffs or log entries, to sources we use, to non-notable sources as part of an argument, etc.), and I'd strongly oppose to block all URLs in edit summaries. --Conti|✉ 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should eradicate URLs from edit summaries. What I am saying is that we should be able to blacklist them just as we do in articles. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be useful, but I'm afraid we'll end up playing the same game that's played at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist right now: A URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it. Another URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it. Another URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it, and so on. I'm not sure if that's useful. --Conti|✉ 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but the only other alternative I see is to do something similar to what Moreschi suggested below. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The obvious thing to do is to restrict page-moves to rollbackers. That would end all our page-move vandalism problems. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Enigma ^message 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense until you consider the amount of work that would be cropping up on requested moves, the cut and paste move repair holding pen, and Category:History merge for speedy deletion. We already have enough trouble with people moving things improperly, and so far as I know not an abundance of admins willing and able to repair them.--Dycedarg ж 23:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollbackers are too few, and a lot of editors have to move pages for valid reasons not knowing anything about rollback. Aside of the basic ways to deal with this, i.e. to watch Special:Log/move and move-protect pages with no reason to be moved unilaterally, the adminscripts blocking page move vandals on sight coupled with the quick reverts of ClueBot are very efficient. Cenarium (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

writing about yourself

What should we do if a person starts an article about their company and makes the vast majority of the edits?

The above is 100% true. I also think the article is biased but that is hard to prove 100%. The person who did this acts like a jerk. Ban them or let them go? Pachette (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's written in a clearly promotional tone, it should be tagged for speedy deletion using criterion G11. If it's neutrally-written but lacks any claim of importance (i.e. doesn't give evidence of coverage by third party reliable sources or otherwise explain why the company is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia), it should be tagged for speedy deletion using criterion A7. If it makes a claim of importance but you don't think it's enough to clear Wikipedia's notability guideline, you should nominate it for deletion. If none of the above is the case, you should just keep an eye on it and make sure it continues to abide by all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What article do you think is biased? The359 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pachette is up to no good (likely SPA or other troll). He added sock templates to his own userpage. Now what kind of legit editor does that? [3]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis

Any admin daring enough to wade through this proposal and close it with an outcome? (Proposal currently accounts for approximately EIGHTY of the 150 move proposals found in CAT:RM.) Thanks~ JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not look to me like discussion is finished. Naerii - Talk 23:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are my eyes deceiving me?

How on earth has this article been allowed to remain on Wikipedia for just over a year now? Doesn't it totally fail WP:BIO ten times over? Am I missing something here? I just thought I'd bring it to the noticeboard so others can look at it too. Lradrama 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's true, there's almost certainly some press coverage of it (for the benefit of US editors, Football Manager/Championship Manager is right up there with Halo and GTA at the top of the gaming pile in Europe). I certainly don't think it's a speedy candidate; send it over to WPF and see if they can source it. – iridescent 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done some wider research and this name is not notable in the slightest I don't think. Try Google and Yahoo for starters... Lradrama 19:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouts out hoax to me. Speedy? Or do we have to do through AFD? D.M.N. (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropped a note down at WPF. Lradrama 19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If there's any credence at all to it, it should be merged into the vg article. xenocidic (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've marked it as a speedy, CSD.A7. Conning a software company does not make you notable beyond your local pub (or 21st century equivalent). --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've declined it. "Zlatko Kartal is a Bosnian born Scot, who managed to convince Football Manager 2008 creators SI Games that he played for Celtic" There is the assertion of notability, and therefore it can't be speedied. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) Someone's declined the A7 speedy, so I've prodded it. For most of this article's existence it asserted the subject played for Celtic FC, which certainly is an assertion of significance. Hut 8.5 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Managed to convince... - i.e. didn't play for Celtic. Lradrama 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the article originally said otherwise. It wasn't rewritten to say that he didn't play for Celtic until May 2008, which is why nobody nominated it for deletion - they thought it was legitimate. Hut 8.5 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Under 21 team? Rather than the actual team? Lradrama 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Some more on this here: [4] Wikipedia may have been the bootstrap, who knows. According to the researchers, it's a true fact that he made it in there, but he's queued for deletion. xenocidic (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note at WT:WPVG (since it is now more of a vg-related article than a football related article). xenocidic (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Dreaded Walrus, this is not even a notable hoax, and is quite a common occurence.

Speedy even if it's not a hoax. Tan | 39 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if that's a hoax, or an insult to a real player, or a well-intentioned article about a non-notable person, but I just nuked it per WP:BLP. Never had a real source. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.". If someone finds real sourcing, the article can be recreated, but for BLP's, the order is: sources, then article, not article, then sources. --barneca (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, you misunderstand that quote. It says remove the offending material, it does not say delete the entire article. The article itself needs to go through proper deletion process. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs - it doesn't. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No U! Here is an excerpt from that decision: if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates [BLP]. I didn't get to see the article in question, but the deletion of the entire article is only for extreme circumstances. Given the discussion above, this doesn't seem to be the case. Was every single version of the article bad? --Dragon695 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Process wonkery is frowned upon (by policy no less, oh the irony). Why would we put a hoax through an AfD when its an obvious... hoax? Process for the sake of process is a Bad Thing. --M^ask? 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Francis Yiu Cheong Chin

Could someone take a look at this one for me please? It looks like the person that put the copyvio tag removed the copyvio...no problem....but there's a problem with the dates...if you look at edit the date is properly 19 May, but the template appears to be trying to make it for 19 June? Halp? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Kalaallisut language->Greenlandic language

There is a clear consensus among the few editors on the talk page of Kalaallisut language that it should be moved to Greenlandic language, although there is a page there so no basic editor can take action. ALTON .ıl 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It should go to Wikipedia:Requested moves, and be allowed to run for five days. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice please (User:KingsleyMiller and dispute)

I have been trying to mediate a dispute, which you can see here. Unfortunately, the party who asked for mediation, KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs), subsequently decided he didn't want mediation - and without both sides of a party agreeing, mediation is pretty much useless. He pulled out of mediation because one of the participants used a mild swear word in an edit summary (not directed at anyone, actually themselves). The dispute is around a number of pages, chiefly Attachment theory, Maternal deprivation, Attachment in children, John Bowlby, and Michael Rutter. All these articles are a mess, and if you look at their histories and talk pages, you can see most of this is due to KingsleyMiller, who has a very definite point of view on these articles, and neither our NPOV policy or the MOS can get in his way. With mediation having failed, I'm not sure of the next step to take. The dispute was sent to WP:3O twice with no luck (one of the 3O regulars, HelloAnnyong, had as little luck with Kingsley as anyone else). A message to the Psychology wikiproject had no responses; all the psychology people who want to be involved already are, and have had no luck. Traditionally, RFCs on obscure psychology topics get no response. I am running out of options - as best I can see it, there are three. 1) Leave it to sort out itself (this is unlikely), 2) Take to Arbcom (huge administrative effort and a possibility they won't actually accept it, as it's quite complicated and is a combination of content and conduct issues) or 3) Block Kingsley indefinitely, for extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others, on the condition that if he swears to stop edit-warring he can be unblocked. I am inclined towards three, but I've never really blocked for this sort of thing in over two years as an admin, so I could really do with someone else (ideally, a couple of others) taking half an hour to look at things and see what they think. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Attachment_theory#Closed and sections above it for the background. If nobody is willing to take a look, then I am probably going to go with my own judgment and block Kingsley. Neıl 龱 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingsley, in his "withdrawal" contribution to the mediation page, links to a website providing the text and some dialogue of a number of County Court and Court of Appeal judgments. These judgments pertain to the attempts by a Mr Miller to secure various rights as a parent (from what I can see). I've asked Kingsley if he is the same Mr Miller on his talk page. Past versions of this user's page may provide another insight for anybody interested. Now, for my part, I feel that I agree most closely with Neil's third point. From what I can see, Kingsley is a user with an agenda to get his viewpoint into the relevant articles at any cost. He ignores sourcing guidelines and verifiability, and suggests that sources which he disagrees with should be ignored. This is in fact a common basis of disputes onwiki, but Kingsley's refusal to give up or make any concessions in his fight makes his relationship with this project, in my view, for the moment untenable. I think that he is determined to take "his case" to the "highest court" in wiki-land - the ArbCom, and he used my moment of madness using the word "fuck" in an edit summary (as Neil notes, though I should say I'm not a participant in the psych dispute) to drag the case up to ArbCom from which is was promptly thrown out. Attempts have been made at 3O. This only works if the parties are happy to accept the opinion of the third party, but Kingsley seems to refuse to accept this fact. Any attempt at dispute resolution around this user is a total failure. The only other possible option open that I can see is a block-enforceable topic ban from all Psychology related articles. Kingsley has become too much of a burden for the Project, and especially so for some of the members of the Psych wikiproject who have had to put up with him for so long. Thanks, Martinp23 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your summary of "extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others" is accurate, then I think a block (or series of escalating blocks leading up to an indefinite block if he doesn't get the message) wouldn't be inappropriate. I'll take a look at the referenced pages and weigh in again after. As a note, I've notified KingsleyMiller of this discussion (as should have been done before) and refactored the header to describe the thread. Avruch^T * ^ER 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say you hit the nail on the head with that description just based on the mediation pages. One person with a personal stake who refuses to adhere to policies can't be allowed to turn a number of articles into wreckage and then refuse mediation. Its obvious he sees Wikipedia as a battleground where he can push his point of view, and is not willing to even consider that the content of articles should be based only on reliable sources. If he refuses to cooperate and continues to make tendentious edits and reverts to various articles in the scope of child psych/parenting (essentially, anything related to his court case) then there may be no way around an indefinite block. Avruch^T * ^ER 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef block, and quickly! I haven't taken the time to review the links, but am responding to the last sentence by Avruch above - this person has an ongoing court case and is altering a public knowledge resource base on subjects relating to the case. It would not be good publicity for WP if this person was to refer to articles in court they have themselves have edited, and it wouldn't be very good for law generally if this were allowed. I shall enact the block immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What is it called when an admin tries to block someone who is already blocked? Not an edit conflict - maybe a block conflict? Either way, I just had that happen to me. Good block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the notice I placed on User:KingsleyMiller's talkpage. It spells out my concerns, but I would welcome any other editors amendment of same in case I have been a little OTT. Regarding that, does anyone think that running this matter past Mike Godwin is of any benefit? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If indeed Kingsley is the same Mr Miller as in the cases (likely, yes, but it's an assumption I attempted to avoid above - the existence of a brother is a distinct possibility), then this block for "ongoing court case" has no basis at all, in that the last time the Mr Miller referenced on that website appeared in court was in 2004. I'd suggest that he's simply trying to get his favoured theory a wider audience.. I don't honestly think there's anything malicious behind it. That's not to say that a topic ban or block/ban is inappropriate though - see my comments above. Martinp23 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He did refer on the mediation page (in his withdrawal notice, I think) to his personal involvement in the court proceedings, so based on that I assume its him. No reason at the moment to believe the case(s) might be ongoing, his description of final orders and links to the documents suggest otherwise. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmhm I'm being perhaps overly cautious given my past run-in with the user :) His user page does confirm that he is the person in the cases. Martinp23 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I think the block should remain until the editor promises to contribute per WP:NPOV, WP:MoS, and consensually with other parties. I think they might need pointing toward WP:COI, as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Sounds ok. The difficulty here is that he wants to insert "The Truth" into articles. By all means if he'll agree to the conditions we can give it a go, but I hold out little hope. Would a topic ban work, or is it something for a later date? Martinp23 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the editors contributions does not indicate an interest outside of these related subjects, so a topic ban may only be a block with a serious temptation to game/avoid. I think a straight block is "cleanest" and fairest (and one which can be challenged). I have amended the original block reasons per the discussion above but I think this is as far as dispute resolution can go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be little late coming into this discussion but as one of the mediators listed i wanted to give my view. Personally my first thoughts are that a topic ban would be the best approach in conjunction with enforcing blocks if the ban isn't complied with. It may not be the "cleanest" method, topic bans rarely are, but it would allow him to improve issues and in my opinion the slim possibilty of getting a good converted editor rather than possible future sock puppeteering is worth it. I would would even offer myself to keep an eye on the situation. I don't contest the indef block but i do feel that perhaps a topic ban could be a better way out. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at this case last night (took a lot longer than half an hour, Neil!) and I endorse this block. Leaving aside the legal concerns, this is a tendentious editor who appears to be trying to use Wikipedia to push a very specific POV. I think he should remain blocked until he indicates he has read, understands and agrees to comply with our policies and guidelines and then once unblocked kept an eye on to ensure he doesn't backslide. The various talk pages, the mediation and ArbCom requests and so forth show someone who is pushing a barrow with a singular focus. The fact he withdrew his participation in a mediation case he requested because someone swore in an edit summary, the long screeds and bureaucratic nonsense (like complaints over the use of the word "editor" and this [5] kind of nonsense that is surely intended to tie other editors up in knots until they give up in frustration) gave me the impression of someone using obstructionist tactics to outlast (outwit, outplay?) their opponents, rather than someone genuinely coming to the table to reach a consensus. So I endorse the block and I think he should remain blocked until he agrees to edit within our policies and guidelines. Sarah 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have issue with deleting the userpage as a soapbox? That's what it is, and I'm going to do so. Prostylitizing and self-victimizing, with delusions of grandeur thrown in for fun. Keegan^talk 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping - I am quite glad to see my initial instinct was right, although disappointed Kingsley's conduct led to this. Neıl 龱 10:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have come to this matter extremely late, though I did give an external (informed) view to User:Fainites about any relationships there might be between maternal deprivation and attachment theory just over a month ago as a result of one aspect of a dispute in this area. Although I worked extensively with child psychologists and child psychiatrists up to retirement, and I am a psychologist, I have never joined the psychology project nor really edited any psychology articles, because of my impression of them being that they would be "too hard a job" to counteract idiosyncratic viewpoints expressed in them. I've glanced through the details of this dispute, and think that the block is the best option. My reason for posting this message is to state that if any opinion is needed from a professional psychologist who has extensive professional experience of research into topics within child psychology and psychiatry (as a research critiquer, designer, advisor, and interpretor), including publishing research articles and books in this area, though not as a practising child psychologist or child psychiatrist, then I could have the time to help out in any related tricky cases.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also concur that indef is best here. — Athaenara ✉ 23:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As do I. I was honestly surprised Kingsley has avoided a block as long as he has due to his constant PoV pushing. Good job handling this, Neil. ~ mazca ^talk 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class to be added to the assessment scale

As a result of a "ratification vote" that took place at WT:ASSESS, the C-Class will now be added to the Version 1.0 Assessment scale. Please see this for further details. All comments are welcome. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits of Magibon

A newbie user (Arguecat4 (talk · contribs)) is editing the article Magibon; his edits do more harm than good (adding nonexistent entries to infobox, and a trivia setion to the article). I tried explaining why the content he added to the article was inappropriate, but he just continues editing. Could an uninvolved user have a look at the article and talk to the user? (I have done everything I could, including spending my three reverts.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are BLP violations, on first glance, I wouldn't worry about the 3RR when protecting it, but it's good you came here. Info about a girl's body measurements and where she lives and works need to be zapped quickly. I'll warn Argue on his talk, although if this continues a preventative block would be in order. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that Arguecat4 is also apparently a sock of User:Arguecat3, perhaps created to avoid 3RR. Dppowell (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Given this editor's contribution history and particularly such edits as this, assuming good faith here would be naive. The duck test suggests some connection to this user, who has received a final warning for vandalism, here. Sockpuppeting to continue vandalism to avoid that block? In any event, I think it's reasonable not to tolerate unsourced additions to this article from this user. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Now after further look, and edits like this, I've issued a final warning myself. However, a block may already be in order based on the magnitude of the vandalism, along with BLP issues. The page history needs to be reviewed for private, personal information, although I'm not sure how much of is simply fake. Might be real info, and would need to be deleted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect its garbage information, given such hidden vandalism as here with [[Georgia,_USA|Pennsylvania]]. I would tend to agree though that a block is not inappropriate based on behavior already displayed. I have notified the user of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

not all of it is garbage information. I am looking at it and weeding out inaccuracies. Also I changed user names cause I gave up on outright vandalism and was just trying to add info to a crap page. I will delete where she works etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguecat4 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you add unsourced information to this article one more time, I am going to block you for vandalism. Your history gives us no reason to believe that your edits are made constructively, and rather every reason to presume that you are attempting to be more subtle with your vandalism. Given that your first edit under this "new" name was the same as your last under the former, your statement here is demonstrably false. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ok I wil source it then re-add it. quit deleting it! also some of my info was sourced. And I was working on sourcing others D:< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguecat4 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated in my response to your note at my talk page, if you want to add information to the article, be prepared to provide reliable sources to validate it when you do. Again, given your history, there is no reason for us to make special allowances on a presumption of good faith. If you really want to contribute constructively, given that you started off vandalizing the article and admit as much, you should be more than willing to demonstrate that you intend to comply with guidelines now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out to those who arrive late to this conversation that this user's vandalism has included such charming racism as "[[Spic|minimum wage]] , here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the sockpuppet account Arguecat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and gave Arguecat4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a final warning. I still believe that he is not acting out of malice - he just refuses to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps he isn't old or mature enough to take it seriously. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I half hope you're right, but, on the other hand, I'd hate to think the user could be immature enough to think tucking "Spic" behind "minimum wage" is funny. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have cleaned the rest and removed the term "wapanese" and personal name (because it is unsourced) from the infobox. I want to add that this Arguecat3 or 4 or whatever number, comes with high probability from a trollsite called "Encyclopedia dramatica" because their Magibon article has a co-author with exactly the same name (registered on ED as: Arguecat3) and I don't think that this is a coincidence because he tried to copy text from there.--Firithfenion (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. :) I'd agree with your reasoning there; again, the duck test applies. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised noone wanted to be the first ever person to use {{BLP Spec Warn}} ... Neıl 龱 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are being ironic. Most admins do realise we had (and continue to have) perfectly adequate remedies without it--as shown here. DGG (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ready for that indef block? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

user showing disregard for 3RR rule and edit warring

Resolved

user blocked for spamming Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This User:Carl.bunderson is showing a total disregard for the 3RR rule and a short block might teach him a lesson so that he does not edit war like this in the future.

• Previous version reverted to: 09:10, 13 June 2008

• 1st revert: 00:55, 15 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:31, 15 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 05:58, 15 June 2008
• 5th revert: 08:27, 15 June 2008
• 6th revert: 09:03, 15 June 2008
• 7th revert: 18:47, 15 June 2008
• 8th revert: 21:24, 15 June 2008
• 9th revert: 02:14, 16 June 2008
• 10th revert: 03:56, 16 June 2008
• 11th revert: 04:26, 16 June 2008
• 12th revert: 05:14, 16 June 2008
• 13th revert: 05:38, 16 June 2008
• 14th revert: 05:49, 16 June 2008
• 15th revert: 06:25, 16 June 2008
• 16th revert: 07:14, 16 June 2008
• 17th revert: 19:14, 16 June 2008
• 18th revert: 02:14, 17 June 2008
• 19th revert: 04:09, 17 June 2008
• 20th revert: 05:54, 17 June 2008

• Diffs of 3RR warnings and previous blocks for 3RR violations:

• Blocked on 05:01, 20 April 2008
• Blocked on 05:38, 1 February 2008
• Warning on 08:45, 21 January 2008
• Warning on 11:18, 21 December 2007

He was already blocked actually. Carl.bunderson for some reason was not blocked even though he was engaged in this ridiculous edit warring and 3RR violations. Something needs to be done to prevent this type of behaviour from Carl.bunderson. Certainly, he should not be exempted from the 3RR rule as he is a regular user like others. StevenHarrisonJr (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The brand new editor StevenHarrisonJr already knows how to forum shop. The identical case was submitted and closed at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I being blacklisted

Resolved

 – Naerii - Talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is a concerted effort to not acknowledge my work. See the following odd coincidences:

1. After 127 WP:DYKs in which approximately 123 (97%) were properly recorded at WP:DYKA, the most recent thirteen of my DYK nominations have not been recorded in the archives. This is a bit much to be a coincidence. (Note the statistical odds of this happening as a matter of coincidence seems to be (4/127)^13=3x10^-20.)
2. When I became next in line for the Editorial Triple Crown, User:Durova went on hiatus from awarding them.
3. Suddenly, none of my WP:FC nominations can get enough support for promotion (see User:TonyTheTiger/Reviews).

   The recent inability to get any support votes for Portal:Chicago, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Germany Schulz, Walter O'Malley are suspicious. These along with the consecutive fails of Rush Street (Chicago), Bob Chappuis, Marshall Field and Company Building, Jack Kemp when added to the mix is highly suspicious. It seems that the consistent theme of all the feedback is instructions to remove information. I am not necessarily suspicious of Dick Rifenburg or Crown Fountain at the stages they were at, although Crown Fountain has been revised and will be a major part of WP:CHIFTD.

4. The sudden absence of nominees for the WP:LOTM process is also curious.
5. User:SatyrTN retired leaving WP:CHICAGO without a bot to add {{ChicagoWikiProject}} and WP:BOTREQ has been unable to get a working bot to replace the services of User:SatyrBot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has archived DYKs in weeks. Nobody has been awarded triple crowns in quite a while. All articles at FAC are suffering from a lack of reviewers. The world isn't out to get you. Maralia (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK has been archived quite consistently since during my last thirteen noms. In fact, four new archives exist where my articles should be included (Wikipedia:Recent_additions_215, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_216, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_217, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_218). Please become acquainted with both the archiving process and my statistical argument before sweeping my complaint under the rug. My point is that it seems to be among the many coincidences that Triple Crown awarding has stopped since I became next in line. FAC reviewer paucity does not come close to explaining the sudden absence of support from anyone for any nomination I make.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Satyr, editors leave all the time and he left a large number of projects with a big hole to fill, not just your fiefdoms. In terms of LOTM, perhaps editors have become bored with the excessive bureaucracy there or are actially using their time to write some articles, because they certainly aren't reviewing any. Every review process is suffering from a chronic shortage of reviews, not just the ones that you have nominated. I think you need to put the tin-hat back in the cupboard and move on. Woody (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand people leave. His absence is not curious in isolation. My first two complaints I am making are actually extremely curious in isolation. Let's start with the first of my complaints. Can anyone who understands statistics and the archive process explain a 10^-20 event to me as a coincidence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN, god love him, also left WP:LGBT botless. I should claim homophobia, but I think Satyr's bot was as gay as he was. There is a bot request forum, which I employed while trying to get out the newsletter for WP:LGBT. WP:Florida is also silent. I don't know who to blame for that...someone who's not in the room will do... All groups go through phases of fierce productivity, lulls, patterns as members join and leave. --Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit to add: I left comments for the FAC of Walter O'Malley. I remember reviewing it and the state of the article during FAC. Please feel free to ask me questions about those comments. --Moni3 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable work. But, if you expect recognition, Wikipedia isn't really much for that. We're volunteers, and the pay we get for our efforts is just as often abuse as it is thanks. That's life. Give yourself a couple barnstars if it makes you feel better. Friday (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I could go on about this, but I won't, other than to say I see nothing for an admin to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is where an investigation would start if you were investigatively inclined: First determine the thirteen individuals who each curiously omitted archiving my DYK in proper sequence. That would lead to clues for an investigatively inclined admin.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So that would imply some sort of conspiracy? Also, can't you archive them yourself? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is I am not suppose to have to run around behind every archiver. I added the four that were mistakenly omitted. However, if every single one is going to be omitted something should be done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you are being blacklisted, in addition to the absence of SatyrTN I have noticed a sharp decline in several areas of WP including edits in general. It seems that people just aren't participating as much lately. I for one have drastically reduced the amount of time I spend editing and creating articles because my RFA and other RFA's have shown me that the general feeling within the established community seems to be that participating in wikispace and non article pages are more important when striving to become an admin and get the mop. So although I no longer desire the admin bit the unnecessary buearocracy and drama that has been prevailing on WP of late also caused me a lack of edit-drive and thus reduced editing. Perhaps others have the same feelings. Good Luck.--Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again no explanation that seems feasible for a 10^-20 event.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You will likely not find a feasible on on WP. All you can do is keep editing and accept that eventually (hopefully) your edits will be recognozed.--Kumioko (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are failing to understand both the archive process and the statistical argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the argument I just think that its WP in general and not you or the edits your making. Moral seems to be low lately and less editors are participating in things like reviews and archiving. It could also be that whomever is doing the DYK's wanted to use some from other editors instead of the bulk coming from 1 or 2 users as they have in the past. I looked at the DYK's and there are a lot of different users DYK's instead of a lot of DYK's from a few editors. I think Satyr had so many things going on they went for the easy win and used submissions from editors they were familiar with and trusted (IE you) and now someone else is trying to spread that out and give more edits a shot at getting a DYK. I have no explanation for the featured articles or lists other than the reviews have been slower and slower lately.--Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You now seem to be confused on my complaint. It has nothing to do with which DYKs are selected. I am talking about archiving which is a matter of process not choice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, it seems as if you won't be satisfied until someone creates a reason to fit into your calculation. "Everyone is slacking" seems to fit, as well as the fact that it's summer, no school, vacations, wikidrama, people will stay in a group for a few months and years and move on. We all will sooner or later. (Though we know it will all fall apart without us, no?) --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that slacking explains why the archivers are archiving all the DYKs but mine?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't know. My explanation was more about the larger picture, which it seemed you were trying to make with the inclusion of many facets of Wikipedia. Don't leave out the cause that, were I involved in DYK, would be the reason your contributions would not be archived: incompetence. --Moni3 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you want? People who aren't archiving DYK properly to be blocked? Some sort of wiki-investigation into a massive conspiracy? Based on what you've presented, it looks like people are just tiring of some processes. The solution is to advertise them and get new editors involved rather than claiming a conspiracy against you. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are all DYKs bar yours being archived? You have not, in fact, produced any evidence to support the assertion that you are the only one affected by the archiving issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dammit Tony, you caught us! Come on guys, let's just admit it. Wikipedia is trying to blacklist you Tony. First we started by suspiciously not adding your dyk's to archives, then we moved on to shunning any of your noms, and then, as icing on the cake, we stopped submitting lists to List of the day, list of the month, list of the fortnight, List of the every third Wednesday, whatever it is today. We also have a secret page at WP:TONY (mysteriously red-linked) where we can conceive all of our ideas to blacklist you. Seriously, when I log-in, that's the first and only thing I think about. How can I destroy Tony's Wiki-carer? And see, SatyrTN's little diatribe about taking a Wiki-break cuz he is building a new house is fake (can you believe the audacity of some people, actually doing things in RL...), it was just a cover so we could stop helping you. I am sorry Tony, but for some reason everyone's goal on Wikipedia isnt writing articles (pssshh who would even believe that's what we are here for?), it is to do everything we can to blacklist you! Guys next time we just have to be a little more secretive, Tony caught on pretty quick. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to antagonize him. There is also not much need for administrator assistance, so I can't see why this is here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagishsimon has made the most relevant point here. Tony, you need to look at all DYKs for the period covering the 13 that weren't archived, and see how many were not archived, and then take things from there. What I will say, thought, is that if anyone wanted to blacklist you, then "not archiving DYKs" would come pretty low down the list. It doesn't actually affect anyone whether DYKs are archived or not. The DYKs appeared on the main page, the templates were put on the article talk page, and the template was put on your page, right? Those are the important things. The archiving is nice, but not essential. I don't have any comments on the other points. Carcharoth (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If not archiving DYKs is low on the list where would coordinating failing WP:FC rank?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm' not sure I understand your question, Tony. Here's what I was writing when we ECd.

Indeed, and to emphasize Carcharoth's point, were you being blacklisted, then I think it unlikely that your articles would have been chosen for DYK. Surely your nominations would have been ignored? Absent the DYK issue, and issues 2 - 5 look less compelling. I can see why 2 would add to the paranoia. 3 is surely well enough explained by apathy. 4 is a much better example of apathy ... seriously, what is the connection between your blacklist and the whole community becoming disinterested in adding nominations to LOTM? How exactly does that slight you, anyway? And 5 - another personal retirement. Surely, as someone claiming a grasp of statistics, you can see that you are selecting evidence to suit your predisposition, that you are being blacklisted. How on earth do you reconcile your blacklisted status with the fact that 13, no less, of your articles were DYKd. And please answer, and do not duck, the significant question about whether or not the failure to archive DYKs applied to others. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagging this as resolved as nothing is going to happen but not-entirely-unjustified snipes against Tony. Nothing to see here. Naerii - Talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I withdraw 1 due to a misunderstanding of whether they have gotten to my dates. It seems they have stopped or slowed the DYK archiving and may just be way behind. I still contest the support blanking of all my featured content. It is extremely curious.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is SandyGeorgia lamenting about the lack of reviewers throughout FAC. It's not just you who is being affected. The reviewers who are replying, though, are giving good suggestions, so their objections (or comments, rather) are actionable. I'm not sure I see any problem here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this harassment?

WillyJulia (talk · contribs) is continuing to target myself over Chris Crocker a WP:BLP. At first they were trying to introduce identifying information on the subject against policy and consensus and when I intervened they copied my userpage, annoying but apparently allowable. Lately they have been posting on my talk with pronouncements and dictates for article changes (here, here and now here) despite my encouragement to use the article talk page for discussing changes. I see this as generally harassing me and this user's sole contributions here have been to disparage the subject of the article in various ways and then target other editors who have intervened. As I seem to be the focus of this attention I would appreciate other's take on this as I feel any warning or words from myself may not be seen in a neutral way. Thank you for any advice and assistance. Banjeboi 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a bit of a warning, and watchlisted the relevant talk pages. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And there's the response. I consider the warning read and understood, and will go forward on that basis. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Willy requests that three sources be provided for analysis, then retorts with this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the user's history of personal attacks, I take it as a kind of baiting. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I forgot that I gave notice to Willy only two days ago, so this is his leash being tightened. If there are anymore, please let me know and I'll do a lengthy block. We don't need abusive "editors" like this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This relates to a BLP, so why don't we just ban him/her from the article and its talk page for six months per this? They could possibly become a good editor if they focused on another topic. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him 24 hours for this edit (coming back to the user's talk page after being warned not to). This short block was meant only to stop the current disruption. A lengthening or an article ban are worth thinking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(De indent, replying to WP:BLPBAN proposal) What possible reason would we have for bringing out the "special" big stick here? Just because a new hammer exists, please do not go looking for nails. My disagreements with it aside, this ruling is explicitly for the worst most intractable cases. If we normalise extreme action by applying it whenever we feel like squashing someone extra hard then the potential for abuse goes up by orders of magnitude. - brenneman 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The other option is to block the user from editing the site. Surely it's better to restrict them from editing the problem area and see if they'll contribute constructively in another topic area, rather than just to block them totally? The only difference between a community topic ban on Chris Crocker and using the enforcement is one requires a consensus pre-action, whereas the other doesn't. That's the only difference. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I see this editor as having the potential to be a good editor just having a rather confrontational style which isn't often helpful. They have made some valid insights that have helped improve the article but the drama and excess energy of others to deal with the related problems is problematic. Wikipedia isn't a blog or chatroom but it is an online universe so I understand when users behave in a manner that would fit in better at other online communities. I wouldn't recommend a topic-ban as much as some version of schooling that WP:Civility is a core concern and improving articles requires working with other editors towards improving articles. Banjeboi 02:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To comment, it is worth some thought regarding a topic ban regarding Chris Crocker, but an equal amount of thought should be devoted to reviewing actions that transcend the article. There are many instances of gross incivility and personal attacks, for example, that no topic ban would be able to cover. I am suggesting in short, a topic ban from Chris Crocker, and an immediate block for any personal tirades and attacks. seicer | talk | contribs 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Amandapanda1989

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. First edit right out of the chute was a fully formed and wikied article on a completely NN band. Edit summaries were self-congratulatory, as in "hooray, I just edited Wikipedia!" I tagged it as a speedy and sho' nuff, she's found the hangon key and is in a bit of a panic on the article talk page, claiming that she doesn't know what to do to the article to get it to stay. Strange, considering the skill level of wiki editing this individual shows. I'm not trying to bite a new user, but this is just, well, strange and I thought I should alert someone to it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say that's a handily done page. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it, though? That's why I raised the concern. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, anyone who can code up an article like that in one edit has got to be at least somewhat ok :) I've waived the speedy and put on a prod instead. Let's see if she knows (or reads) she can rm it straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK by me. I'd rather see it stay if the band really is notable. With all the "Myspace bands" we get clobbered with, it's too easy to pick off a possibly notable one. Good call.  :) Gotta call it a night. Thnaks for looking into this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

She rm'd it and added a cite, cheers to that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Undelete requested

Resolved

 – Restored. Happy‑melon 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The article on Doualy Xaykaothao was deleted about one month ago at the subjects request. The reason for the delete has expired now so it should be undeleted. - Icewedge (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhh.. it was deleted citing some OTRS ticket. I imagine the folks who handle such stuff would be the ones to know when/if it should be undeleted. I recommend nobody touch this one without further information. Friday (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, your best bet is to email the guy who deleted and ask if it's OK. (See [[WP:OTRS for more info.) giggy _(:O) 14:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I talked with her over e-mail when the article was first deleted. She had the article deleted because she needed to get into Myanmar to do some journalism and prominent web mentions could have jeopardized that. She just sent an e-mail saying that her trip was over. Check the history of the deleted page as well, I believe one edit summary contains a request to have the article deleted for a month; a month has expired. See the original AN thread here. - Icewedge (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored (bar one edit) Happy‑melon 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed a couple more edits, as I figured it would be best not to have the journalist's personal email in the history. - auburnpilot talk 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection Policy clarification

If an admin and another user get in an edit war/dispute, and a non-involved admin (never edited the article) protects it and asks for dispute resolution on the talk page, I assume it is a no-no for the edit warring admin to lift the page protection arbitrarily, without asking the protecting admin and without any consensus to do so on the talk page. Is this correct? pschemp | talk 15:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. That's wheel-warring. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but other than wheel warring, it violates the protection policy, correct? pschemp | talk 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not really an abuse of the protection policy per se, it's an abuse of the admin protection tool because an involved administrator has undone an uninvolved admin without consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the part that says, "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute."? pschemp | talk 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah then, it is against the protection policy - there are more warnings against doing things like that in the admin policy, hence why I said it was more abuse of tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for response. pschemp | talk 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... a one-side discussion, I take it. Thanks for informing me of this. To start, the said discussion above involves urban exploration to which I have edited for several years now. It should be noted that there was no edit war at the article; it involved two reverts by Papa Lima Whiskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who continued to insert a POV tag without discussion, and one by myself due to a lack of discussion regarding the tag. That's not an edit war. If you followed up on the talk page, you would note that there seems to have been consensus towards removing the POV tag on the basis that it was unwarranted. Various citations provided by Papa Lima Whiskey that would have validated the use of the POV tag proved to be worthless; the citations were in no way related to urban exploration and its subtopics in the context of the original discussion.

Which was, urban exploration poses an undue financial burden for the owners of the property. The article did not mention that. Or that urban exploration involved illicit activities, which it does not always. There was much discussion and there seems to be a consensus towards removing the POV tag on the basis that no credible sources were found to validate the above claims. Since you were not actively monitoring the article and clearly did not read any of the involved discussions, and that there were changes needed to be made involving more than the POV tag... The tag was up for a week with faulty reasoning, hence its removal (6 June to 13 June).

If I was in error, then I apologise, but you could have handled this far better than leaving this nonsense and opened up a more reasonable discussion on my talk page (rather than leaving me out of the loop). seicer | talk | contribs 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist

Didn't want to announce this before (in case I was reverted), but Brion just sync'd the code live. Just wanted to let other sysops know that the Spam blacklist now applies to edit summaries. Have a good day. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

\o/ Great work. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

request to delete a template

Could someone please delete the template below? Editors are starting to use it again.

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 26

  • Template:FootnotesSmall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Rockfang (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, just to check first: Have they all been replaced as per the discussion? PeterSymonds (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything that wasn't set to 100% was swapped with {{reflist}} and everything else was switched to <references/>--Rockfang (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Viktor Rydberg and Lotte Motz

These two articles are currently the subject of an edit war largely relating to rsradford (talk · contribs) (who is apparently behind this site:[6] and is currently blocked) and the users Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs). Administrator Dbachmann (talk · contribs) has been here now and then, but I don't believe his involvement has helped the situation at all. I'd like to request another uninvolved administrator with no relationship with any of these editors to come in and take a look at what's going on. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look. It appears to me that the involvement of rsdadford is very different in the two articles. In the case of Rydberg, he does seem to be removing relevant well-sourced information of the subject's sexuality. In the case of Metz, he is trying to insert appropriate sourced quotations about her biography. There are many specifics I have not fully gone into yet. In terms of manner and argument, his style of discussion is not compatible with proper collaborative editing--but neither is that of some of the people who oppose him. I'm not trying to give a judgment here, just put the matter in perspective from someone looking at it afresh. DGG (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given a final warning to one of the eds. involved about NPA, continuing after this matter has been raised here. DGG (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:AnotherSolipsist

Resolved

 – See User_talk:AnotherSolipsist#.E2.97.95___.E2.97.95

I don't know where to report this or if this is even the right place for it but another user has been aggressively harrassing me to no end despite that we never had any communication directly to each other. The only basis for his action is that I joined a controversial article page and he happened to be on the "other side" as he sees it because I added to the article things that he didn't like which is addressing my interest in child abuse concerns, which is part of my larger interest in social concerns, welfare etc. I didn't know that the page would be such a hornet nest and since I have no interest in making enemies especially with people I don't know.

First he accused me of being someone else and now he is endlessly "stalking" me on whatever page I go and using specious reasons for undoing almost everything I do. For example, there is are pages that list the age of consents for states or countries in a certain part of the world. To help make things clear, I added the range of age of consents (like 16 to 18) based on the ages listed in the article. He keeps deleting this because there is "no source."

Another example of him taking away my contribution with a specious reason is on the child abuse page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_abuse&diff=219981130&oldid=219861014 where he says "poor title". If you look at the section you can easily see the change from "Effects" to "Psychological Damage" that I did was really a *better* title. The whole section talks about anxiety, psychiatric problems, etc. I'm coping the paragraph below so you can see exactly what I mean.

"Children with a history of neglect or physical abuse are at risk of developing psychiatric problems,[14][15] including a disorganized attachment style.[16][17][18] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,[19] as well as anxiety, depressive, and acting-out symptoms.[20][21] A study by Dante Cicchetti found that 80% of abused and maltreated infants exhibited symptoms of disorganized attachment.[22][23]

The effects of child abuse vary, depending on its type. A 2006 study found that childhood emotional and sexual abuse were strongly related to adult depressive symptoms, while exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence had a moderately strong association, and physical abuse a moderate one. For depression, experiencing more than two kinds of abuse exerted synergetically stronger symptoms. Sexual abuse was particularly deleterious in its intrafamilial form, for symptoms of depression, anxiety, dissociation, and limbic irritability. Childhood verbal abuse had a stronger association with anger-hostility than any other type of abuse studied, and was second only to emotional abuse in its relationship with dissociative symptoms.[24]"

Is there anyway to get him to stop? Otherwise I see no end to this. I cannot imagine anything that could cause such an extreme reaction especially from someone I've never talked to. This is unbelievable. --Burrburr (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the preliminary CU findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox which do have a bearing on this user's credibility. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This user is an abusive sockpuppet who was registered to participate in an edit war on Pederasty. I don't understand why he or she even remains unbanned. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record Burrburr has nothing to do with me though my RCU does indeed contain info after AS wrongly accused this user of being my sockpuppet. I think there are real privacy CU issues here and advise caution. I also think AS should especially be cautious rather than making statements including words like "abusive". Thanks, SqueakBox 19:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

AnotherSolpsist is jumping to his own conclusions. If you looks at my first day of editing you will see he is not telling the truth. First, not even Thatcher who did the check has made a decision that I'm a sockpuppet but this is partly because he is out of town and I hope he sees in the end that there are definitely more than just me using this terminal. So AnotherSolipsist is making that decision himself. I still don't understand the extremeness of his actions. The only thing I can see he has against me is I just happened to fall on the "wrong side" of him. Is this the way you treat people who have different opinions than yourself? I also looked up "edit war." It says there that

An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area.

If you look on my first day under "my contributions" section, I did not once do this. Just because we have different opinions doesn't make it "edit war" and it doesn't mean you make it personal. All my contributions are uniquely my own. I'm not just undoing what other people did. The closest thing to a "revert" is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=219855631&oldid=219855493 but even that is not just undoing what someone else did. My interest in this only is to the amount that it is related to my interest in child abuse, which is part of a bigger interest in child welfare.

I tried to bring something new to it by adding information on age of consent in the section on sexual abuse of minors because I believed it was skewed by not having enough on the overlap between pederasty and child sexual abuse. I didn't think this was acknowledged enough and found in the discussion page that this was controversial and other people believed the same but some didn't want to acknowledge it. Reading the article I can see how it might not have been seen that way in the past especially with Ancient Greeks, but people see it differently now, so I changed the title "Conflation with sexual abuse of a minor" to "Modern interpretations as child sexual abuse" because of this. And I can go on and on. Lots of my stuff on that page were taken away but after seeing how much it was a hornet nest and people like AnotherSoloplist was taking things so personally, I never redid any of my work on that page and decided to avoid it completely. I'm not in the business of making enemies.

If you look at all my contributions and comments and then all Anothersolplist that follow mine or are related to them then I hope you can see my point.--Burrburr (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That excuse ("this terminal is shared!") is made so often that I doubt anyone will believe it without solid proof. Do you have any? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is because there are thousands of schools in the country? Have you thought of that? How about the "war editing" thing? Since you didn't say anything about it you must admit I'm right. And how di you prove the terminal is shared without violating privacy? Honestly, how? And since you are following my every move still you will see I'm off tomorrow so you will have to find someone new to bug. Happy searching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrburr (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've talked with AnotherSolopsist and we sorted it all out so everything is now fine between us. I am withdrawing my complaint against him.--Burrburr (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't make a trivial redirect because of title blacklist

I'd like to redirect ␍␊ to Newline (␍ redirects to Carriage Return and both ␊ and Linefeed redirect to Newline). The blacklist won't let me. Those characters are control character placeholders. The name I chose is, according to Newline, a placeholder for the exact chars that Microsoft Windows etc. produces when you hit the enter key. --Thinboy00 @745, i.e. 16:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Not that I'm really sure anyone will search for that anyway, but redirects are cheap... -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How is one even supposed to get that into the search box? This is completely useless. — Edokter • Talk • 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley

Would someone protect this page please, ive left a message at the protection page but they've all been asleep for hours. Editer is adding multiple different unrationed pictures to article on his account and IP adress, aswell as adding some unsourced crap about her marriage to jackson. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have cooled off .... for now ..... — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 07:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you ever run into that problem again, you can leave a message on my talk page. I'm the rare admin is up overnight US time. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I thought I was a lonely Ghost at these hours.— Realist² (Who's Bad?) 07:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting unblock of deleted Bum, Afghanistan

The above page has been previously deleted and then protected from recreation. Sadly, it is in fact the name of several places in Afghanistan. These include a village about 36 miles north of Kandahar with about 40 households, the valley the village lies in, and another village near the first one. Would there be any objections to allowing the page to be recreated? John Carter (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. From that deletion log, I imagine it will need to be re-protected shortly after you create a valid article (or dab page or whatever you're intending). BTW, you might want to try WP:RFPP in the future... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This should be formatted as a disambiguation page if there are multiple places known as "Bum, Afghanistan" (not to be confused with "Bumfuck, Egypt" mind you). — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Account creator

Where does one go to get the account creator userright? I have just started getting active in WP:ACC and have hit the 6 account limit. - Icewedge (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've granted you the right. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Kk, thanks. I'll go put it to good use. - Icewedge (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPBiography

I know the proper place to request that significant edits are made to a protected is WP:RFPP, but for some reason it won't work - something on the template over there is malfunctioning. Anyway, can a edit be made to WPBiography so that C-Class is included in the code. It should be added in between these two lines:

|B|b=[[Category:B-Class biography (core) articles]]

|Start|start=[[Category:Start-Class biography (core) articles]]

The line added should be:

|C|c=[[Category:C-Class biography (core) articles]]

This needs to be all the way down the page for the other sections of the biographical articles. I would do it, but I'm not an admin. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Have the bio project said they want it? If this change is made, it cannot be quickly reversed given the sheer number of articles using it. Has this been asked on the project talkpage? Woody (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've looked at that template before. I'll give it a go. If I run into problems, I'll try the sandbox and testcases pages first. In fact, I'll do that first anyway - that is what they are for! This is a widely used template, so the changes may clog up the job queue for a while. And given Woody's comment above, I'll just prepare a sandbox version for now. Could someone notify the project? Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but C-Class has been recently introduced and needs to be inserted into the template to keep up with things, like with all the other WikiProjects on Wikipedia. It would be a bit stupid to have all the other projects using C-Class and the Biography one not using it. There's no harm in it, is there? D.M.N. (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You somehow managed to make the sandbox changes before I did. have you tested the changes? Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there is, this is used on over 500,000 pages; it is the 10th most linked page. When changed, the job queue will be clogged. To do this twice would be very stupid. The "C" class is entirely optional, I know milhist are having a discussion on whether it is worthwhile implementing it. I ask that you do not implement this yet until a discussion has taken place (one just opened on WT:WPBIO). Woody (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

user page a copy of an article

User:Wu1976 appears to be a copy of Saints Cyril and Methodius. Is there a policy regarding this? Thanks Btyner (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the editor is using his userpage as a sandbox to work on the article? So far as I know, that's fine, as long as there's no fair use media involved. -- Vary | Talk 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As Vary said. There's some relevant bits at Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages if you wanted to see it in black and white. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Username

User talk:Shegay. Im not sure if this username is appropriate. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Borderline. WP:UAA handles stuff like this for future reference, but I don't think this particular username is that bad. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess they're thinking of the town in Afghanistan. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, maybe. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite offensive to call "she" gay. It's lesbian. "Gay" shows a male bias. If "gay" is used in the sexual orientation sense, I suggest "shelesbian" or "shehomosexual" to be less male-biased. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Gay" is gender neutral, as a few gay friends of mine (men and women) would likely attest - if they were interested in WP... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Of course, "gay" is a co-opted word.

With usernames in the considerably large gray area, it's often helpful to assume good faith and wait for them to start editing, then judge their likely intent based on those edits. In this particular case, it seems they're worth keeping an eye on. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack

I've written a new essay! Others are asked to improve on it, as I'm not a very good writer myself. I only ask that under the (unfortunately) likely scenario someone proposes it for deletion, they remember the mass of other brilliant masterpieces on Wikiepdia (e.g., WP:AAGF, WP:POT) written in the same spirit. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, alright then. What's that got to do with admins? I'll look at the essay anyway, but.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. When User:Radiant wrote an essay, he talked about it here, and no one complained. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wow"? It's not that amazing. This desk is for things that need admin attention, and this doesn't... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take offence. I'm not sure why that other essay was discussed here...This page is for discussing admin actions, or discussing what an admin can do about X because of Y. Maybe the essay needed admin attention? I'm not sure. But bear in mind that the noticeboard is backlogged enough as it is, and we can only discuss the things detailed in the header. Otherwise it'll become manic! :) Hope that clears it up, and congrats on your essay. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought it might do well for administrators to quote it to those who might need it in the future. It happens. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for things that may be relevant to admins. Issues that require admin action go on WP:AN/I, not here. It was entirely appropriate for TES to post this here. Neıl 龱 08:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the resolved template as there's nothing to resolve. This is a board for communicating with administrators (and others interested), ANI is a board for administrator attention. Evil Spartan; good essay. giggy _(:O) 08:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you both said that (Neil, Giggy). Talk about cold reception... ^{Spot-on essay btw!} Seraphim♥Whipp 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a different essay. Wikipedia:Don't Accuse People. Naerii - Talk 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't need it as we already have a page for it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Better target for that redirect [7]. Otherwise, one would believe that AN is used exclusively to accuse people of stuff, and everybody knows that this is not true, right? right? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dorftrottel (talk - contributions)

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

---

If there are issues with a particular user that need to be resolved, WP:RFC/U is the place to do so, not here. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm asking that his rights to WP:TW are to be removed and he should be blocked for a period of time. He clearly has no clue on what vandalism is, as he thinks, regarding Euro 2008, updating live scores constitutes vandalism. He's reverted 3 edits, violating WP:3RR, one of which by me labelling them as vandalism: this, this and this (look at the edit history for better understanding). He has used personal attacks on his edit summaries (sorry, there's no button for "You're too stupid and shouldn't edit Wikipedia") and something similar to my talk page. his edits are unacceptable. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For a user to be in violation of the 3RR rule, they need to have reverted more than 3 times. Might be an idea to read through WP:3RR to brush up on your knowledge of policy before you make a complaint. I've left a message on the user's talk page about him being a dick here but other than that, the rest of his recent contribs are legit there's really no cause for concern. He just needs to be a little more civil towards other members. I don't think revoking his rights to Twinkle would be appropriate in this case. ——Ryan | t • c 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) uncyclopedia:Nobody cares? Seriously, there's nothing more pressing that you could take it upon yourself to be concerned with? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed twinkle - Dorftrottel clearly labelled good faith edits as vandalism, used twinkle to make attacks and ended up on the 3RR limit, using Twinkle to help him. It's unacceptable behaviour and should he revert again, he'll be blocked for 3RR. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, he's already broken the 3RR limit [8], [9], [10], [11]. Hopefully the warning will make him stop the reverts. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He's also violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the Euro 2008 talk page and my talk page, though I'll admit I've responded in kind. He's repeatedly been informed that he's a dick, and despite his long history of being a disruptive member of this community, he's still allowed to edit, for what reason I can't even guess. Can someone please try to talk some sense into him? Thank you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Grant Alpaugh, keep talking about civility, like you did e.g. here and here. user:Dorftrottel  20:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed, "though I'll admit I've responded in kind." The difference, of course, is that you're also engaged in an edit war and the scope of your dickery extends about a mile further than mine. You also have a history of about 3 accounts that are indefblocked, so, honestly, I have no idea what the fuck it is you're still doing here. You abuse twinkle and are just a generally uncivil person. Hopefully you will be given some time to think about how to be a less abrasive member of the community. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly not your place to call anyone abrasive. I have never called and would never call anyone 'a cancer to this project'. I am trying to use Twinkle for the best of Wikipedia. I felt like I had to ignore 3RR because I believe (and I still do, in the absence of any valid counterarguments at Talk:UEFA Euro 2008) in the validity of my edits. I know that I can be abrasive, but I'm right, encyclopedically speaking. And you are wrong. user:Dorftrottel  20:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is substantially different from calling people idiots, mouth-breathing idiots, vandals, idiots again, and telling people they should leave the project entirely as you did here and here. As to your being a cancer to the project, I'm not saying anything that disagrees with your own admissions on your user page here: "But, partly owing to the fact that I can be a stubborn and impatient person, I wound up with yet another indef block," here: "After that, I spent a short time as an ordinary IP troll, angrily vandalising talk pages, trying to disrupt the workflow of established users etcpp. I don't remember many details, but the pages I edited were all related to the two prior accounts' actions and blocks," and here: "Obviously, up until that moment, I had no reason to be proud of any accomplishments at Wikipedia. That's why I then decided to create another account, by then knowing that I would effectively be evading an indef block, but I saw it as the only chance of really starting over." From where I sit, you really have no leg to stand on and should either be indefblocked for again becoming the troll you admitted to becoming in the past or you should be blocked for several weeks during which you can contemplate whether you want to be a productive member of this community, or whether you are going to earn an indefblock as soon as you come back. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I request a warning block against Grant.Alpaugh for literally calling me a cancer to this project. user:Dorftrottel  20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Calling someone being a dick and "nothing but a cancer to this project" is plain rude, uncivil, and personal attack. I ask Grant to take back what he said and apologize. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, but seeing who said that, it's actually a compliment. I wouldn't want persons like the one behind the account Grant Alpaugh to like me. user:Dorftrottel  21:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOT#NEWS, I would suggest that Dorftrottel was correct in removing live score updates - there is no encyclopedic value in reporting such information. Final scores may be of peripherial interest as regards the tournament as a whole, and may be recorded once the game is over. Without reviewing the content, if Dorftrottel had noted that placing such updates was against policy (and mentioned which one) then Grant.Alpaugh needed to form a consensus to keep posting the scores - and posting without consensus after being advised is bad faith = vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I considered mentioning NOT#NEWS, but those people would have just gamed it, dismissing its applicability to the situation. user:Dorftrottel  21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Kindly take a few minutes to review the situation before talking out of your ass about it. I never updated scores for Euro 2008, live or not, and my inclusion of the banner at the top of 2008 Major League Soccer season, an article I am heavily involved in, shows that I understand policy just fine. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please not continue to use phrases like fuck or talking out of your ass, if only to prove that you can do without that sort of talk? Talking about content: I think I have made valid points and useful suggestions throughout. I freely admit that it causes me stress to see how people like Grant Alpaugh dimiss all of it without presenting any valid arguments whatsoever. See e.g. the threads at Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 here and here for more examples than just the live score issue. user:Dorftrottel  21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take civility lessons from you when pigs fucking fly. The fact that your arguments are based in sound policy does not excuse the way you deal with your peers. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the above comment crossed with a final warning so blocking for this would be wrong but the next one gets a serious block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's see. I'm right as far as the MOS is concerned (flagicon overkill), I'm right as far as policy is concerned (live scores), I'm right as far as avoidable redundancy in those articles is concerned. But Ryan Postlethwaite has removed my Twinkle, so you are officially right^(TM). Wonderful project, this. user:Dorftrottel  21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought WP was uncensored, but whatever, I get the point. If only people were as concerned with the myriad policy violations committed by the subject of this thread as detailed above and below, my attention to this thread would no longer be required. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility/account problems with dorftrottel

There seems to be a deeper problem with Dorftrottels presence here. He’s used a number of accounts previously – two of which received indefinite blocks – yet he’s still here creating problems both in terms of civility and now edit warring. Here is a list of some problematic accounts.

• Subversive element – blocked in October 2006 for using Wikipedia to fight an ideological war.
• Tit for tat – blocked in 2006 for using Wikipedia to harass.
• 87.158.224 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• 87.78.191.156 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• 84.44.172.138 8784.44.172.138 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• 84.44.175.12 84.44.175.12 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• 87.78.150.42 87.78.150.42 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• AldeBaer – blocked for attempting to out another editor.
• Dorftrottel – blocked for incivility.
• 87.78.154.177 - block evasion from dorftrottel account.
• 87.78.155.210- block evasion from dorftrottel account.
• 87.78.146.190- block evasion from dorftrottel account.
• 87.78.155.245- block evasion from dorftrottel account.

Now, on top of all this – from the latest account we have numerous instances of incivility;

• “And I agree, there's far more interesting stuff, but my girlfriend just went to bed after I fucked her for 2 hours straight, so I'm back to this.”
• “It's the same old LSF cycle: she laughs at me, then I smack her in the mouth, then the fucking. She never complains.”
• “Kurt, why don't you get a wife?”
• “So you're saying that above, Relata described the opposite of the actual situation? Well, it did seem a bit odd. Like when some inclusionists accuse everyone else of being part of a deletionist cabal.”
• “That meme has existed on Wikipedia for quite some time now; and attempts to drive off anti-science kooks is actually the best way it has been put to use so far.”
• “Believe me, I absolutely do take your concerns as serious as the rest of your content-related opinions. You've have proven to be so consistently dead wrong that your opposing is actually a bonus for a candidate.”
• “There's quote a bit of a logical gap right where you assume a link between passionate participation in discussions and likeliness of controversial admin actions. But it's clear from your camp that you must oppose.”
• “Wow, I may have wrongly estimated who I am talking to here. After all, you created great, insightful project space pages like Wikipedia:Requests for nothing|this one. Hilarious. Hilarious. Please explain the world and Wikipedia to me.”
• “so yes, let's enable the idiots some more, in the hope the whole thing will break apart a bit quicker than it will anyway, thanks to those trivia-hugging shitheads.”
• “I think not. But those clowns are committed to turning Wikipedia into an indiscriminate collection of trivia and are opposed to any kind of intellectual approach anyway, and they're in the majority (or at least make it appear that way), so I guess it doesn't matter.”
• “you inclusionists are the ones who gang up in AfDs (and recently in RfAs of dissenters!) to suppress any reasonable deletion of unsalvageable in-universe crap.”
• “I missed your RfA. For the record, I would've supported to counter some of the more idiotic opposes, not properly identified as such by the closing crat.”
• “Ach! I could've made the daughter adopted, Jewish and comatose.”
• “And, assuming as much good faith as I can, I cannot ignore the fact that you're one of those no-holds-barred inclusionists, opposed to any inclusion threshold.”
• “Per the most idiotic oppose (take your pick).”

I believe this is a problem that’s been occurring over a long period of time – both with problematic accounts (blocked for harassment) and continuous incivility. I think some form of editing restriction should be placed on dorftrottel. A civility parole would go a long way – but would anyone suggest anything else given he’s already got two blocked accounts for harassment and turning Wikipedia into a battleground? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are just pissed off that I voted against you in the Board of Trustees election. user:Dorftrottel  21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I typed all that up in the short time between you posting on my talk and me posting here? Nope - there's serious problems here with your editing and I believe some strong editing restriction is required here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that's implausible. So is my editing in question now, or my civility? Please point out very carefully where my editing is problematic. user:Dorftrottel  21:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've told you, and documented above, it's your complete disregard for civility, coupled with the fact you've been shown to harass other users (as shown by indef blocks to other accounts of yours). Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Harass other users??? Where did I harass anyone? Also, the indef blocks and subsequent block evasion issues happened one and a half years ago. I wish I had never written that disclosure note. Too many bad-faithed people who don't value honesty (even if it's late honesty) but actually try to turn it against you. user:Dorftrottel  21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The level of incivility is absolutely ridiculous. This is certainly worthy of a lengthy block, especially considering he seems unwilling to acknowledge the wrongdoing. -- tariqabjotu 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

??? I hereby acknowledge that I am too often too uncivil. Better? However, I still stand by the reasoning behind each and every single one of the diffs quoted above. user:Dorftrottel  22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto above comment. The comment on Ryan Postlethwaite's talk page just demonstrates what a spiteful guy he is and it makes me wonder why he still has editing privileges ——Ryan | t • c 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to intervene after Dorftrottel was harassing User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and engage in discussion about some actual constructive editing, but the conversation went downhill. I think it may be RFC time first. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LGRdC was harassing my intellect. user:Dorftrottel  22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful response, that sums up the problem entirely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer this is totally and utterly not what is expected from an editor. Ad hominum comments do not help your cause Dorftrottel - I'm suprised you can't see how a comment like that, made in the middle fo this exchange, will do nothing but create even more concern about your net value to the project. Disapointing. I thought a lot higher of you until that. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right... So you are posting links back to 2006, and the most recent being early November 2007, showing evidence of incivility and... er... coarseness and block evasion, yet are failing to recognise that 3RR does not count when combating vandalism - and repeated inserts contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS is exactly that (and, of course, what Twinkle is supposed to be used for and which you have removed) - which was the basis for the original complaint, and you think that this constitutes reason to have Dorftrottel sanctioned? I don't think you are being consistent in regard to the application of policy in the matter of this editor, and may consider withdrawing from the discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at an original complaint and then decided to look a bit futher into the complaint of incivility. Those edits were not vandalism - not in the slightest. The results were always going to be put on here, it was a question on whether or not they should be put in as they happen (should results be updated mid-match). I'm not sure exactly why you feel there's a need for me to withdraw from the discussion - I've done things correctly so far. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The uncivil edits have been since November 2007 - most very recent indeed showing continued problems with the conduct of Dorftrottel, despite two accounts being blocked, block evasion and provious incivility/harassment. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to edit in violation of policy? Perhaps once might not be vandalism, but repeatedly? My concern is that you appear as being somewhat selective in the upholding of policy, as regards this editor; you are linking to block evasion from last year, for which Dorftrottel has been sanctioned and permitted to return to the community, but removed Twinkle for reverting "non policy content" from the article. There is an appearance of inbalance in the manner in which you have personally interacted with the editor, and the violations you are bringing to the communities notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've highlight the previous misconduct from this user as others may not be aware, followed by highlighting issues since he was last blocked - I'm not sure I understand why you think I'm highlighting problems solely from years ago - I've given plenty of recent diffs. The edits were not vandalism - it was an edit was, simple as that. He broke the 3RR using twinkle, and got the tool removed, and a warning against reverting the page again. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is not vandalism to edit in violation of policy?" Not necessarily, no. See Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If there's good faith involved, it's not vandalism, and we therefore should be very careful to label any good faith edits as such. --Conti|✉ 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed in the past weeks (or months?) that I have become less and less careful in distinguishing intentional, real vandalism from simply uniformed or sometimes aggressive edits and reverts. I don't know. Maybe it takes me ages to get my reasoning across in English -- and it's kinda frustrating to see how sound reasoning is frequently just dismissed, not listened or responded to. But I know very well that the people who inserted the live scores were not intentionally harming the article and therefore not vandalising. I was just angry, and the red (revert (vandalism)) button in Twinkle became too seductive. I suppose edits like those which I reverted need a new term. I hereby propose inadvandalism, for inadvertent vandalism. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with any kind of editing restriction. Dorftrottel may be pointedly incivil, but at least he's usually on point. We typically humor far worse on this site from people far more clueless, and with admin tools. Amerique^dialectics 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To your second point Amerique. Whilst agreeing that Dorftrottel may well make useful input, the fact that others are incivil does not mean we accept incivility. This is false logic. As the argument goes; that others people beat their wives does not mean it becomes acceptable to beat your wife. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Dorftrottel has evaded an indefblock for rampant incivility and has resumed being remarkably uncivil, which means the indefblock should be resumed. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would add that as Dorftrottel assumes he has done nothing wrong and this is already a repeated pattern of behaviour, then there will be another dispute, probably in a matter of weeks. If this doesn't result in an indefblock then there should be an RfC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the earlier events. He came to me seeking advocacy regarding them a few years ago:User_talk:Amerique/Archive_4#Subversive_element As far as I can tell, the original conflicts he was involved in have long since died off... and these current conflicts are with a different set of people who have not exactly been models of civility in these circumstances either. I'm not say D is not occasionally incivil, but that we have typically tolerated worse than this from some admins. Amerique^dialectics 22:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes others are incivil, but I guess it is the proportion of valuable edits to 'noise' and events leading to yet more disruption, and also the level of responsibility taken in behaviour, responses to others and escalation that is the problem. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone evades an indefblock, but seems to have actually turned over a new leaf we tolerate them until they renew the behaviour that got them indefblocked in the first place. This is exactly what has happened here. How you can argue against an indefblock for an abusive, uncivil user that has already been indefblocked before is beyond me. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that most of the comments that Ryan has cited that go back months & years are particularly incivil. The more recent comments from dorf are concerning though. I don't think it's necessary to be rude or aggressive to get your point across, and I really wish we'd stop humouring people who do. Comments like this show a disturbing lack of immaturity, especially as it follows this (berating another editor for using profanity). We don't need surly, grumpy editors - it's not that difficult to be nice, or at the least indifferent. I agree with Casliber & think that an RFC might be the way to go. Naerii (complain) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the rather marked double stantdards can be (I suppose) seen as a profound lack of empathy or gaming the system. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think "sorry, there's no button for 'You're too stupid and shouldn't edit Wikipedia'." goes way too far though. Naerii (complain) 22:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, you say D's breach of 3RR was valid because he was reverting vandalism? Well browsing through the 4 diffs (1, 2, 3, 4), I can't for the life of me locate the "blatant vandalism" which would excuse the user of 3RR. Secondly, you seem quick to jump to the users' defence but how can one justify these kinds of comments and the incivility used in the edit summary of the 4 above diffs? ——Ryan | t • c 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:Vandalism: "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." Mr.Z-man 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Amerique, LessHeard VanU, thank you guys. But the mob is right. Everything I ever did on Wikipedia is nothing but shit. Everything. Because Grant Alpaugh calls me a cancer of this project, and if he says so, it is so. My attempts to introduce sanity in the Euro 2008 article was also just malicious shit, typical for me. Also, I'm sockpuppet of SlimVirgin. And of Piperdown (but not WordBomb!). The saddest part is that I'm not even drunk because of the antibiotics against my otitis (which, as I recognise now, God himself must have sent to rightfully punish me). Dorftrottel (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to get off the computer and take a break. Naerii (complain) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you, by chance, actually respond to the concerns of these many users, rather than throwing a temper tantrum when questioned about your civility problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah dude. Don't take it too seriously. Go watch a football game, or something. Amerique^dialectics 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Don't listen to Amerique, he's just my other sockpuppet.) Luna Santin: Like I said above: I hereby acknowledge that I am too often too uncivil. What else would you like me to say? Should I do the monkey dance? Or what? What everybody appears to dismiss (intentionally or otherwise) is that the reasoning behind practically everything I write is sound, and written with WP's best interests in heart and mind. If you (or anyone) are not capable, or worse, not willing to see that, there is nothing more I can do about it. I will stop being uncivil when people start to actually grasp what consensus is all about and that having the less valid arguments is a distinct possibility in any discussion. I am uncivil to people when I recognise that they are harming Wikipedia. I just have my own idea of what harming Wikipedia can mean. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We'd like you to say, "I will stop being uncivil". If you are not capable (or willing) to see that you can state your concerns about any issue we have here on Wikipedia in a civil and reasonable manner then I fear this is not the project for you. Driving people away because of your rudeness and creating an unpleasant environment to work in falls under the umbrella of "harming Wikipedia". You seem to understand that your definition of harming Wikipedia differs from others, so I'm not sure why you think it's acceptable to call people 'stupid' and so on for disagreeing with you. Maybe if you grasped what consensus is all about you'd be able to see that people should be allowed to express opinions you disagree with without being attacked? Just a thought. Please take a break. Naerii (complain) 23:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Driving people away because of your rudeness and creating an unpleasant environment to work in falls under the umbrella of "harming Wikipedia". — That clearly depends on who it is you drive away. I do not 'think it is ok to call people stupid' — I just do, because it is the clearest thought in some situations. The elephant in the room. Should I type slower for those people? Or should I ignore the fact that I recognise their actions as harmful? I've seen people dismiss any argument and try to counter it with their opinion. Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. It's true what many, far better, Wikipedians have said before. There is a saying in German for which I don't know the English variant: Der Klügere gibt nach. (='The wiser [person] backs down.') — There is also the corollary Der Klügere gibt solange nach, bis er der Dumme ist. (='The wiser [person] backs down until he becomes the stupid one.') Dorftrottel (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're failing to see that just because you see someone as harmful or stupid does not make them such. And as for people countering your arguments with their opinion, your argument is your opinion. Naerii (complain) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Naerii above, and try and understand, per "I just have my own idea of what harming Wikipedia can mean" that there is, in fact, the posibility you're wrong in your idea of what harms Wikipedia and others are actually right. You're not unwanted here, but your attitude needs to be left off of the keyboard. Pedro :  Chat  23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where my reasoning was wrong with regard to the article which brought me here. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are gaming the system. Fact is, there are some folks who are obviously interested in and keen to edit the information on the current football competition. Rather than let 90 minutes go by, you had to push policy and generate bad feeling all round. Great. congrtulations. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue being discussed here is your overall track record with civility. And with that, I'm withdrawing from this conversation. If a discussion on editing restrictions does come up it has my support. Naerii (complain) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In anticipation of/response to Dorftrottel's seemingly imminent reembrace of civility, I would like to take the opportunity to apologize for my rash, unkind, and indefensible remarks over the last few days directed at Dorftrottel and others and would hope he would do the same. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who thinks that preventing live score update edits on wikipedia is even possible, let alone desirable, clearly is in need of a big giant clue. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. More than enough valid evidence and arguments have been presented. I think it's time to indef block and community ban User:Dorftrottel. Others have been banned for a lot less. Dorftrottel (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dorftrottel has some civility troubles, but what's with the sudden attacking on both sides? WP:TEA badly needs to be followed right now. Wizardman 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You may want to look at the diffs WM. Both sides of the current dust up have amde up. Question is about consensus on more longitudinal behaviour -thus this thread should be closed now, and an RfC on user conduct can be opened if the longer-term behaviour needs examination. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a reply set up (ec'd by the archive) which basically said what you did just now. Wizardman 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Balkania and copyrighted images

User:Balkania uploaded many images today and added them to the Canada article. After some quick searches I noticed that three of his images were copyright violations (1, 2, 3). (Probably the remaining images are also copyrighted based on their small size, and the wide range of activities the images portray.) However, after tagging the images, and notifying him, he blanked his talk page [12], and then removed the copyright violation tags on the three images with the edit summary of "clarified" ([13], [14] and [15]). Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sory for the inconvenience. I am still not clear on Wikipedia rules, but I can tell you that I have emailed the owners of those three images for permission to use them, and I am waiting for their response. The historical photos are obviously not mine. But the rest of the photos are from my own portfolio. regards, Balkania (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Balkania states that the rest of his images (other than the three mentioned above) are his, but after some more searching I found another one is also a copyright violation Image:Ottawaparliamentcanal.jpg‎. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And Image:Canada court.jpg too, thanks Jeff for finding these. So Balkania has been lying to us, even after seemingly admitting his mistakes. No way this could be a good-faith mistake, clearly fraudulent intent. Indef blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin request for picture (prevented from vandalism) for page

Resolved.

Labium (genitalia) could really use the picture from Vulva (which says only an admin may, which I discovered when it didn't show up): Image:HumanVulva-NewText-PhiloViv.jpg Thanks! ---RJFerret: talk, 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Move Revert Bot

For those of you who are intested, I'm currently trialing a mass move revert bot. In the event of page move vandalisim add the users name here followed by a semicolon(;) eg:

Chris G;

The bot will then revert all the pagemoves made in the last 6 hours by that user. It will then list the pages that need to be deleted here --Chris 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this will come in useful. Thanks Chris! PeterSymonds (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox website

Could some admin (or non-admit) respond to my post at Template talk:Infobox Website? -- Taku (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors marked as historical

As a result of the recent MFD the LOCE has been marked as historical. Now, the LOCErequest template can be seen at quite a few talkpages. Should it be removed to avoid potentional confusion? D.M.N. (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, someone might come and work on them some day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's rather unlikely, considering that the project just got closed due to inactivity. The template should be removed, IMHO. If anyone wants to do some copyediting, take your pick, there's more than enough to do. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just added a {{selfref}} to the top of the WP:LOCE page to redirect those that stumble there to WP:PRV. Any other thoughts/better place to send those looking for CE volunteers? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 13:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, they were always way way behind. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised either. Even though most of my project edits are copy editing, I never joined the LOCE and went straight to WP:PRV. More than once I have spent more time copy editing an article than the primary author spent writing it in the first place. Anyone who wants to just do a bit of wikignoming or sending the AWB vacuum through a few of those articles could make a big difference, and also make it easier for the next person down the line. There's what, 4000+ articles waiting for a copy edit? Risker (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

plz delete this

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

---

Since the resolved tag didn't seem to have sufficient impact, we'll try this. The consensus at AFD was that the subject of the article was notable. Arguing that decision here is disruptive editing. Horologium (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Speedy kept. AN is not the place for this. seicer | talk | contribs 15:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

plz delete Marina Orlova i tried to but they are saying if you make teenage boys do bad things they are notable. thanks--WillyJulia (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is already an AfD for it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Orlova; if they decide to delete it, it will be deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

some admin already kept it, i think you guys should look at this!--WillyJulia (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That "some admin" speedy-closed it because it meets all our policies. There's no need for deletion, and to do so would be improper. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

it does not meet all the policies!--WillyJulia (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it meets WP:BIO because 1) it asserts notability and 2) because that notability is backed up with verifiable and reliable sources. It's written with a neutral point of view and contains no original research. What are your concerns? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

birth date is original research and there is not enough reliable sources.--WillyJulia (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is the article is suitable as a biography and that it meets standards of verifiability. See:Decision. The issue is resolved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

that didnt even last a day--WillyJulia (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the comments, the AFD would have been addressed as WP:SNOWBALL. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

Your reason for nominated the article for deletion was "just a woman that loves showing her boobs off on youtube, and has loads of teenage boys getting there keyboard sticky". Not only is that not based in policy, it's completely ridiculous. The article was determined to meet our policies and guidelines for inclusion, and it is not going to be deleted after a discussion on this board. Please move on. - auburnpilot talk 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

it does not meet WP:BIO if you look!--WillyJulia (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See numerous comments above, "if the horse is dead, don't hop on..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

i would not be here any longer but someone closed it already--WillyJulia (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, over, finished, resolved, kaput, what else do you need? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 22 June 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.

WillyJulia

As a side note, has anyone else noticed the large amount of notices and warning lobbed on WillyJulia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s talk page? I just noticed that I had given another "final warning" against the editor for this crap, and was previously blocked for harassment. The AFD contained numerous inappropriate comments.

The following threads may provide a little more insight: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive432#Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive151#Is this harassment?. seicer | talk | contribs 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly noticed WillyJulia had already received multiple final warnings due to repeated BLP violations. I'm guessing we're dealing with a very young editor, possibly not even a teen yet, and s/he just doesn't understand the problem. I hate to advocate yet another final warning, so it may be best to consider this last incident the last in a long line of warnings. The next fit of disruption should result in a lengthy block. - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who issued two of those warnings (and have engaged him/her on their talk page) so I wasn't going to block him/her. I'm glad that someone else addressed the issue, because I believe that we are going to have some issues with this editor unless there is a change in behavior. Horologium (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... this editor's history has been mostly flitting from one issue to another, and at this point should be advised that any further complaints will result in a lengthy block. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley (Again)

There is an IP who has been dominating this article for a number of weeks/months. He has a strong anti-Jackson bias however. Whenever nice info about Jackson is added its reverted. He also removed the Michael Jackson catagory at the bottom, even though the marriage had a huge affect on both of their public lives.

He recently added a sentance that said "Lisa Maria said she did not see Jackson in the last 6 months of their marriage". However being the Jackson obsessive that I am, I knew this was impossible, they appeared at award ceremonies together in public just before their seperation. Instead of removing the sentance outright I added a fact tag, just incase I was making a mistake. The IP removed the tag twice, I was therefore sure it was a lie and removed the sentance.

Now the IP is adding a new sentance that puts Jackson in a bad light. "Lisa Maria said that she saw things in their marriage that she could do nothing about". I read the source it came from and the sentance is taken completely out of context. An admin himself reverted this as a misleading sentance. Still the IP keeps re adding the line, implying that Lisa Marie saw Jackson doing "Bad things". The IP has an anti-Jackson agenda, please resolve it. The multiple warnings I have left on its talk page have had no effect. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin removed the sentance some time ago seen here. [16] Presley has said the media took her out of context, enough said. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It does look like a content dispute from here - and there is nothing on WP that says someone who articulates a critical viewpoint of a subject cannot edit an article relating to it, the same as someone with a fans viewpoint providing all material is verified. I suggest, since it seems to be only the two of you in dispute, that you request a third opinion on the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian PD

There are two Canadian police department articles up for speedy right now, one of them being Nelson Police Department. If you look at the table at the bottom of the page, there have recently been many article creations for related municipal police departments. This is a convoluted issue; there was recently an AfD for Oak Bay Police Department with the result being a redirect to Oak Bay (see discussion). It appears though that the Oak Park PD AfD was handled in a vacuum - if this one was found not notable enough for inclusion, then they probably all should be (unless one of them clearly meets WP:ORG criteria or something similar). Any thoughts? Tan | 39 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like quite a stretch for A7. That being the case, this isn't really an admin issue ... they could be bundled in an AfD. - Revolving Bugbear 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

SSP/RFCU merger

Per debate close, the merger proposal of WP:SSP and WP:RFCU passed. The discussion was open from April 13 until June 18. A few details of process are being finalized per Thatcher. The main points are:

1. Rather than having SSP pages and also RFCU pages to search, often duplicating matters, there will simply be one set of request pages, with one page for each alleged puppeteer, and {{RFCU}} used to request checkuser findings (if valid, not fishing, etc).
2. The role of clerks and patrolling admins will become more active.
3. Checkusers should find their work becomes a little more streamlined.
4. Repeat or complex cases should also become easier to look up with luck.
5. Updated help/guideline page, which will also emphasize that these pages are purely for evidence of socking concerns (not other aspects of the dispute).
6. A couple of anti-abuse aspects, to preserve the tight controls over checkuser requests from the RFCU pages.

For now, after last discussions, SSP is going to be slightly updated to get it ready (guidance, page/archive update, help tags, etc). When that's working, then users can be directed to post their RFCU cases there and tag them for checkuser attention, and instructions updated to explain how.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! And apologies for not weighing in on this sooner but, as a busy checkuser, I certainly support this merger. It makes a lot of sense given the crossover between these two areas - Alison ^❤ 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear this as well. I always thought the distinction was a bit unclear; this will simplify the process significantly. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the close was premature. There are significant issues with weak or no responses. Furthermore, the call of "consensus" is wishywashy, the consensus, if there was one, is very very weak. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The debate close would be more convincing if anyone had provided a good answer for Thatcher's last comment about the mechanics of how the new system will operate. The documents at User:FT2/CU 2 and User:FT2/CU 2/Guidelines give the desired user interface, not the details of how indexing and archiving will work. Perhaps someone can write the new clerk's manual (if there is such a thing) for the proposed system. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the existing WP:SSP system is more user friendly. Why not just use that format to start a case, and then add a template if Checkuser attention is needed? The template can add the case to a category, perhaps Category:Suspected Sock Puppet Reports Needing Checkuser or something shorter and cleverer. There are many situations where checkuser is not needed or worthwhile, if the sock master has not edited for a long time or if the socking is very obvious. I have very frequently moved SSP cases to RFCU and would welcome a merger. Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a preliminary step, you could add {{CU-SSP|case name|~~~~}} as a transclusion to RFCU. (Someone may want to tweak up the template format etc.) Thatcher 00:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo & User:Xasha

Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sock Xasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been warned to stop *his* attacks and abuse on other editors. Look on their block log. I propose a ban for both of them (it's only one for sure). 1largeatom (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For vandal Moldopodo

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

• 20:59, 5 June 2008 Jossi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction)
• 10:54, 2 June 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing, persistent incivility. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren)
• 19:13, 15 March 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (disruptive editing at Balti Steppe)
• 05:35, 31 December 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (false reason. For the last 7 days there was no edit conflict)
• 21:29, 30 December 2007 Scientizzle (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 14 days ‎ (Edit warring)
• 13:22, 23 December 2007 FisherQueen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring)
• 21:10, 26 November 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (on the proviso that he not go edit-warring again, espcially on romanian-related articles)
• 21:03, 25 November 2007 AGK (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (disruptive editing: edit warring in order to push a particular opinion, anti-consensus edits despite repeated warnings, failure to heed cautions, et cetera)
• 20:42, 19 November 2007 Nat (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

For vandal Xasha

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

• 20:44, 3 June 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked "Xasha (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement)
• 17:14, 30 May 2008 Rlevse (Talk | contribs) blocked "Xasha (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1largeatom (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 Jun 2008

And whose sock are you? --Oxymoron⁸³ 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not to use my own account to post the message here. To be fully protected by the wave of personal attacks from that editor.--1largeatom (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The above got you fully indef blocked by me - whatever basis in truth the claims, my understanding of WP:SOCK disallows the use of an alternate account to post such content and allow the main account to escape censure/consequences. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I fully agree with LessHeard VanU (it's understandable that someone would not want to be harassed by another user they may feel is likely to do so for making a reasonable accusation- not saying anything about these users or this accusation) but I trust his assessment of a policy he knows more about than me. However, Moldopodo has just been indefinitely blocked, so it may be worth confirming that Xasha =/= Moldopodo. It is worth noting that Xasha jumped to the defense of Moldopodo when no one else did. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find any merit in the above accusation, please act accordingly. Otherwise, I think this section should be deleted per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits.Xasha (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(to J Milburn) If the main account has some concerns but doesn't wish to expose themselves to harassment - a reasonable worry - then they can use email. Using an open account to make public allegations without consequences to the main account is not appropriate. re Xasha, it is your right to open an SSP report. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

LHVU- OK, I agree with you now. Xasha- Moldopodo isn't banned- he isn't even indefinitely blocked. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo was indef blocked yesterday, which was rescinded and is now blocked for 29 days. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, if you don't have any proofs and don't want to follow a Wikipedia process, please refrain from accusing me of being somebody else.Xasha (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Lyle123 sockpuppets

I stumbled on a message at User:Persian Poet Gal's talk page regarding a series of unusual usernames; they're classic User:Lyle123 socks. They are:

• User:MoviebyWaltDisney1954
• User:TheLawmoviebyAmblinEntertainment1986
• User:AmericanLegendsmoviebyWaltDisney1954

True to form, one sock made a legit entry and "The Law" sock made a totally bogus one. This guy is a pest. Can someone please block these latest socks? He's not currently active, but he generally uses a sock only until he's caught. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I marked the "The Law" entry for speedy when I saw it and then came across the others when he created a strange article. I just fixed up the article created by the "AmericanLegends" sock. It really is a movie...just not from 1954. Thanks for the help PMD! I'll keep an eye out in my travels :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"What_Comes_Around.../...Goes_Around"

I wished to redirect the article "What Comes Around.../...Goes Around" to the correct name of the song, "What Goes Around.../...Comes Around" to avoid confusion. But because of the "unauthorized" message, I was not able to.

Tezkag72 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To create pages, you must be autoconfirmed, i.e. your account must be four days old. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be autoconfirmed to create pages, but that wouldn't be a problem for Tezkag72 anyway.[17] It may have something to do with the title blacklist or spamlist or whatever it's called. - auburnpilot talk 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oop, my bad. The article is probably blacklisted, yeah. Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that one would fall foul of too many consecutive punctuation marks. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse Filter extension

A new proposal has been made to enable my new AbuseFilter extension on English Wikipedia. — Werdna talk 08:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting proposal. It would be interesting to see what other users think about this proposal. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Checking TfD

Shouldn't an admin close some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Old_discussions? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A home-improvement project

Much though we all love this board, it's caused some hard feelings over the years, and I think now would be a good time to try something else. It's useful as a 'one-stop shop' for users who want to get the attention of administrators, but I think a new arrangement is capable of preserving this utility while minimizing 'drama'.

Of course AN/I needs to be reconfigured more than the humble AN does, but I'd rather not tackle that beast at the moment. Here are my reasons for suggesting a change to this board:

• It attracts many off-topic threads -- see my comment on the talk page). At the time I wrote up that analysis, there were in fact only four threads that were specifically relevant to administrators, about issues for which we don't already have a separate forum. This is because it is a convenient one-stop shop.
• However, this causes major problems. When issues that might be handled someplace else are brought to an administrator-specific board, the issues suddently take on the connotations of administration, the taint of the legal system, and most importantly the implicit possibility of a block or other administrative action.
• The word 'administrator' in the title always invokes the possibility of administrative action, which creates a general atmosphere of tension before anything has happened. Now anybody who starts a thread about a certain user is implicitly suggesting that that user be blocked, and any user replying to a thread about himself is implicitly defending against the proposal that he be blocked. Everyone is on edge.
• These conclusions are demonstrated by my point about the off-topic threads. If we insisted on moving all of the off-topic stuff to their proper forums, there would only be four fairly harmless threads left here. Some people come here deliberately looking to get someone blocked, and the threads of those that don't are infected by the administrative atmosphere of the place.

I would like, therefore, to decommission this board, insist that all traffic for which we have other boards be sent to those other boards, and begin a new subsection of the village pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (maintenance). This can handle things for which there's genuinely no other place. It can be an administrators' hangout to some extent, but it won't be admin-specific, so that people can start threads there without invoking the 'somebody might wind up getting blocked' atmosphere. Perhaps a few weeks' trial period is in order.

We're talking about it on this board's talk page right now. Please join us with your thoughts and suggestions. — Dan | talk 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseodeux

Baseodeux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is deleting quoted informations in the article Central Europe. He's also ignoring this consensus. --Olahus (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try discussing with user on their talk page? If that doesn't work, an RfC may be in order. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up AN/ANI

There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard regarding the possibility of doing away with AN and ANI, by splitting their purposes into other existing noticeboards. More eyes appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, AuburnPilot, for making a redundant post below, but it's also worth saying that I am not advocating any change to ANI. — Dan | talk 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe double posts will double the visibility... - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it turns out I may have to advocate changes to AN/I after all. I was hoping not to have to start there, but it looks like many people don't see AN as especially problematic. — Dan | talk 23:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle granted Checkuser

Just letting the community know arbcom has decided to grant Kingturtle (talk · contribs) Checkuser. Thanks, Al Tally ^talk 01:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So much for the "We're not granting new checkusers at this time" response. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that response would be more polite than "we're not giving you checkuser"... giggy _(:O) 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

High five to Kingturtle! MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect a formal announcement is in the works. Thatcher 01:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I'm being honest, he wouldn't have been top of my list - I think there's other users more suited to the role. He's a bureaucrat yeah, but only became active very recently - I'm not sure it's a perfect measure of community trust. I'm of the opinion that we should try an spread these roles because either he's going to reduce his role as a crat, or not be too active as a CU - neither of those are a good thing, especially with the rename situation at the minute.

As a second thought - why is Raul still making actions on behalf of ArbCom? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not granted yet - discussion continues here. giggy _(:O) 01:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, its not really going to the right people, I doubt Kingturtle knows how to use CU rights or will be able to use it correctly..I'd would have been better if it atleast went to someone who spends hours blocking users suspected of socking then someone not involved in SSP cases ....--Cometstyles 01:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To Ryan, indeed, I thought the same. No steward would set the flag anyhow without an active arbcom member confirming this, so they may as well do the work themselves. Al Tally ^talk 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to know why Kingturtle - I'm not sure he's got any experience at all with socks, or in investigative work for that matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I should hope arbcom holds off making any decisions on this, seeing as there is protest against here. Al Tally ^talk 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I'm sure ArbCom has reasons for making this decision which they will post onwiki when the announcement is made. He's not a CheckUser yet so there's no need to make a huge drama yet. giggy _(:O) 02:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a little concerned he wants it for his particular area of editing - I think this is something CU's should stay away from, not actively monitor. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

adding rights is more easier than removing rights, and its good we have this "drama" here so that people (our communities) will know what is actually happening in "Wikimedia" and can be heard before the final decision is made ....--Cometstyles 02:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The community cannot block a checkuser request approved by the Arbitration Committee, any more than it can de-checkuser someone. The decision is made by the Arbitration Committee on both counts. That does not mean the Arbitration Committee shouldn't/couldn't take on community advice before granting checkuser rights, though. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, agreed, but I hope they listen to this - I could name at least 20 people more suited to CU than KT. I don't mean that as disrespectful, I mean that as more valuable to the community and more likely to do the graft. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Raul still a member of the ArbCom? What does his emeritus status allow him to do? Where is the discussion in which ArbCom publicly stated that the fellow can be granted CU rights? Bstone (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship by User:R._Baley and User:Raul654

I wish to get some relief from what I consider to be abuse of administrative privileges by User:R._Baley, and recently User:Raul654.

The relevant discussion threads on the user talk pages can be found at:

• User_talk:GoRight#POV_pushing_and_BLP_vio
• User_talk:GoRight#Solomon.27s_article_on_the_Singer_article
• User_talk:R._Baley#Mr._Connolley.27s_Bio
• User_talk:R._Baley#William_M._Gray_bio

The interaction with User:R._Baley began with my addition of properly sourced criticism to William M. Connolley's BLP. User User:R._Baley has basically told me that I am not allowed to add any criticism of Mr Connolley to his page regardless of the quality of the sources or the validity of the criticism, lest he block me forthwith. Personally I find such a stance to be outside the norms of behavior on Wikipedia, but never the less I have respected his demand.

Today I added a properly sourced section to Fred Singer's BLP which discusses the on-going smears that occur there as discussed by a published author on global warming deniers, Lawrence Solomon, who knows Fred Singer personally. User:Raul654 objects to my addition but given that it is properly sourced, that my edit accurately reflects the content of the article, and that the position expressed is obviously relevant to the Fred Singer BLP. Whitewashing this content is inappropriate given that it addresses concerns regarding the accuracy of the content on his BLP.

Note that User:R._Baley has now threatened to block me if I write anything that even mentions Mr. Connolley anywhere on the site, again presumably regardless of the validity and appropriateness of the information presented.

I would ask that these individuals be instructed to cease and desist in their stalking of me and the continual reverse of my properly sourced contributions. --GoRight (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a dispute with other editors, that is exactly what WP:Dispute resolution is for, not this page. (mutters about instructions and bold text). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Calvin, this really isn't going to be solved here, if you wish to pursue the article content discussion, I suggest WP:BLPN, if you take issue with the admin actions (of which I don't see any, yet), I suggest Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges or it there is a critical time nature to it, WP:ARBCOM. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will take the content issue to WP:BLPN as you suggest. As for the use of admin privileges I seem to be in a catch 22. If I add the content and he blocks me what am I to do? You seem to be saying that I have to let him abuse his privileges, as he clearly indicates he will, before I can complain.  :( Anyway, I appreciate your support. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need to wait for them to block, I'd get other people involved in the content issue before editing the article again, maybe requesting a comment on the article content at Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_templates.2C_or_categories would get more eyes on the issue. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked these links and see no such abuse as alleged. Proceed with dispute resolution by asking others to take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, for what it's worth, and I myself have taken Connolley to task on one or more things in the distant past, your edit to his bio was POV. If you'd like to discuss it further, I'm willing to do so in another forum. On another note, the New Yorker article you were referencing is a famous article in Wikipedia history because of the (mis)information it contains regarding Essjay [18]. Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for you input and consideration. --GoRight (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Leftover Grawp article

In keeping consistent with this idiot's MO, a now-blocked sock created a seemingly legit but nearly contentless article about the Cambodian town of Amleang. He sometimes starts out with a legit edit or two so as not to attract attention and then boom! On comes the usual garbage. Any way of finding out who his IP is so they can shut him down? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Towns are notable - removed the speedy tagging. giggy _(:O) 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

... only to have it deleted by Bongwarrior regardless. Sigh. giggy _(:O) 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned users can't edit. I had already deleted it before I noticed the tag was removed, so apologies for that. Still, I think we can wait for a real user to create this article at some point. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 09:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert tributes

As you may have seen there is currently a huge argument going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes - unsusprisingly I guess given the emotions likely to be engendered by the death of a popular figure. The one of interest to admins is going to be the final count. Currently the tally of votes stands at around 33% keep, 33% merge and 33% delete. How should a closing admin interpret this? I would count the merge votes as votes not to keep the article and turn it into a redirect. Any thoughts? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

seems like a textbook illustration of no-consensus. DGG (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's WP:NOT#MEMORIAL - as with anything that violates policy, it should be deleted, consensus or no.

Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 12:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Candy bar cakes

This would appear to be a recreation of the PAMCAKES article which was salted by an administrator. The article creator seems to be trying to circumvent the restriction, despite having had multiple warnings about advertising. I don't know if this counts as something to be taken to AIV (as I suspect the user isn't online now), or whether it can be dealt with by other means. CultureDrone (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And as a follow-up question, on AIV where it says the user must be online now - does that literally mean right at this moment, or 'within the last few hours' ? CultureDrone (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Classifying this as vandalism would be a stretch, but I deleted the article as a reasonable G11 (as tagged). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:193.40.12.39

Resolved

 – one editor from a University, persistently disruptive and blocked for a week --Rodhullandemu 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this IP has a long history of messing around with Michael Jackson albums, discographies, templates. I have been reverting him for ages, never paying much attention to the fact that it was the same editor all this time. I just checked his edit history of recent edits, they are almost all to various MJ articles and all of them are incorrect. One particular edit was of some irritation. With some sarcasm he edited the article to call Thriller 25 a re-re release. He also removed HIStory as a studio album from the Michael Jackson template. It is a studio album. He has had multiple warnings and isn't in the least bit helpful. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 03:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall I take this to a different noticeboard then? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, is anyone home? This IP has now declared that an article belongs to him [19], can someone please do something. Has everyone gone out for a party and forgot to invite me. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 08:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rod. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Global rights policy proposal on Meta

There is a proposal for a policy governing global user rights on meta - this is an umbrella policy, meant to guide the creation and implementation of new user rights and to require that new rights proposals respect the input and independence of local projects. Its available at m:Global rights.

There are currently three proposals for global rights active on meta, for an idea of the scope of this. All are relatively recent - global sysops, global view deleted images, and global rollback. The proposals are written by different people, with different principles in mind, and do not necessarily guarantee the ability of local projects to opt out or govern by local policy the use of these rights. Avruch 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a technical way of local projects opting-out has been created and will probably be used. See m:Global rights#Opting out (or in) of global rights which is a proposal to govern all global rights. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Right... I wrote the proposal. I'm just announcing its existence ;-) Avruch 16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Untangle please

Resolved

I inadvertently created a bad tangle of redirects when I redirected Skybox to Skybox (band), which is not notable enough to claim first rights. Skybox (disambiguation), to which the Skybox (band) article creator (Anthony5429) redirected (diff) the original Skybox redirect page, should be deleted after the problem I created is untangled with the page histories properly preserved.

I ran into an unexpected patch of acute severe dyslexia which is preventing me from cleaning up after myself—very sorry!—so another mop-wielder is needed. — Athaenara ✉ 16:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have sorted this. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, TerriersFan! — Athaenara ✉ 17:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

using image:Human_penis_flaccid_and_erect.jpg for circumcision

hi there, i'm requesting the use of image:Human_penis_flaccid_and_erect.jpg for an article on circumcision. I do not know why this image is "protected" whereas the other penis pictures on the page, such as image:Flaccid-erect.jpg are not. Requesting to either "unprotect" the image or allow it to be used in the circumcision article. Revasser (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. You are free to add the image to the article now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably because that one has been used for image vandalism and the others haven't. Hut 8.5 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Block review of JimFoley69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – User blocked; abusive image and edits deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check, please. No previous blocks, no rank abuse or incivility, just a SPA who targets one member of a teaching facility. I see no evidence, especially in regard to the username, that this account has any intention of contributing usefully. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block, it might not strictly fit the definition of vandalism, but the edits also had BLP issues and image copyright issues. Mr.Z-man 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also just deleted the image - per the IfD template and my rationale above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The user made identical edits to a indefinitely blocked user, so clearly a good block. I have also deleted the abusive edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Global deleted image review

FYI, a discussion about allowing commons sysops the right to view deleted images on any wikimedia project is happening on Meta here: m:Metapub#Global_deleted_image_review -- Avi (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful information. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please block 2 disruption-only accounts

Two obvious disruption only accounts:

• Bonerjams08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism-only account and also violates account naming conventions.
• Surfing4turf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Linkspammer only and also violates naming convention (see contribs).

Originally reported to AIV and declined as they "haven't been warned enough" or "haven't been disruptive enough".

As an aside, I'm seriously thinking about starting an RFC about the AIV noticeboard. The idea that we wouldn't block a blatant linkspammer or a blatant vandalism only account (both of who violate naming policy) because (sarcasm)TPS Form 286-B wasn't filled out in triplicate, notarized, routed upstairs and stamped by the clerk(end sarcasm) is counterproductive. I appreciate the hard work of the folks who watch the board but there should be a lot more common sense and a lot less bureaucracy on AIV. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just indef'd the bonerjams one, the 2nd one has only made two edits so I'm still hesitant to block that one on that alone. I agree that blatant vandalism-only doesn't need the full gamut of warnings. –xenocidic (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the usernames warrant a block complicates the issue, but leaving that aside, I have no problem with either one being declined at AIV. I'm more aggressive than some admins when I watch AIV, and I might have blocked Bonerjam if I had run across the report, but if you look at the timing of the report, it is quite likely that he never saw a single warning until he saved his last edit, and he stopped after that. An hour later, well after he's stopped, you reported him to AIV. I don't see the lack of common sense involved in asking for ONE warning before blocking; especially since it is quite possible the one warning did the trick. Zero warnings for a vandalism-only account is a reasonable position, I suppose, but asking for ONE warning is not unreasonable, or deserving of scorn.

The second user also quite likely only saw their first warning at the same time they saved their last (i.e. second) edit, and stopped. However, they were reported to AIV anyway two minutes later, having never editing after seeing that warning. Again, one warning is not too much to ask. Quite a few "spammers" start out not knowing any better; it's the ones who continue after being warned that we should come down hard on. --barneca (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if it hadn't been for the username, I would've probably let it slide for a bit as well. –xenocidic (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to {{usernameblock}} the second as it's clearly linked to the website the user added. Is there any reason not to do that? Kevin (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:MostRevisions

Resolved

 – posted to WP:VPT

I don't know if this is the right place, but I don't really see any other place on Wikipedia where it can get easy attention.

Somebody needs to fix this, it's year and a half out of date. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPT is where the devs look. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you reposted there. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's Something Wrong with this...

Resolved

 – local cache issue

I need some help with American Airlines Flight 77. There seems to be some odd problem. Not sure if it's just on my computer, though. The page ends abruptly at after the references, does not display the FA-Star, does not display the {{Sept11}} or {{9-11 hijackers}} templates, and does not display the categories. I've looked through the code and haven't found anything. I've purged the page and no luck there either. Is there something up with my computer, or is everyone seeing this? Help, please. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not happening to me... try clearing your browser cache. And by the way, the help desk is a better place to ask these things. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That worked. Sorry to bother you guys here. I wasn't sure where to ask this. -- VegitaU (talk)

MediaWiki:Accmailtext update

Could someone update MediaWiki:Accmailtext to reflect that it is not necessarily the user creating the account who is the owner of the created account. -Icewedge (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...

could someone act upon my request at User_talk:Luna_Santin#Request_block_extension, I was unable to catch her before she quit for the night. -Icewedge (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Luna is male. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Empty talk pages and speedy deletion

I nominated at about 50 talk pages for speedy deletion under {{db-blanktalk}}. The were talk pages of redirects with trivial edit history (only the addition of a project banner which doesn't apply since the main article is a redirect). See for example here.

Anthony.bradbury, an administrator, reverted all the tags and moreover, it started removing all the removal of the project tags. See here.

The same user claims in my talk page that "blank article talkpage is not, repeat not subject to deletion". Who is right in this case? Me or Anthony.bradbury? Can I tag empty talk pages of redirects with trivial edit history for deletion or not? Can I remove the project banners from redirects or not?

Comment: I was tagging until 11:26, the administrator wrote me a message at 11:28 and I immediately stopped tagging. I took 2 more messages after that where the second one says "let me put it this way. If you do not stop tagging empty talk pages for speedy deletion you will become a possible candidate for blocking". -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notified Anthony.bradbury of thread. –xenocidic (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• If an article is redirected then the talk page should either be redirected (if there's been previous discussion on the page), or deleted. I'm not sure it matters too much, but either way - there's no need to keep blank talk pages hanging around for redirects. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that deletion or redirection is more appropriate than a project tag for a redirect page. –xenocidic (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• My reasoning for deletion or redirect is as follows: a project tag on the talk page of a redirect will artifically inflate the number of articles under the project's care. Since these talk pages have virtually no history except for the project tag, they should qualify as a "non-controversial deletion". While a redirect would also be appropriate, I don't think it's particularly necessary. –xenocidic (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Yup, the project tag should be on the target talk page so it doesn't need to be on the redirect. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copying from Paul Barlow talk page:

Db-talk reads: "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as a talk page of a page which does not exist, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion."

Db-blanktalk reads:"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it is a blank talk page with no substantial edit history."

In the second one it doesn't say anything about article that doesn't exist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the wording on the template is irrelevant. It is the wording of the criteria that matter. Please read the actual Criteria for speedy deletion [20] Paul B (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanktalk is under G6 and not G8! Read it more carefully. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

--

Comment: Please note that Anthony.bradbury wrote to to "go to WP:DRV if you feel that you have been seriously disadvantaged". But the DRV is for the case of deleted articles and not for the case of declined speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always take them as a group to MfD? Ryan Postlethwaite 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it clear that G8 applies to these cases? Moreover, was the admin wrong to revert not only my tagging but my blanking as well? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "article". If a redirect is not considered an article, then G8 applies. –xenocidic (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This type of thing has annoyed me for a long time. If there is no history worth saving on any page, especially talk pages, why not just delete them? It's not like they can't be created again if there is a legitimate concern. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding the project banners is incredibly silly to me, as all that accomplishes is to clutter the related category pages. If deleting such talk pages is not to happen, then either leave them blank, or redirect them to the talk page of the redirect's target. If talk pages of redirects aren't supposed to be deleted, even if there is no useful history required for GFDL purposes, then {{db-blanktalk}} should be TfDed. Resolute 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, for before. G8 applies if you consider that redirects are not articles. But G6 (blanktalk) applies in our case. I started a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Empty talk pages and speedy deletion as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could also go to MfD, get them all deleted, and then use that as an argument that there is consensus to consider this to be under G6 --Enric Naval (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some admins already have deleted some articles under G6 and/or under "Orphaned redirect talk page". Moreover, I nominated many articles in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Empty talk pages of redirects. I think the problem was cause because some admins are unfamiliar with G6/blanktalk. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is bonkers. They should all be redirected to the talk page of the article that the redirect points to, it's pretty straightforward. Redirects are cheap. Neıl 龱 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be made very clear, these kinds of pages do not fall under any criteria for speedy deletion. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's utterly ridiculous: of COURSE they fall under speedy criteria, being useless talk pages for non-articles. --Calton | Talk 11:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of things are speedily deleted that don't strictly fit the criteria. Often, it's because common sense is applied. These could be deleted, and it's certainly better to delete them then leave them as pointless project-tagging spam, but the best result is for them to all be redirected to the relevant target articles' talk page. Neıl 龱 13:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott replaced db-blanktalk with a redirect to db-talk. I reverted back. I thunk there was a consensus about db-blanktalk. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Is it really necessary to discuss this further? The pages served no purpose, and in the absence of a better solution they could have been deleted based on CSD3, G6 or G8. However, this would really depend on interpretation of these criteria. Since the present case is not a rare one, if the criteria were intended to apply to such cases routinely, they should be updated to reflect this explicitly. The reason it hasn't been done is that WP currently has a slight preference for solving this problem by redirects instead. In a sense everybody was right, and we just have a communication problem. It will be solved as soon as everybody stops thinking about it and makes sure to go into any future encounters with other involved people without any prejudice, and without any bad thoughts other than "I must make sure we are not about to have another misunderstanding".

Magioladitis, is there anything for which a redirect isn't enough? If there are people around who re-add project templates to talk page redirects, then they should be told not to do it. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

When an article is redirected, its talk page can be redirected, not deleted, even if the only edit to the talk page was to place a project tag on the talk page. The placement of project tags is part of the history of things around here, and there is no reason to lose the edit history of such talk pages. In the past, I've just blanked such talk pages, but if you do that, some wikignome turns up to delete the page. If you redirect the page, another wikignome turns up to delete the redirect because "there are no links to the redirect and it has no history". Projects wanting to keep track of redirects (article redirects, not talk page redirects) can to that using templates on the redirects. I suppose a similar sort of template could be placed on talk page redirects to replace the "project tag". See Category:Redirects by WikiProject for examples of how article redirects (normally those left behind after merges) are handled. The reason this is done is to preserve significant edit history preceding the merges. Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)