Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive99

Account termination - GH

Hello there. I am requesting that my account be terminated as soon as practical, so it cannot be logged into. Enjoyed my stay here, and thanks to all good admins an nice folk at WP. GH 11:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont be heading away GH, why not go away for a week or so and think about it.--Vintagekits 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be terminated, for licencing reasons. However, you can add a {{db-user}} tag to your user page, and you can change your password so that you cannot remember it, if you wish to permanently leave Wikipedia. Sandstein 14:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You can also scramble your password. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Or... you can simply just not log into it. There is absolutely no need to do anything if you make the choice to not come back. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Refs formatting policy

Somewhere back I started on Wikipedia in April 2006, I looked up our refs policy and somewhere read that when formatting an online citation with no author, to place the website first. Now, I must have read this before September 2006, because when I wrote Jake Gyllenhaal I was already using this format. But I've been asked twice now during FCs where this policy is and I can't find it in any of our CITE pages. Did I dream this? Has it been deprecated? Am I looking in the wrong place? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't require administrative buttons - you might take future questions like this to the Wikipedia:Help desk. You might be looking for Wikipedia:Citing sources, or Wikipedia:Footnotes, or possibly the guidelines on a specific references template such as {{Citeweb}}. Mak (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to find the help desk as useful as a chocolate teapot, and my question requires a deep knowledge of policy, so I thought that admins might be better qualified to answer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the help desk may not be the right place, but this isn't it either. I would suggest either the talk page WT:CITE or the policy village pump. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(Now that I've added 'useful as a chocolate teapot' to my repertory, I must be careful not to wear it out with overuse.) --Wetman 00:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of thing that gets me a little frustrated. I hate it when people get so hung up on citation templates and the order in which these things go and reflists and what have yous, to the complete detriment of any actual work on the article. This is rather wankerish (see #20). Why not just IAR and let people do what the devil they want? Moreschi ^Talk 11:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaimhreadhan

According to a close associate, Gaimhreadhan (talk · contribs) passed away after a long illness (see here). I have noted this on his user page and protected it, and invited an editor familiar with his work to write a brief memorial at WP:RIP. However, I seem to remember it was once policy to block the account of deceased editors. I can't see find anything mentioning that now though, is anyone familiar with the proper course of action in such sad circumstances? Rockpocket 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon the supposed death of HolyRomanEmperor, he was indef blocked, but it doesn't appear that there was any formal discussion undertaken. I'm inclined to think that, whilst there don't appear here to be many of the questions of veracity that ultimately plagued us with respect to HRE, we might do well to err on the side of not blocking; I can't imagine that there's any immediate grand danger of Gaim's account's being hijacked, and we usually don't, after all, block the accounts of users who have departed (although the reasons for that don't necessarily apply here). Once we are sure that Gaim isn't returning (perhaps we already are), there's really no harm in blocking the account, I guess, and some (perhaps exceedingly minor) benefit, but time is not of the essence, I'd say. Joe 04:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe is not wrong. There is absolutely no danger of Gaimhreadhan's account being hijacked. As one of the two executors of his estate (the other executor is not a Wikipedian), I think I am in an authoritative position to state that fact with absolute confidence. However, there were (and are continuing) unresolved issues of puppetry here.

I have requested that a non-anonymous, senior administrator or bureaucrat e-mail me to resolve these issues. After that issue has been resolved - (ie. I have established my bonafides, and EPA,) I will be able to state with authority that Gaimhreadhan's User page should be protected, but that (perhaps as a fitting memorial to his inclusionist philosophy and efforts at bringing the disparate communities and POV's together in a collegiate manner,) G's User Talk page be left unprotected' (but actively monitored to remove personal attacks and vandalism in line with usual Wikipeida policy.

I am sorry to be so "German" about this, but the correct time to protect Gaimhreadhan's User (as opposed to Talk page) is after the "non-anonymous, senior administrator or bureaucrat" has received the certified copy of Gaimhreadhan's death certificate from me giving the official date and time of death. That is the correct order, timing and procedure and anything less would be insulting to the happy memories I have of my friend and former colleague.

Right now, today, would also be an appropriate time for User:Tyrenius to either

1) apologise and retract her continuing snide comments or

2) put up the "smoking gun" e-mails that she claims (mendaciously/mistakenly) to have sent both me and G. Gaimhreadhan has already challenged her to do so several times (so there can be no issues of confidentiality) and I publicly repeat the same.

Personally, I have a strong preference for the latter - since that would demonstrate the flimsy basis on which she imposed another 13 day block for sockpuppetry on both G and I, but I can understand why she may be reluctant to reveal the truth.

However, if neither an apology nor the e-mail(s?) are forthcoming today then I formally request that she is de-sysopped and blocked for a period of 28 days for disrupting Wikipedia and/or WP:NOT#ADVOCATE

Lastly, it would be hypocritical if I did not also apologise for the drunken post I made on her user talk page. It does not excuse the language and I am not proud of my post, but it has been a very stressful period for me and, unlike G, I do drink from time to time. Frank.  W. Frank ✉  05:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage unprotected as per your request above. Having spoken with you in person now, I understand the importance of your request here - Alison ☺ 05:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so there is obviously a larger issue here I was unaware of. Perhaps an administrator who is fully aware of the issues should liaise with Frank deal with Gaimhreadhan's pages when these issues have been resolved. Rockpocket 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I can do that as we're already in touch. Check your mail, BTW - Alison ☺ 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a look, but I haven't had any mail today which makes me think my mail server is on the blink (or I am very unpopular). I have changed my wiki-email to another address for the moment until it gets sorted out. Perhaps, if nothing arrives by tomorrow and its not too much trouble, I may ask you to resend. Incidently, there was something about death in our blocking policy for a while [1] (I was beginning to think I made it up). Rockpocket 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just pmail me your email address. The one I have has a certain domain in it. - Alison ☺ 06:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rockpocket 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:This broken?

Resolved

 – Template appears to be working again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be selflinking e.g. on Squirrel. Ewlyahoocom 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed now [2]. Ewlyahoocom

It looks like it's still broken on that page to me. Wierd; because it works fine on {{This}}. --Haemo 07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial AfD closure - a heads-up

A particularly controversial AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is coming up for closure shortly. It's one of the most contentious AfDs I've seen in a long time, with over 100 !votes so far (currently with a slight majority for deletion). Given that members of WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine are heavily involved in the dispute, it's probably best for an admin with no involvement in those WikiProjects or subject areas to close the AfD, so that any claims of bias on the part of the closer can be avoided. The closer will need to have a fair amount of tact and diplomacy (which rules me right out :) as well as a strong grasp of policy, particularly regarding the nature of notability and original research, and ideally a willingness to think through the issues as elegantly as A Man In Black did in his closure of Daniel Brandt. Any volunteers? -- ChrisO 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look - no promises as whether to complexly merge anything! But, my word, I'd need to think about the closure, probably a day or so. Then again, maybe not. Moreschi ^Talk 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. Good luck to whomever takes this one on. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

^demon closed it as delete. Expect an equally messy DRV. —Kurykh 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. I'm reminded of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2 (ugh). -- ChrisO 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably... though I have to say, I was reviewing it too and I would have probably done the same thing, including offering the content for Hukou to be resurrected for use. There was some good info there, it was just supporting original synthesis and a neologism.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF, eh Chris? Tomer^talk 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I AGF. The discussion in the AfD shows that quite a few people don't, at least in this case. We don't need yet more controversy and drama in this affair; that's why I suggested that someone wholly uninvolved in anything to do with the wikiprojects or subject matter should close the AfD. Believe me, I've been there with another article and I'd hate to see another admin facing the barrage of crap that I did. -- ChrisO 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're suggestiong that no editor from WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine should not be allowed to close an AFD that involves those WikiProjects. That doesn't strike me as assuming good faith. You and I have very different ideas of AGF. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What I got from the post was that in having the closing admin be not from one of those projects, any disagree-ers wouldn't be able to use the argument "The closing admin was biased". I thought this was just an attempt to get somebody to close the discussion that would have the least likelihood of being called biased. Nobody suggested no allowing members of those projects from closing the discussion. Sancho 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. They could have closed it, but they would have got a load of abuse from one side or the other if they had. It's better all round to avoid that. -- ChrisO 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, ChrisO, as a member of none of those projects, is setting himself up as a neutral party to close the relevant AfD as he sees fit, and is seeking approval here for his doing so...meanwhile directly impugning the reliability of any admins who contribute to those projects. The vacuous support in favor of this maniacal scheme is astonishing, to say the least. ChrisO is setting himself up as the pretended arbiter of neutrality, and people here, in what I can only believe is mind-boggling ignorance and gullibility, are proceeding to give him carte blanche to do so. If anything, this sort of lunacy should call into question the competence of those who go along with this moronic idea, and simultaneously call for ChrisO to be prohibited from having anything to do with the closure of this or any related discussion. Tomer^talk 06:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The AfD was closed four days ago - three days before you posted this - by two uninvolved admins. Don't tell me you posted this nonsense without even bothering to click on the link to the AfD? -- ChrisO 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair request designed both to mitigate complications at the inevitable DRV and (perceived or real) COI. I fail to see the problem with the request. --ElKevbo 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a fair call. Until(1 == 2) 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, not really, knowing the history there. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. It seems this mess isn't over yet - I've just come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, an AfD on a sister article which involves many of the same editors and all of the same set of arguments. It likewise needs closing. Again, I suggest an uninvolved closer for this one to avoid any claims of bias. -- ChrisO 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Closed that one. f anyone wants to discuss the close, feel free. Viridae^Talk 02:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it reasonable. The rename fixes most of my concerns, at any rate. >Radiant< 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you mean Viridae's recommendation to rename the article, or the act of renaming which I performed earlier - the article is now at Tourist segregation in Cuba. Which did you mean? And do you have any thoughts on the new title? -- ChrisO 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaand here comes the DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. By the way, does anyone else find it really inappropriate that Leifern attempted to delete (!) the co-closer endorser's statement from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid? ([3]) -- ChrisO 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I would recommend a warning - although co-closers arent the norm, they arent disallowed, and therefore have no reason to be removed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The circumstances are quite amusing - from Hemlock's user talk page: "There was an edit conflict as I submitted my closure. I contacted ^demon on IRC to jokingly complain, and another administrator suggested I do an endorsement." It's actually quite fortuitous because it shows that two admins, operating independently, came to much the same decision simultaneously using the same policy arguments. -- ChrisO 07:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to pat the admins on the back for this one. While a DRV was inevitable, at least a clear, thought out, and substantial reasoning was put in the close so at least there is less to contest. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd think so, but the opposing comments are getting steadily more insane - it looks like I've been fingered as "one of the ringleaders" (sic) of TEH CABAL. Apparently the rest of you are my sockpuppets, or something. It's sour grapes all round - not much good for producing anything other than a little whine. -- ChrisO 20:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, how can you possibly believe these remarks are w/in the bounds of either WP:AGF or WP:CIV? To say nothing of WP:NPA. True, you're pontificating here to a "general audience", but in the process you're effectively besmirching anyone who happens to disagree with your rather disagreeable views and actions. If I were a British Parliamentarian, I'd probably yell "Shame, good sir, shame!", and with good reason. You are incredibly out of line. Tomer^talk 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After the 4th administrator showed up to endorse I was waiting for the cabal claims to start. I should start telling fortunes.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We should prolly remove the mop icons and admin cats and all mentions of adminship from our user pages. Of course, then they would still hunt us down and claim we were an even more secret cabal, so I guess that wouldn't help either... I am actually amazed I didn't realize how much crap admins got when I got nominated back in the day. David Fuchs ^(talk) 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but now I'm horribly reminded of this. --Hemlock Martinis 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That can only be possible if you truly have no concept whatsoëver about what's going on here. Tomer^talk 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, um, nice to meet you too? --Hemlock Martinis 04:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What ChrisO conveniently neglects to mention is that he and his "cabal" are not a group of admins against a bunch of anonymous trolls. This is a dispute between ChrisO and his opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins in opposition to a bunch of other admins, a number of whom happen to be Jews. This is something that becomes obvious when the relevant discussion is read in full. It is not without cause that there are numerous charges of thinly-veiled antisemitism that have been made in the various relevant discussions, not only against ChrisO, but against a significant number of other editors, including a merry gang of uncharacteristically deletionist admins. Tomer^talk 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we're discussing this business anyway, I feel I should mention that the issue in general is being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. -- ChrisO 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Two days late, eh? Tomer^talk 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomer, you need to stop accusing other editors and admins of anti-Semitism unless you have some reasonable evidence of this. I mean something beyond the fact that you disagree with them. Right now. I'm not kidding. MastCell ^Talk 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Tomer to retract his statement, which I regard as a nasty smear against several conscientious editors and admins. I'm not holding my breath though. In the meantime, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid has now opened. I've added some proposed findings of fact and evidence which may be of interest to editors who've contributed to this discussion. -- ChrisO 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 and personal attacks

(This thread and the thread above are not intertwined, whereas they essentially follow from the same issues)

Raul654 is a very passionate editor about global warming and has indeed started to call me a liar on the grounds that I am on the opposite side of his views or that I object to using op-eds in partisan publications as to support what he calls "reality" (see the very link that he provides above, for instance ([4]).

You will find no evidence of any serious edit war in which I have been involved (except for Raul's latest personal attack which I will discuss below), and that Raul's view of the negativity of my edits is usually constructed upon his strongly held opinions. Raul has lately labeled me as someone who "spreads lies all over these talk pages" ([5]). I attempted to remove it twice, but he reverted. I took the initiative to address this issue on his talk page but failed to have him retract anything.

Raul654 is an administrator and just like any other editor, he at least bears the responsibility to act responsibly and not to let his emotions take over.

I know that I am bold sometimes and that I have contrarian opinions on a few subjects, notably global warming, but this kind of bullying by an administrator is, I hope, out of place on Wikipedia.

Can the personal attack be removed and Raul be encouraged to make at least an apology or to temper down his emotions? Sorry that I had to bring this up here. --Childhood's End 14:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute seems to stem from content issues, where Childhoodsend may be a lone voice. This is not necessarily an impossible position from which to find consensus, but it is an easy way to dispute. On his talk page, I've invited Childhoodsend to find an univolved third party to help work out a resolution. I've also invited him to calm down, as it'd be shame to walk into a block for lack of civility and disruption. --Dweller 14:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks again for the advice about finding an uninvolved third party. But.. where have I been uncivil?! I've been called a liar and someone who spreads lies all over the talk pages and I think I stayed calm nonetheless, but perhaps I missed something? And wasnt this attack at least uncivil? Please help as I obviously dont understand something... --Childhood's End 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have no axe to grind. Amended. --Dweller 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with CE here. He has made some very fair points on the GW talk pages. Raul has responded with personal attacks and an attempt to get CE banned. As an admin Raul should know better than this. Iceage77 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that Raul654 has made a number of personal attacks in the past, often on misguided vendettas or emotions, as Childhoodsend states above. It should also be mentioned that Raul654 is a partisan in the global warming topics (unfortunately, with little knowledge on the subject), and has been blocked in the past for edit warring over such topics. ~ UBeR 14:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked once, months ago, for going over the 3rr limit without realizing it (The only time in 4 years of editing that I have been blocked). On the other hand, Uber has been blocked plenty of times for his trolling and POV pushing on the subject. UBeR is one of the the anti-science POV pushers on the topic. Raul654 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I've been one of the few editors who have argued that only scientific sources should be used for scientific claims. You link comments made by yourself because you clearly have no ground to support your baseless claim. It has always been this way. You're wrong. Period. Just retract your statements and live your life knowing you did the right thing, and that'll be the end of it. As for the blocks, most of them come from you without any chance of review. Surprising. ~ UBeR 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul, you're in the wrong here. Pointing out a history of blocks by you suggests that you are not above abusing your powers to block those who disagree with you. David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong on all counts. 4 different admins have blocked Uber on 5 seperate occasions over a period of several months. So it's quite obviously not a personal vendetta. He's a long term problem user - a troll. He gets blocked a lot. No surprises there. See also this previous thread where he is taken to task by the community for general trolling. Raul654 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in that thread I asked you to show evidence to support your attacks. Not surprisingly, you had none to show. Today, you still have none. Just give up trying to ban those you dislike from Wikipedia. You've failed each time you have tried. Go on, pursue some other activity than user bashing. Thank you. ~ UBeR 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did show evidence - your hit list, your harassment of WMC, the general POV pushing. You simply chose to ignore the evidence and now claim none was provided. Raul654 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I replied to your accusations in a three paragraph response that could not even been addressed by yourself. You simply went on, stating that I am a POV pusher and that anyone who spoke against your meritless attacks and accusations was also a POV pusher. I presented all of my edits to global warming during that time, and asked where the POV was. Of course, there was none. Again, you're wrong. Give up and apologize and everything will be fine. Thank you. ~ UBeR 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul defines evidence as either 1- his opinions, or 2- material found in newspapers/magazines [6]. Fortunately for my carreer, I have never built my cases like this. --Childhood's End 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As an admin not involved in editing these controversial articles, I looked through the edit histories and didn't see evidence of any severe personal attacks. I did see some minor civility issues on the part of Raul, but nothing that's worth an administrator intervention. If any diffs can be provided to actual personal attacks, please provide them. Otherwise this appears to be an editorial disagreement and I don't see why an admin needs to get involved.--Alabamaboy 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The thread at Childhoodsend's talk page indicates to me that this pair of threads can be closed. Indeed, doing so is the best way of ending disruption, as further disruption is likely to be limited to these two threads. --Dweller 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer Alabamaboy's request, here are a few diffs that could count as personal attacks [7] [8], per WP:NPA#What is considered a personal attack? ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done"), but I will trust the judgment of the administrators involved here.

Anyway, I'd agree to close this down, but Raul chose to bring this now to the Community Sanctions Noticeboard, so I guess this will not end here... --Childhood's End 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems pale after being called an idiot and troll countless times by this user. ~ UBeR 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to push this affair any much further, but only as a matter of closing it for good, addressing any remaining issue and/or for my own information, I'd like to know how the following statements by Raul654 were not "personal attacks" as the concept is understood under WP:NPA :

• "Here's just a sampling from the BS you have been planting all over this talk page" [9]
• "Childhoodend's actions have made it quite clear that he is not editing in good faith. He is a POV warrior through-and-through, and mediation is not going to fix that." [10]
• "it's not rant to collect your asinine comments and point out how they differ from reality - and that every word you write is a lie, including "and" and "the" " [11]
• "He is a anti-science POV pusher" and "don't take my word for it that he's a hopeless POV pusher" [12]

I am not sure how this can escape WP:NPA but perhaps someone has a clue for me. To be honest, it has not been easy to face such derogatory attacks during the last few days, but I think I can say that I kept my cool and faced the tide against a very angry administrator trying anything to bring me down. Just asking for a follow-up here. If nothing's warranted, I'll abide with. Regards. --Childhood's End 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Webpage which is a cut and paste from Wikipeda

The following webpage [13] has apparently cut and pasted information from every article on American military ranks on Wikipedia. I have found sections cut directly from the articles on General, Colonel, Major, Captain, Airman, Airman First Class, First Lieutenant, and General of the Air Force. The danger is that people might think its the other way around and that Wikipedia editors have been taking stuff from this website. We already had a case where an administrator deleted General of the Air Force because it was a "copyright violation" against this webppage. Not true at all and its the other way around...this website has taken our material and posted it as its own. Some kind of notice should be put up so we don't have mass deletion of pages that editors have worked hard to create. Thank you! -OberRanks 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Send them an email explaining the GFDL and what they have to do. WP:COPY#Reusers' rights and obligations has a simple explanation of what needs to be done. I've restored General of the Air Force, based on the page history I agree with you. Prodego ^talk 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:FORK#Non-compliance process. Newyorkbrad 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being so observant, OberRanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been my experience that these sites just ignore such requests.Rlevse 23:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if they do you can enact the DMCA though the ISP. Prodego ^talk 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence we need to be very careful when deleting our pages as "copyright violations". Check, check, and check again, that we copied them and not the other way around. Carcharoth 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not breaking the 3RR

I try to be pretty careful about not violating the three-revert rule. A brand new editor is making typical brand-new-editor, unencyclopedic, poorly written edits in a low-traffic article that's not on many editors' watch list. The edits are not vandalism, they are just bad edits. I've already reverted them twice and attempted to explain to the editor why the edits cannot remain. I am aware of WP:DR steps, but this isn't exactly a dispute. What do I do next? I don't want the unencylopedic language to remain in the article. I'm not necessarily asking someone to revert the edits for me; I'm generally asking what the appropriate step would be in this case and similar cases.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had this same problem. See #Confused and sometimes upset, above. --Eyrian 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to see if WP:RSN is of any assistance, as suggested above.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Another good suggestion, if it's a lower-traffic page, is to put a note at Wikipedia:Third opinion. This can help bring in uninvolved individuals to help correct errors that may be more complex than simple vandalism. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

Due to a very productive new bot (thanks User:Coren) we need more admins and experienced editors working on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, pretty badly. If you can handle text copyrights, there will apparently be quite a few to handle there... just delete, tag, deal with, etc. Thanks. --W.marsh 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But as always, check, check, and check again that we copied them, as opposed to them copying us. See the section just above this one. Carcharoth 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- I've been editing this page for a while, and Coren's bot is very productive. However, there are zounds of edits, and since I don't have admin buttons, there's a limit to how much I can do right now. Plus, I have work and stuff -- more help needed! --Haemo 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am on wikibreak, but it is good to see SCV growing :-) -- ReyBrujo 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Some help needed (image tagging)

If you accept it, your mission is to clear the following pages of deletable images by deletion, tagging or editing the image page and/or the image itself.

• Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale - thousands of images with missing rationales, half rationales and/or no source. May also be replaceable.
• Special:Uncategorizedimages - untagged images, empty image pages for images on commons, vandalized pages
• User:Gmaxwell/orfu - pile of orphaned fair use images
• User:Gmaxwell/possibly evil images - images containing egregious amounts of metadata, may be deleted under CSD I2 especially if unused

Have fun! MER-C 07:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you forget what we will have to post a bit later today after everyone tags... == Some admin help needed (images) == and we have to spend time deleting or otherwise addressing the concerns by the tags! :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertising using Wikipedia pages

Is this what I think it is? It seems to be a (possibly cybersquatted) site with lots of adverts with Wikipedia content (see bottom of page and hover over the 'view full page' link) being used to draw people there? Carcharoth 16:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah, that's rich. Don't think there's much we can do about it, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They really should be giving credit to Wikipedia. Until(1 == 2) 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to send the webmaster a GFDL notice. I bet the cybersquatter webmaster doesn't care about the legality of his site, so it's an action in futility. Sean William @ 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you pursue the notices to the webmaster to the point where you can send a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP. Prodego ^talk 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing junk like that buried on the lower end of Google searches for a while. Not surprised that the 'view full page' link explains it. Go ahead and attempt contact with the webmaster. I hope that yields fruitful results, but get back in touch with me if reasonable efforts fail. I write a column. ;) Durova^Charge! 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, its simple, talk to the webmaster, if that fails, DMCA takedown will solve it, rinse and repeat for any future sites. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, one should remember that only he/she who holds the copyright to (at least some of) the material has a valid DMCA takedown claim; if, then, you've not edited (non-trivially) the WP:NOVELS text that appears to be copied here, for instance, you've not really any cause of action. In general, though, yes, any Wikipedian might do well to send a we'd appreciate your compliance with the GFDL letter, at least to those websites that one might reasonably expect to be interested in compliance (see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for a general discussion, and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance for information on the enumeration of possibly problematic sites). Joe 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for explaining. I'm not going to be doing anything, though... That's why I posted here. For someone else to do something about it! :-) Any volunteers, or anywhere better to report things like this in future? Carcharoth 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So how do we contact this site? I did some navigation and a Google search and couln't find any feedback or e-mail address for it. I suppose they sell ad space somehow, but how? Durova^Charge! 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[14]. Look what DNSStuff did... Now I am going to need to find a new WHOIS site. Prodego ^talk 04:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This stuff is standard search spam using JavaScript cloaking. They happened to scrape Wikipedia content this time, but they also scrape pages from my site and everybody else's. Sending a DMCA takedown notice is an utter waste of time. There are millions of such worthless pages. The owners hide behind anonymous registrations and offshore hosting providers. If a developer wants to contact me I can point out strategies for defeating scraper bots. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed proposel

this one needs views from a wider audience. Please feel free to go there and comment. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically the proposal is to switch from "4 days" to "4 days and 20 edits"? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Its all there in the talk page and proposal page, but I think so, yes. Comments are welcome there. Regards, Navou ^banter 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the 420 crowd is attempting an excellent prank. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid merge

Looking at Talk:Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Proposal suggests a preference for merging by a margin of 9:3. Since the merge looks pretty straight forward (as much of the material is already in the target articles) I've done a partial merge by adding material to the target articles without removing anything from the "source". I wonder if a neutral editor (ie not involved with Wikiproject Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine etc) could review the talk page discussion and, if he or she agrees there is a consensus for a merge, redirect the article to Human rights in Saudi Arabia#"Apartheid"? Lothar of the Hill People 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turning page RFC into a virtual Arbcom hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid opened

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

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

Admin User:Chick Bowen afd close issues

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

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

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

Iasson requested unblock by e-mail

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

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

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

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

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

WP:PORNBIO speedy noms

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

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

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

block user?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enciclopedia DG

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

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

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

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

Just letting you know, as the kid will probably recreate his promotional article, he even compared it to major forks like Enciclopedia Libre or Citizendium editing the "Wikipedia history" tempalte at [15] no matter that his site is much much more trivial and irrelevant than those selected there. As I said, just letting you know guys. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Could someone have a look please

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

User:Esmehwp

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

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

1. 20 February 2007: Tells AuburnPilot to "go shoot yourself"[16] Response:[[17]
   • Blanked user talk page with "my apologies" edit summary[18]
2. 1 March 2007: On Talk:Jesus: "policy my foot, I'll do as I see fit. Don't waste your time wagging your finger, I won't respond"[19] Vassanya leaves civility note[20] and Welcome2[21]; Ecto leaves comment about Talk:Jesus comments on user talk page[22]; Response is "YEAH YEAH YEAH... move along nothin to see here"[23]
   • 1 March 2007 Esmehwp replaces talk page with "hello"[24]
3. 21 March 2007: Edit wars on Zionism (sample edit summary: "disgusting attempt at whitewashing history reminds one of british colonization of tazmania")[25]; BrandonYusufToropov requests end to edit war[26] adds Welcome message[27]
   • 6 April 2007, Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[28]
4. 13 April 2007, Ethan a dawe requests care regarding NOR and fact-checking[29], discussion ensues
   • 13 April 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[30]
5. 30 April 2007 JuJube requests no edit warring on Baha'i Faith[31]
   • 1 May 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[32]
6. 27 May 2007 Another request for sourcing and NOR[33] this time by Raymond arritt, which also includes note of BLP. Updated to include Astroturfing warning[34] Esmewhp declines discussion[35]
   • 29 May 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[36]
7. 14 June 2007 Ultramarine warns against Wikistalking[37]
   • 14 June 2007 Esmehwp blanks page[38] replacing content with "hello"[39]
8. 14 June 2007 Ultramarine warns against Harassment, adding 3RR warning[40]
   • 14 June 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[41]
9. 14 June 2007 Ultramarine leaves note about RS, V, NPOV[42]
   • 14 June 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[43]
10. 14 and 15 June 2007 Ultramarine suggest mediation[44]. Esmehwp rejects mediation[45] telling Ultramarine not to remove his/her edits, and no mediation would be indicated. Ultramarine reminds Esmehwp about WP:V[46] Esmehwp responds very rudely: "you think I don't know WP policies? don't do that again. read my writing. if you cant understand what I'm saying to you then there's no point in talking. LAST WORD: delete and you'll be reverted. FULL STOP"[47] Ultramarine tries again[48], Giovanni33 suggests compromise[49] Esmehwp responds with insults and accusations to Ulramarine[50] " I will restore deleted information if I feel the deletion is POV or if it detracts from the article. ultramarine thinks USA is the best country in the world and that is his dogma there is nothing anyone can do about it. it is not based on reason logic or facts its an emotional thing he is an ideological fanatic the only way to stop him biasing WP into his own dogma, is to stand up to him you cant compromise with fanatics I'm not going to run around finding sources for everything he disputes, he can add what he likes he can put up tags if he wants but he cant go around deleting things i'm going to stop him. (...)PS No Ultramarine I don't share your dogma so there's no point in mediation. (emphasis added) Discussion ensues, Utramarine points Esmehwp to Ad hominem, dispute is taken to AN/I(Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259#Wikistalking)
    • 15 June 2007. Most hostile page blanking yet. Replaced page with 'Hello GET off my user page ULTRAMARINE!!!! there is no point talking to this idiot you just have to fight him[51] Spartan-James reverted, adding vandal warning (incorrectly, unfortunately)
    • 15 June 2007 so Esmehwp blanked the page again, with the now familiar "hello"[52]
11. 13 August 2007 Jossi leaves NPA warning[53]
    • 13 August 2007 and in two edits, Esme states "thanks already deleted" then replaces page with "hello"[54]
12. 13 August 2007 SOPHIA leaves NPA warning regarding edits on WP:AE[55]
13. 13 August 2007 KillerChihuahua (I) leave NPA warning regarding an edit on User talk:ThAtSo[56]

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

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

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

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

Ah, you all misunderstand the poor dear. As this post[57] shows, it's just a joke. Or a classic case of trolling. Either way, clearly disruptive editing. Talk page back at hello[58], I've restrained my impulse to add the comment "goodbye". .. dave souza, talk 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonaparte thread removed

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

BOT2008BOT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a single-purpose sock used to solicit a block[59]. No comment on Anonimu's actions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A very useful tool

Worth checking out and saving.[60][61] Durova^Charge! 04:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bouncing an idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikistalking and other problems regarding disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14th August

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note 2 Hong has now wikistalked me on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note 3

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

*Cemetery H culture *Vedic period

• South Asian Stone Age

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

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

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

The navigational template on the right side of the article uses BCE/CE. He made it consistent with the template. In fact that's exactly what he said in his edit summaries.[62] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging reliable sources

Resolved

 – Burntsauce now knows where to go

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

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

Double Accounts

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

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

User:Savoie

Resolved

Swatjester extended block to indefinite.--Dweller 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Arrgh, second edit has a summary instructing others not to "get rid of" the page created, or Savoie would "be furious".[65] I agree with the concern, this looks like a huge issue. OTOH, this is his/her first block. Try to keep an eye after block expires, and suggest reading up on NPA, CIVIL, NPOV, OWN, etc. It is possible Wikipedia will be a learning experience for her/him and s/he'll become a civil contributor. If not, warn, block, repeat until done. Good luck. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Endorse indef block. - Philippe | Talk 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the bots

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

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

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

• Quadell saw the same thing and blocked the bot as I was on my way over after posting this. It's set for indefinite until Coren can work out the bug. Keegan^talk 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's adorable. Durova^Charge! 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Damn that ByngBot! Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• I love this sort of thing. One of the more amusing things I've seen on Wikipedia was a couple of bots having a revert-war over which version of a "test" article was less vandalistic. Fighting only ceased when I CSD'd the article and an admin came along to delete it. Moreschi ^Talk 18:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• I couldn't resist.[66] ;) Durova^Charge! 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ooh! Bot wars! Soon to be made into a major motion picture. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I claim copyright for having first initiated a "War of the Bots" ANI thread ([67]). Sadly, on a topic that is still not resolved as of today... Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Coolness! Let's collect the examples and create a new WP:LAME section. It's hilarious and nobody's feelings get hurt. Durova^Charge! 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Cool maybe, but in fact the case I mentioned is still making feelings go hot. Currently debated at Talk:Ingria and WP:BOWN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

On a serious note

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vanilla2

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Wheel warring

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

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

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

Request filed.' Thatcher131 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir Hugo Drax and Hugo Drax

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

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

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

Seeking an uninvoved administrator to close discussion

 Done Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Would you mind actually implementing it? I was a named party at an arbitration with him or I'd do this myself. Durova^Charge! 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, all the archival templates are cunningly located in Category:Archival_templates. Neil ム 15:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Who would have thought of that? That makes too much sense. (Thanks). Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies in need of administrator attention.

It has a backlog tag on it already, but considering the fact that it's been almost 2 days since anyone did anything about the entries there, I thought I'd mention it here. Someone should go check the one I put yesterday, and the 2-3 others from yesterday and the couple days before that haven't been checked yet to see if they are open proxies or not, block them if they are, and state if they are not. 206.246.160.29 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Prolix

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

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

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

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

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

You could try to get participants to agree to a word-count limit on the Talk page. See for instance, at WP:COIN, Please limit all statements to 200 words or less. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long, drawn-out speeches. Then if over-long comments are posted, reply to the commenter, and ask them to replace their posting with a shorter one. EdJohnston 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucracy watch

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

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

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

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

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

A coordinator is someone who simply coordinates various aspects of the project- we have two sub-projects, we have one editor who is highly competent with image issues, we have one who leads article improvements and so forth. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, we need someone to be the co-ordinator of the Bureaucracy watch... violet/riga (t) 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Except it obviously works extremely well for WP:MILHIST, which is well noted as a featured article generating machine. Maybe stop hating on structures that are only designed to help, and obviously work to do so? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record WP:MILHIST has well over 100 featured articles between the letters A and K. And yet they have NINE coordinators. Wow. I guess they're not that bad for the project, huh? Maybe it's because the job of coordinator helps get articles through the peer review, A class, and other reviews. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators what's wrong with a designated project member helping coordinate/facilitate project activities and/or providing info on a topic, such as image tagging, they're an expert on? Scouting is smaller than MILHIST, but still is improving many articles, many to FA status.Sumoeagle179 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Success often follows from effective leadership. Leadership is not itself fundamentally unwiki. The bestowment of titles for the sake of it and with little encyclopedic impact is, on the other hand. Furthermore, there is no admin button (that I have, anyway) which allows me to 'Depose coordinator'. Splash - tk 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators are elected by the calendar year and may retire at any time. Guess I need to do a conventions page explaining this. There are no requirements other than the obvious ones of activity and editorial skill. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do you do yours annually? Milhist does it every six months, and WP:LGBT does it every three months for our deputy coordinators. I think it varies by the needs of the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid 142 members is a bit misleading- we don't have near that number really active. This is a bit of a specialty project, but I think we have made quite a difference in the quality of the Scouting articles. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't bestow titles for its own sake. We ask people to become coordinators, they accept (by acclamation or vote), and do their tasks as well as they can. We do this to improve our project, improve our articles, and so people have known knowledgeable, hopefully expert, project members to go to for certain areas. One of our coordinators is superb at image tagging and licensing, one at getting an article to FA status, etc. I truly fail to see what is wrong with this, these things are prime goals of wiki after all. And Gadget850 is correct, the scouting area of wiki had 0 FAs prior to the project being formed and now there are 14 Scouting FAs, plus A-class, GA, and other many and varied accomplishments of the project.Rlevse 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as there's no illusion that the voted-for representatives are any more than project representatives agreed upon by some consensus process within that project, I don't see any problem with it. Some projects need or favour such an approach, others don't. Orderinchaos 05:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deceased editor

Resolved

 – account blocked / userpage protected - Alison ☺ 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Garden, Baron Garden, lately deceased, appears to have occasionally edited Wikipedia as Tgarden (talk · contribs). If an admin concurs, perhaps it would be best to disable the account? Choess 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to make an unsavory joke here, but erm if he is dead, how is he going to edit ? Jackaranga 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Accounts of deceased users are usually blocked indefinitely, AFAIK to prevent account compromise. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've have indefinitely blocked the account and protected the userpage. An appropriate message has been added to the user and talk pages - Alison ☺ 19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See also his section at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians if anyone has something to add. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation of threads re; Factory farming

User:WAS 4.250

• See also User:WAS 4.250 personal attack Talk:Factory farming.

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

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

In response to my AfD request, he says:

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

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

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

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

There is a related thread going on at WP:AN#Animal liberation POV pushing by admins, started by WAS 4.250. You might want to keep the discussion together. Just a note... —Kurykh 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't inform me of this. Has I known I would have posted there. I will do so now, can an admin close this, as per move to WP:AN#Animal liberation POV pushing by admins? Thanks! --Cerejota 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal liberation POV pushing by admins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not claim that the contents are POV motivated, I claim[68] the article is a POV fork, and that the contents have various issues, mostly WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and geographical bias (i.e. {{globalize}}. Please do not further misrepresent my position. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

My posting said:

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

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

In response to my AfD request, he says:

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

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

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

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

Besides this, I must state I am not an admin, and that he re-stated his personal attack here [69].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admin User:John undertook to moderate, but for whatever reason is not currently active. Since he declared a fresh start, the faction of Cerejota, Crum375 and SlimVirgin were silent on the talk page. Various discussions were attempted and have not been responded to. Cerejota last commented on the talk page on 25th July. [70].

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

Cerejota then all of a sudden waded in without discussion and did this.[71] with edit note (restore npov intro... "advantages" is a claim, not a true statement). Further edits, with all the usual aspects of edit warring ensued. Cerejota makes comments such as (restore to last good version, please see talk) but this appears to refer to some historic discussion. Cerejota's total contribution to discussion has been to quote policy breeches without explaining how. For example these edits, used to support his case are simple claims of policy breech without explaining why - here, here, and here this is The Bellman's Rule of Three (what I say three times is true). I haven't gone all the way back through history, but I do not see any contributions other than reverts to the article by Cerejota in the last few months. This is an unhealthy characteristic for an editor. Having stood by silently, all of a sudden Crum375 and SlimVirgin joined in the edit war.

I would highlight the SV involvement. I had picked up through my watch page that SV was on some form of WikiBreak. ElinorD has been standing guard over her home page, reverting some trolling and a few innocent waifs and strays who got caught in the firing line. She commented that SV was not on Wiki but was contactable by email. I highlight her history where she appears from Wikibreak and having been inactive since the 7th, the first three edits are on the deletion request and Factory farming ([72] [73][74]). As is typical in the factory farming edit warring, the tag teaming is joined by Crum375 [75]. The sole edit from Crum375 on discussion is this [76] which does not discuss content. In the context of the discussion, it is a discussion which starts with myself expressing confusion as to what the actual problem is. Interestingly, Cerejota for the first time makes a statement based on content, however, whilst making a claim that he has the sources to back his position up, he does not add these to the article to justify his reversion which is taking a position.

What is the point of these ramblings? It appears that Cerejota believes that a continuous campaign of repetitious quoting of policy without reasoned debate, whilst personalising the discussion into his proofs, his views, the wrongness of other editors is all perfectly normal and acceptable and cannot possibly be misinterpreted as personal attack[77]. Further, Crum375 joins in with the edit warring. Complain of this he will look innocent and aggrieved (yet was party to the edit warring that last got the Factory farming page protected). SlimVirgin is the one editor who has been genuinely trying to make a contribution to the page, but has reacted with such ownership that reasoned debate does not seem possible. (I have made my views on the issues with the structure of the page clear on the discussion page and would challenge anyone to assert that I am unreasonable in putting them forward as an improvement to the subject e.g. [78]). SV has walked away from discussion essentially claiming harassment, whereas she cannot see that perhaps the need for lengthy rebuttals is her intransigent position, supported by her edit warriors. Acting in concert is seen as bad thing when it is those against Cerejota, yet if you analyse the contributions, they are coming from different angles and there is no particular organised faction, yet SV and Crum are a well known pairing, Cerejota I have no view of aside from on Factory Farming and related articles, who subscribe to the view that their edit warring is appropriate in the face of all the evil trollers like myself that they face on a daily basis. Spenny 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Spenny: I suggest you refrain from asking people to do not do "personal attacks" until you speak up against's WAS unwarranted, wanton personal attacks, forum fishing, and POV forking based on his long list of original research. You are an hypocrite.--Cerejota 09:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot speak out against WAS because I do not subscribe to your analysis. I do see WAS an editor who is sometimes overly confrontational in sticking to his position, but my personal interpretation is of someone who is principled. In terms of behaviour, I feel he has been goaded, much as you appear to feel he is goading you. My view is that WAS has constantly presented a logical viewpoint of why things should be the way they are and I find his argument persuasive, and have not been presented with a convincing counter-argument. With respect, you simply list claims of POV forking and SYNTH without a reasoned justification, much as you have not responded to a reasoned justification for a set of edits on factory farming, you have simply edit warred, and suggested that my edits, which were independently arrived at over a period of time with no collusion, are some sort of meatpuppet response to WAS. On that basis, it would be hypocritical of me to intervene in that way that you would like. Thanks!--Spenny 12:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I've added a few responses explaining how and why this is a bad idea, but I suspect another MFD may be needed in short order because circumstances have changed significanly in the past few days. The last organization, to my knowledge, that tried something like this was Esperanza, and we all know how that one turned out. >Radiant< 11:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, Radiant, all of the "bad ideas" you addressed on the page were either discarded previously or are under debate (the name). So, I'm not sure what the Esperanza analogy has to do with this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

But... but we have to destroy the enemy! We cannot back down from the fight! Ahem, yes. Sarcasm intended. --Deskana (banana) 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

rant 2

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

Heh. Except it's not a professional army, a non-professional army, nor it has time shifts or discipline procedures among the non-existent ranks. Heck, the CVU doesn't even have a member list... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At most, the CVU should give people tools, not organize the use of those tools. The main invitation appears to not be "do you want to use tools to fight vandalism?" or "do you want to use resources (e.g. IRC, external wikis) to coordinate fighting vandalism?", but "do you want to join us to fight vandalism?". Granted, CVU supports all of these things, but focusing on the latter produces a sort of partisanship isn't the most helpful for vandalism-fighting in general. By the way, can we look forward to seeing any more of these Misza13-rants soon? :) Gracenotes^T § 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's my take: our new proposal is precisely one of, "do you want to use resources (e.g. IRC, external wikis) to coordinate fighting vandalism?" We're not encouraging people to join us, and we're not turning people down; we're just a few CVU members who wished there were a way to communicate with other interested CVU members better and more efficiently. The concerns raised previously (above the rant) have already been addressed, and the problematic areas -- shifts, exclusivity, inclusivity, abuse of new "privileges" (of which there are none), WP:CREEP, and so forth -- have all been amended. In a nutshell: this proposal is for a tool to help interested users contact each other. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Sounds like a reasonable idea, although collaboration for the sake of the collaboration isn't always good. Well, at least conversation brought up an important point: IRC is not accessible to everyone. Which is unfortunate, because the en.wikipedia channel shows all changes made to Wikipedia in real time. This would be a very useful tool for vandal-fighters to harness (it's already used for #vandalism-en-wp). Gracenotes^T § 19:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'collaboration for the sake of collaboration'; both Moonriddengirl and I have expressed the desire to see who else is actively fighting vandalism at the time, so as to get a second set of eyes on any recalcitrant vandalism in progress. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By "collaboration for the sake of collaboration", I meant: don't establish a system just because you can. Make sure it's actively helping Wikipedia, rather than becoming dead weight. You know, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and all. Gracenotes^T § 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd (talk · contribs) This user is currently on IRC. This user is an administrator.

Well, more or less what I had thought of is a way to automate and extend the table I put up above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't fight vandals. It's not a war. Vandalism is something to be reverted, and vandals are stupid people who are blocked and ignored. It's no more complicated than that. Moreschi ^Talk 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vandal-fighting" does not necessarily imply militaristic engagement, or at least (in my mind) shouldn't. It merely refers to collaboratively undoing the effects of vandalism. Now, I hate to draw an analogy to war (for obvious reasons), but defense is often more complicated than offense. Gracenotes^T § 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"War is a prolonged state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people." Let's see...

• It is prolonged alright - pretty much ever since Wikipedia was founded and made open.
• I would say it's violent, with many vandals wanting to DESTROY WIKIPEDIA!!!!one!!!1 and a few equally angry admins on the other side.
• Quite large-scale, given that it involves the entire site.
• Conflict this clearly is.
• And involves just about two groups of people.

Yup, checks out as a war for me. Let's also throw in the vandals (not all of whom are as stupid as the average "Replaced page with "pooooo"" vandals) that continuously seek weak spots in the system and ways to abuse and circumvent the defensive measures set up by admins and developers, who also tirelessly work on improving the durability and security, and you might realize there is also an arms race going on. Do not deny what's obvious just because it doesn't fit your vision. Миша13 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral admin needed to close article move discussion

This discussion is now ten days old and needs to be closed with a decision on consensus: Talk:Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Proposal. Thanks. Lothar of the Hill People 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Admins have no special power to close discussions when there exists a consensus. That being said, there does seem to be a consensus. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Merge proposal closed and merge performed

User:Batman2005's user page

I removed a few sections from his user page (the section where he labels certain users as "dead to him", calls admins one where he labels a fraternity as gay, where he labels Freddy Adu as a homosexual by linking him to oral sex and sucking. Basically, under no personal attacks and no soapboxing. This happened a year ago, and it's snuck back on there. I removed it, he reverted. I warned him, and removed the comments again, he's just reverted again. I have told him to stopitnow, but a second pair of eyes would be appreciated, as if he puts it back again I'm going to block him. Neil ム 09:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And with a 3rd revert to keep his personal attacks on there, he's now blocked for 3 hours while this is sorted out. Neil ム 09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You should have just protected the page. El_C 09:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said on his talk page, then it would need to be protected indefinitely, as the second it was unprotected, the attacks and soapboxing would have returned, and not being able to edit your user page forever is a far bigger crimp then not being able to edit for a couple of hours. The hope is that a short block (emphasise short, 3 hours is not long) will make the user understand what is and is not acceptable. He's asked to be unblocked, citing my bringing it for discussion following the block as a reason. I brought it here for discussion as to whether 3 hours was correct, and a review of my actions, not for advice on the initial course of action. Neil ム 09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing your "action," which includes everything, from the beginning. Your "I brought it here for discussion as to whether 3 hours was correct, and a review of my actions, not for advice on the initial course of action" is play on semantics. El_C 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That was an aside to the fact of his unblock request (complaining I brought it here after blocking him), not your comments. Sorry for the confusion. Neil ム 10:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, but in any case, it would have helped to keep the discussion unfragmented, if anything. But since the user refused my offer to unblock him and protect the page so that he could participate here (despite arguing that the block was imposed to prevent such participation), it's a nonissue. El_C 10:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization of his page, and the removal of his "joke" went a bit far. Yes, it was bad taste, but wikipedia is not censored. I do not see him labelling Freddy Adu as a homosexual by linking "suck" to "oral sex" either. Are you perhaps being a bit sensitive? Kyaa the Catlord 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa, if you say "Freddy Adu [[oral sex|sucks]]", what else could it mean? That was a minor point, the main issue is the incivility, soapboxing, and personal attacks. Neil ム 09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was a child, my mother used to wash my mouth out with soap when I said something "sucked" cause it was a dirty word, referring to oral sex. Of course, this wasn't completely removed from the page, it was simply just unlinked. The meaning still remains despite the edit war over his linking to it. The removal of his colorful opinion of admins is just silly, a lot of editors feel that admins are the enemy, but we should not be silencing them when they say this, we should be considering if there is any evidence to back their feelings (and based on blocking this guy, I'd have to say "hell yes"). Blocking him for such minor shit is going too far. Of course, you'll probably block me cause I link to NPA issues that occured to me on my userpage now. Batman2005's page may be a minor violation, but seriously, it was never worth edit warring over. Kyaa the Catlord 09:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't care, or, to be more forthright, tried hard enough to get, those bits (I didn't remove them originally; Neil did, my rollback removed them automatically); my only concern relates to the list of users whom he "will not listen to" and which are "dead to him." Targeting Wikiepdia users negatively, even when this is prefaced to be in the spirit of Cobert Report & not as a personal attack, is still an attack. El_C 09:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)bly not. As administrators, shouldn't ya'll be doing something more important than waging in edit wars over something so bloody minor? Kyaa the Catlord 09:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not "so bloody minor." User pages are not to be used to target other editors negatively. El_C 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User pages are not to be used to target anybody (users or otherwise) negatively -WP:LIBEL covers that. Neil ム 10:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• yawn* Putting ones fingers in ones ears and yelling "I'm not listening to you! I'm not listening to you!" is amazingly minor. To blow it out of proportion like this is comedy. Kyaa the Catlord 10:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kyaa, to be fair, you're the one writing miniessays here. El_C 10:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:USER#Inappropriate content:

"There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense."

The contents of this page do just that. This is supposed to be a serious, or at least not a disreputable, enterprise. Additionally, the "People who are not Alright" section is inappropriate - these are living people, and Wikipedia, as a scholarly resource and a public trust, must not be a platform for attacking or ridiculing them. I propose blanking this material.Proabivouac 10:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's going too far. "Not alright" is very mild. Neil ム 10:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know…if I saw on Wikipedia a page that said I was "not alright" - bearing in mind that the public might not draw the distinctions between userspace and mainspace that we draw - I would think there was something not alright about this encyclopedia. As the subject of an article, as a bystander, or as a journalist, it would lead me to question the fairness of our coverage.Proabivouac 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think any personal comments are wrong. I agree that "not allright" is hardly the most offensive thing to call/label someone, but it is still negative, and still personal, and therefore still a personal attack, albeit a mild one. Our policy is "no personal attacks", not "some personal attacks as long as they're relatively mild and not overly offensive". Waggers 11:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of the content on people's user pages is neither self descriptive, nor encyclopaedic, personally I think the rules could be stricter than they are now. I would back disallowing any user page content that does not either provide useful information about the user, their contributions, or wikipedia content. Also if someone is repeatedly blocked for the same thing over and over, he should have learnt his lesson. Jackaranga 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have only one thing to say about this entire, ridiculous process. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Batman2005 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very good answer, really.Proabivouac 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Batman2005 feels he is entitled to have an enemy list on his user page, but the lack of restraint is a concern. El_C 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because honesty is never a good answer. Let's all smile and wave and pretend that wikipedia is a nice, happy place where everyone gets along. Kyaa the Catlord 12:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're trying to be intentionally provocational, but you are not helping. El_C 12:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. In my opinion, Bats has been ganged up on and has the right to feel the way he does. There has been no effort to try to keep him here, rather he's being isolated and picked on by the peanut gallery for something stupid. Is he out vandalizing articles? Is he being disruptive on article talk pages? I don't believe so. Why doesn't someone mark this resolved and end the kangaroo court already? His userpage has changed and he's shown on his personal talk that he's willing to compromise. (Or are you only seeking input that agrees with you?) Kyaa the Catlord 12:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You may think that you're helping him, and he might think that, but you've been inflaming the situation, I find. El_C 12:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not picking on him, Kyaa, when I ask: what purpose does it serve? Jokes don't cut it, as this project isn't supposed to be a joke. All of this is published by Wikipedia, reflects upon us, and is our collective responsibility.Proabivouac 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Refactored. Heck with it. I'm taking step 2 of DR and leaving this "discussion". Kyaa the Catlord 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia, non-mainspace. It was speedy deleted 09:30, 14 August 2007 and now that deletion is being discussed here at deletion review. Please consider participating in the discussion. This two-old day issue has spun into an arbitration request and quickly generated other interest. Some additional admin eyes on this growing matter would be of value. There is a thread above on the matter as well. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointers: Currently at both Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (5th nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 14#Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

Too bold

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed with Matt and others above. The last time this happened, there was a massive and pointless war leading ultimately to their restoration. We should avoid drama for its own sake, and if Foundation members have a problem with it, they can intervene. Orderinchaos 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

rant

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

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

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

I managed to source much of the material in one of the 65 or 66 pages within a day. It wouldn't take all that long to source the material in the rest of the pile if we had a team of, oh, a dozen editors and a couple of admins to commit to the task over a couple of weeks. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Feh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

 Note: 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC) no action yet taken, would another admin please do so? GRBerry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, is it really ok for a non admin to close an AfD?? Kephera975 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes - but never to close as delete, because an admin is needed to delete and they would have to validate the close. Non-admins should only close when the decision is obvious. A no consensus close was obvious; the failure to transclude (successfully) onto the daily pages meant that a delete or keep close would be overturned at DRV upon request. Basic procedural fairness problems, like failure to transclude or failure to tag the page under discussion, mean that the discussion has a non-representative participant sample, and thus can't demonstrate community consensus. GRBerry 05:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating misrepresentations

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts: I'm not sure I'm allowed to comment here, as I am not an admin; my apologies if I am out of place. I believe the user in question is a very bad wikipedian. He explicitly asserts ownership, always assumes bad faith, is consistently insulting even in his initial transactions with other editors, uses numerous sockpuppets and not-exactly-puppet dynamic IP's instead of his real account despite numerous warnings (which breaks up his edit history, which is going to be tough on the mediators / arbitrators), edits Talk pages, and is a zealot who will not "permit" use of mainstream sources like TIME magazine on his highly-idealized biography of a religious figure. His sole contributions to Wikipedia are about this religious sect, and are highly POV. He has exhausted the patience of several editors, and I am very sorry to read that he's exhausting you, too. I think the solution for the article is to go to arbitration ASAP unless he is able to produce a comprehensive NPOV version by this weekend (FYI to other editors: the problem user asked for several weeks to rewrite the article; time is almost up). I do not think there is a solution to the editor himself. He interprets courtesy as an attack and will not accept help, correction, or reproof from administrators. I've never seen anything like him before in my Wiki experiences. -- Lisasmall 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

From the page header: "This is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on the English Wikipedia. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here."--SarekOfVulcan 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I filed an WP:RFARB here.--SarekOfVulcan 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting news article about attacks on WP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm is a story about a new tool, Wikipedia Scanner. It has determined that quite a few organizations POV push on WP including CIA, Democratic Party, Vatican, Diebold Company. Therefore, everyone should be alert that is someone is stubborn or POV pushing, he or she may be working for an organization trying to improve its image or attack another article. Polounit 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, and that is only a small part of them that would be detected by this tool, because I am guessing it only looks at anonymous users, who’s IP addresses are visible, as it would require sysop rights to see the IP address behind a registered user. I have noticed this on many occasions though, that companies modify the articles about themselves. I wish some of the admins closing AfDs would keep this in mind when examining the notability criteria, and not just going with the majority, and closing as keep so as to not offend the company. I’m guessing it’s the same in paper encyclopaedias though, as regards governmental propaganda. The difference is most paper encyclopaedias make no mention of products, especially such as little known software. What I find more worrying is people pushing badly established points of view on articles most wikipedians know little about. For example on the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, there is a lot of discussion, which can only have a positive effect, but on some articles relating to the countries that used to form Yugoslavia for example, there are much fewer people who are knowledgeable on the subject, and racist or propaganda can leak through undetected. Jackaranga 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Just a minor correction) Sysops can't see the IP behind registered accounts either, actually only checkusers can do that, and even then only if they have good cause to believe you're sockpuppeting or they have some other compelling reason. That scanner is a useful tool, though, as I'd guess plenty of people really do just click the "Edit this page" button. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The news story seems to have travelled. It merited more than a page in today's El Periódico de Catalunya, the best-selling newspaper in Catalonia (article is here at time of posting, but gets archived quite quickly). It has also apparently been picked up on Canadian Radio, who claim to have dug out some silly goings-on from 2006 involving Montreal City Hall and the article Frank Zampino... just to let people know! Physchim62 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check

Not really experienced in the 3RR board. Could I get a quick review on my actions here and here? Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter 13:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. It's always better to discuss rather than block - if asking nicely works to stop the edit warring (and it can, sometimes, occasionally), then awesome. Even if 3RR has technically been broken in the first instance you give, a polite chat for a first offence is no great shakes. Neil ム 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of people TfD

To all admins:

I'm going to need some help here. There are a total of 490 templates that need housekeeping. Singularity 16:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:^demonBot2 is flagged for this. Edit all of those to be a blank page, and we can quickly run the bot and subst: all templates (essentially removing them). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Actually they didn't need orphaning, ST47 and I just nuked them all. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they didn't need orphaning. Thanks for nuking them. Singularity 18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)