Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive488

Greek Macedonia/Macedonia/FYROM userboxes

I've just come across the following userbox, which, if I'm honest, I think should be immediately deleted due to the rather divisive message inside:

This user supports Greece and real Macedonia on Macedonia's naming dispute with Fyrom, because he knows history and he is aware of justice.

Am I the only one who can see a problem with this? FYI, I'm not Greek, or Macedonian, but that last sentence is overly insulting, I think. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that userbox should be deleted. I think userboxes with divisive messages should be deleted. Our job is to build the encyclopedia, not express our personal or political views. AdjustShift (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty clear WP:T2 deletion to me. Out of courtesy, I'm notifying the owner of the userbox of this thread now, however I strongly recommend removal of the userbox. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it transcluded from a seperate file, or is it just manually added to the userpage? If its transcluded, the original should be deleted post-haste. Regardless, it should also be removed from the userpage post-haste as a violation of WP:USERPAGE. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue that might be better handled at WP:MFD. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a userbox template, I think it might have been copied and pasted. I can't find the template anywhere. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with SWik78. This is beyond MFD. I see no compelling reason to keep this sort of shit around longer than about 5 more minutes, never mind 5 days. Per WP:SNOW, there is no defensable reason to put that kind of polemic on a userpage, and it should be removed ASAP... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, is there a [[RL:LAME]] for the lamest real-life conflicts? Support delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: there's a whole host of similar boxes on a lot of userpages of Greek and Macedonian contributors. The topic has come up repeatedly; we've occasionally purged the worst excesses of POV screeds on userpages, but these smallish box things have typically been left untouched. If you delete it (no objections from me), be prepared for a boatload of OTHERCRAPEXISTS complaints. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, such overt hostility and divisiveness is blockworthy. I say (a) remove with prejudice, warn user that such declarations are completely unacceptable, and (b) block immediately and without further sommation if the box returns, especially if it has been tweaked to wikilawyer around the warning. Enough with the national disputes already! — Coren ^(talk) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Cavalry didn't bother to do so, I've just removed the userbox code from User:The Cat and the Owl's page, and left an explanation for the removal and a warning not to re-add the box here. I again invited the user to comment here if they have questions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed it from User:Alexikoua too. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How are you chaps looking for it? Google and Mediawiki's searches aren't picking it up for me - hence why I'm not removing it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I clicked on the flag image and looked for the pages that linked to it. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a fine tool for searching Wikipedia. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Fyrom is helpful. That particular spelling (vs. all-caps FYROM) is perceived as pejorative (as in "Fyromians" to refer to the people), so many of those links should be examined. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check up on the FYROM links. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Check this one. --Smashville^talk 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted that one. Let us know if you find more... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Eek. I'm just not up enough on the whole Macedonia thing to know the acceptable from the unacceptable, so I didn't want to delete...but looking at the user's other ones...eek. --Smashville^talk 04:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I saw those. Most seem fairly innocuous, you know of the "I support my side" without being overtly offensive towards the other side, but some probably need to go. If you see any that are questionable, try MFD for those. If there are any that seem WAY over the line, then delete on sight. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone has removed them yet (too lazy to look), but I made a list of userpages with that stuff ages ago: user:Republic-of-Malakia (even offensive username), user:Fallacia83 (including a disgusting rant), user:Gagauz, user:Sthenel, user:The-Real-ZEUS, user:Waterfall999, user:Scott Anafas, and user:Maggas. Some of these users aren't active any more, but still. BalkanFever 04:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and user:DefendEurope. BalkanFever 06:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And user:Hectorian. BalkanFever 08:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

SKO VAR VSK

This user would support a solution of the Naming Issue for FYROM in the form of: Skopje, Vardarskia, Vardar-Skopje, or any other name that does not include the (Greek) name 'Macedonia' in the title, and for a suitable flag that doesn't contain any Greek symbols.

What's the problem with this userbox ? apart from expressing an unrealistic position for the name. --Zakronian (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Still pretty political, IMHO. The whole issue is. Ethnically says "I don't care if you think you want to call yourself Macedonian, you're not". To me, that's uncivil - and I'm 100% uninvolved. -t BMW c- 11:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Determining if it's extreme or not depends on the weight one gives to the self-determination right "against" the protection of another nation's cultural identity. In this case reality shows these two are highly connected and cannot be jugded separately (you can deny that in theory and in lack of personal experience of course), and we're talking about a userpage, where you have the most freedom to express any opinions and to balance things your way. This userbox does not imply something that can be seen as more offensive or controversial than for example a userbox where an ethnic Macedonian editor states he has ancient Macedonian ancestry by piping "Macedonian" to "ancient Macedonian" (the worst way to say it) next to the Vergina Sun, a primarily ancient Greek symbol. It may be his right to claim something silly that cannot be really determined, but it also clearly antagonizes the Greek identity, and from an objective view it is mostly backed from the lack of information. You might find all that irrelevant, but then you'd have to be strict in general about rules and i could in turn comparatively extent that to other usepage content issues. The pro-Kosovo and pro-Serbia templates for example. Or, what really makes this issue any different from a template supporting say the unification of Romania and Moldova without solving the Transnistria problem first or calling for respect of Georgia's territorial integrity ? Anyway, i don't support the expressed position on the naming dispute, just spending my free time sharing the Greek perspective with you. :)--Zakronian (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Posts by IP about shell kinney

This post was originally made at WP:RFC/U in the admin's section. I think it is better suited here. Regards SoWhy 02:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having to write this unlogged in because shell kinney (admin) has made made every effort to silence the facts i've put forward regarding his/her application of a ban I and others feel was arbitrary. His/Her original ban was not rooted in wikipedia policy or openly discussed. He/She has even removed my uninflamatory and purely fact based responses on my own talk page and protected it so I cannot even respond. I'm requesting a third uninvolved party to review the situation. The discussion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASgeine&diff=248923964&oldid=248923865 Shell has a long history of heavy handed tactics but I'm not here to address that or get bogged down in whatever personal matters exist. Just a review of the facts with a resolution.01:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.198.66 (talk • contribs)

This fellow has been using Wikipedia to pursue his personal agenda against Helio (the wireless carrier), by adding content attacking them and sourcing it to documents hosted on personal websites. I dealt with him before Shell. He needs to head over to wikileaks.org, as the content he is trying to add is not acceptable here. I've blocked the IP for a short period, as it's pretty clear it's being used for block evasion. --Versageek 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why the block-evading user's rant was copied onto ANI. Surely we shouldn't be using this board to give disruptive users a place to vent after they've been properly blocked? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to help this user (User:Sgeine) in the last few days, breaking my informal wikibreak to do it. I do not believe this is a proper block at all, and believe Shell is being way too heavy handed with this. In my talks with the user I've helped him to understand what he needs to do next, and why his current sources were considered original research. I suspect he actually listened to me because I didn't treat him like trash or assume the worst out of him.

I do not agree with Sgeine on everything he's said, but most of this is happening because he's frustrated and doesn't understand some of our policies. Shell has, on her own, given him a "topical ban", which she believes he was trying to evade by editing as an IP. However, as an IP he tells her who he is and logs in to continue a discussion with Shell, completely voluntarily on his part. Him editing as an IP was not a malicious act, and most people who edit Wikipedia every so often don't really care if they're logged in or not. The warning of a ban is shown in this edit [1], and sure enough Sgeine did violate this. However, I believe this only happened because we failed to properly explain the situation in the first place, and that an indef block on someone who's never been blocked before is an over reaction. No offense to Shell, but she does tend to be a bit too heavy handed with blocking, and when other admins review they are quick to side with the other admins.

Now he's talk page has been protected for this. I assume it was because he posted a chatlog, but if you look closely the long consists entirely of him saying (to Shell) things like "hello?" with no response (hence, only his comments were posted). Wether or not those logs have any weight on anything, that's another matter.

This is not how we should deal with people. I understand that some people are very sensitive about COI worries, but treating this guy like trash is wrong. After having talked with him, I think he better understands what he needs to do next and won't insert the disputed information anymore. Shell refuses to discuss the matter because it involves an OTRS ticket from Helio. At this point I'm probably aware of more information than Shell is, and there is still no reason to come down so hard on this guy.

How many times has this happened with users who come across Wikipedia and have a culture clash with us?

If I can get him to agree on not editing the Helio articles then can we stick out a hand of friendship and say "no hard feelings, we look forward to working with you"? He's very smart and likely has a great deal to offer us on other articles. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If he stays away from the Helio articles, I don't have a problem with it.. As to not explaining things.. If he had asked questions in response to my warning back in July rather than just blanking the page, I would certainly have attempted to help him understand. (Apparently Shell had dealt with him a few weeks before my first encounter, and tried to help him as well.. ) --Versageek 06:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I must correct myself here. Sgeine has pointed out to me that he did not re-insert the information that Shell warned him about, and I've stepped through the history of the article and this is correct. He did tag the article for deletion because he felt it should be merged/covered in another article, but then that's more newbie stuff. So at this point he has not violated any ban that Shell has given him, at least none that can be verified on-wiki. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Versa, I don't believe that page has ever been blanked, let alone by me. And if you take a look at the edit history I actually did listen to you. You'll notice my _last_ edit with that information was two hours before yours and 9 hours before shell's... That's all I've been saying is hey, lets tone this down. I didn't readd it after you guys said that so why are we going crazy here 6 months later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.198.130 (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

nm you're talking about my talk page not helio's page. I wiped my talk page because I didn't feel it was an issue any longer as I had already decided not to add that paragraph again and didn't edit wikipedia for some 4 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.198.130 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, one more time for teh win: There is considerably more information about this issue than Sgeine or Ned is giving here; other administrators have reviewed and declined to unblock (twice). Sgeine has been informed of the ability to have ArbCom review the indef block as a next step.

Sgeine has been incredibly dishonest about this entire situation and unfortunately has suckered Ned into believing that he's a poor guy trying to do right that just didn't know what he got in to. I've explained a few times now, several of those being to Ned, that what can be seen on wiki is simply the tip of the iceberg. By the way Ned, what Sgeine told you about OTRS is a complete fabrication - that's not who wrote in nor was he honest about the content. Here's the great part about that - the reason he thinks that's who wrote in is because that's who outed him and complained to other websites - that's right, this isn't the first place he's done the same thing to the company (and that's not the only tool in his "campaign" against Helio).

I know that in this case following the Foundation's privacy policy makes reviewing this inconvenient, but them's the rules. I have offered repeatedly to share this with an editor (with appropriate permissions) of Ned's choosing and I'm still happy to do that. If nothing else, perhaps then he could throw a little good faith the way of the long time admin instead of handing it all to the stranger leading him down the rabbit hole.

Contrary to what's being said here, I spent a *lot* of time with Sgeine off-wiki (his preferred method) educating him and encouraging him. Originally, even though the information supported it, I tried a topic ban instead of indef blocking the account. When he came back this month as an IP, I started a discussion to help him learn - even though this IP address had vandalized and added skewed information in the articles before and even though he kept attacking me and my motives. I even went so far as to assist him in putting one of the articles up for AfD and went and found a crapload of references when he peppered another article with fact tags (including those where he first deleted the references that were already there).

It wasn't until mid-way through the AfD that he decided to sign back in to his account. Whether or not this was intentional (i.e. logging out to avoid being caught) doesn't really matter here - what matters is that he violated a clear topic ban and has shown no remorse nor indication that he will desist. Of course now he's pretending that he's never spoken to me and had no idea that the ban was in place; Mangojuice read our correspondence and felt otherwise.

Btw, the reason I protected the talk page is twofold: One, the logs he posted were fake, intended only to make people think I hadn't talked to or answered him, notwithstanding he shouldn't be posting private information. And two, he's clearly going to keep making things up until something sticks. Frankly, had he not behaved like this, I'd be all for letting him back on to edit other things, but the blatant mis-truths and continued manipulation have me convinced that letting him edit would be a very bad idea. Shell ^babelfish 11:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is the 3rd IP range "Sgeine" has used to avoid his block. Shell ^babelfish 11:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Stpuidhead

Is the way this user is treating his talk page ok? It makes it very hard to find previous warnings. They've made User talk:Stpuidhead a redirect, which also makes it harder to find the editor's contributions. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See his rationale. He was doing it to make a WP:POINT, and I reverted it with a warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm watching him now. Rarely useful edits and games like this should be getting him blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ControlFreak

ControlFreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been blocked twice for uploading copyright violations and adding them to Mýa discography. Today, he has done it again.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef, img deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this user indefinitely (not infinitely). I'd be happy to have any admin unblock this user upon acknowledgment that he or she has read and understood the relevant policies and has given a promise to stop uploading improper images. henrik•talk 14:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yue Chinese

Resolved

 – users directed to WP:DR, no need for admin action.

Could someone take a look at Yue Chinese? User:Newzebras is rewording the article to fit the title he wants it moved to,[2] since he hasn't gotten his way with the actual move. I feel that the text should match the title, but it's now turned into an edit war.

Blanking? No. That paragraph is too long and too detailed to be placed outside the main topic. So I merged those sections into the [topic]. --Newzebras (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a month ago I started a discussion at Chinese naming conventions about how to handle the language/dialect issue, since I and several others felt the existing solution was awkward, and I moved several of the articles in accordance with the consensus we reached. The new conventions allow some leeway, and of course it will take some time for everything to settle down. Recently Newzebras suggested (actually demanded) three moves of the Cantonese articles. Two of these were agreed to, and I moved them. The third, Yue Chinese (the wording used in Ethnologue), was not agreed to. Newzebras then placed a second request, and meanwhile has been rewording the text from "Yue" to "Cantonese", which is ambiguous. ("Cantonese" generally means Guangzhou dialect, and when a distinction is made, as here in our articles, people generally try to use more precise wording.) He has started making similar edits to Guangzhou dialect, blanking large sections of the article in the process (such as the section on written Cantonese).[3] kwami (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a few persons' "consensus", but the page-remove IS TOO imprudent. Former articles associated with Cantonese language or dialect all use commonly used English word "Cantonese", but it was you who replaced all this texts into "Yue", which is a Mandarin spelling romanization and a seldom used term in about a moth ago. (see discussion 1 and discussion 2). Since the newly replaced "Yue" by kwami is argumentative, the best way to end the controversy is to revert back to "Cantonese". ("Cantonese" generally means "廣東話(Guangdong hua)" or it's alias "粵語(Yueyu)". Guangzhou dialect is a smaller subset of Cantonese though people of Hong Kong directly call it using the bigger subset name "Cantonese" due to it's prestige and representative of the whole Cantonese language). Now we have moved Guangzhou dialect to the proper place per consensus reached on the discussion page. The article describing the whole Cantonese language certainly should be moved to a page like "Cantonese (language topic)" or "Cantonese (language/dialect)", rather than current terrible name, see move request.--Newzebras (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Newzebras, this is not the place to discuss the merits of the move, but rather your behavior. kwami (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So you delate me here and said that I delete paragraphs? (I merged those paragraphs to the main topic since they are too long and too detailed, not blanking them as you said.) This is ordinary editing behavior, not "destruction". I think it's necessary to announce this point.--Newzebras (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed, NZ did as he says, so I struck out that complaint. Without an edit summary, I didn't see what had happened to the text. kwami (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, this looks like a simple content dispute, which administrators are in no more position to mediate than any other uninvolved editors at Wikipedia. Perhaps you two should consider asking for a third opinion or a request for comment on this issue? I don't see anything in the history of this problem that would constitute requiring an admin to block a user or protect a page. Indeed, going through dispute resolution will likely prevent admin action, and we ALL want that, don't we?!? Would anyone object to marking this resolved?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I don't bring many of these. Should've gone elsewhere. Sorry for the bother. kwami (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolfberry again

Could someone uninvolved have a glance at this edit [4] to Talk:Wolfberry by Paul144 (talk · contribs)?

Paul144 has been the subject of a COI discussion WP:COIN#Wolfberry. He claims the edit, which expunges from discussion evidence of his strong COI, is justified under WP:OUTING (despite there having been no outing - he self-disclosed his identity - and the authors of a book and details of a company are public knowledge. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you can point out his self-disclosure? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here [5], where he provided a link to a biographical page and article list ("I am a contributor to a few of these, e.g., http://www.npicenter.com/news/DrPaulGross_articles.aspx"); and here [6] ("I am the son of the subject"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban Cossack and never ending edit wars

I have no other recourse but to ask for admins' intervention in the edit war at Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Over the past week I've tried everything to stop the revert war with User: Kuban kazak, unfortunately none of them worked, he rejected all attempts at compromise and continues to revert even referenced text. This is the user with multiple blocks for edit warring, the last being just in July of this year. Since then he got several warnings from users and admins for edit warring[7][8][9], and yet he continues to wage edit wars not just in that article but in others as well. I understand that admins cannot deal with every content dispute, but this has gone above that. This is a pattern that would not change and it's become a real nuisance. I would appreciate if admins could have a look at this.--Hillock65 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well all I can say is that Hillock65 has in the past year with the exception of interwikis and the odd article Grégoire Orlyk, has limited his participation on wikipedia to edit warring with me. Please look: here, if we filter away the interwiki edits:

• Zaporozhian Cossacks (no additions on Hillock's behalf, but nearly a year of arguing whether the term destroyed was applicable, in result by majority of users, Hillock failed to add his opinion there)
• Zaporizhian Sich (again no additions, same edit war, result Hillock gave up)
• Cossacks - A huge dispute over the lead, where Hillock attempted to first push through a WP:FRINGE theory of modern Ukrainian Cossacks, and then continued an edit war for nearly month about how the historical aspect of Ukrainian Cosascks should be given a greater portion than others.
• Mukachevo, there was a dispute on the name, yet Hillock pushed to have the official spelling added into the article, again failed.
• Kuban Cossacks, Ukrainians in Russia, Template:History of Ukraine the irony is that when I make an edit, to any such article, Hillock, always WP:STALKing me wound follow on and revert me. On the second example he got caught by 3RR by being completely careless. (Again there was a discussion in the archives about it).
• The biggest piece of evidence for the above is that during my wikibreak from 5 August 2008 to 15 September 2008 Hillock made no more than two dozens edits. Yet the moment I came back, so was he. His new victims are Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and History of Christianity in Ukraine.

All in all he is first a WP:SOAPboxing nightmare! Second a ruthless POV warrior, with whom its impossible to have any consensus. However the biggest irony about him, is that unlike some active POV-pushers and stalkers like User:Piotrus, Hillock's contribution to main article space is minute by any measure. Again in all his time on wikipedia one can postulate about no more than 10 significant contributions to article space, and about 1000 reverts and talk page rants.

The biggest irony here, is that he accuses me of being a Russian nationalist anti-Ukrainian editor, yet out of six barnstars four were given by Ukrainian editors.

With respect to the issue above, the usual case scenario, is to ask for a WP:THIRD and follow through a normal WP:DR, but for Hillock its important to raise as much noise as possible, and its too bad for him there is no Wikipedia:Request for block page. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding personal attacks, the issue here is not his or mine contribution to Wikipedia, but rather this user's never ending edit wars, which is easily checked by looking at his edit history and history of blocks. He has selected a patttern of stalking me and starting edit wars whenever I edit. Anyone interested can easily check him following me in articles where he never even edited before [10][11][12][13][14]. I know arguing with him over this is a waste of time. I'll just wait for someone impartial to have a look at this. Enough is enough. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see adding Russian language to Nuclear power plants is not a revert, and in particular South_Ukraine_Nuclear_Power_Plant Hillock's attempt to remove the passage was reverted by a third party. Ivan Bohun, was not a revert, unlike Hillock's but a correction of facts, I then went on and edited all the other Hetmans of Ukraine, and nowhere did I add Russian language, but copyedited many of them. History_of_Christianity_in_Ukraine and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church contrary to his statements of he never even edited before were partially written by me, I can't claim all the credit by the fact that others have added before and after me, but both articles have been in my to do list and on my watchlist since autumn 2005! Anyone can check the history. Given the above statement, apart from a POV-pusher and an edit warrior, Hillock is also a liar! Spreading disinformation is a usual trait more examples of which I can easily provide. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The original complaint "I have no other recourse but to ask for admins' intervention in the edit war" points to where the problem lies. I see no attempt to file an article RfC, asking for a third opinion or do any other thing normally expected in a regular content dispute. Hillock and Kuban are both useful content writers who frequently disagree in article disputes. Nothing unusual in that. However, I am troubled but what seems like Hillock's obsession with Kuban and persistent attempts to resort to block-shopping to "win" his content disputes with this editor. Hillock follows Kuban's contributions and seems to look for every occasion to block-shop against Kuban (last time he has done it about two weeks ago.) This thread could be just as well named "User:Hillock65 and never ending edit wars" as Hillock's actions is at least no better than Kuban's. I checked the talk pages of the articles in question and Kuban seems willing to discuss. So, I don't see as an ANI matter, users should be advised to seek consensus and compromise, and if unable to reach it, they should ask for more input rather than shop for blocks. --Irpen 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Even a cursory confirmation of the diffs posted confirms that, despite how Irpen attempts to frame this issue above, this is not a content dispute as Wikipedians understand the term. There's evidence of an interpersonal conflict; there's evidence of WP:STALKing; there's evidence of WP:OWN, and there's evidence of assumption of bad faith. For an example, let's consider this edit made by Kuban kazak. First thing to be noticed about it is that it is a partial revert of an edit by Hillock65 about 18 hours earlier. The second thing to be noticed is that in the whole Wikipedia edit history of this article, this is the only edit by Kuban kazak. What do these two facts give us? I submit that by Occam's razor, this gives us a clear episode of wikistalking.

But there's more. Consider Kuban kazak's edit summary in this partial revert: Nothing wrong with this... Such an edit summary attached to an user's sole edit so soon after Hillock65's exercise of editorial judgment -- one could debate it, but that's what the talk page is for -- smacks, to me, of deliberately searching for things that are wrong with Hillock65's edits. In order words, it's not just wikistalking; it's also a clear case of assuming bad faith, if not battleground creation. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for intervention

"However the biggest irony about him, is that unlike some active POV-pushers and stalkers like User:Piotrus..." - this is a clear violation of WP:NPA/WP:SLANDER and such, and I assume the community will address this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I sort of wondered who will pop up here immediately after my post. I guessed right. --Irpen 21:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Piotrus was advised to come here by an admin, having already filed a complaint on AE hours ago [15]. --Folantin (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, will you please apologise for your assumption of bad faith that has turned out factually incorrect? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What "assumptions"? Kuban kazak states that some users (Piotrus among them) is following the contributions of the target editors all around Wikipedia. I don't think bringing up any names here was useful. It may have been unhelpful in sense of bloating the discussion on the narrow issue but as far as facts are concerned, my own experience with Piotrus is that he is one of the users who regularly does that sort of thing (see here, for example. So, how is stating what seems obvious from the Wikipedia actions becomes a "slander"? I wonder who else will follow me into this discussion now but this is all beside the point. The original complaint was that the content disputed between Kuban and Hillock needs an admin intervention skipping any usual steps used to resolve content disputes. Then people totally unrelated to this start magically popping up blowing and expanding this simple and narrow issue to use them for their own agendas. This is a text-book example of WP:BATTLE conduct. --Irpen 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

From the context, it is clear that you accused Piotrus of stalking you, and even smugly take credit for the assumption. From Folantin's post, it's clear that you were incorrect in raising such an accusation. As the primary promoter of the so-called 'sophisticated incivility' doctrine, you know as well as anybody that an insult needs not to be spelt out to be uncivil. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Natalia Korolevska

I never edit with most of you (not interested in Ukrainian politics?, strange it so much fun and a lot of female Ukrainian politicians are very good looking!) but still I think the last edits here are not helping, if not making things worse... This seems only a problem between Kuban Cossack & Hillock65. I don't see a need to drag all wikipedians in it especialy if the suggest nothing to fix the problems between Kuban Cossack & Hillock65. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of Kuban Cossack is nothing new. I think he should be warned for incivility and placed to this "Digwuren" list. Biophys (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - this is what the discretionary sanctions for EE are for.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not completely on-topic, but I can't believe that Kuban Cossack is being threteaned with sanctions while for months nothing is ever done about, say, Jo0doe (talk), whose behavior in terms of never ending edit wars, disruptions of articles, etc. is 100 times more egregious than what Kuban Cossack is accused of. Kuban Cossack and I often - indeed usually - take different sides on issues but despite some instances when things have gotten "hot" in general we have been able to collaborate very effectively on articles such asUkrainian Russophiles or Danubian Sich. This is so much the case that when I recently created the article Conversion of Chelm Eparchy one of the first things I did was invite Kuban Cossack to make contributions to that article. I am frankly floored that Kuban Cossack has been sanctioned and may be here when a truly disruptive editor such as Jo0doe is allowed to do his thing with impunity. Faustian (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Faustian and would like to ad that I got the idea that Kuban Cossack is getting targeted because of his controversial userpage, don't judge a man on his looks, but on his behaviour. When dealing with Kuban Cossack I found him being very collaborative while I (also) often - indeed usually - take different sides on issues then him. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I agree with both you of. Sanctions against Mr Cossack and Mr Jo0doe are probably warranted. Moreschi (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have placed this elsewhere, and will repost it word-for-word here....

Whilst I am reasonably new to this area of WP editing, I have obviously taken the time to familiarise myself with others who edit in this area, their interests, their style, etc; and I can say I am familiar with KK's edits on mainspace. I am not completely familiar with Hillock65. I have gone thru the previous "attempts" at mediation also, and have come to the conclusion that this is not warranted for Arbcom.

Hillock refers to an RFC and Medcab above. If we look at the article in question, Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, it appears that KK and Akhristov worked on this together (with some edit warring), and the dispute that arose was whether Russian language names are suitable for "Ukrainian" topics. Hillock prior to that dispute doesn't appear to have edited any articles relating to Metro topics before this, and it appears that his intervention was due to this message left for Hillock65 on the uk:wiki (in which he calls KK a rabid Russian nationalist), so it appears that Hillock65 had no place in that dispute, except for his being canvassed by another editor to get himself involved; the dispute being hijacked as a result. Before Hillock initiated the medcom request, he filed an RFC against KK, which appears not to have been anything but an attempt to corner and get rid of an opponent.

The AN/I comment by KK may demonstrate that Hillock's editing pattern on en:wiki is somewhat limited to interwiki links and perhaps stalking of KK's edits; for example: [16], [17], [18]....the list goes on, but a pattern has emerged; KK would make an edit to an article, which he would be familiar with. Hillock would immediately revert, provoking an edit war, and takes an uncompromising stance; for example Talk:Ukrainians in Russia#Kuban section and neutrality when KK presented sourced material to Hillock, he removed it completely, not even bothering to check it; when User:Faustian re-presented it to Hillock, he accepted KKs version. It appears the only way Hillock can compromise with KK is when a third party (often an Ukrainian editor) repeats what KK has said. Thus, are we to say that it is KKs additions that are not justified and warranted?

KK has a huge number of contributions, has written countless articles from scratch, and for that, despite sometimes holding opposite viewpoints on history and politics to many Ukrainian editors, he has been able to get on perfectly with the majority of them. Indeed, as KK pointed out on AN/I out of the six barnstars, four were given by Ukrainians, that is at a time that Hillock was unable to get on with any editor (including non-Russian ones) that opposed him. At the same time, KK has been a somewhat stabilising force in the Ukraine-Russia area over the edits of his that I have familiarised myself with.

In regards to the edits picked out by Hillock above, using Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant as an example, I have reverted Hillock's removal of the Russian name out of the lead; this appears to be a major thing with Hillock, in that perfectly legitimate insertions of Russian language names are removed, in what appears to me to be a desire to rid legitimate entries of Russian from Ukrainian-related articles. So I think, that this arbitration request should be looking at some severe issues that Hillock has, instead of simply being an attack on and an attempt to get rid of an opponent that is clearly what he is trying to do. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I did advice Hillock65 this summer (see:[19]) to be more cooperative with Russian editors (Kuban in particular). I gave 2 of the 6 barnstars to Kuban and despite my deep affection for Ukraine and my dear friends there (and 1 from there). I'm not a Ukrainian. See section "languages" on my userpage. But I consider it a compliment you see me as one ;) -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to referee between Hillock and Kuban at Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) but soon lost a clue what they argued about, in my view (although I know little about any Orthodox Church) I didn't see an attemp by Kuban to "Russification" it, quite the oppisite, he could have (according to wikipedia infobox rules) removed "Moscow Patriarchate" from the infobox (making the "other" Ukrainian Orthodox Church look illegal) but didn't. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that apart from past uncivil and childish behaviour from KK (on political subjects), he's apparently falsified sources not too long ago during an edit dispute. He cited a book that had no information about said subject at all. I don't know if this is the right place to bring that up, but it made me lose a lot of good faith in him. Grey Fox (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

More problems with Libro0

After I tried intervening with several baseball card articles, Libro0 has on more than one occasion branded me a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy (see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy) and has engaged in several passive aggressive attacks on me. His latest attack [20] where he says: "facade account(YRE) conveniently comes to the rescue of a contributor(BCG) whose edits are all reverts of my edits whenever he is in a bit of trouble". I have had it with these two who have wasted people's time with this nonsense (for example see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-04 1950s Topps). I have to constantly check up on these two to see if they are slandering me again instead of doing things that are constructive. Can we just ban these two and get on with making an encyclopedia? Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As an observer of this WP:EDITWAR on various articles notably 1950s Topps and 1960s Topps I've seen vicious verbal attacks on Libro0 (talk · contribs) by Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs) here:[21] and I filed a WP:3RR report the other day to no avail here:[22] Frankly administrators need to take action and stop these two from continuing to tie up every article they touch. Abuse, calling names, political slurs, you name it and this guy does it:Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs) - why hasn't he been blocked or even warned by an administrator about his abusive and appalling behavior? Modernist (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My god, I remember making my comments at the SSP reports however long ago that was... it seems like an eternity! Anyway, I would be totally shocked if YRE were a sock. On the other hand, the SSP is probably worthy of a second look... I have not looked at it exhaustively, but there is some suggestive evidence that makes me think Baseball Card Guy has done some socking in the past. I do not believe YRE is one of those socks, but the SSP could use a second look, maybe even a CU. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking into this issue, it is readily apparent that Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs · block log) has issues with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and as a result has been blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Additionally since the last dozen-plus edits to 1950s Topps have all been part of a slow-motion edit war, I fully protected the article for ten days. Finally, since SSPs are difficult to adequately resolve in a complicated situation like this (and largely only serve to inflame tensions), I would strongly encourage the parties involved to either let it drop, or file a WP:RFCU if they have sufficient evidence. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Single-purpose account for edit warring purposes?

I don't know the protocol here, but it appears that Rtally3 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account created specifically to edit war on William Timmons; the account was created a few days ago, and every edit relates only to one paragraph that I tried to add to the page. I have since started an RfC regarding the material as I found it strange that two users and an anon ip were all edit warring to keep the material out, and ignoring the substantive arguments for keeping the material in. It is possible there is some unlicensed sockpuppetry afoot. The Rtally3 account seems to be someone who has been around Wikipedia long enough to know our policies and how things work; that is inconsistent with the fact that the account was created less than a week ago. Again, there may be nothing suspicious here -- I acknowledge I am a party to the dispute on the page -- but it sure looks suspicious to me. csloat (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm even more sure there is something suspicious afoot now -- another of the editors warring on that article is Jmcgee2 (talk · contribs), created on the same day as Rtally3, whose first edit was to blank the William Timmons page, and who also ONLY edits that page. Surely this is worth looking into. csloat (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, it seems a third person edit warring on the same page is the Washington DC-based anon ip 68.100.74.123 (talk · contribs), which started editing a few days earlier than the other two accounts, and has only edited the William Timmons page, and has exclusively focused on getting the one paragraph removed. Very interesting. csloat (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Update, we have confirmation that the Rtally3 account is editing from Washington DC as well, with an ip close to the anon ip. Perhaps this is all a bizarre coincidence but that seems unlikely to me. csloat (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed Rtally3 and Jmcgee2}} are the same person,  Likely the same as the IP as well as Kbhickory (talk · contribs). Thatcher 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is a BLP, and the item that all these socks are edit-warring to keep out is sourced to the Huffington Post. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if they're still edit warring. Is anybody going to block them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.245.4.252 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating, they are not only edit warring but claiming that the collection of socks represents a "consensus" -- see this edit for example -- I think all of the accounts should be blocked; it's a pretty clear case of sockpuppets being used to violate the rules of Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rtally3 and the IP blocked for a month, Jmcgee and Kbhickory permanently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IP Full O' Slurs

Resolved

 – Blocked for two weeks. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to try and clean up IP 67.186.20.215 (talk · contribs) user's page, but after seeing edits like these [23] [24] [25] and the other messages he's left on his talk page, I just figured I should bring it here for admin attention. It seems to be an ongoing problem with racist slurs. Dayewalker (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert and put semi-protection for an hour. That should stop the nonsense. I'm watching in case he comes back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My tolerance for racist slurs like this is remarkably low. As such, the IP has been blocked for two weeks. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Taylor Brook

Resolved

 – article is at AFD

Could an admin please review this article - I've tagged it twice for issues, which have been removed by the author. I'm not even sure the person is notable, but have been (imo) fair in just tagging issues, rather than tagging for deletion. I don't want to get into a 3RR situation, so would appreciate some input. CultureDrone (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Theresa knott has requested speedy deletion of the article. AdjustShift (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have, I tagged it rather than deleted it myself because I'd like another opinion but this looks like self promotion to me. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My concern with doing that was that the article does assert notability - in terms of his music having been performed. I've been informed by admins in the past that asserting notability (even if it the article doesn't prove notability) means that CSD A7 cannot be used, and it would have to be a PROD/AfD. Have I been misinformed ? :-) CultureDrone (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm he doesn't say where or when so i would say this is speediable. However I'm willing to go through afd if you like. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The rule is that to avoid speedying, an article has to give a reasonable indication of notability. This one doesn't -- no useful sources or indication that any might exist. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there doesn't need to be any sources to avoid A7 speedy. The requirement is only that the article actually claim importance, not that it is referenced in any way. The phrase "award-winning" is a claim to importance. Whether or not those awards are enough to pass notability tests is a subject open to debate, which is why in these situations, we open a debate at AFD... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Award winning is meaningless and must be believable, awards should/must be named. I've deleted the article as a CSD A7 (the trend was a WP:SNOW delete either way). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine too... It should also be noted that there is no impending destruction that will fall upon the earth REGARDLESS of which deletion process is used in these cases; though oftentimes hurt feelings and unneccessary conflict can be avoided by taking a conservative approach towards deletion. The article was certainly below any notability standard, and the debate was certainly WP:SNOW-able. I was just commenting that, in general, there is no great harm in at least opening an AFD discussion, and in many cases a small benefit can result from it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Todd article missing DRV notice

Resolved

 – I think I added the right template. VG ☎ 18:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it customary for the article to have a notice pointing to the WP:DRV discussion? VG ☎ 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

DRV started on the 25th, might be a little late now. Wizardman 18:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And so this thread was started why? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mlpandia

Resolved

 – Blocked. _Gb^T/c 20:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Mlpandia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user seems to edit only to add either his name or his family name to various articles. I've warned him in the past but am not sure what is the best thing to do right now. He hasn't responded to warnings. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef for advertising only, COI edits. He's welcome to say he'll stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Kinobe

Resolved

 – All is well. People are allowed to improve Wikipedia without fear of being sanctioned for violating obscure procedures

I'm visiting here to bring my actions up for a broader look. I supported a delete in this AFD. I looked at the people that wanted to save it, so I basically rewrote the entire thing, and changed my vote. The AFD is here. I closed it because the nom withdrew. Nothing has transpired, but I feel like I might have had a conflict of interest because I not only voted, but changed my position and turned this into this. I may have saved this, and learned that it is possible to change a stance, but I still feel like my closure may have been bad. If someone who puts an article up for deletion retracts it, should I have asked an admin to close it? Any and all criticism would be welcome. Is it wrong to add closure when the person putting it up retracts it? If so, my bad. I just felt that anyone, admin or not, would have done the same. Ideas? ^Law _shoot! 09:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See the above thread. (No, really do!) If the nominator withdraws, AND no one else is currently making a case for delete, speedy closure (by whomever performed) is the right answer. We don't keep debates running for no good reason.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I had to turn myself in. I am the Law. :P ^Law _shoot! 10:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We ignore the Law here. ;). --Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Related question: Would it have been OK for me (being the nominator) to close the AfD after I'd withdrawn the nomination? I was vacillating about it, but Law (who did an excellent job fixing the article) did it before I'd done vacillatin' :-) --Bonadea (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, unless someone else has argued for delete, you can withdraw it. If no-one is currently asking for deletion, the thing is moot.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with other editors. This close is fine. You, the nom, and Jeremiah were the only editors moving to delete; you were all happy; any complaints are likely based on wonkery. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto from me too. You did nothing wrong, the AFD resulted in a better article, and Wikipedia is improved for the whole incident. As such, there is no reason to feel uncomfortable or ashamed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The teamwork done here is an example of why I can put aside my pride and save an article which I wanted deleted. People provided good sources and I felt compelled to rewrite, as the nom was compelled to retract it. I don't often run into this, as I stick to more content-based editing, but it is very refreshing and I think the end result is all around a good thing. Thanks for not yelling at me! ^Law _shoot! 07:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

YOU DID EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING - THIS IS WHY WP:AIV EXISTS!! (If someone has acted to the betterment of WP, why not yell it from the rooftops?) LHvU (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, Kinobe are actually a pretty decent band. "Slip Into Something More Comfortable" is one of my favourite electronic chillout songs, and "Butterfly" and "Summer in the Studio" (a cover of "Living In The City") ain't bad either. Surprised it came up for deletion to begin with, but pleased with the end outcome. Orderinchaos 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Threat against high school

Resolved

 – User blocked, page(s) protected, police contacted. Metros (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For two days a registered SPA user has repeatedly vandalized the Eastern Lebanon County High School article by posting an essay which was reverted by myself and others while on vandal patrol. The essay concerns the actions of an alleged student and ends with a threat of violence against the high school. (e.g. "The skies will rain with bloood and the earth will tremble at his every step. Those who speak his name in vain shall perish at by his hand.") The user has been persistent in their vandalism - registering two accounts and being reverted 7 times. Following Wikipedia:Threats of violence guidelines, I have taken the side of caution and reported this incident by e-mail to the Police Department in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. I wanted the Wikipedia administration to be aware of this. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the two accounts, semi-protected the article on the school for a month (if it turns out that full is needed, let me know, or go to WP:RFPP), and I have protected the article he's made a couple of times against creation. I've also contacted MySpace to make sure that he's not threatening anything on the profile to which he keeps linking. To clarify, CactusWriter, did you contact the Lebanon County police, the city of Lebanon police, or the police in Myerstown? Metros (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the Lebanon City Police Department -- and only by e-mail, with a request for them to acknowledge the receipt of my e-mail. I did not contact the Myerstown police because I didn't see an e-mail address on their website. I decided if I hadn't received acknowledgment from the Lebanon City Police by this afternoon (my time in Denmark), then I would make a phone call to Myerstown. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have contacted the County sheriff's office by email, as well. It is highly likely that Myerstown doesn't actually have a police force and relies on the sheriff's office, instead, for its force (this is typical in areas with smaller towns). The sheriff's office appears to not have Saturday/Sunday hours, so, I'm hoping that by a stroke of luck, someone happens to check the email this weekend. Metros (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree that the sheriff probably has jurisdiction in Myerstown, but I think the Lebanon city police probably have more personnel on duty. As I said, if I don't receive word back, I'll make a phone call within the next few hours. Thanks for your attention. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, CactusWriter. The sheriff's office contact is here should you feel you need to call them as well. I've marked this as resolved since I've blocked and protected and since we've reported. Please let me know (email, my talk page, or here) what the response is from the office, Metros (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I received an e-mail response from a Captain Daniel Wright of the Lebanon City Police Dept. He informed me that ELCO High School was under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania State Police. He said that he has forwarded my e-mail to them as well as spoken with one of their representatives. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call. Good job all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Troll needs a ban

Resolved

 – Gwen Gale blocked the main account. Rlevse blocked the socks and the open proxy they were using. VG ☎ 14:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pedofenion first vandalized the page for Magibon with obscene language, then proposed it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magibon_(3rd_nomination), claiming BLP violations. Someone needs to look for socks as well; multiples SPAs showed up at AfD. VG ☎ 14:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've indef blocked for the username which in Irish slang more or less means pedophile Catholic. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a comment, porportedly from the subject (which I responded to as such), at WP:AN. At that time the AfD was live, which I advised the editor at their talkpage. I am unsure if they will be happy with the keep decision, but keeping the vandalism out may go some way to mollifying them. LHvU (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone run checkuser on User:Magichan, User:Firithfenion, User:Pedofenion, User:Forryga and User:TrueForryga. Based on the unlikely interaction between Japanese Americans and Irish users, this whole affairs seems a giant troll farm to me. See [26] and [27]. VG ☎ 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, trolls are notoriously poor farmers. Although they are often full of sh|t, they often bury their good ideas too deeply in the ground, and end up with merely chaff on the surface. -t BMW c- 16:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Likely so. Mind, User:Forryga and User:TrueForryga were already blocked yesterday for vandalism/trolling. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedofenion (talk · contribs) was already name blocked. Found several of these accounts were using an anon proxy and I blocked it's whole range as well some socks I found using it, including Magichan (talk · contribs) = Magibonchan (talk · contribs) and two seemingly unrelated to this case.  Inconclusive as to Firithfenion (talk · contribs), Forryga (talk · contribs), and TrueForryga (talk · contribs). — Rlevse • Talk • 13:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious line of questioning

One of the editors involved in that AfD, User:Ariana-hime has very unusual talk page, which consists of dozens of unanswered personal questions from User:Hetelllies, who (you've guessed) is also interested in Magibon. VG ☎ 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any socking or CU-type stuff going on there? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. It just looks like User:Hetelllies was trying to flirt with User:Ariana-hime, who didn't quite appreciate the advances. VG ☎ 13:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Threat

Resolved

 – Hersfold protected Metros (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There's probably no merit to this threat, but I feel it's my civic duty to report it anyhow. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Hersfold took care of it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, don't worry about it - here at Wikipedia, disruptive unblock requests are dealt with as promptly as possible. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Common Travel Area

There appears to be an edit war on Common Travel Area right now, between an anonymous user (with multiple IP addresses from the same range) and User:Blue-Haired Lawyer. I warned the 78.16.196.21 IP yesterday, and today, before the 24 hours is up 78.16.109.244 reverts. As the revisions are the same, and the edit summary is in keeping with previous reverts I'd guess it's the same user. Of course that's a wide range to block; but I am at a loss over what little I can do here. I can certainly see the argument for both sides *shrug* --Blowdart | ^talk 11:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Standard Republic of Ireland pipe-linking edit war. Both sides could technically claim to be right, but pipe-linking thus [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], as the IP is doing, is also generally accepted, as the name of the country is Ireland. (We wouldn't, similarly, call France the French Republic.) The IP(s) do appear to be edit-warring across multiple articles, though, and with somewhat uncivil edit-summaries too. A block may be in order if the behaviour continues. Black Kite 12:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh indeed; but User:Blue-Haired Lawyer reverts saying it's a banned user. Now I can see the point for greater clarity on this one article; as confusing the island with the political entity is possible when it just becomes "Ireland", which makes the summary open to misreading. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he's probably correct about it being a particular banned user; however although the geographical location is correct, there's no real way of actually proving it, so the IP will have to be judged on their own merits, and if they continue to edit-war with incivil edit summaries, they can be blocked on their own merits. Black Kite 13:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NeutralHomer

This user refuses to follow and or read the non-free content policy, repeatedly violates it and reverts good faith edits within policy as vandalism. β^_command 05:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a "pissing match" about this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:55

Why are you reverting my edits that are 100% within policy? β^_command 05:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Because when you claim a image doesn't have an F-UR when it does, that is vandalism. Now, you are officially talking to yourself, OK? I am off to find a Vicodin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:59

the image in question has a rationale for a separate page. there are no rationales for the pages where I am removing it. β^_command 06:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

One more time, I am not getting into a pissing match, you are talking to yourself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:02

A little background would be nice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

user claims that per a email from mike godwin (Foundation counsel) that our Non-free content policy is void and that fair use is standard, (with liberal usage of copyrighted images). Obviously that is incorrect. I attempted to explain, but he refuses to listen and read what I link to. So I started spot checking his uploads and ensure that they are within policy. I found a few that had been uploaded by others that failed WP:NFCC so I started tagging them, he considers this vandalism and returns to his old habits of mis-using twinkle. β^_command 06:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess Image:WVNS-DT2.PNG this image wasn't F-UR'd to his liking. Currently, though, we were in a pretty heated discussion here and here about Image Galleries (Fair-Use or NFCC). He made several edits to WVNS-TV and I reverted and that turned into a revert war and us both Warn4im'ing each other. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:13

Comment - At the time this entry was listed, the logo in question had a valid fair use rationale for the article in which it was being used. There had previously been a revert war, but it could have been avoided had the complainant simply added a fair use rationale for the image in question rather than deleting its use in the article. Likewise, had the subject of this complaint added the fair use rationale before reverting, there would have been no cause for continuation of the war. I see no reason for sanctions, as both parties share blame. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I take partial blame (as Dhett said) for the revert war on the above mentioned image. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:27

may I also point out List of animals in The Simpsons's history where NeutralHomer stalks my edits and ignores policy? β^_command 06:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To "stalk" your edits, I would have edited on each and every page you did...which I didn't and don't have time to do. I looked at your edits, thought you were "jumping the gun" before the discussion was over and reverted. You reverted back and templated me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:35

Only if I may point out the truth: you originally removed the images as copyright violations without explaining why they were such, then when NeutralHomer reverted, asking for a discussion, you again deleted the images, claiming violation of NFCC #8, a totally different reason than copyright violation. When he again reverted, questioning your reason for deleting and citing that the images had passed legal muster, you again deleted the images and accused NeutralHomer of vandalism. Your conduct is appalling. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been looking through this dispute, and it seems to come down to this:

Fair Use is a legal concept in the USA, where WMF servers are housed.

WMF requires that all content comply with relevant US legal codes (city, county, state, federal) for Fair Use.

WMF further requires as Terms Of Service that content be held to a higher standard.

NeutralHomer seems to be arguing that US law trumps any restrictions which WMF imposes upon projects under its purview. WMF clearly follows all US law, but adds that in order to post content to what is a private website run by a private corporation, all content must follow specific rules that expand upon what is required by generalities in US law.

To argue by analogy: federal employment laws state that discrimination on the basis of gender is not acceptable; men and women must be hired equally if equally qualified for a certain position. A local fire department requires that new employees be able to lift and carry 250lbs. This is not unreasonable, and imposes a simple metric on all applicants. Yes, there will be a bias towards male applicants due to simple biology, but it is well within the law.

Similarly, WMF requires that on top of US law, content must abide by certain rules. These rules don't discriminate; they merely state that within the extant law, there are further requirements for inclusion. Given that these further requirements do not contravene US law in any way, there is no basis for challenging them.

In short: WMF requires certain things. Abiding by those things is something we all agree to every time we contribute. [ roux ] [x] 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Like I have said, that is the way I understand it. I will be the first to admit I don't understand NFCC and F-U that well. I understand it the best it has been explained to me. Explain it to me, give me a short version, without 10 pounds of legaleze and I might understand it more clearly. Yelling at me ain't gonna help. Also Roux, insulting me on IRC (I am there too ya know) doesn't help. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:46

Seeing as I didn't, that's a moot point. I offered an opinion here; you are free to take it or leave it as you see fit. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 06:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

<[roux]> At what bloody point do admins say "OWAIT, blocking not working, BYE BYE YOU"

<[roux]> Taking AGF to extremes is bloody stupid.

-and-

<[roux]> Also sweet jebus, but that many userboxes indicates serious OCD issues.

Seems like an insult to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 07:01

Yes, offhand comments which do nothing to detract from the point I have made here. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 07:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if reposting irc logs is allowed or not, but assuming it is... While the comments might not be completely pc, it's not clear he's even referring to you? I feel like I might be missing something here. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 08:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to him, but again, they have nothing to do with the substance of the comments I made in this thread. [ roux ] [x] 08:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Both users are, imho, acting inappropriately. [This looks like edit warring to me, and there really isn't much excuse for that. Both of you need to take a deep breath and maybe step away from the computer for a bit. Remember, it's only a website. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 06:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

...and I take full responsibility for my behaviour. I should have walked away, I didn't...my fault. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:47

Twinkle abuse

In the past, NeutralHomer has had his access to Twinkle removed for abusing it. Administrators can see this history at Special:Undelete/User:Neutralhomer/monobook.js and others can see one of the discussions about it here. It's quite obvious that he is abusing it again based on edits like this, this, this, and this. NeutralHomer is already on a short leash based on this unblock of his account (personally, I'm a bit surprised he wasn't also told to stay away from Betacommand in addition to JPG-GR and Calton because these two have had bad interactions in the past). Is it time to "detwinkle" again? He is using Twinkle to revert valid edits in an area where he admits he is absolutely clueless, yet he goes around reverting anyway. Metros (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And add these two to it as well (both of these occurred in the last couple of days). Metros (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget his tagging of me as a vandal and his attempt to bait me into outright making me violate Wikipedia: Civility. He is quick to blame me for being a vandal, yet will not apologize for a remark that he made that I considered to be baiting just as I was about to accept someone's acceptable explanation over another matter, which wasn't called for..--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot his abuse at WJLA-TV just a week ago (I was involved in that dispute). See the article's history and NH's edits such as [28], [29], [30], and [31] where he used the tool to revert valid changes per the manual of style and our verifiability and sourcing policies. As I have been involved with disputes with him in the past, I will not enact any blocks or removals in this case, however, I think something clearly needs to be done if there are at least ten examples of Twinkle abuse in the last week by a user who has had it removed twice in the past. Metros (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - tagging perfectly good edits as vandalism is the very definition of Twinkle abuse. I have de-Twinkled. Review invited. Black Kite 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support this. Just a couple of notes — You should protect the monobook.js when doing such thing to ensure the user does not re-add the item; and, add the user to MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js to prevent them from simply enabling twinkle in their preferences. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, there's a page I never knew existed! Of course, I'll forget it exists months down the road when I need to use it... Metros (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't know about that page either, I must admit - thanks for pointing it out. I didn't protect the monobook - I just watchlisted - because I assumed an experienced user like NH wouldn't be daft enough to simply revert ... perhaps I'm stretching AGF too far. Black Kite 14:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll keep an eye on it: I effectively became one of NH's probation officers when he was unblocked (althoughRjd0060's protected it). Acroterion _(talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
        • If people are watching it I've got no problem with somebody undoing the protection. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Vandalism at the moment

People on Huggle struggling to keep up - can we have some help? \ / (⁂) 11:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

With what, specifically? There are quite a few articles on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

He's just asking that we go to recent changes and take a look. Theresa Knott | token threats 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Things are down to manageable levels (though still moderately high). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well ill join in for a bit. Shouldn't have anything else slipping through for now. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:Ashley kennedy3

I have been involved in a couple of content disputes with User:Ashley kennedy3, most recently at Banias. Today, after trying to engage in a discussion with him regarding some inaccurate edits by him (see this), he has started reverting my edits without engaging in discussion on the talk page, or explaining his reverts see this, or worse, with rude edit summary such as this). After I asked him on his talk page to explain his edits, he began a series of personal attacks on me on my talk page, culminating with the recent 'you belong in the Osama bin Laden category of extremists' ([32]), and the addition of said category to my talk page. Can someone please get this editor to start behaving in a civil manner? NoCal100 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalking and disruptive edits by NoCal100.

NoCal100 has a long history of disputes. This for the first time with me. He has been caught wiki stalking Nishidani in his latest POV pushing episode. previously NoCal100 had no history of editing Banias and as soon as Nishidani was asked to copy edit Banias NoCal100 turns up. I don't particularity like stalkers, well actually I think that they are scum of the earth....So I am quite happy with the fact that NoCal100 has brought his wikistalking to the attention of the administration...NoCal100s edits are minimal and nearly always disruptive...His reverts normally defy logic and reality...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ashley kennedy3, your first attack on this user [33] was met with a polite warning,[34] and you then raised the stakes with a completely out of bounds comment. [35] I have blocked your account for one week. Whatever NoCal100 might have done wrong is no excuse for your behavior. I did check their contributions and nothing jumped out at me as particularly problematic, except for one block for edit warring that has already expired. I also see that you did not cite even one piece of evidence in your complaint against them immediately above. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of AFD

Resolved

 – RMHED blocked and "retired". Underlying issues of BLP and content removal too big to be solved here. Protonk (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to personally note that although I think that RMHED's indef block is a bit much even though he was being POINTy, this particular case is, as Protonk says, resolved. However, the bigger issue remains. We have an editor who was acting a bit pointy but in the end forcingn us to confront a serious issue: there are completely (totally!) unsourced biographies which need to be fixed, and if they can't be fixed, they need to be deleted. Simple as that. Elsewhere in this discussion someone mentions the possibility of a special BLP-PROD, and I think that may be the right approach. As it stands right now, we have a template on some of these articles that says that unsourced statements should be removed (especially if they may be libelous) and yet the articles have no sources at all, and we blcok someone for doing exactly what the template says. This is madness. My own view is that such articles should be subject to extremely aggressive pruning or deletion, but I acknowledge the need for some process which takes into account the possibility that someone may care enough to make them of reasonable quality by sourcing them. But if no one will, in some cases after months have passed with a template, then nuke them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and collapsed the discussion below following the resolved tag and Jimbo's comment above. I suggest the next step should be to start discussion at the appropriate venue on what to do with unsourced biographies of living people. Do we need a new page or should the discussion take place at an existing page? Please, no further discussion here. Let's get the discussion recorded properly on the right page, and have a link here to that discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the summary didn't make clear that the block was 24 hours, not indef. "Retired" was a term that only RMHED used on his user talk page, although that has changed somewhat. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

I am not sure what to do here. There is a user, RMHED, who is nominating a lot of BLP's for AFD. (Please note, I am talking about BLP's where there is NO controversy about the content, not speedy material either). I don't think he is doing this in bad faith, but I think he is seriously misapplying policy and causing problems because of it. The issue is that he seems to simply take every bio that doesn't have sources, and put them to AFD without searching. This means everyone else is forced to go dig up sources, add them, vote, OR the article will get deleted. This seems to violate WP:DEADLINE. It would seem that nominating an article where there are obvious sources available, but not in the article, would be an abuse. In otherwords, if you nom an article, you are at least morally required to make a good faith effort to see if sources are available, particularly if you are flooding AFD. The reasoning we are hearing is "If you wish the unsourced BLP content to stay then please source it, I'm certainly not inclined to do so" which violates WP:V as well. I am not sure what to do, but I don't want to keep following an editor down just to "fix" his AFD's. I have tried to politely explain this to him, but he seems to not care. If we are going to nominate every article that is unsourced (but sourceable), then why do we have tags? PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC) All BLP's should be adequately sourced or deleted, any part of a BLP that is unsourced should be removed per policy. RMHED (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC) RMHED, let me make sure I totally understand you: Are you saying that every BLP that has no sources at all should be deleted in whole, as well? PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Yes Pharmboy reasonable time should be given say 5 days at AfD for interested parties to source it if they so wish. If after that time the article remains unsourced then it should be deleted. If it is partially sourced then that portion should be kept and the unsourced parts removed. RMHED (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC) If that is the case, then a blp/source tag should automatically start an AFD discussion, no? There would be absolutely never a reason to use that tag. Why does it even exist? This flies in the face of wp:deadline, and even wp:v, which doesn't say everything must be perfect on day one, it just must be possible to verify. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Uh, yes, isn't that the way Wikipedia works? Tan | 39 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC) didn't we have this conversation, about this editor, a couple of weeks ago? Let me ask the same question as I did then. What percentage of the articles he is sending to AFD are being deleted? if it's 90%, then I say we have no problem. If it's 10% and he persists in sending articles to afd, we have a problem. obviously I don't expect the numbers to be like that but you get the idea. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC) He has 20 up currently in the past couple days, two have been snowball keeps, and one closed as no consensus. The other 17 we'll have to see what happens, though none currently have a delete consensus. Wizardman 01:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I've looked at them and I've noticed that a lot are easily sourceable. I've fallen into this trap a couple times — nominating something for AfD without sufficiently checking for souces. I know he's trying to act in good faith, but I agree that this is of concern. I'll wait to see how the rest turn out before commenting, but it's not a good sign when he's 0 for 20 in getting a consensus. (Unless he just has that same curse that User:Synergy does.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Where the problem with an article is a lack of references, I think an editor should make a good-faith effort to find references before nominating an article for deletion. It doesn't take much time to copy-and-paste the title of an article into the search box at http://news.google.com/archivesearch , and refusing to do so shows a lack of respect for other editors. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) On that point I agree. While it's true that some of us aren't that good at finding sources (you seem to be really good at it, Eastmain), I haven't really seen any proof that RHMED is even looking for sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Before the last few days, he hasn't nominated anything for deletion that I can see from looking. I am trying to gentley get across to him that he may be radically misunderstanding his responsibility as the nom of an AFD, and his actual words seem to indicate that he thinks "well, if it isn't sourced, it should be deleted", period. It isn't about faith, and I don't want anyone blocked. I think he just grossly misunderstands the process and was hoping someone could convince him of this fact. As another editor pointed out, he almost seems to be making a WP:POINT in the way he is doing it. Some of these articles literally took 30 seconds to find sources for. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Point In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erkin_Alptekin he is basically saying that he is challenging any BLP that is unsourced, thus, that makes it contentious, thus, that makes it an AFD candidate or subject to the content being deleted. Please tell me I am reading that wrong. If that is what he is saying, then WP:POINT does apply and my faith would be getting a little stretched. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC) That is what he is saying but is isn't strictly a WP:POINT form of disruption. "wikt:Contentious" doesn't just mean what wiktionary says it does. It means (for our purposes) anything liable to cause debate. We don't need to source that the world is round. We need to source that Person X is notable for act Y. We need to source that Joe Schmoe is an elected official from Winnipeg. These are things that require sources if we are to say them. They are contentious. Protonk (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC) RHMED is no stranger to skirting the border of WP:POINT, and these seem to be following down that path. The logic goes: WP:BLP says that in no uncertain terms, contentious, unsourced material can and should be deleted without comment. However, RHMED sees that attempts to delete, blank or nominate unsourced BLP's results in strong pushback. So he nominated (I assume) a bunch to force the point that BLP requires one thing but commong practice results in another. I don't think it is actually WP:POINT, because he seems to believe that BLP would dictate that these articles be deleted (in other words, POINT requires that we show intent to disrupt for the sake of making a statement, here he may be disrupting because he feels a certain way about BLP), but honestly it is tiresome. I don't want to roundly repudiate him because he's basically right: we have a community practice about new articles that stands in obvious contrast to the supposedly widely accepted BLP policy. RHMED's actions aren't going to help close that schism, though. Protonk (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Forget WP:BLP (and this is the only time you'll catch me saying that): per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Somebody has inserted this material; RHMED is trying to remove it. The burden then falls to the people wishing to retain the article to verify the information in the articles. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC) The policy says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic". That isn't the case here. wp:v says an article must be verifiable, not verified. WP:DEADLINE says it doesn't have to done today. WP:BLP says if there is any controversy, remove that part of the content post haste. Nominating articles without even searching for sources is not in policy. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC) That's a separate clause from the one that deals removal of material. As for WP:DEADLINE, I think a more appropriate read is that we don't need an article today; we can afford to wait until the sourcing's in place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC) That is fine logic to use when creating an article (and I use it personally), but when the article already exists, are we not just biting other editors for getting the facts right but not putting the sources in on day one? PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 02:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Frankly, no. Biting the newbies doesn't mean ignoring policies because someone is new. Likewise, WP:DEADLINE is not very helpful in this discussion. BLP doesn't apply to the hypothetical end state of an article. It applies to every revision. We can't just say "well, eventually this will have sources" and ignore the issue. I don't think RHMED's actions are very helpful, but we can't appeal to BITE and DEADLINE in condemning them. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I didn't say to say that. I am saying that an experienced editor (expecially one who is trying to RfA) should first LOOK for sources briefly before going to AFD. If they are found, the energy should be spent adding a couple of sources instead of going to AFD. This is what a good contributor should do. Otherwise, it is making a point. If the sources are easy to find, yes, IMO, an experience editor and RfA candidate should be expected to exercise better judgement and fix instead of delete. To simply AFD a bunch of aritcles without a good faith attempt to source or fix (or at least look at google, then walk away), where the subject matter is not controversial and sources are easy to find, *is* abusing the process, in my opinion. Even if it isn't breaking a particular rule specifically, it is abusing the process. At first I thought he was misunderstanding the policy, but his comments seem to indicate another issue. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I wholeheartedly agree with what a good editor should do. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. I haven't looked at RMHED's nominations, but I recommend this to you RMHED: If you follow that triage process, and User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD you'll experience comparatively few diffculties with your AFD nominations. I follow it, and I rarely encounter difficulties. (I've been wrong on occasion, but that's not the same as making a bad nomination.) Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) If he's only nominating ten articles per day, then he's showing remarkable restraint given the magnitude of the problem that Wikipedia has in this area. At ten articles fixed per day, we'll have cleared out Category:BLP articles lacking sources in just over two years. (Forget about doing the likely thousands articles that aren't even tagged, or the thousands of unsourced BLPs that will be created in the meantime.) Editors saying that he should just go and look for sources for those ten articles each day are missing the point — if we slap him on the wrist and tell him to sit quietly in the corner, we're effectively saying that we don't care that there's a massive backlog of BLPs without sources. (It's okay; RHMED will get to it eventually.) Frankly, if we don't get off our asses and start to be more proactive about requiring sources for biographies, we're going to get another Seigenthaler incident. When that happens, we'll probably end up with a duplicate of the 'non-free images' solution. A policy will be imposed from above, setting a hard deadline for all BLPs to be sourced, and permitting the deletion of all unsourced bios within seven days of their creation. Sure, we can shoot the messenger here, but what we should be doing is getting our house in order. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I appreciate where you're coming from, but I think you and RHMED are both misidentifying the problem. The problem isn't that there aren't citations - articles can have plenty of citations and still do things like falsely allege connections to the Kennedy assassination. The problem is that anybody can put whatever information they like into any BLP, and in the vast majority of those cases nobody's likely to notice. All the citations in the world aren't going to fix that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Fair enough, but I think that having sources does have (at least) two major benefits. First, it gives our readers a fighting chance — they can check on the cited source, to see if our articles actually reflect those sources. Second, it at least helps to protect our reputation – it shows that we're at least trying. I agree that articles which misrepresent the contents of cited sources (accidentally or deliberately) are quite worrying, and that many articles which do contain sources don't have nearly enough of them. Nevertheless, if we aren't prepared to go after even the lowest-hanging fruit – articles which have no sources whatsoever – where will we start? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Well you know I'm in agreement with you there Sarcasticidealist, the sooner all BLP's are permanently semi-protected the better. RMHED (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC) It's different to putting BLP up for deletion. The bits to remove are anything that is contentious if it's unsourced, if you wish. You could always stub it and rewrite it without needing to much time to do it. There's no need to send articles which do not violate, or could be made to not violate, BLP to AfD. RHMED has had problems at AfD before, with dodgy non-admin closes. They were one reason he didn't pass RfA. Sticky Parkin 02:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Now let me recall how many of my dozens of dodgy non-admin AfD closes were overturned by an administrator...Just one I think. RMHED (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC) To everyone, the RFA and "dodgy NACs" aren't the issue. The issue is, do you AFD an article that takes 30 seconds to source? It literally takes longer to start an AFD than source many of these. Can we call information "contentious" simple because we don't have a source for it? That someone "is a professor", this is contentions because there isn't a ref for it. Is THAT what the policy says. That is what is at issue. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I've yet to see a BLP that takes only 30 seconds to adequately source, even a one line stub would take longer than that. If it's that quick and easy then the ten BLP's I AfD should only take approximately 5 minutes to source by your estimate. RMHED (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Pharmboy, I'm not saying the NACs are the issue- I'm just saying RHMED has a history at AfD of overly 'keen' actions. What does it matter if finding a source takes a bit longer- WP:TIND. That's better than losing valuable articles. Contentious bits are all we need to/should remove from most BLPs if they're unsourced. Of course feel free to nominate a BLP for deletion if you think it has borderline notability and may be doing damage to the individual. Otherwise, it's just getting rid of potentially useful content for fun and pleasure. If I were nominating for deletion I'd first look at google news etc and see if there's WP:RS- to do otherwise is laissez-faire. Sticky Parkin 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Do you mean "lazy", rather than "laissez-faire"? That's not the best description. (See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be lazy.) I characterize not looking for sources onesself as unhelpful. It doesn't help to achieve the goal of writing an encyclopaedia. It doesn't help in the collaborative process of making bad articles better. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#How to deal with unsourced content. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) For those who (rightly) believe that these must be sourced, the obvious thing to do upon seeing an unsourced one is to try and source it. One person won't be able to source all they find that could be sourced, but it would help a little in a positive sense. Articles that cannot be sourced after an effort appropriate to the subject must be deleted, but while doing that probably 90% of the existing unsourced ones that could easily be sourced. Here's my test of someone who in good faith and not POINT wants to help--they select some articles which are particularly potentially harmful or dubious, and nominate them for deletion--not pick at random.If we are to effectively delete the junk, the people who select what we want to discuss deleting must make a good faith effort to start with what there is some reason to think is actual junk. I have elsewhere supported a requirement that anyone taking anything to AfD for deletion for lack of sourcing of existence or notability or verifiability be required to do at least a preliminary search-- if it convincingly shows lack of sourceability, the deletion will be all the smoother. it's afds like these which support what i proposed. DGG (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I thought there existed an unwritten policy (good faith) that anyone taking an article to AFD must do at least a basic search to see if it passes. Not searching first clogs up AFD with articles that don't need to be there. That is the big point, to me. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 10:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC) It's not unwritten. This approach to verifiability has been written down since 2003. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Policy has said to look for sources first for a long time for details. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) It's appropriate to nominate a completely unsourced BLP for deletion. If nominating the article serves as a forcing function to encourage editors who want to keep it to source it adequately, well, so much the better. I concur with TenOfAllTrades here: it's not reasonable to say that the new standard for nominating an article for AfD is "First, fix it yourself!" Getting on RHMED's case for this is shooting the messenger. Nandesuka (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC) When the guideline was written, I would assume the intention was not to have all non-sourced BLP's be nominated for AfD, and I don't think there's consensus on wikipedia to do this. We have to be careful that we don't wikilawyer all the guidelines, and work towards building an encyclopedia. In my view, there is a significant difference between nominating a slanderous or libelious article, and nominating a un-sourced BLP that isn't negative. We should be very careful with BLP's, but let's not delete most of them on wikipedia. Fraud talk to me 03:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Again: This is not a new standard. This approach to verifiability has existed since 2003. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Policy has said to look for sources first for a long time for details. What a lot of people miss (including the administrators who were involved in a high profile arbitration case a while back) is that deletion isn't the only tool in the toolbox. One can, quite legitimately, zap an entire biography back to a properly sourced stub and demand, with support from editors at the BLP noticeboard if necessary, that all expansion be sourced. Jimbo has done it. Other people have done it. RMHED xyrself did it here, and with the help of User:Scott MacDonald and Sam Korn that content was kept out of the article. I myself helped to expand that article properly, like this. "Kerrrzappp!" is a good tool, too. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) The AFD process requires editors to follow some steps before nominating an article and emphatically states that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. If this process is not followed in good faith then nominations should be speedily closed as premature and disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Suggestion Why don't we create a BLP-ProD? Instead of 5 days, every 'completely unsourced BLP that has been tagged with this template can be freely deleted after e.g. three months. This gives authors plenty of chances to source the articles, while still in the end tackling the issues of all the unsourced BLP's hanging around Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC) See User:Uncle G/Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Unsourced biographies and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2 (and their talk pages, of course) for prior discussion on this. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I was about to suggest PROD here as well. I have suggested before that any biography tagged as unsourced and not remediated after a suitable period should be nuked. Unsourced biographies are Bad, battles are Bad, PROD is good because it deals with crap but in a way that anyone who cares to fix the problem can uncontroversially fix. Other issue A new PROD may be a good idea, but still, this wouldn't address the issue that even before a PROD, an editor (particularly an editor feels experienced enought to RfA) should first try to source the article before any delete, CSD/PROD/AFD. Imo, if you are going to participate in deleting any article, using any method, you have the responsibility to try to conduct a brief search first, in order for WP:AGF to apply. Another issue is his interpretation of the policies. He is saying that any BLP is automatically contentious if not sourced, and should automatically go to AFD. Combine the two, "delete all unsourced BLPs" and "I won't try to source an article" and you might as well change {{BLPsources}} to become an autodelete template. This is enforcing a self-created policy that doesn't exist, instead of creating/fixing the existing policies. At some point, editors participating in wholesale deletions have to be held to a higher standard than they currently are. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I'm still concerned that you're putting the onus in the wrong place. Saying that editors who see a problem need to try to fix it by themselves is, frankly, letting the commmunity off the hook for its own bad practices. Just like with non-free images, all BLPs need to be sourced, and sourced correctly. It's a problem for all of us, not just for the few editors like RHMED who are trying to bring the issue to our attention. At some point, editors participating in biography creation have to be held to a higher standard than they currently are. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, it is a problem for all of us. And I agree that BLP creation should have a higher standard. The question is, what do we do with the ones we have today? Good faith demands that we attempt to source ANY article (BLP or otherwise) before we AFD it. Even if it takes twice as long to stubify and cite an article with *obvious* and easy to obtain notability, an experienced editor should be expected to do this instead of wholesale delete, when fixing is as easy as deleting. Again, none of these are controversial BLPs with negative or defaming info. Both sides of the problem should be addressed, and yes, I would hold a higher standard for an editor that has been here a couple of years than I would for a newb creating his first article on Wikipedia. Or at least the same standard. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Remove any unsourced contentious material, and often stub is what they usually seem to do at WP:BLPN, rather than send an article to AfD, unless it's unfixably problematic. And as some people work in that area often, I think they would know.:) Sticky Parkin 14:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC) "Saying that editors who see a problem need to try to fix it by themselves is, frankly, letting the community off the hook for its own bad practices" -- but those very editors are part of the community, and saying they need not try to fix could be seen as letting them off the hook as well. It's not a question of blame--articles were originally written here to very low standards, and many continue to be. We need to upgrade them--which will in the process mean removing quite a few that cannot be upgraded--but the real need is to upgrade. The practical problem is that its much easier to nominate for deletion than to fix. Anyone with HG or the like can nominate 10 or 20 articles a day with no effort at all in perhaps 5 minutes, especially if they don't bother to investigate the article enough to use an individual rationale. I find that, working in a good library, it takes me between half an hour and half a day to properly source an article. I try to fix one a day. Sure, minimal sourcing can be done quicker, but there remains an asymmetry--articles can be nominated for deletion much more rapidly than they can be fixed. The way to cope with it is for people to nominate for deletion only those articles they've checked enough to feel confident that they should be deleted or think it unclear enough that a group discussion is needed. We're concerned, after all, with building an encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Attempt to conclude this Comment I think Uncle G and others have pretty much cleared up the main issue by demonstrating that there IS a policy that says an editor is obligated to try to source an article before he nominates it for AFD. I thought it was an unwritten rule, he proves it is a real policy. As Sticky Parkin points out, we have always been able to stubify an article when needed. We all agree that BLP's should be sourced (maybe even requiring it at creation), and the standard is higher than in a regular article. No doubt. The only question would then be, did RMHED try to source the article before he went to AFD, or did he flood AFD wholesale without trying? Even if well meaning, is this conduct acceptable? Uncle G's research only strengthens my original claim that it is not, and this isn't normally allowed here. The other additions to the conversation have demonstrated that yes, we need some work to fix BLP as well and can't do "nothing" either, and we should move it to the proper forum to further the discussion. Am I reading this wrong? PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 15:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, arguably unless a BLP is of borderline notability and the subject says they want it gone.:) Why is this not the right forum to discuss it? Or are you saying we should all find all the AfD'ed articles by RHMED to which it applies, and !vote? Sticky Parkin 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to know what I am really asking for here? A concensus to say "RMHED, you acted in good faith but this is the wrong way to deal with these BLPs. You must make at least a good faith effort to see if they are notable first, and if you find something, put it in the article instead. Please don't do AFDs in this way in the future." I am asking nothing more, nothing less. I agree with the goal of getting all BLPs sourced, I just don't approve of these methods. I made it clear I wasn't trying to block him or cause him administrative headaches. To be honest, I had thought this would have only been 5 to 10 paragraphs worth of issue when I initiated it. My goal is to simply stop people, anyone, from posting any article without first making SOME kind of effort to source it. Accidental or not, it is disruptive and when most of the AFD's are kept or lean that way (see history), then it isn't helping Wikipedia. I genuinely had no idea I was stirring up a giant hornets nest, and to be honest, I came here to AVOID controversy, hoping that the fact that "an editor is obligated to try to source before deleting" was an obvious policy. That BLP is borked isn't the issue at hand, and should be handled in THAT forum, as it doesn't justify not trying to source a series of articles first. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 18:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Where is the policy that says "you shall search for sources or seek to improve an article before deleting it" or words to that effect? Because I know proposals to mandate WP:BEFORE have failed pretty spectacularly. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC) See Uncle G's comments above. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 18:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I read his comments below the Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#WP:BEFORE thread, but I also read (and participated in) that thread. Pointing to past revisions of policy where at present a consensus does not exist to force WP:BEFORE doesn't resolve the issue. Right now the community doesn't have consensus to dictate that attempts be made to source an article prior to nominating it for deletion. We can find this in discussions or in practice. We do, however, have a robust practice of rejecting nominations of easily sourceable articles. So I don't see the debate as solidified on either side. I'll ask again. What exact wording in a current revision of policy says that we "must" or "shall" search for sources or seek to source an article before nominating it? Protonk (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC) WP:AFD at a minimum, strongly implies it: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. I truly, completely fail to understand why this singular concept is so controversial when it seems so obvious: you should briefly try to source before going to AFD. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 19:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC) It's not controversial at all. I agree with it. It is good as a normative statement. It does not work as a policy proscription. In other words, WP:BEFORE says "you should do these things before nominating an article" for good reason. It does not say "you must do these things or else". My point is that people are misinterpreting the former to mean the latter. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC) This is sad. Wikipedia is a work in progress, that is why many years after its creation it is still open to new editors. We should all expect to encounter articles that are missing things, even lots of things. It used to be that when someone came upon an article that had a mistake or was incomplete, they would do research and fix or add to the article. Now people just delete? I know that is an easy way to up your edit count, but that is not how anyone builds an encyclopedia. This is just obvious common sense: we come here to research and write an encyclopedia. If an article is missing a citation, instead of taking up lots of time with a long AfD process, why not use that time to find good sources? If everyone who would vote to delete instead used the time to find sources, we would have those sources pretty quickly, or we could confidently delete that part of the article. Isn't this exactly the work one expects to do in writing an encyclopedia? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I'll be frank. This isn't that simple. It isn't a case of "building an encyclopedia vs. deleting for the lulz". Some balance must be struck between allowing articles to grow into a great references and meeting community expectations for what an article must be at minimum (and what it must not be). That such a balance must be struck doesn't mean that RHMED is right. I don't think he is. But it most certainly doesn't mean that we can announce that deletion of content is always adversarial toward building an appropriate reference. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Well, first, RMHED (talk · contribs) isn't violating policy, so there's no need for administrator action. WP:DEADLINE is an essay, it can't really be "violated". Sending ten unsourced articles a day to AfD seems to be about the right level of activity. The articles proposed for deletion seem to be about people of marginal notability; there's no great loss to Wikipedia here. I'd suggest using PROD first; if nobody cares enough to add a reference or two and delete the PROD, the article can be flushed without the overhead of an AfD. --John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I agree completely with Protonk. I am commenting on a drift I have seen over the past couple of years. It is true that there is nothing here calling for administrative action, so it is a moot point, but I do think it is important periodically to remind ourselves, encouragingly, about the value of research and writing as a way to improve flawed articles ... Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Reply I've noted all the comments above and in future will mostly avoid AfD, I'll just remove any unsourced BLP content per policy. Wikipedia needs to face up to its BLP responsibilities, the number of unsourced or poorly sourced BLP's is staggering. Saying that these problems should be fixed by those who come across them is nonsensical, there are thousands of them and more being created by the hour. The Wikimedia Foundation I'm quite sure doesn't want its long term survival put in jeopardy from a libel lawsuit. I imagine the last thing they would want is their assertion that they aren't a publisher tested in a court of law. If such a verdict went against them, then there would undoubtedly be an almighty BLP purge on Wikipedia. Now the best way to prevent such an eventuality is to exercise due dilligence, Wikipedia most certainly isn't currently doing this. The Foundation may survive one libel lawsuit it most certainly wouldn't survive two, so for all those who care about Wikipedia's long term survival I urge you to remove all unsourced BLP content. RMHED (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I should say here that libel law in the united states is pretty forgiving and that the DMCA safe harbor exemption protects wikipedia pretty well. IANAL, but focus on BLP should be more justified on the basis that unsourced biographies have a grave potential to distort the de facto public record for private figures rather than some worries about legal status of BLP violations. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Any biographical material that is sensationalist or prurient must be sourced, I would take a hard line on that, and delete any such content that is not sourced. However, this does not mean that all biographical material has to be sourced right away. BLP simply emphasizes the importance of sourcing controversial or sensationalist material. It does not say that any article with biographical material without sources must be deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I suggest you re-read WP:BLP. The word you're looking for is contentious, all unsourced BLP content is IMO contentious and thus should be removed. RMHED (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I think that willfully ignoring the intended meaning of "contentious" in WP:BLP is not a constructive thing to do. We should not require citations for every sentence of a biography. It lacks common sense. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you, RHMED, I am glad to stand corrected, the word is "contentious." And thanks Pete for making the obvious point. If BLP says that contentious material has to be sourced, it goes without saying that there can be uncontentious material. You cannot define "contentious" as unsourced, that would violate the English language as well as our BLP policy. What makes something contentious is not the fact that an encyclopedia article is missing a source. What makes something contentious is the fact that people outside of the encyclopedia argue over its merit, validity, or significance. RHMED, are you being deliberately disingenuous? If BLP meant that ALL material must be sourced, it would not use the modifier "contentious," it would use the word "all." Since it uses the word contentious, it obviously cannot mean all. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC) RMHED, I don't want you to avoid AFD, I want you to exercise a little bit of caution, source a few that are easy, avoid them if you aren't sure. Nothing would make me happier than if I could see your AFD's, and say "That is very likely a valid AFD, lemme go google it a bit, then add my !vote". Seriously. There are many editors here that I will automatically go and google their AFD's because I know they have done their homework first, so I can do a basic search and offer a valid !vote. Believe it or not, you and I likely agree on 90% of BLP, even if we disagree on methods of fixing it. I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting everything, particularly when the content isn't controversial. I didn't come here to "get you in trouble", and I damn sure didn't expect it to turn into this slugfest (maybe I'm dumb, but I thought it could be cleared up with 2 or 3 admins telling me I was either wrong or right in my interpretation). In the end, I would rather work *with* you than against you, and hopefully we can find a way to do that in the future. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC) BAD FAITH / ACTION REQUESTED Ok, now I'm tired of getting slapped in the face, and just saw what breaks the straw after I tried everything to offer an olive branch. RHMED, I have tried to be as open minded and fair handed as I can, but your edit here [36] which was explained in your talk [37] go beyond good faith, and taken with what you said here, clearly demonstrate you are trying to prove a WP:POINT. You deleted a football players entire page because you find it "unsourced". A complete blank page. Nothing controversial was on the page. At this stage, you leave me no choice but to ask for administrative action. You are basically saying "fuck you guys, I will delete the articles one way or another", even while you try to "get along" in this discussion. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Please note, this is not the only page he has blanked, which conveniently makes them db-blank targets as well. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) It's completely inappropriate. I've reverted and warned him. fish&karate 00:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC) At this point, I have to ask for strong administrative action. Everything in this heated discussion up to now has been in good faith (even when spirited), and everyone assumed good faith. His actions show a complete disrespect for the policies, but more importantly, it shows disdain for the process of building concensus itself. This isn't a misunderstanding, this is vandalism to prove a point. Otherwise, we are endorsing his actions. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC) He started reverting to re-blank pages, so has been blocked for 24 hours. fish&karate 00:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC) (ec)Everything mentioned in RHMED's RfA still applies it seems- his actions at AfD are still random in various ways, and he is not the politest of people. This is a new development though as far as I know. But I don't expect much to be done about it (though it would be nice.) Good block:) Sticky Parkin 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Just because they are tagged {{db-blank}} doesn't mean that they will be deleted. Administrators are supposed be diligent when it comes to speedy deletions. That includes checking the article history. Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC) I was actually thinking we might have a loose concensus before this (agree to disagree on some issues, BLP is borked and needs work, contentious != controversial, at least try to source easy ones before deleting, new bios should be sourced). Now we are back to square one, and the primary question that drove me to seek help here still isn't answered. Why is it that every time I stumble into a BLP issue, I end up with a sore jaw and the taste of blood in my mouth? PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC) What do you propose? Slrubenstein | Talk 04:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Probably resolved Fish and karate's appropriate 24 hr block for continued disruption in the face of at the very best of a lack of consensus has probably resolved this. He's placed a "retired" stamp on his talk page. Don't know if that is a protest over this or he actually intends to leave, but my guess is that this issue is at least resolved. I don't think that we will solve the underlying issues here (what is contentious? What can be removed from an unsourced BLP? Should we have them? Is our BLP policy written to really reflect community consensus? etc.) will be solved from this conversation or at AN/I at all. I'll wait a few hours before marking the whole thread as resolved. It people feel otherwise, please yell at me here. :) Protonk (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This appears to be the policy and it is quite clear that unsourced material should be removed immediately (the bold is from the policy page). Without commenting on the block itself (the policy speaks for itself), we do have a serious problem of unsourced material sitting around on BLP pages. How am I, as a wikipedia user, supposed to know if any of that material (for example, in the Aaron Brown article that triggered the block [38]) real or not? --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 03:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry, which part of the Aaron Brown bio was contentious? and what happened to the word "contentious" that was in the quote in your first sentence, but wasn't in your second sentence (the one that has the words "This appears to be the policy and it is quite clear")? Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC) I also want to know what part was contentious...looking at the article history, it doesn't look like there were ever any arguments over his draft status, birthdate, etc. --Smashvilletalk 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC) I fully agree on the point that you, with your reader hat on, should have sources cited that you can consult to verify the article against. The issue here is not a disagreement over verifiability. I think that everyone here agrees that all content, biographical or not, should be verifiable. The issue is one of judgement, as to what material we should zealously, immediately, firmly, and repeatedly exclude from the encyclopaedia until it has a good source, whose author has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy to protect, cited right there in the article, to back it up. The judgement involves, in part, the answers to the following two questions: Is the material something that, on the presumption that it is false, would cause the subject or any other living person harm, or cause xem to complain, or invade xyr privacy, by being published on a high profile web site that is read by millions of people around the world? Is the material something that would bring Wikipedia into disrepute? Clearly "XXX is a giant poopy-head." is an example of the latter, and we immediately remove such rubbish as simple vandalism. Equally clearly, material that stated, without a good source cited in the article saying the same, that "XXX is the leader of a neo-Nazi hate organization and is a convicted criminal." is an example of the former. If false, it would cause significant harm, objection, and outrage. So again we immediately remove such material on sight. A false statement that someone is an American Football player would be unlikely to cause harm or objection, however. At worst, the peanut gallery gets to laugh — Haw! Haw! Haw! — at Wikipedia. So a measured procedure of looking for sources onesself, asking other people for sources, and challenging the material is instead in order. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#How to deal with unsourced content. One should use the tool that is appropriate for the task. Just as deletion isn't the only tool in the toolbox, neither is wholesale zapping the article back to a good stub. (Blanking and not writing a good stub is not a good way to proceed, note. One should provide editors with at minimum the first brick to build upon, not least in order to demonstrate by example to those who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's standards the proper way to build the article. Jimbo's infamous "X is a person" stubs in years gone by aren't really good stubs, by 2008 standards or even by 2005 standards, although in that singular case the identity of the editor is a factor.) One should employ a range of tools, as appropriate to the type of material. Sometimes the big instant on-sight deletion of the article and the entirety of its edit history is called for. Sometimes just a little "citation needed" is called for. Sometimes renaming and refactoring the article to be about an event and not a person is called for. Sometimes yet other approaches are called for. With biographical material we always err on the side of caution. But that does not mean using one tool for everything. As administrators, we should not forget that we still have the tools that we had when we weren't administrators, as well. Those who would like to have administrator privileges should show that they understand this. Uncle G (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Hopefully final note Only time will show if this is really over. I think that if we used the word "controversial" instead of "contentious", it would make more sense or at least cause less confusion. (or not, who knows) Every AFD/BLP that we have discussed in this long, drawn out process had zero controversy. Football players, professors, musicians, etc. If there was, I would have been the first to agree to remove the material or delete the article if it couldn't be sourced reasonably quick. That isn't the way I had hoped this would work out. I am beginning to think that it is impossible to enter a BLP discussion at Wikiepedia without losing a few teeth, or some blood, or some faith. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 10:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC) IMHO "contentious" is a better word than "controversial" because "controversial" implied a controversy has to exist, and we don't want to set the bar that high, we want it at something closer to "has the potential to cause a controversy, if anyone read and discussed it". If editors don't know the meaning of "contentious" then they might want to spend their time reading a dictionary, rather than writing an encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, you're right with that one. I still think that saying 'this problem is resolved' is a bit like saying 'Finally, the pain in my hand is gone', when the reason it's gone is that your arm was cut off. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC) (outdent) Sorry. I misread the policy (as my strike out was intended to show!) and my point was more that there are hundreds of biographies out there on wikipedia that are not only unsourced but are also incorrect. I've nominated a few for deletion and have been pleasantly surprised to see that some articles get rewritten well sourced (this one is a great example). My point was not to drag this out further but to say that something needs to be done about unsourced BLPs and sometimes nominating for deletion is the best way to get things done. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 15:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC) That's a terrible, terrible mindset. All the effort that goes into nominating these for deletion, and creating the subsequent torrent of keep !votes to the effect of "Sorry, it could be a good article, just work on rather than trying to needlessly kill it with fire" could be much better applied to improving the articles in the first place. When someone notices a problematic article that doesn't contain sources, you should look to see if sources exist; if they do, but you don't want to work on it yourself, tag the article and leave a note on the talkpages. Better yet, fix it yourself. AfD is only a solution when the article couldn't be reasonably improved. Celarnor Talk to me 15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Why is it a, um, 'terrible, terrible mindset'? My feeling is that unsourced BLP articles are dangerous because they decrease the reliability of wikipedia and diminish the value of the encyclopedia. Each time that a user comes across an article on a non-notable person or erroneous information about a notable person, the value of wikipedia drops a wee bit. Researching each and every article is not an option for a single user. Tagging an article does not solve the problem since the erroneous tagged articles are just as bad as the erroneous untagged ones. It is my opinion that the encyclopedia is better off with fewer correct articles than with many more incorrect ones. I can be wrong about that, I've been wrong about plenty in my life so that doesn't bother me, but I am piqued by your certainty that this viewpoint is terrible. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory

As I've put some comments on the talk page I probably shouldn't take action, but there is edit warring going on, a 3RR warning from someone whose edits also may be 3RR, etc. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked one user (Slipgrid) who made four reverts for 24 hours, and warned one (Kaiwhakahaere) who only made three reverts to knock it off. Gentgeen (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone think the page should be protected for a few days? These 2 weren't the other editors involved. Doug Weller (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Having looked, I don't see a need for protection now that Slipgrid has been blocked and Kaiwhakahaere has been warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I originally brought this to WP:FTN a few days ago, but it seems someone thought I was targeting them rather than the POV back and forth. I wasn't happy with either version, so made a partial revert when I came back earlier - not realising there had been another faster edit war in the meantime. I don't think the page currently needs protection, but unfortunately looks like it will need watching for a while. Verbal chat 18:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Articles vandalized by religious bigots since June 18, 2008

Resolved

 – Category removed from both pages.

I've found this here [39] with my talk page on it. I presume it relates to this edit on my talk page [40] which has put real and nonexistent categories on it. These aren't actual categories obviously, but 71.32.223.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being a bit weird. Doug Weller (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the category from the two pages that were in it. Not sure there's much to see here. oren0 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

user:Jobxavier

Jobxavier (talk · contribs) I just asked the above blocked user if he's still editing Wikipedia. I know he's an Indian 'sociologist' with a pretty virulent hatred of Christians, but he sent me this in reply. I think, perhaps, it might help with orchestrating a rangeblock? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:YVNP

I have just deleted this userpage due to its content. Other admins may wish to look at this, and the edits of this user - I may not have much time to do so this evening. Black Kite 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that user page was seriously fucked up, and you were right to delete it. However, it may be a very good idea if you contact the user on their talk page, and explain why you did it (and I may use more diplomatic phrasing than "seriously fucked up") Please drop them a note, explain why to deleted it, and kindly ask them to return to building the encylopedia. Their edit history (aside from that userpage) looks fine to me. They aren't a very active editor (less than 500 edits since July 2007), but I haven't seen any bad faith editing in the main space or elsewhere... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not bad faith, but repeated insertions and discussions (though not to the point of actively edit warring) on fringe-y poorly sourced racial theories about Barack Obama in early October, after being asked not to do it, which was bizarre coming from a long-term editor.Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done that, and since the user's edits appear to be on possibly contentious race and sexual articles, suggested the above. Black Kite 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think you were right to delete it, vivid imagination or wishful thinking it needed to go.— Ѕandahl ♥ 20:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh great; now I'm going to spend all day wondering what I'd missed... HalfShadow 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry - unless you're into unpleasant misogynist fantasies, you've missed nothing. Black Kite 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But did they involve unpleasant, misogynist fantasies that also involved kittens and peanut butter? I mean, let's be serious here ... -t BMW c- 21:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Straight up torture porn, and pretty clearly out per Wikipedia:USER#What may I not have on my user page? May have fallen under Wikipedia:USER#Statements of violence and most certainly "likely to give widespread offense". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No kittens at all. Any story which ends "Now she's in my basement" is never good. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty standard BDSM porn, after having given it a read. Don't let's jump to conclusions with 'threats of violence' here. The cutting is a bit much, but at least a third of the stuff in that story is pretty standard fare. Don't be too harsh on him ;-) Actually, that last paragraph is not standard fare. Still, AGF and all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, just explaining why I agree that the user page was blatantly inappropriate. People's kinks aren't my personal concern so long as not acted upon, and there's a far cry between doing it and writing about it, but a torture porn story can (imho) legitimately be read as among "Statements that encourage, and/or condone, specifically, acts of violence against any person(s) or group(s)", including "the mention, or implication, of specific violent acts — for example, murder or rape". I don't think it's blatant, though, which is why I said "may." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:67.234.104.242

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 month.

This user 67.234.104.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on the Julianna Rose Mauriello article claiming to be her brother. He has already been banned three times for adding unsourced information to the article and rudeness/incivility. On that article's talk page he has repeatedly made assertions about the factual accuracy of the article. [41] He has also been asked to be civil, on that talk page, and today is still being rude, using bad language, and making unsourced factual assertions. [42] (He has also been told to contact Wikipedia, or have JRM contact Wikipedia, with some proof of who he is, and apparently has not, so it's doubtful that he is indeed JRM's brother.) He is also violating WP:OWN by telling people not to change the article. [43] RainbowOfLight ^Talk 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the above ip for a month (as the ip has been previously blocked for a week), noting that they need to contact OTSR or WP:Office - or have Miss Mauriello's representatives do so - in order to prove their identity. I also pointed out that having their identity checked does not allow them to continue violating WP policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange behavior by apparently unrelated IPs

This is happening now, so I expect this status to change, perhaps as I type this. I just blocked the ip: 99.167.225.149 (talk · contribs) and immediately afterwards, another IP address blanked that user's talk page: 76.10.27.248 (talk · contribs). This seems a little much of a coincidence. They seem likely related somehow. Could someone look into this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

99.167.x.x is an AT&T address; 76.10.x.x is registered to "Distributed Management Information Systems Inc.". Network-wise, they don't appear to be related. I'll run a port scan. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No indication of open ports on the first address; port 8000 may be open on the second. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:85.75.249.159

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours.

User 85.75.249.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single purpose account which keeps attacking me personally despite my warnings and advice about Wikipedia policies regarding personal attacks. He calls me a " machine" and a "group of Olympic watchdogs". At the same time he is engaging in a long term edit war on Olympic Airlines. Dr.K. (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours (and explained to at their talkpage). In future issue the necessary warnings and report to WP:AIV if they continue edit warring/violating WP:CIVIL. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am really indebted. Thank you very much for the quick response and the advice. Tasos. (Dr.K. (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

User:67.68.14.192

User 67.68.14.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is modifying BLP's by changing numbers (e.g. weight 185, to 188. Or height 6'5" to 6'8"). I can't find where he is getting this data, but it seems he's pretty bent on just changing numbers without explanation. I was going to leave him a warning template on WP:RS, however I don't want to be bite-y. Should I go ahead and revert and warn? Digital^Ninja 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very likely vandalism. You could try leaving a friendly note so the IP at least knows someone is watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections

Resolved

 – Yet another Wiki_brah (talk · contribs) sock - Alison ^❤ 04:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am all caught up in electoral fervor, watching fox news about 7 hours a day. I was told about Wikipedia; the upcoming Arb Com elections already have my interest. This is my first edit: 30 October 2008 -- I am looking for a few mentors and a team to get me prepped to run for Arb Com by December. Please point me in the right direction so I can help lead Wikipedia into 2009! Morris Battle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

...And blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

...And bitten. Was that really necessary? Even vandals get warnings, and this guy appears to have good intentions, if unrealistic goals. Mangojuice^talk 02:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice, why was a block appropriate here? I am not seeing any imminent danger to the project. --Elonka 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC) amended post below

Unless there is some other information we are not privy to, I echo Mangojuice (talk · contribs)'s confusion as to why this user was blocked. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) I think he should use his original account if he's interested in running for ArbCom. (Does anyone really find it plausible that I bit a new user here? His very first edit was the above post to AN/I. His three subsequent edits were tag-bombing an obscure science article. It took him less than three minutes to discover that he was blocked and figure out how to write a disingenuous {unblock} on his talk page.) I will resign my adminship right here and now if a consensus develops that I actually bit a newbie in this instance. Y'all were trolled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user’s first edit was the one above followed by three edits adding tags to an obscure article. I agree with TenOfAllTrades’s assessment of this user being a troll. —Travis^talk 02:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this user wants power and I don't trust that. I think his tag-bombing was probably designed to give the account the appearance of legitimacy. So yes, I agree, this behavior isn't good. But I do think it's too early to conclude that this user will never do anything but troll. Mangojuice^talk 02:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Very bad block if ever I saw one. And by golly have I seen some. Sarah777 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, though on first glance I was scratching my head here, I'm starting to come around to Tenofalltrades' view. This new account does seem to have extensive knowledge of wiki-procedures, and this edit[44] is highly suspect as he tagged the Cytomere article as a hoax. Granted the stub could use more sources, but to put in an edit summary "can't find any references", when even a simple Google search shows it's a valid term, is not reasonable. Though I think it would been better to warn first and block second, I do support the block at this point. --Elonka 02:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'd bet real money he's a troll (apologies Morris, if you're not) - but where isWP:AGF? Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Sarah777: Perhaps you don’t speak Morris’s language, but to someone fluent in it, their first edit is, to say the least, disingenuous. —Travis^talk 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Travis declined the unblock request, and I've left a note explaining the block just in case. I expect that if the user comes back with a good answer they'll be given a second chance, since this was a stronger reaction than truly necessary. Mangojuice^talk 02:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Elona- rubbish AfDs because people haven't even bothered to google to see if there are sources happen all the time, so I bet tagging things as a hoax without googling happens sometimes too.:) Mind you, most new users perhaps wouldn't know or care what arbcom is, let alone run for it. Sticky Parkin 03:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the deserved block. There have been a rash of new accounts crop up lately, make strange AN/ANI postings, and then post some obscure crap elsewhere. I'm sure it's some teenager jacking around or a serial troll. Nothing new. seicer | talk | contribs 03:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, block wasn't necessary. Highly likely to be a troll but blocking simply created more drama than anything else. The post would have been ignored or we would have given the user a polite explanation. And in the unlikely case this was a real user it would have been a very bad bite. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Thinking about this more, I'm not sure I want blocks like this in general, but there does seem to be a major DUCK element to this block which is reasonable. I doubt any real user would run right over to ANI to post this sort of thing as the very first edit. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• What an absolutely horrible block. I think Ten need a short block to remind him of wiki policy. Bstone (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• I consider it possible that Morris Battle lives under a bridge, is a "smallish giant" , possibly akin to ogres , and inclined to eat up any goats who attempt to cross the bridge. Edison (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

de-lurk (I'm retired, dammit :) ) - this is a  Confirmed Wiki_brah/Jeanlatore sock, yet again. Here for the lulz and the trolling. Nothing to see here, folks, move along now - Alison ^❤ 04:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alison -- either you read my post or read my mind.  :) Antandrus (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone contacted me off-wiki. Good guess, though :) - Alison ^❤ 05:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time I won't say anything here, I'll just block the troll and be done with it. Sorry for letting all of you get sucked into feeding the troll. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer if you did say something, because the alternative would be just as bad, as the no-explanation block would also raise questions. A better way to handle this, would have been to post a reply here at ANI with a bit more information as to why you blocked. I have to admit, when I first saw this thread, I saw what looked like an overeager newbie posting something, and then your immediate block made it look like you had blocked him for saying he wanted to run for ArbCom. It appeared (on first glance) to be an over-reaction bite of a newbie. Many established editors and admins here are already on pins and needles as we await both the on-wiki (ArbCom) and off-wiki (US) elections, and the concept that someone was blocked just for saying that they wanted to run for ArbCom, understandably got some hackles up. So if you would have posted something such as, "Based on this user's other contributions, this appears to be a troll, so I am blocking," that would have de-escalated the situation. Or, you could have simply chosen to not block, but post a warning to the user's talkpage, and a message here that you felt it was a troll (and why). But just saying "blocked" without any reason, was what increased the confusion. --Elonka 16:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, even after the detailed explanation from multiple users, we still had people chiming in to tell me what a terrible admin I was for making the block, right up until a couple of minutes before Alison ran a checkuser to confirm what was patently obvious from the user's contributions. People are telling me not to bite and to WP:AGF. Well, AGF is a two-way street. Why can't people be willing to assume that in four years of Wikipedia experience (most with the admin buttons), I might have a bit of a clue? Why is the automatic assumption made that the Big Bad Admin^TM must be oppressing the innocent newcomer?

Elonka, you've been editing Wikipedia almost as long as I have. Instead of immediately agreeing with Mangojuice, why didn't you look at the guy's contributions? Anyone with some experience on Wikipedia's high-traffic noticeboards should know what a troll looks like by now. While you're right that I should have been more descriptive in my first message, I honestly thought that the block would be both obvious and uncontroversial. I will also note that even after my explanation was posted we still got at least four editors (Cirt, Mangojuice, Sarah777, Bstone) insisting I was wrong (with varying amounts of invective). If we're genuinely at the point where we can't block obvious, returning, block-evading socks without needing a Checkuser every time, we're very deep in the shit indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that an experienced user should also know that this sort of misunderstanding and thread is common (you have seen threads like this before in your time on Wikipedia, right?) so an extension of the "experienced user" argument is that a warning, followed by a block if there were subsequent edits, would have been slightly more effort, but would have avoided the possibility of this thread. I suppose you might not have had time to hang around and see if the troll carried on editing after the warning, or you might have been worried that another admin might have wasted time with another warning, when you had correctly assessed that this was a troll, but in these mental calculations and cost-benefit analysis, did you consider the cost of this ANI thread? I suppose the benefit of this ANI thread is that those reading it are now less likely to react like this in future. Maybe you, Elonka, Cirt, Mangojuice, Sarah777, and Bstone could clarify how they would react to a similar situation in future, and we can try and avoid ANI threads like this in future (or at least work out how to close them efficiently and sensibly). Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a large number of admins who have been round long enough, shown good faith and care often enough, that when they do summarily block an account, they are unlikely to be doing so on a completely unreasonable basis. Perhaps mistaken in good faith, but usually well within reasonable judgement and with forethought. Users who develop enough cluefulness to spot disruptive users early should obviously still take care, but it's more in line with assuming good faith to ask them for more explanation, rather than just diving in to declare it a bad block or whatever. Those who have complained about this thread being on ANI should note that the blocked sock-user himself started the ANI thread, and should expect a competent admin to spot the trolling and quickly deal with it. That said, Elonka's point is a reasonable one too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are at least three problems with the warning-only approach. The first is philosophical. Why give a warning only when the purpose of the account is obvious? It's a waste of my time and it's a waste of the time of the admin who eventually blocks later. It's also damned disingenuous — why should I pretend to be clueless when I'm not? What should I say in a message that isn't utterly phony? What is the point of a message that says, 'You're obviously a troll, but I'm not going to block you because I'll get grief for it from less-perceptive editors at AN/I'?

The second is that it offers the opportunity to make the trolling more effective. We offer an oh-so-stern warning while the troll laughs up his sleeve. He then goes ahead and continues trolling here or on his talk page, while some suckers fall for his innocent act and rail against the Evil Newbie-Biting Admin.

The final issue is the risk of harm to the encyclopedia. If the troll actually does stop (for a couple of hours, even) then he's free to resume the same behaviour later on. Be honest — are there any admins here who have the time and inclination to follow a trolling account's contributions for more than a couple of hours? In a few days, he's got an autoconfirmed account that can be used for much more serious mischief (and this is a problem I've seen multiple times). Heck, he can clear his talk page and it's at least even money that no one will even notice that the first warning was issued. We go on and repeat the 'final' warning cycle two or three times.

I've finally realized my mistake here. I should have followed the process at WP:RBI. No attention at all for the troll. I had hoped that this experience could be educational and helpful to new admins and admin candidates who read this board. I had hoped to demonstrate that we could demonstrate that we could respond quickly and effectively to obvious trolls, without a lot of wasted time and effort. Obviously a different lesson was delivered. Next time I'll blank the whole thread and block without comment, and leave the armchair admins in blissful ignorance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Revert the ANI post (with a note in the edit summary), block as a troll. Any subsequent discussion would be on the talk page of the blocked account. For what it is worth, I think some admins reading this will have learnt more about how to spot trolls, so as I said, the thread wasn;t entirely wasted. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really amazing to me how hard some long-time contributors allow themselves to be trolled. Seriously. Grandmasterka 07:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and saying that helps how? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I agree that the initial post above was obviously trollish, but the point about trolls is that they are trying to fool people and they do, by their very nature, succeed sometimes. That is why you have to manage not just the initial trolling, but also the response (including educating people about how to spot a troll). Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread is one big WIN for Mr. Troll. Tan | 39 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Trolls exist. By definition not everyone recognises them. Arguing over who should be trusted to recognise them and whether the troll has "won" or not is not productive. There is a reason why the standard response is revert, block, ignore. That didn't happen here, but there is no harm in learning lessons. Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've had a chance to learn a lesson too, Carcharoth. Twenty-four hours ago you were telling me that the correct response would be to not block, and offer a warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I was wrong (I have no problem admitting that), and we've both learnt something. The trick is, if someone picks up on the block or the revert, is to: (a) explain calmly if you are around; and (b) if people do get fooled into discussing the trolling while you are not around (note that we are not discussing the trolling, but the response to the trolling), to diplomatically minimise that response and not castigate people for being fooled. Saying "Y'all were trolled" might be true, but you are feeding the troll by saying that. No-one takes kindly to being told that they've been fooled, and it is part of the response the troll wants to see. Note that the checkuser by Alison cleared things up like a shot. Technically, that shouldn't be needed, because as you say most people should recognise the troll. But if people do get fooled, checkuser is a good way to pick up a sock-troll. Really, though, we should both stop here. If you want to say something more, by all means do, but I'm now going to respect the 'resolved' tag and move on from this - lessons learnt! Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Obvious troll. Props to the admin responsible for blocking. JBsupreme (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Vgnerd vandalism only account

Vgnerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) hasn't still made any edit that was not vandalism. He has blanked all his warnings. I'm bringing this to ANi because he has uploaded Image:Rougeirl.jpg a image of a black woman with no license just to illustrate Nigger [45], and make vandalism on other articles.

(He could also be User:74.66.238.136, per similarity of topics, and editing the same page with a minute of difference to continue introducing the same vandalism[46]) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as VOA. User's third edit sets an early tone. Tan | 39 05:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Brian Mulroney vandal

There's been a lot of recurring vandalism to this article, clearly by the same person who still seems to hold a grudge fifteen years after Mulroney left office. The names are all jumbled insults which begin with "Brianmulroney" and which go downhill from there. Checkuser, range block, blacklist the "Brianmulroney" string or...? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Semi protecting the article and blocking the obvious socks seems to have done the trick. Autoblocks should catch new accounts created with the same IP. Keep an eye on the related changes feed for any nonsense. Should this get worse, we can send it over to RFCU, but checkuser time is pretty valuable and wasting it on this guy might not be worth the effort. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Tundrabuggy

Unresolved

 – Earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:Tundrabuggy slakr^\ talk /

Proposal: 1-month topic ban for Tundrabuggy

Proposed: Tundrabuggy is prohibited from editing in the topic area of ancient Persia for the month of November, 2008, due to abovementioned stalking and topical problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary

People have requested below that some diffs be provided to provide info on this issue. Key points:

• Tundrabuggy has a prior history of conflict with me due to our mutual involvement in Muhammad al-Durrah, an article relating to contemporary Israeli politics.
• Tundrabuggy has since followed me to five pages on ancient Persian history in which he was not previously involved, but involved himself very shortly after I did - Cyrus cylinder, Cyrus the Great, Battle of Opis, Kaveh Farrokh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris.
• He has been canvassed twice by editors in dispute with me: first by an unnamed administrator who "wrote me in email some days later suggesting I look at the [Cyrus cylinder] page and its Talk page", [47], second by the now-blocked Ariobarza [48]. He responded to both canvasses by involving himself in those disputes.
• He has accused me of "pushing a particular pov" [49] and of being part of a "campaign" [50] to push a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" of ancient Babylonian history [51]. Many other editors regard this as ridiculous, as do I.
• He constantly assumes bad faith of myself and engages in sophistry and unreasonable behaviour, indicating that he has a personal issue with me; see this exchange.
• Other editors and I have asked him to desist from this pattern of behaviour. [52], [53], [54]. Instead of responding to these concerns, he has dismissed them out of hand. [55]
• He appears to be intent on treating Wikipedia as a battleground, sustaining personal conflicts and importing ideological issues into new areas. I have left him alone since our conflict over Muhammad al-Durrah; he has not reciprocated, but seems to think that he has to "police" my edits. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• (added) A longer discussion of this issue has been split over to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:Tundrabuggy

Support:

• Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• See my comments below. ChrisO (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A classically obvious example of our need to protect expert contributors from ideology-driven ignoramuses. That is one of the most urgent quality issues that Wikipedia faces, IMO. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
• Support. I've been observing this from a distance for a long time now. We need to stop "travelling circuses" where edit-warriors import their pet ideological battles into completely unrelated subjects. --Folantin (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support strongly, now Chris0 has complied with Jehochman's request. There is no need to drag this to another page. I have another example of this wikistalking behaviour on my own page, Ashley Kennedy, a fine, hard-working content editor, has been banned for a week for expressing (with highly improper language) his frustration at it, while the stalker persists. It has returned with brio to I/P wiki pages recently. This is becoming a farce, and the stalking, and tacit collaboration with it by many otherwise reasonable editors threatens to create a precedent or pattern way beyond the I/P area.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

• I'm not seeing the stalking issue. I've been following the edits of all three of them for some time, and despite the rhetoric from ChrisO and Nishidani, I'm not seeing any major issues with Tundrabuggy's work. --Elonka 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Not seeing any on-going issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't simply about "on-going issues" - it's about a pattern of behaviour. I don't want to find Tundrabuggy dogging my heels throughout this topic area because of his peculiar belief that I'm promoting a "pro-Palestinian nationalist POV" of ancient Persian history (seriously, that's tinfoil hat stuff). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• There's definitely a "pattern of behaviour" here, though not the one you refer to. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced by the discussion above that Tundrabuggy's doing anything wrong, much less deserving of a month long topic ban. Last time I checked, getting rid of your opponents isn't one of the steps you should be using in conflict resolution. Shell ^babelfish 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I see mostly content disputes here, behavior of both ChrisO and Tundrabuggy is this conflict is not exemplary (per Jayjg analysis) but I do not see how a long block is warranted to either of them Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

The evidence won't go stale. Why not wait a few days and start a topic ban discussion on WP:AN when things may be calmer. I would prefer to see the evidence presented in a clear fashion, rather than rely on people new to the discussion to dig through an ANI thread trying to work out what has happened. Topic bans are, in my opinion, best started in a new venue, not started from an ANI thread. In theory, the result of the topic ban discussion should be the same, regardless of where and when it is held, so why not see if the result really would be the same if held in a few days time on AN, with a careful presentation of the evidence? If the discussion remains here, could someone do an executive summary rather than rely on the phrase "abovementioned stalking and topical problems" to refer people to the above? i.e. distill out the most relevant diffs and evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Carcharoth. This proposal won't get full consideration because editors will not want to wade through a long, boring, disorganized thread. It would be far better to provide a concise summary of the evidence on a new thread. Jehochman ^Talk 08:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I happen(ed) to be against a one month topic ban, (as opposed to a permanent ban against following Chris0 in non I/P articles) which seems punitive and extreme. I just don't want him trailing a competent, trained historical editor into areas Tundra knows nothing about, but has lynx-eyes for all potential POVs he reads as 'anti-Israeli', a farcical position. I twice wrote as much, (oppose) until I saw two remarks, in successive edit conflicts last night which gave personal opinions, without evidence, and that simply declare 'I support Tundrabuggy'. I therefore withdrew my comment. Leave aside my own analysis of what Tundrab.'s own words mean, if analysed (what Elonka calls 'rhetoric'). By all means give a snap summary of the gist on the other administrative page. But by his own admission he was a proxy in vote-stacking organized by a canvassing admin. This is not a partisan matter, but simply remarking on the obvious, which has to be construed 'rhetorically' (i.e. at length) because some editors refuse to note the obvious meaning of words, giving the impression this is a 'political' fight over I/P POVs. Since Tundrabuggy is convinced there is a political bias in all I/P editors who write on ancient ME history, not take some measure, here or elsewhere, is to open up these obscure pages to the kind of one-eyed POV-sleuthing that makes contemporary I/P articles an unreadable mess. He should simply not edit where Chris0 works on ancient historical articles not dealing directly with the history of Palestine, until at least he shows he has read sufficiently to have a reasonably solid knowledge of the area. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. This is absolutely incorrect: "But by his own admission he was a proxy in vote-stacking organized by a canvassing admin." I was simply recruited to "Cyrus Cylinder" by an admin. The "vote" for the Battle of Tigris article was solicited by the author, not by any admin, and I take responsibility for my "vote" for the reasons I gave earlier. I have however come to see that as a mistake, but it has nothing to do with any administrator. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Votestacking" isn't necessarily about AfDs. WP:CANVASS: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ... and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." You were recruited by someone who saw you as an ideological ally. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, when you explain "votestacking", are you referring to these edits? [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]? I notice quite a few people contacted in that way have been prominent in this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Individuals who were already or very recently involved in discussions on my talk page, or Ariobarza's talk page, about issues with Ariobarza and (in a couple of cases) Tundrabuggy. I certainly don't think you could consider individuals as diverse as Akhilleus, Jaakobou and Alvestrand to be supporters of any particular POV. Of course, this is quite different from off-wiki stealth canvassing by an unnamed administrator. Which you would presumably consider bad, right? I've not seen a word of concern from you about that issue. I wonder why? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you appear to be trying to change the subject, which was your own complaint about "votestacking" even as you were doing it in this very situation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support a ban - preferably longer than a month, but that's a good start. Tundrabuggy consistently refuses to assume good faith on my part, which makes working with him unnecessarily difficult. Read this exchange for a case in point. He clearly has personal difficulties with working with me as well as an aggressively ideological approach. He responded to an improper off-wiki canvass. Since then he's actively gone to several articles in which I've been involved, deliberately following me from article to article and creating conflict. He's already been counseled several times that this is inappropriate behaviour. Since he has repeatedly disregarded the advice of others and requests to desist, something stronger needs to be tried. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(added) I've added a summary of key points and diffs above per Jehochman's suggestion. However, I think it should be kept in one place rather than splitting it into multiple threads. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff down here, to the edit you made above? I scanned the thread, but I think it got lost in the noise. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See the Summary immediately below #Proposal: 1-month topic ban for Tundrabuggy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Melecik's userpage

Resolved

 – Melecik blocked and user page deleted.--Atlan (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The userpage, although having some information on the user(which is a minor as far as I can tell), appears to be mostly an advertisement for a non-notable game(it hasn't even been released yet). The page goes on to explain the development of the game, the story about the game, and various other game-specific information. I'm quite sure there's a policy violation here, but I don't know what. I'm lost here on what to do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a violation of our userpage policy. His article was deleted as non-notable and advertising, his userpage shouldn't be used as an alternative. Furthermore, he's asking for donations to fund his project, which is obviously not what your userpage is for. I'm also concerned about his personal info, him being a minor. I've deleted the advertising part, someone else should see if his personal info is ok.--Atlan (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the website section in the infobox?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ok to link to your own website on your user page in most cases, although I am inclined to remove the links here, since all he has done so far is promote his project. --Atlan (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this young man is obviously not here to write an encyclopedia. He only wants to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for free advertising. I'd be better if an admin would delete his user page and block him. He can explain in an unblock request if he actually wants to contribute.--Atlan (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut&Paste move at Anna von Schweidnitz

Resolved

 – Copy+paste move reverted

The anon 77.253.70.44 (talk · contribs) (seemingly from Warsaw, Poland) apparently has manually overwritten the redirect at Anne of Świdnica with old content of the article Anna von Schweidnitz, and turned that one into a redirect. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes they have. I do not want to get into discussion, which article name is correct and which one is not, but we cannot allow such copy+paste moves for copyright reasons, as they lose use the history. I reverted the move (and cleaned the history of it) but I strongly suggest discussion about the naming on the talk page. Also, I semi-protected both targets to prevent IPs from copy+paste moving in the next days (please request unprotection after a discussion). Regards SoWhy 10:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:WindowsLiveHotmail1

Resolved

 – 6 accounts blocked: 5 for multiple accounts/username, 1 for username Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a strange one. The new user log shows several of these in numerical order being created within minutes of each other. We're up to number six as of now. I've left a note of concern here with number one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Matches the name of a company. Block per policy? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me they're not here to flesh out all the articles linked from Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This has the smell of an automated tool. Might ask them whether they created the account in the usual way, or are experimenting with an account-creating tool, or something. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but in regards to Gwen's comment, we may never know.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to remind everyone this but WP:U states that Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, I agree with you that the accounts are suspicious enough to be blocked on sight but please do not make the Username policy harsher than it is in reality. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Threatened edit warring and lack of good faith

It would be good to have some administrator attention at Geoff Simpson (particularly towards the end of Talk:Geoff Simpson). Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is turning a relatively minor content dispute into a full blown edit war, with comments like "I will continue to remove this information for another 48 hours" (full context). Other editors are attempting to address any neutrality concerns, but with that discussion style consensus looks difficult to obtain.

Additionally, Cumulus Clouds is descending into some serious assumptions of bad faith, including accusing other editors of having a political agenda. I'm backing off from the article itself (it takes two to edit war and I don't want to be one of them) but an explanation of policy from a third party may help out. Orpheus (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the same editor who deleted "Ike" from the list or presidental nicknames under Dwight Eisenhower, on the grounds of being "original research". Maybe he needs to go back to elementary school and review what he missed while he was napping. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

'Assyrian People' page again

Resolved

 – Content dispute. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just want you guys to realize the issue going on with the Assyrian people page. Familiarize yourselves with it please. What has been happening for a while (and more often recently) has been the deletion of information sourced by credible sources. The deletions are not discussed and not voted for. This is most likely done by Anti-Assyrian nationalists who have been doing this for some time now. I suggest you guys do something about these people (banning them) because even last wave of this occurrence they were given another chance. eg. the Template: Assyrian Ethnicity the population has been changed replaced by unreliable sources without any explanation as to why the change occurred, and the first line had been changed without explanation as well. Thank-you Malik Danno (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You'd be better following the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky removal of information from Barack Obama

People are removing discussion from the talk page of Barack Obama and then deleting the edit. This is harmful to WP because we NEEED to discuss things. By removing the discussion, the end result is that things are being hidden.

The administrative action needed is to warn people not to remove comments from the discussion. (this is not a content dispute). The edit was done by BBBH who just summarized the sub-article. The sub-article mentions that Obama's first election: he got everyone disqualified so that he would run unopposed.

This is not vandalism.

There are violent supporters of Obama. We need to maintain neutrality of the article and state the facts. If we allow removal of the edit and the discussion, we have defacto censorship, not neutral writing. Midemer (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you supply diffs? Removing talk page comments can be allowed, but there needs to be good reasons.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP violations, plain and simple. The account making this report has been attempting to include BLP-violating material, and start discussions on a blatantly BLP-violating topic that has no hope of being included in the article ever. The claim that Barack Obama disqualified all his opponents in his state legislative career, as made here, is unsubstantiated gossip. There is no evidence whatsoever Obama had anything to do with his opponent's divorce records being released whatsoever. --GoodDamon 22:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Midemer needs to be given a warning about adding potentially libelous info to articles. Remind the user about the sourcing all additions to wikipedia and to assume good faith. --neon white talk 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In one edit, she even compares him to Kim Il Sung - not very neutral... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The user was also informed of the Obama article probation, and then again added back the unreferenced BLP violation. Note that this all began with their 5th edit ever made, yet they knew enough to immediately come here. ~ priyanath ^talk 23:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, this user - 15 months ago, in their last edit before today - opposed redirecting Obama to Barack Obama because "they were looking for someone else named Obama" ([64]). So their relationship with the truth is also pretty suspect. Nothing much to do here except to revert any more edits like the current ones. Black Kite 23:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always wondered why Wikipedia allowed the deletion of entries from the discussion pages. It's an opportunity for fraud and what useful function does it serve?Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree; article histories (let alone talk page histories) aren't indexed by search engines, and unless the contribution has edit summary vandalism or includes dangerous personal information (i.e., a typical oversight situation), I don't see the purpose of deleting said contributions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Direct deletion from talk pages isn't done often, but without that people could make personal attacks, leave unsourced material, or the like. This editor was replacing material that directly compared Obama to Kim Jong Il. It doesn't seem like a stretch to say that doesn't fit with WP:BLP. That's something that doesn't need to even be brought up without a reliable source, so it wouldn't be discussed on the talk page either. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Short block requested for bad behavior and POV pushing

I know that Barack Obama is a controversial article. Another editor added a sentence which was a summary of information covered in the sub-article (was about Obama getting all his opponents off the Illinois Senate ballot so he ran unopposed). I never edited the sub-article so I have no conflict of interest.

This is not about the edit content but improper behavior of GoodDamon. Good Damon needs a short block.

GoodDamon removed a legimate discussion on the talk page. This kills discussion and isn't what Wikipedia is about. This is very disruptive. A non-disruptive editor would calmly allow discussion.

This is what GoodDamon removed...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=249122163&oldid=249121591 He says he is removing vandalism, but this is clearly an excuse.

Midemer (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Midemer has reverted 3 times against consensus on Barack Obama, which is on article probation. He was notified of the article probation after his first revert. He can and should be blocked. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This appears to just be an attempt at continuation of the above thread, here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Agree with Priyanath. :Midemer has claimed consensus [65] to reinsert a very contentious sentence into a WP:BLP. His report here is a response to being reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So why hasn't he been sent on a short vacation yet? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent, ec] Per an earlier discussion which established that BLP violations would be dealt with stricter on the pages I recently unprotected, I have blocked Midemer for 24 hours for edit warring and disruption. However, I also suggest to GoodDamon not to remove talk page posts for maximum transparency. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 03:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn, he's fast. Posted an unblock request before I even got around to posting a block notice... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 03:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• note: User:GoodDamon isn't "removing" discussion. The same thing has been archived multiple times. He is simply removing repeats as the editor was persistent and fully intent to war on the article talk page. Digital^Ninja 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My full apologies. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As the election draws closer, attempts to insert material of an undue weight and unsuitable nature have reached a fever pitch. If I get a little overzealous, it's because this has been a literally exhausting experience. Single-purpose accounts, or accounts that haven't edited in ages, have been showing up on an almost hourly basis to try to add the latest campaign talking points to the article, and it gets hard not to assume they're all just meat/sockpuppets trying to turn Wikipedia into an extension of the campaign or make utterly inappropriate accusations on the talk page. So I don't see any need for you to apologize; you were reacting to perceived shortness on my part, and I really was beginning to get rather short. --GoodDamon 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I shall apologize to you whenever I want! But seriously, I think frustration is a fairly valid emotion at the point in time. Just remember, you have to get through one more day and then the pages will be protected until this is all over. Then, we can all go to sleep for about a month to make up for all the late nights. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

problem with wp is the result looks like manipulation by supporters

the editors and administers in question may not be campaign workers, let's assume they are not. however, their actions would be exactly what a campagin would do. some people removed legit discussions comments, removed the edit, and banned the user midimer. they said they would warn the person who deleted the discussion comments (not ban them) but they didn't even do this.

we must think hard before administers do things and see if what they would do would be like a campaign supporter. in wpikipedia, we must strive for the object encyclopedia, not play partisan politics. BBBH (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

conclusion: i quit, at least for the forseable future. so the disruptive users have chased soemeone away so they are left to manipulate wikipedia. administers should beware of these tactics. they work. see, they are aggressive and i leave, leaving only POV pushers and students left. goodbye. BBBH (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left some friendly advice[66] at this user's talk page explaining why his edits were reverted. He unfortunately ran into the steamroller of Wikipedia policy; a heated election article; and his strong feelings about the candidate. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why I don't edit political articles. I've too much of an opinion to approach it with any amount of dispassion, let alone the dispassion WP:NPOV requires. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you return you would do well to observe the rules about assuming good faith and to read through discussions properly. --neon white talk 16:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors have also responded to BBBH at Talk:Barack Obama with some good friendly advice. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you..." ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So we've lost someone with an agenda? Oh, boo hoo. HalfShadow 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way; our articles on Barack and McCain are still more neutral than this and that. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the very definition of a left handed compliment. :) Protonk (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're left handed, are all compliments you give also left handed? ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, but I re-read the Obama article on conservapedia. That is always good for a laff. Man...just crazy. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you need some more laughs, watch Keith Olbermann and count down the lies spread by the right-wingers during the campaign. Although if the Republicans get clobbered on Tuesday, Olbermann might become insufferable for at least a week. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bad liberal, but I liked Olbermann when he was the only one in broadcast (basically) standing up to bush et al. more then when he became a standard liberal exponent. That's not really his fault, as the democrats' star rose, he became less the lone voice of reason and more of a simply hyperbolic voice. Protonk (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of like political news done as if it were SportsCenter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One problem with politician articles is that many people have COI. If you work for IBM, some think you should not edit IBM. The same goes for politician's articles. If you feel strongly about a candidate, maybe you shouldn't edit it. That is really true if you wear a campaign button or have a yard sign. Chergles (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

user:147.52.67.230

Unfortunately another long term edit warrior IP 147.52.67.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has reverted me yet again. Since I am at my 3RR limit I could not revert but I simply modified the edit to at least conform to the actual citation. The WP:AIV and WP:3RR noticeboards cannot help as this is not a clear-cut case because it involves long term edit-warring and it is not clearly vandalism. Here are some related discussions.

• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Recent_edit_warring_and_misleading_use_of_citations
• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Third_opinion
• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Semiprotection.3F
• RFC

These IPs seem determined to game the system through coordinated long term edit warring and personal attacks. The contested edit has gone through Third opinion and is currently going through RFC. Almost everyone agrees that it cannot stand because it is trivial. I modified it to reflect the exact citation and it is completely trivial and useless IMO. I don't think it is worthy to go to mediation over this because as I explained in the talk page of the article, and other users agree with me, this is a clear case of WP:POINT, WP:UNDUE, WP:GAME etc. etc. Please assist. Dr.K. (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lil Wayne Death Hoax

Yet another death hoax, this time for Lil Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Let's go for full protection for a while, and I think it's time to hand out some of those indef blocks people agreed were necessary for participating in this crap to Jammininthestree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), EveryDayJoe45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Mikaela123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —Kww(talk) 01:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's annoying, but I don't think we need to start slapping blocks on people right off; I've warned two of them so far, and I'm still watching the page carefully. A few more eyes would be nice, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary to block any editors that participate in this kind of crap, and that was the consensus that we reached quite recently on on WP:AN.—Kww(talk) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do they know it's a hoax? I've warned two; others haven't been warned. They're referring to something that looks, to some extent, like a BBC website claiming the death. it's entirely possible they don't know they're being sucked in by someone. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they know. It's a hoax BBC report, hosted on a different website. On the hand, even if they don't know, I don't see how it matters ... excessive gullibility is as much of a problem as malice, perhaps even more. Posting something like that when there isn't a single hit on Google News or any reputable news site (or, indeed, on BBC News), is a dangerous level of irresponsibility.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Well, I disagree with immediate blocks, so I'll leave it for other admins to consider whether or not they're required in this case. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Add WaterZoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, a look at the previous contribs of EveryDayJoe45 seem to show he has done some nice work. Maybe he just got suckered into thinking this was a BBC article? People get trapped like this from phishing every day. He backed off when it was explained that it wasn't BBC, I would think the benefit of the doubt may apply. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 02:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've full protected for three days, if that'll make people happy. I don't think blocks are necessary for people with one edit or who appear to have been suckered, so I"ll leave that for others. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with the above. Blocks aren't meant to be punitive. Think of it as a form of phising; you wouldn't seriously advocate victims of phishing be further victimized, do you? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Kww seems to be forum shopping for someone to perform blocks on these users. Also, I think a dose of good faith is in order. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

After having gone through Miley Cyrus night, I came to the conclusion that very few of the people claiming that they have been deceived actually are. My good faith supply has just been exhausted with death hoaxes. I had long term editors claiming that the reason their account was being used to edit war a death hoax in was because their "roommate stole their password". I'm surprised that after having gained consensus on WP:AN that immediate blocks were appropriate for cases like this (an not just from hot-head editors like me, I'm talking long-term, highly respected admins like Newyorkbrad), no one seems to maintain that view when the event actually comes to pass again.

As for forum-shopping, I contacted the admins that had previously come to agreement as to what to do in events like this and pointed them at this thread. Talke a look at the discussion at WP:AN and compare it to the editors I contacted.—Kww(talk) 02:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Had I followed that discussion, I'd have opposed the concept of blocking without a warning. It now appears that two of the editors were suckered in; as far as I know, our blocking policy doesn't have a provision for blocking people for being suckered. We really do need to assume good faith and at least drop one warning, unless it's quite obvious that it's a blatantly organized hoax campaign. This looks like people finding that link someplace and going "ZOMG MUST UPDATE WIKI" with little investigation because it looks like a BBC piece. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Had I been around for the previous incidents, I would have expressed the same concerns that I've had here. There's nothing to suggest that these users didn't hear about the site from word-of-mouth and made their edits accordingly, assuming that the site in question was either RS or the BBC itself. It has been corrected, the editors in question have realized their mistakes, and a note has been left on the talk page. What kind of benefit do you think blocking them would bring, except increased frustration from everyone? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding news of someone's death is about as serious as a BLP violation can get. We are under frequent attack by people that either add these things directly or trick credulous friends into adding it for them. 3 days of full protection for the page will help a lot, but my bet is that the talk page will get hit a pile more times.

From looking over the past hoaxes, I've come to the conclusion that most of them are from editors that appear to be sleepers: old accounts that only edit rarely. In several cases, they were old accounts that only edited user-space simply in order to become auto-confirmed so that they could get past semi-protection.

An indefinite block sends a pretty clear message: if you want to insert something that major, do the bare minimum of responsible research first. Hopefully, it would hammer that message home pretty hard. The unblock cycle is a reasonable place to sort the gullible from the wicked. Net result is that we would have blocked a number of sleepers, and gullible editors would have learned a valuable lesson, hopefully preventing them from repeating such actions in the future. It skates pretty damn close to punishment, to be sure, but I think it prevents future damage as well.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. While I hesitate to speak in absolutes, a single good-faith edit should never result in a block, and certainly not an indef block. The first thing that should have been done here is a hidden comment on the top of the page that the death was a hoax. If that failed, protection is the answer. Blocks are a totally wrong reaction IMO. oren0 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't bite people like this for edits like this that are likely in good faith if a bit misguided. oren0 (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How is adding a death notice immediately under the warning that the death rumor is a hoax likely to be a good faith edit?—Kww(talk) 03:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider the following alternatives: 1. He didn't read anything on the talk page and just put that there because he couldn't edit the article and believed the hoax. 2. A user with no history of vandalism decided to vandalize a talk page by placing notice of someone's death at the bottom. To me, option one is MUCH more likely, and the behavior isn't close to deserving a threat of a block. oren0 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't anymore. I just posted a note pointing out that the actual BBC's website has a different suffix and URL than the hoaxsite. I would think that anyone trying to add the site on the talk page now realizes they fell for it hook, line, sinker, and first guide ring or realize that they've just earned themselves a BLP block. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP. A lot of vandalism comes from dynamic IPs with only one or two edits. You didn't mention the most likely scenario that explains why in the last 4 hours we've suddenly seen a number of editors adding death information for Lil Wayne: somewhere, off-Wiki, a group similar to the group that coordinated the Miley Cyrus death hoax and the Oprah death hoax are attempting to coordinate a Lil Wayne death hoax, and edits that reference it are as likely to be from intentional vandals as from innocent dupes.—Kww(talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of evidence at all to back up that claim? That "there's an international vandal army coordinating edits to discredit some random rapper!" comment is probably the most bad-faith thing I've ever heard in my life, which is saying quite a bit. There are also lots of good driveby edits that come from dynamic IPs with only one or two edits. As for the most likely scenario regarding it's cause, I'm not going to make any naive assumptions about the ignorance of the editors with regards to the source. Instead, I'm going to do what we're supposed to do here and assume good faith and assume they probably didn't realize it was a hoax and heard about it from a friend or a friend of a friend.

We are, after all, talking about a rapper; this isn't exactly the kind of subject known for having a technical following. If this was, say, Cory Doctorow, I might be a bit more disillusioned with the innocent users idea, but that's a different case. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that the consensus reached on WP:AN was some kind of fluke, so I'm not going to press that point. I am curious as to why you think a hoax about Lil Wayne is somehow fundamentally different than a hoax about Miley Cyrus or Oprah Winfrey. Death hoaxes are death hoaxes, whether they are perpetrated against talk-show hosts, Disney stars, or rappers. Somebody starts them and does it intentionally. I agree that many of the perpetrators on Wikipedia are simply gullible, but it's a pretty high probability that some of them are malicious. Why did all these people hear about it from a friend between 00:35 UTC and 02:40 UTC on November 3, 2008? That's not randomly wandering across some hoax website, that's coordinated. It may have been a coordinated mailing in the hopes of triggering innocents to update Wikipedia, or it may have involved the people involved in starting the deception directly editing. There's no way to tell that, but denying that there's a group of people somewhere that started this is simply denial. 4chan and Something Awful are the usual culprits, but there are other message boards where people get their kicks doing things like this.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no fundamental difference. My point was that the people who know who Cory Doctorow is and who would follow the events in his life are generally people well versed in CS and wouldn't be fooled by someone downloading the HTML source and images from the BBC news pages and putting it up on another host. Fundamentally, there's no difference. But, still, we have no way of determining who started it, and whether those same people are the same people who made those edits. Even if they did, though, it's a moot point; solutions other than blocking were used, and they worked, making it entirely unnecessary. I don't know if you're trying to "strike back" or something, but circumstances seem to point to people being told about it, posting it, being told it was a hoax, and stopping. Whether they're an innocent contributor or a vandal is irrelevant; the problem was solved.

Presumably, the particular page was made live at some between between 00:35 and 02:40. Even if it was started by someone intentionally, presumably said someone IM'd his friends and told them about it without telling them it was a hoax, who IM'd their friends; it doesn't follow that everyone who was informed about it had the knowledge that it was a hoax. Regardless of how it happened, there's no evidence of malicious intent, so we can't simply block people for what was possibly a very innocent (albiet admittedly stupid and preventable) mistake. Blocks aren't meant to be punitive; they're meant to prevent further damage. Since there were other ways to prevent the damage in the case of innocent contributors (i.e, "This was a hoax, please stop posting it"), blocking doesn't do anything other than make a bunch of people angry. Now, if someone had continued to add the material, that may warrant a block, since they a) don't get that it isn't a hoax, or b) are malicious. In that case, there's no other solution than to block them, which is the only times blocks should ever be used.

The point is, even if there is some evil, malicious intarweb army out to ruin Wikipedia articles, the problem has been solved by telling them it was a hoax. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the problem seems to have been solved at this point. I was simply taken aback by the resistance. I had worked on an open bulletin board with other editors and admins to derive a solution to problems like these, and, the moment I proposed using the solution that had been agreed upon, I was treated like some kind of idiot hothead that was ignorant of basic policies like WP:AGF. I'm not. I came to ANI with the solution agreed to on AN, which strikes me as being a very reasonable thing for me to have done.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope the bit about "treated like some kind of idiot hothead" wasn't referring to me, because I certainly wasn't treating you like anything of the sort. My view is that warnings should be issued before blocking in a case where it's not blatantly obvious that the person involved is specifically vandalizing, and that was what I was trying to point out here, not that you were being trigger-happy. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It continues on the talk page with 69.248.253.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—Kww(talk) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to Trout the User

Kww, I would kindly ask that you not canvass other users, especially other users who either are assuming good faith or whom are unfamiliar with the scenario. It never works. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ctjf83

Resolved

 – Blocked 12 hours Scarian

Can somebody close this report, as it's been filed solely to be disruptive because the editor was himself accused of sockpuppetry (though with evidence). Grsz^{11 →Review!} 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Scarian has closed the report, and blocked the abuser for 12 hours. CTJF83Talk 16:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator tools

Administrator Mikkalai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, over the span of numerous years, been deleting articles about various specific phobia without a deletion summary and without any accordance to the policy. He believes that these articles are garbage and that he is free to delete them as long as restores them if there are objections. Mikkalai came to my attention after I created the article Phasmophobia to feature in DYK over Halloween only to find that Mikkalai had deleted the article three times; once in 2006, once in April 2008 and October 2008 (about 12 hours before I recreated it). Other articles he has deleted include; Apotemnophobia, Siderodromophobia, Pithikosophobia, Papaphobia, Oneirophobia, Nosocomephobia, Nomatophobia, Cymophobia, Climacophobia, Aulophobia, Amaxophobia, Podophobia and they are only the first few in his deletion log that lack deletion summaries and do not pass CSD. I tried to discuss this with Mikkalai, his answer was that he will restore them if asked and if no one objections to the deletions then he was right in deleting them. He then claimed that there is nothing wrong with him abusing his administrator tools to push his point of view and then blanked his talkpage before I had a chance to respond. I'm not quite sure how to proceed with an administrator who refuses to discuss their out-of-line deletions and is self-admittedly pushing their POV by using the delete button. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 02:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong here, other than a bunch of slanted personal attacks being made against Mikkalai. JBsupreme (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not be so quick to judge either of the two, JBsupreme. bibliomaniac15 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Biblio, this bears looking into. If summary deletion of articles has been going on, ie, no talk, no afd, no speedy tags, etc, this is of concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note on Mikkalai's talk page alerting him of this discussion, Metros (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If user:Ameliorate! thinks I am refusing to dscuss with him, this is their problem, not mine. Nowhere I told them to "step off". On the contrary, they are free to continue recreating stupid but harmless pseudo-"phobia" articles, which I restored after objections and even not going to nominate or tag them for deletion. I don't think I want to have any discussion with a person who does not want to learn from what is said in -phobia#Phobia lists and who has buddies who posted an article on DYK while it was under AfD. And unlike Ameliorate, I am not going to make fuss about the double violation of the admin who closed AfD against the rule only to promote a fake phobia aricle in DYK, again against the rule: DYK cannot post contested articles. I have no idea what was the problem of the creators of the listed "phobia" articles, such as Papaphobia (which is a persistent fear of Pope): whether it is immaturity, weird sense of humor, or disruption of wikipedia. Yes, for four years now I am deleting articles such as fear of belly buttons (exercise: guess what was the article name), and until now they died without fuss. Now I see I stumbled across a strong-willed phobiaphiles User:Arbitrarily0 and User:Ameliorate!), and I am stepping off. Have fun dealing with Prostitute Phobia yourselves. `'Míkka>t 03:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• none of this answers the core question: Why were you deleting pages outside the criteria for speedy deletion unilaterally? That you were willing to restore them upon request is unimportant. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  WP:IAR. I was saving large amounts of time of other wikipedians. Yes, willingless to restore is important. `'Míkka>t 04:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Your deletion rationale is IAR? That it improves wikipedia for you to ignore the rules about unilateral deletion of material? No. That's the wrong answer. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  As an aside, that is the sort of response that caused this. Tan | 39 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  I'm brusque. Can't help it. I also can't help it that there is a right and wrong answer to this question here. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  I see. Can't help but disagree, but at least now I see the point you made in Protonk's RfA. If only you had included a diff to anything of the sort in your RfA comment, Tan. Everyme 12:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Yes it improves wikipedia as long as it does not create conflicts of opinions. Willingless to restore is an important part in it. I don't see fundamenal difference between deletion of an unreferenced section in an article or the whole blurb. Once again, you are feel to disagree with my opinion, and it will not lead to disruption of wikipedia form my side, the latter being an important caveat in WP:IAR. `'Míkka>t 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. While I am at this, may I recommend you in the future to write "IMO that's the wrong answer", rather than "That's the wrong answer": you will look less authoritarian. `'Míkka>t 04:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Noted. The issue isn't how I look in this conversation with you. The issue is that the admin bit isn't a right to delete things at will. The deletion policy is written to protect article contributors from admins deleting material out of process. IAR would be an exception to that like "This isn't quite a G10, but I'll delete it as defamatory anyway" (not that I would agree with that). IAR isn't an operating rule for you to delete a class of material because you feel like it. You can feel free to cast this as some difference of opinion between the two of us, but it isn't one. There are expectations for how you delete material and you aren't following them. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai, the impression I get is that you think these phobia articles are spam. Is that a speedy deletion criteria? (Looks like G11 might apply.) If so, or even if not so, why not apologise for not stating your deletion reason in the deletion log summaries, and say that in future you will state your reasons in the deletion log summaries? (Preferably by using an explicit speedy deletion criterion). That would, as far as I can see, resolve this entire matter. Carcharoth (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

G11 applies to advertising. The articles are not advertising a company or product, G11 most certainly does not apply. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I have created one article on the subject matter for a specific event (it stood out to me as a redlink on Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2008) so while your offer of giving me permission to continue creating articles is appreciated, Mikkalai, I will have to decline the invitation. I fail to see how you claim that it is my problem that you blanked your talkpage, removing discussion related to the matter; that is refusal to discuss it. The information on -phobia#Phobia lists is supported by one source, everything else there is a primary source, while content spamming may be a problem it has not effected books that were written before the internet (as we know it) existed and it not an acceptable reason to delete articles outside of policy and process. I fail to see what the article being added to DYK has to do with this, it was added by a completely uninvolved party and the AFD was closed by an uninvolved party. What you appear to be missing is that this is not about one specific article, this is about a number of articles that you have been deleting outside of policy for over 2 years. I don't necessarily WP:CARE about phobia-related articles, I care about the damage that can/is being done to the project by spontaneous deletions. What would happen to the project if every administrator was given the ability to delete any article because they WP:DONTLIKEIT? Deleting an article is entirely different from editing portions out; only admins can see deleted content, edits can be reverted by anyone, undeletion can only be performed by admins. What I wanted was an assurance that you would not continue to delete to articles in this fashion, what I got was that you will undelete them when asked and that you are free to delete articles that conflict with your WP:POV and then had the discussion closed, which, frankly, is not good enough. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if all of these are real phobias or not, but I do know that Phasmophobia is legit phobia and should not have been deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research in -phobia

Er, I just read -phobia#Phobia lists, and while it may be true, it is currently presented as original research. What is needed there is a source that confirms the assertion "A large number of-phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name." - at the moment, the sources cited are only claimed examples of this. We need a reliable source (not a Wikipedia editor) that confirms that this spamming practice exists. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Strike that. I see one of the sources is about the phenomenon. Not a great source, but still the sort of thing I was asking for. Should have looked more closely. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While the source is reliable for content about websites, I think the section on phobia spamming is a violation of WP:UNDUE in that article. It contains a bit of clever spamming too, the name and phone number of the spammer/scammer. Strongly suggest removing that content as it appears to be commercial spam.

As for mass deletions, I think it would be best to assemble a list of any unreference-able phobia stubs and AfD them all at once. Anyone may request sanctions against those who are apparently adding useless cruft to the enclyclopedia in persistent violation of our content policies. I have not looked at these stubs yet and am not saying that is or is not what's happening here. I am suggesting a process for dealing with alleged problems. Jehochman ^Talk 08:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The "clever spamming" you reference was added by Mikkalai. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 09:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the person who originated the spam was clever, because their spam meme spread to WebProNews and then to Wikipedia. We should not be publicizing the name of the company and their telephone number in our articles, even as an example. Jehochman ^Talk 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, papaphobia mentioned above: it has 3 sources, 2 of them are VERY trivial entries in dictionaries, which shouldn't really be used because they are tertiary sources, and the remaining one is to a commercial site that fails WP:RS, IMHO. Now, how Wikipedia readers are supposed to verify its truthfullness? In its present state this article looks like a 100% for PROD, at least I would have deleted it, had I stumbled upon it while clearing prod backlogs. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Perhaps one should be opened concerning the use of tools here? One's POV is hardly reason for mass-deleting articles with no recorded explanation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree; that's grossly inappropriate, and should be dealt with as quickly as possible. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While Mikkalai has acknowledged what he is doing is not within the "Rules", he has claimed IAR, which in this case, is inappropriate. IAR does not mean "I can do what I like". Rules should be ignored only for a very good reason. Deleting stuff being "I don't like it" is not a very good reason. To be fair, he did restore the articles without a fuss, but I'm unconvinced he's going to stop doing this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't particularly care even if I was convinced he was going to stop doing it. "Oh, okay, I won't do it again" is not the correct answer to this problem. Abuse of administrator tools is abuse of administrator tools. This represents a clear misunderstanding of both IAR and deletion policy, and I'm very uncomfortable with having someone like that in possession of the mop. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you start an RFC, where I will probably weigh in. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading the arguments presented here and in the section below, #DYK hoax article?, I admit that my course of actions was wrong. I still insist that an occasional deletion of a silly article created by and anon is well within WP:IAR. However since the creation of fake phobia articles is a rather persistent and ongoing problem, I should have invited other wikipedians to a discussion how to deal with this problem in a systematic and consensus way. The presence of phobia-peddling websites makes it easy to create fairly convincing "podophobia" articles, and unfortunately occasional AfD voters are easily fooled when not bothered to look into the essence. `'Míkka>t 18:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are so many things in that statement that deeply unsettle me. First, IP editors had the ability to create pages taken away a long time ago. Second, even if they hadn't, the fact that an article was created by someone without an account is no reason at all to delete it; such things are decided on the merits of the subject and the article itself. Third, we (the community) can't undo your deletions. You should think very carefully when you delete something, and be absolutely sure that what you're doing falls into the CSD criteria. If not, then either leave it alone or take it to AfD. If you have a problem with them, you should try to amend the CSD, not do whatever you feel like. Fourth, AfD is consensus. You're here to enforce that. If you disagree with it, fine, chime into the discussion. Point out what you think is wrong with a source, but certainly do not just disregard everything that's said, make your own decisions and apply your own standards.

You have the tools so you can enforce the will of the consensus, not so you can apply whatever arbitrary personal standards you like to the project. If there was an established (read: binding, not RFC, with any chance of success) way to de-admin you, trust me, I'd go start it right now; but that doesn't exist yet, so the damage to the mop pool can't easily be undone. Thankfully, you do seem to realize what you did wrong and that you'll seek consensus in the future. I do hope that you take away the above points from this and realize that IAR is not an "I WIN" button you can use to do whatever you want. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The reverse: undiscussed un-deletions

Are admins supposed to restore pages without a DRV? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It was an expired prod that was deleted. Anyone can contest a proposed deletion at anytime, even after deletion. It's standard practice that any admin can overturn a deletion if it was deleted because it was a prod. Nothing to worry about with that one. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't touch this article again

Re:[67]. Could somebody look at this article? I've reviewed the talk and concluded that it's not a copyvio, but Jayjg reverted me with the rather strong comment "Don't touch this article again"... I don't want to edit war with another admin on copyvio issues, but I detected strong IDONTLIKE feelings on talk. Comments by neutral reviewers appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think you both need to step back for a while. Jayjg doesn't accept your good faith assertion that the article isn't a copyvio and you aren't waiting for some neutral assessment that it isn't one before changing it. If he replaces the article with the COPYVIO template in good faith, then don't edit it superficially and remove the template. It's that simple. However, he seems to have escalated the talk page discussion pretty quickly. My guess is that the article isn't a copyvio but that it is plagiarized somewhat from that pdf. I am not going to read the whole 273 pages of it, nor am I going to search every 7 word string of text to find unquoted liftings, but enough has been lifted (including the sources) so as to raise concern. I'd wait until some thrid party steps in and either deletes the article or removes the template. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Protonk's suggestions here. I've also commented at the talk page. Incidentally, are copyvio discussions raised at Wikipedia:Copyright problems designed to be conducted on talk pages of the articles in question and then be deleted along with the article if it is determined to be a copyvio (or borderline enough to be a concern - obvious cases should go speedily)? Or should such discussions be preserved much as deletion discussions at AfD are preserved? Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • There's hardly ever actual discussions of copyvios. If the article is deleted, we could make the talk discussion a subpage of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 2. (I've left talk pages that seemed useful to me after deleting copyvio articles only to see them G8ed by other admins.) I suspect given the nature of the conversation, though, that if the article is deleted a new version will be placed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think using phrasing like "Don't touch this article again" is not at all a good approach. Certainly not one that we would expect someone of Jayjg's long experience here to use in good faith. So I'm disappointed in that choice. Somewhat milder and less confrontational phrasing probably would have been a better choice. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

as a incidental point, it was my understanding that talk pages that contain information that would be of value in the further development of the encylclopedia are not supposed to be deleted at all. A more organized way of handling some of them would of course help-. DGG (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked without notice or comment?

Hi,

I just got back from the weekend to see that 3 hours after my last edits last Friday, I was blocked for 31 hours by User:Nishkid64 for edit-warring on Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and Reactions to the September 11 attacks.

In the former I agree, there was an editing dispute with User:NoCal100. In the later I had made only two edits in the past week, both about 7 hours apart -- hardly edit-warring. The later article as, as I have seen, been locked due to edit-warring, but NoCal100 and I seem to be the only ones who got blocked...

Now, while the reasons for blocking are debatable, the form is not. While I am aware of the special sanctions regime regarding the Israeli-Palestinian articles, I was neither informed of the block, nor of its reasons. I even went and reverted an IP on the first article this morning before even seeing that I had been blocked, which could now possibly be interpreted as me diving back into an edit dispute, perhaps warranting further blocks.

Is this the way blocks should work? I think not, and would like this taken off my log. Any thoughts from other admins here?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 07:48

I agree it's poor form not to notify you of the block on your talk page, but that doesn't make the block void. He could have simply forgot, it happens. The block can't be removed from the log anyway, save by a dev.--Atlan (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You should allow Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) time to explain his behavior before coming here, as Atlan says, there might be a good reason for it. And as Atlan says, it cannot be removed, although an admin who made a mistake in such a case may do a 1-second-block to add to the block log that he made a mistake. But as I said, let's wait what Nishkid has to say about it before discussing this further. Regards SoWhy 12:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it frustrating for this admin not to let the user know about the block it's also against ArbCom rulings for the admin not to promptly explain his/her actions. Bstone (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid64 left a perfectly clear entry in the block log explaining why he placed the block: "Edit warring: Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and Reactions to the September 11 attacks."[68]. Had Pedrito attempted to edit while blocked, he would have seen the explanatory entry. Yes, Nishkid64 forgot to post a notice to Pedrito's talk page, so we give him a wrist slap for that. What additional explanation is required? It is readily apparent from the article histories that Pedrito and NoCal100 (whom Nishkid64 also blocked) were repeatedly reverting each other on the two named articles — clear edit warring, whether or not the 'electric fence' of 3RR was reached.

Now, after the fact, some editors want to discuss the matter further. That's fine. As far as I can tell, the first query to Nishkid64 about this block was left on his talk page ([69]) about four hours after Nishkid's last edit. The block in question has long since expired, so there's no urgency. There's nothing for Nishkid to undo, and there's no violation of the ArbCom ruling here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The RFAR Bstone cites requires admins to be communicative when questioned about actions. In the block policy; Wikipedia:BLOCK#Implementing_blocks, I don't see any rule requiring notifcation. Nish's block log entry was clear enough for any reviewing administrator to figure out what was going on. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I still have some issues, though. There was no edit-warring going on when I was blocked and claiming I was warring on Reactions to the September 11 attacks is a really, really far stretch. So was this block punitive? And if so, what for?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 16:00

It looks to me – as someone who has never seen you, NoCal100, or either article before – like you acknowledged you were involved in an edit war (*ahem*, an 'editing dispute') with NoCal100 at Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just a few comments up in this very thread. I count at least five reverts of NoCal100 in two or three days, including at least one where you abused popups to do it: [70]. You also appear to have reverted twice in the same day at Reactions to the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one of those reverts undoing NoCal100's edits).

I see an ongoing pattern of combative editing (especially with regard to NoCal100), and Nishkid64 was acting well within his discretion to issue blocks to both of you. Why are you pursuing this further? You were engaged in disruptive editing, you got called on it, and – as it turns out – the block didn't actually even hinder your editing. Go forth and sin no more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, mBisanz, I find it interesting that despite that ArbCom ruling the blocking admin still has not yet responded to why he did not notify the blocked editor on his/her talk page, as is extremely common practice. Bstone (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no active block to undo, so there's no rush. Nishkid64 hadn't edited for several hours prior to the requests on his talk page. Presumably he has a real life outside of Wikipedia and he hasn't picked up his messages. Call me crazy, but I imagine that the reason he didn't leave a message on the blockee's talk page is that he forgot. Perhaps the baby was crying. What's the hurry now? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling says admins must explain their actions when questioned, promptly. An active block or not, admins are responsible for explaining their actions withing a reasonable period of time. This admin seems to have done everything possible to avoid explanation and has in essence committed a "block and run". Active block or not, the ArbCom ruling is extremely clear- admins must explain their actions- promptly. Bstone (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, I was under the (perhaps) mistaken impression that admins were allowed to log out occasionally and have, you know, a life. I have even (gasp) had a day or two where I didn't log on at all. Can we wait a little while longer before we get all offended that Nishkid64 is "ignoring" this, until he actually logs in again? Especially since this isn't time-sensitive, and since it certainly doesn't appear to be zOMG admin abuse? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. --barneca (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed admins are allowed to log out and have a life. Who would be so silly to ever suggest otherwise? Certainly and absolutely not me. However if an admin makes an explained block without any notification then they have a duty to promptly explain the purpose of that action. Promptly. Anything else would be a violation of the crystal-clear and utterly unambiguous ArbCom ruling. Bstone (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to read an ArbCom case that's on point and worth reading, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In the midst of simultaneously running a number of CUs and reviewing the page history of the articles in question, I forgot to leave a notice on the Pedrito and NoCal100's user talk pages about their blocks. I evaluated the recent history Reactions to the September 11 attacks and Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and found Pedrito and NoCal100's editing to be in violation of WP:EDITWAR. Both editors are experienced enough to understand our policy on edit warring, and their behavior on those two articles was, in my opinion, a gross violation of said policy. If you check my record, you will see that this is probably the first time I forgot to leave a block notice on a user talk page. Just to note, my laptop is broken (I speculate it's a graphics card problem), so I have limited Internet access for the next few weeks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

IP-hopping user edit warring and adding unsourced, biased content

Unregistered user, hopping 86.158.236.85 and 86.158.237.227 is edit warring [71] [72] to add an unsourced and biased statement. Initial report was made by a new user here: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Assistance_Please:. Further proof that the IP user is one and the same user: I've left a note to 86.158.237.227 and got a reply from 86.158.236.85. The IP user is edit warring with a new registered user Rcacitizen, and will likely bait him into breaking 3RR, while avoid this himself by IP hopping. The IP user has serious WP:OWN problems ironically calling Rcacitizen "a new random editor", which makes me suspect that IP's are socks used for edit warring. A range block or semi-protection seems the only option here. Disclaimer: this might be just another Indo-Pakistani proxy war, but I have no reason not to WP:AGF on behalf of User_talk:Rcacitizen. VG ☎ 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Am watching the page concerned. There is no need to block at the moment, I see only two reverts. If they continue, then steps will be taken to prevent any edit warring. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ebeing

Resolved. Blocked for 48 hours by Jayron32. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ebeing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been spamming and vandalising pages including Solar hot water, Steam shower and Construction with links that violate WP:COI. Ebeing was given a 24 hour ban for spamming, but then started vandalising pages by blanking external links [[73]] and inserting spam links [[74]], [[75]]. Also blanked entire reference section of Solar hot water claiming it was a link farm [[76]].

Ebeing has continued to remove all links from external links sections seemingly regardless of whether they violate Wikipedia policy or not. [[77]], [[78]]

User was given warnings about this [[79]], [[80]]

Now Ebeing has created a page (which was speedily deleted) for one of the companies that he/she was spamming, Grus Construction. [[81]]

I was advised by administrator User:Jayron32 on the Editor Assistance page to file a report here at WP:ANI if Ebeing continued the behaviour, and I have done so as the spam article was created since then. Charlie Tango (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I blocked User:Ebeing for 48 hours for continuing to advertise despite prior warnings not to, and despite prior blocks for attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise. As always, I invite other administrators to review my actions here. If anyone feels that this block is out of order, or too long, please feel free to correct me... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

History restore request

The Boston Tea Party (political party) article has been deleted several times but has just survived a DRV. Could an admin restore all the policy compliant (i.e. non-copyvio, BLP-friendly) deleted edits so non-admins can dig in the history for useful content? Thanks, inb4wrongforum, the skomorokh 21:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: a restore may also been a GFDL requirement. the skomorokh 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• For the lazy, can you link the Afd/DRV's and let us know why a GFDL debt exists? I'm happy to restore it but curious as to the particulars. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruption by WorkerBee74

Resolved

 – Blocked for 21 days.

Despite an earlier request, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks diff and edit disruptively at Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It would seem from an extensive block log that this editor is incapable of remaining civil. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly disruptive editing; a problem editor. Who's ready to use their tools? 1 week blocks have been tried twice now; I think a longer break is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Dealing with this disruptive, single-purpose account and probable socks has been prompting me to prepare my own incident report, and I see Scjessey has beaten me to it. This user has exhausted all remaining dregs of good faith. I no longer even trust it to accurately report the contents of a citation. --GoodDamon 02:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked WorkerBee74 for 21 days for the disruptions and incivility. Because of the ineffectiveness of past blocks, I believe that this is an appropriate length. Perhaps some can establish some sort of civility parole for him upon his return? Metros (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if he will return, since the presidential election will be over by then. Political passions should have cooled significantly at that point. If he does come back, though, very little tolerance should be shown for any misbehavior. We don't need to institute a formal "civility parole" for that. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a civility parole will be worthwhile here; if he can't stop being disruptive, or is incapable of being civil after 21 days off Wikipedia, probably better to let the blocks duration escalate - he'd certainly be heading towards a full site ban if his conduct does not improve. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a single-purpose user, and his "purpose" will expire on November 5th, so don't hold your breath waiting for him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

...until 2012; 2010 if that year's Congress elections turn out to be as hotly contested as 2006's were. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By then he'll have his own show on Fox News. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fox Noise doesn't give random people off the street a job. They give faithful goppies off the street jobs. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fox Noise". I like that. It's more clever than Olbermann's "Fixed News". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann's used "Fox Noise" as well. Also "Fixed Noise". -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this section to the bottom of the page, and removing the "Resolved" template, because there are a couple of editors who deserve blocks for their conduct on that page. I'll collect diffs and be right back. Marx0728 (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please spare the Wikidrama. You will likely find little support here for disruptive editors edit warring on election-related topics, or for the theory that they were only disruptive because other editors provoked them - long one of Workerbee74's favorite arguments in defending his own and other disruptive accounts' incivilities and edit warring. The chance of any administrative action from that would be close to zero. The chance of incivility, recriminations, and long pointless talk would be close to 100%.Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Marx, if you think an ANI report is warranted, open a new section. Anything you bring up is irrelevant here. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New "relevant" accusations

This is directly relevant, and part of the same discussion. This is about User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, who has been repeatedly blocked for misconduct, and User:Bali ultimate. Both of these editors had been attacking Workerbee on the article Talk page, in clear violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV. [82][83]

It's also about User:Scjessey, who has been repeatedly blocked for misconduct, and User:GoodDamon.

I left warnings on the User Talk of the first two editors. [84] [85] And Workerbee apologized to Bali ultimate for his outburst. [86] Despite these warnings, their badgering and baiting of Workerbee continued. [87] (Bali ultimate accusing Workerbee of being deliberately misleading) [88] (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, saying that not only is Workerbee misleading, but that it's expected) [89] (Scjessey accusing Workerbee of being disruptive, despite no signs of being disruptive) [90] (GoodDamon, launching a rant against Workerbee). It's no wonder Workerbee reacts the way he does, when surrounded by four people like these. Please review their conduct and determine whether blocks and/or topic bans are appropiate. Marx0728 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is laughable, and needs dismissed immediately. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: WorkerBee74 is the archetypal single-issue tendentious partisan agenda account, and has been from day 1. He's accumulated a remarkable record of blocks for disruption, edit-warring, gaming the system, and abusing Wikipedia in general. Instead of indefinitely blocking this account back in July, when he'd racked up 4 disruption blocks in as many weeks, he was allowed sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth chances. Now, after 4 straight months of unrelenting tendentiousness, attempts to game the system, and likely abusive sockpuppetry, a couple of users have lost patience with him.

We as administrators (I include myself in this criticism) should do a better job protecting Wikipedia from editors like WorkerBee74. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect the other editors to put up with this sort of sustained abuse of the project without ever looking at him crosswise or voicing occasional frustration. The diffs you've listed betray such frustration, but I fail to see anything actionable in them. MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing here to act upon as an administrator. Most of these comments are simply reactions to actions that Workerbee brought upon his/herself. In no way do I see anything that baited Workerbee into disruptive editing. Additionally, this is a consistent pattern of behavior with Workerbee, so it is highly unlikely that baiting was needed. Either way (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell and Either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to draw administrator attention to a few things concerning the account that attempted to reopen this incident report and turn it into an attack on the exasperated editors who have had to put up with WorkerBee74. Marx0728's first edit on the ACORN article appeared right after one of WorkerBee74's previous blocks, and in it he urged the editors who have put up with WorkerBee74 to "Make a few other concessions to the SPAs, reach a compromise, and stop acting like this is the Alamo." So from the very beginning, Marx0728 was urging editors to put up with the disruptions of an abusive account and attempt to placate him, even while admitting that we had perfectly good reason to take umbrage with the abuse we'd had to put up with. Shortly thereafter, he again suggested making concessions to SPAs, and made one of the changes WorkerBee74 had been pushing for himself. And immediately after, another admonishment to give them "an inch" so they look bad when demanding more. Finally, as suspicions that Marx0728 is in fact just another sock of WorkerBee74 began to sink in, I said this: "If marx is the POV warrior, we'll find out very, very shortly, because he will side with 300wackerdrive and WorkerBee74 on almost everything, while arguing that he's merely being 'reasonable.'" And this is exactly what happened. Marx0728 has been absolutely insistent that WorkerBee74's edits be allowed to stand, while ostensibly siding with "us." As in "we" have to make concessions to SPAs or oh no, they'll be angry. So. It's likely that each account, like WorkerBee74's other likely socks, strictly uses separate IP addresses, making proving sockpuppetry damn near impossible. But it's very likely, and they should probably be treated as, at the very least, meatpuppets. --GoodDamon 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

JRG removing comments, deletion tag, deletion nominations

JRG (talk · contribs) has just removed more than 20 image deletion discussions from the ifd page[91].

When he once removed an ifd tag from an image[92], I gently tried to explain him why this was wrong and what was the correct thing to do[93].

He dismissed my message[94], and instead preferred to go removing my comments on the ifd discussion[95].

Again, I tried to gently explain him that this was wrong[96]. He again dismissed my message[97], did the 20+ discussion removal mentioned above, and left a block threatening message on my talk page[98].

I don't think I can deal with that myself. --Damiens.rf 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins might like to review the history of the user before they see Damiens.rf as the poor victim of my reversion (note I have only reverted two things). Moroever I object to being reported for merely protecting what should be the norm on Wikipedia - where editors don't get nasty comments levelled at them in IfDs for opposing an Ifd and where nominations are put for proper reasons like violation of NFCC, rather than spurious mass nominations for grounds like "eye candy" - or simply deleting an image which has been uploaded for non-use. Damiens.rf has been recently blocked for edit warring with User:Rebecca (see his talk page for more information). I removed the comments from the deletion discussion because they were abusive towards Rebecca, which Damiens.rf has already been warned to stay away from and with whom he persisted in edit-warring AFTER being blocked. He has also been warned about incivility and disruptive IFD nominations and I only reverted them because they are not done for sufficient reasons ("eye candy" is NOT a reason for deletion).

I have complained about him before and no one has done a thing about it - no one seems to want to help and thinks it sufficient to let disruptive idiots like the user above run wild. I haven't been able to do any constructive editing for months because I am always cleaning up his edits. I am seriously considering retiring from Wikipedia because I am so sick of nothing being done about disruptive edits. This user has had a LOT of valid images deleted from Wikipedia in a disruptive way and is able to abuse other users without even an ounce of scrutiny put into his editing (at least until recently). I have had enough. JRG (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've put the IfDs back. Whatever the merits of the nominations, you can't simply remove them from the list. I've had a quick look, they range from clearly deletable (fair use image of a living person) to relevant to the article. These should run to their end, and a debate about the user's mass nominations needs to take place via dispute resolution; here is probably not the place. Black Kite 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Black Kite. This one is a clear violation of the NFCC policy, but it seems like users are teaming up here. Either way (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That has been tried, and it always has the same outcome. The disruptive users are never dealt with. JRG (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, rather than JRG, is the disruptive user and deserves to be permanently banned, for the good of the community as well as the encyclopedia. Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Damiens has been blocked twice in the past three weeks -- he got a 1 week block on Oct 26. As his talk page shows, in the short time since coming off it, he has edit warred, stalked Rebecca again, and started the current fracas. Looie496 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Rebecca as edit warred, and was blocked for that. --Damiens.rf 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that she edit warred with other users doesn't mean that you have shown an ability to cooperate with anyone on the project. --Smashville^talk 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't get your point here. Yes, her edit-warring and my perceived ability to cooperate with anyone on the project are completely unrelated concepts. What suggests otherwise? --Damiens.rf 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention his abuse, although falling short of a personal attack at Rebecca at various IFD pages. It seems that after coming off his block, he was borderline on stalking Rebecca's edits again. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

JRG (talk · contribs) has removed more of my comments[99], and I'll have to put them back manually, since the "undo" feature is not accepting undoing that edit :( --Damiens.rf 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, Jordan 1972 did that for me[100]! Thanks a lot! --Damiens.rf 02:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole situation is a mess...Damiens has been edit warring and following Rebecca's edits...Rebecca has been edit warring and following Damiens' edits. Other people keep getting pulled in by circumstance, which looks like what happened here. --Smashville^talk 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:216.220.16.170

Not sure if this belongs here, but the ip has made a threat about knowing where someone lives and threatening to "kick his butt" to keep him from editing an article. [101] [102] Seems to have a lot of vandalism history (see Special:Contributions/216.220.16.170). Again, not sure what to do. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take this as a serious threat of violence. There's nothing specific to go on, and it looks QUITE like this is some kids screwing around on the computers at school. Based on the timing and patterns of edits on the IP, I would say this is not a single user IP, its likely a school based IP, and as the edits are stale (6 hours old) there is no reason to believe that a block will accomplish anything at this point... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas

File this under lame, but here goes. There seems to be a large amount of SPAs intent on changing the DOB on the Sofia Shinas article. According to the article's history, this has been going on since at least 2007, long before I even got involved. Naturally, they don't cite the change and if they do leave an edit summary, it's usually to claim that the info is wrong because they supposedly know the subject personally. While I know this isn't the place for content disputes, attempts to engage the user(s) (the main one of late being User:TonyKay1) have been ignored and the sheer amount of accounts making only this change is suspicious. After changing the DOB back yesterday (again), I left a message on the talk page of TonyKay1 that they either didn't see or simply ignored because they reverted again and didn't leave an edit summary. I did file a SSP report back in October (after I left a note on the article talk page days before), but it has yet to be addressed. To my knowledge, the subject herself hasn't contacted Wiki to correct anything, but one of the SPAs (which I tagged as a sock) claims to have the subject's birth certificate and wanted to know how to get in touch with Wikipedia. Considering I left a message on that user's talk page nearly a month before that request asking for some kind of reference and she didn't answer me before makes the whole "I-have-my-friend's-sister's-birth-certificate" claim kinda suspect, but I'll go ahead and AGF. The only reference I've found for Shinas' date of birth is IMDb which, in my opinion, is most likely correct. Since IMDb isn't considered reliable and there seems to be an ongoing crusade to change this point, should we just remove the DOB altogether? At this point, I really wouldn't be opposed to that, but I'm having some problems with the lack of communication and the multiple accounts aspect of all this. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 22:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page. dougweller (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

user:71.72.244.82

71.72.244.82 (talk · contribs)

• This anonymous user is a serious problem. He regularly makes serious vandalism to Scott Menville, Brian Beacock, and Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World, and despite warnings (including a final warning), he has yet to be blocked. Plus, his edit history shows that he believes his edits are justified because according to him, Brian Beacock is a... well, see for yourself. He seems to wait for a period of time between his edits, so I brought it here instead of WP:AIV. The range appears to be static and needs a long block. JuJube (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Given the pattern of repeately vandalizing the same set of articles, I have blocked for a week. Other admins are invted to evaluate the block. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Agreed This IP is even on my Watchlist. No need for further evaluation, good block. -t BMW c- 09:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC#Admins' Abuse

Unresolved

 – Split active >55kb thread to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/IRC Admins' Abuse slakr^\ talk /

Resolved

 – DanielB banned from #wikipedia-en-admins for indefinite period of time. Discussion @ Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/IRC Admins' Abuse --slakr^\ talk / 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz

User:Jagz' indefinite block appeal was unsuccessful.[103] This editor had operated the sock puppet account User:Fat Cigar while blocked and made uncivil comments such as [104], [105], and [106]. A ban should be considered. --Whistler's Notch (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

He is effectively banned under the basic definition: "no administrator [or ArbCom] willing to unblock". A formal ban is not necessary. Out of curiosity though, why are you interested in the matter? This appears to be only your second edit to the site, and yet you seem to have an in-depth knowledge of this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's banned according to my understanding of the term, but not everyone's, apparently. Not that I care particularly; he should not be editing here, and his socks should be blocked on sight. The technical details aren't that important. Re: the larger question, I've asked Whistler's Notch (talk · contribs) to retire this sock and use his/her main account to comment on project-related discussions. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jagz is a racist troll and should be banned. --Whistler's Notch (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface and WP:NOT

User:Pixelface has been outspoken about the presence of the WP:NOT#PLOT clause in WP:NOT. Speaking one's own mind is acceptable. However, the user continues to push this forward by completely striking the section, asserting there was never consensus for this two-year old segment to be a part of WP:NOT. The user just did this again (see this diff) after a lengthy discussion (here) ensued no less than two weeks ago after Pixelface nearly hit the 3RR limit on removing it, reverted by three different editors (including myself) (see first, second, and third times within the same 24hr period). Pixelface has done this before on WP:NOT, roughly every few months (more recently since User:TTN has been back in action), and each time, if there's discussion, it is concluded that PLOT should stay, and the change is always reverted. I will note for full disclosure that I have in the past had issued a Wikiquette Alert for Pixelface for tenacious editing during the RFC on WP:FICT (see alert here), but I don't consider this a grudge - just the fact that the actions are disruptful and not helpful to achieving a compromise and consensus.

Pixelface knows better not to edit war (the editor is part of the involved parties of the Episodes and Characters 2 ArbCom case), and these continued changes, knowing that they are going to be reverted, does not help to foster discussion. It's obviously not a true 3RR case, but I would consider this to be approaching the behavior that 3RR is meant to prevent. --MASEM 17:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Masem, as the editor who has reverted my removal of PLOT the most, I don't really know why you've brought this to ANI. A few months ago there was consensus to remove PLOT from NOT, I removed it, yet was reverted anyway. Recently I've explained that I think WP:PLOT poses a conflict of interest to the Wikimedia Foundation. You're welcome to tell me why you think it does not. --Pixelface (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading your diff as a straight vote, you have a 7-7 "vote". It's rather disingenuous to summarize several clearly dissenting views (Ned's, SamBC's) without counting them in the "against" section. Methinks you should take some time and figure out exactly what consensus is before making the bold move of claiming it exists. Badger Drink (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it was 7-7 as you say it was, wouldn't PLOT need something greater than that to be considered policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors? And as long as you're evaluating consensus, could you tell me if there was consensus here to add PLOT to NOT in the first place? --Pixelface (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango and Masem was not slow to revert in this case. The matter is subject to discussion in various places and we may hope that normal discussion and dispute resolution will eventually reach a satisfactory result. I have myself just proposed a constructive suggestion to Pixelface and assume that he will consider this in good faith. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I doubt that if I didn't revert that it would have stayed removed; I'm not the only one in the past that has reverted the flatout removal of PLOT. That said, your option on Pixelface's talk page (notcopy vs notplot) is worth exploring which I will start there. However, I am still concerned with the flatout removal of a section over and over again over several months as pushing the bounds of being BOLD and of 3RR. --MASEM 18:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right Masem. Other editors have reverted the removal of PLOT from NOT — half of them involved parties of E&C1 or E&C2. But none more than you. Why is that? The flatout removal of plot-only articles about fictional characters per Wikipedia "policy" so they can then generate a profit over on Wikia does not concern you at all? --Pixelface (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am seeing more and more evidence that we are headed for another arbcom over episodes and characters as it seems that the various sides of this matter are failing to compromise. We clearly have no consensus whatsoever on fictional notability of which plots are an element and I know how frustrating it can be to see articles with templates slapped on them rather than that time being spent helping improve the articles under discussion, just as I know how frustrating it can be to see AfDs that claim sources do not exist and the articles cannot be improved only to have sources turn up and the articles be improved with relative ease. In any event, these disputes seem to be heating up all over the place as seen here and here, for example. --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've notified the other participants in Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Plot (Pixelface has solicited participation in this thread from other editors that have agreed with him in the past, I thought I'd solicit from *all* participants in the recent discussion). Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I asked two other editors who have also removed PLOT from NOT in the past to comment. I don't know why Masem has singled me out for removing PLOT from NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I am specifically looking at the actions you have done on that page over the last two weeks - 3 changes (that were reverted) about 2 weeks ago, and then again today, which is compounded by the fact you do this every few months. The other editors like Hobit have done it once but didn't edit war over it. --MASEM 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • And yet you have edit-warred over it. [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Please read WP:BRD. When you make a change and it is reverted, you don't go and make that change but instead seek discussion on it. --MASEM 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
            • I've been discussing PLOT at WT:NOT since January, since before E&C2 even closed. When I removed PLOT on March 29, 2008[112], you reverted it completely ignoring the discussion on the talk page. The idea that I have not been discussing PLOT is ludicrous. WP:BRD is an essay. But WP:POL is a policy, and WP:POL says "Consensus for guidelines and policies should be reasonably strong..." and "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow." WP:POL says "Policy change comes from three sources: Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them, Proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus for implementation of that change, and Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load." but the addition of PLOT to NOT did not fall under any of those. Since March 2008, WP:PLOT has been removed from NOT by Colonel Warden, Hiding, Hobit, and Pixelface — one of whom was an involved party of E&C1 or E&C2, me, Pixelface. I was included in that arbitraton case because of an ANI thread that falsely accused me of reverting all of TTN's edits. TTN was later placed under editing restrictions for six months. WP:PLOT has been re-added to NOT by Bignole, Collectonian, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Masem, Moreschi, S@bre, Sceptre, and Sgeureka — four of which were involved parties of E&C1 or E&C2. The idea that PLOT has wide acceptance among editors is simply not true. --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
              • After you were blocked for edit-warring on WP:NOT in April, your unblock request was declined with the following - "No consensus means no change - this is standard procedure across the project, and applies to everything from deletion debates to policy discussions. Unless there is a clear consensus to make your changes, they should not be made. The manner in which you made the changes is also disruptive." And that's exactly right, and exactly the point. Unless there is consensus for a change - and that's a large consensus, not a few vocal supporters, the status quo is the default. Black Kite 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
                • I was not blocked for "edit-warring" in April. I was blocked for "vandalism" because Sceptre said my removal of PLOT from NOT was "vandalism" and an AN thread started by AGK later decided it was not. Incidentally, Sceptre is currently serving a three month block. I agree, unless there is consensus for a change, a policy should remain the same. But there was not consensus for a change when PLOT was initially proposed. So PLOT should have never been added to NOT by Hiding. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • We've been working on trying to avoid that. A recent RFC on WP:N was put out to try to assess what community consensus was for how sub-notability guidelines can be written and how spinout articles can be handled. We're awaiting a neutral review of the comments though there are certain lines clearly drawn from that. In response to that, an excellent start on a renewed FICT that fits in those results as best we can tell that clearly represents current practices was drawn up by Phil Sandifer here. Regardless, however, there are those on both sides of the issue that seem to refuse to compromise. The problem is is that this is not a behavioral debate (TTN's recent AFD actions were brought to ArbCom after his block expired, but Arbcom agreed he's not violating anything at this point). The current FICT failed regain a guideline status because while it has 50% support, you had 25% from inclusionists that thought it too strict, and 25% from deletionists thinking it too loose; at this point, I think it's clear that there's a middle position we're going to have to take and a large fraction of editor base is not going to like it, otherwise we'll continue to war over the issues indefinitely. --MASEM 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not convinced that it had 50% support, because I also consider the opinions of those (perhaps thousands?) who write the articles thereby presumably believing that they meet our inclusion criteria, but do not necessarily get involved in all of the discussions. Far more editors write the disputed articles than actually participate in AfDs. I similarly am not persuaded that behavior is not a concern, because how is the following dispute not disruptive? See here, here, here, here, here, and here, as well as [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], and [121]. In just these examples, you have everything from insults to edit warring and these examples just reflect one recent, ongoing dispute pertaining to plot, fictional characters, and episodes. Put simply, Pixelface is hardly the sole participant in any dispute here. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was contacted by Pixelface about this. I also had contacted him about the same topic just before this ANI page popped up. I think we need an RfC on this, and if there isn't consensus to keep NOT#PLOT it should be removed. I do think Pixelface has been a bit pointy on this issue (though I too have removed NOT#PLOT in the past). But I strongly suspect there is no consensus on it and it should be removed. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was contacted by Pete.Hurd, Although I have often agreed with Pixelface, he did not contact me. It is obvious that there is fairly general disagreement here, and that its about the fundamental issue of how much coverage of fiction should there be in wikipedia, not the wording of particular section MASEM has generally done a reasonably clever job offering compromise wording, but one or another side have always been unwilling to accept the compromise. Worse, people on all possible sides of this issue have resorted to reverts, to multiple redirects without establishing consensus, to multiple undifferentiated afd nominations of good articles along with bad, of blanket statements that no sources will ever be available accompanied by refusal on one pretext or another to consider them when they are,and of people intransigently defending absolutely impossibly detailed articles on minor plot elements. I can't include everything, but this should be enough to give the idea. Very little of this has been constructive. Constructive would be a discussion of what was actually wanted, a compromise here as the views will be incompatible, and then writing rules to accommodate this. I have not been participating in the RfC much for two reasons: first, I've been too busy defending articles,and more important, I think the discussion was started and continues on a too trivial level of what the rules will permit, not what the general intent is. I know what I want, and know I am unlikely to get it all, but some other people are still trying to force their view. I avoid names, as the list would be too long. I think the continued refusal to compromise is best shown by the refusal to accept combination articles on minor not-individually notable characters as a natural solution--and I know the reasons why: some people are too attached to their over-detailed fansite prose, and others don't want any details left in under a merge or redirect that could ever be used for reconstruction of what they disapprove of. Between the two, the result in chaos. I'dlike to do an essay to match Phil's, and a more general explanation of why detailed coverage of fiction is appropriate, ready wednesday--but I can only do them if I can have a rest at Afd. _Perhaps this discussion in general would go better ifpeople abstained from introducing new articles there for a few weeks. DGG (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Pixelface has edit-warred on WP:NOT#PLOT in the past, and he should know better by now. When there is project-wide consensus to remove it from WP:NOT, then it can be removed. The only reason that people are trying to remove it now it that it is a barrier to creating hundreds of unencyclopedic TV episode and fiction articles. Some of those canvassed to comment above have also been involved in trying to create such articles and stacking AfDs in their favour. If there is overwhelming consensus to remove it, then it can go. Otherwise, it stays. Black Kite 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note that this is not an opposition to the type of combination article that User:DGG is mentioning above; in the main, these are generally OK because there are enough sources to support them as a whole. An article on a single episode and many characters need not only to hit WP:NOT, but also WP:V and secondary sourcing. This is where they generally fall down. Black Kite 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• This I fundamentally disagree with. If there isn't consensus to keep this here, it should be removed. We don't keep rules around that we don't have consensus on. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Er, no. We don't remove large chunks of policy on the basis of a discussion with an even distribution of views. And we certainly don't remove them because of a straw poll on an obscure talkpage where most of the people involved have a vested interest. Black Kite 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• And yet you don't support a wider RfC to gauge consensus? Hobit (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• See below. I've got no problem with an RfC, I'm unconvinced how useful it'd be. Black Kite 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The whole term "unencyclopedic" is subjective and not really helpful for a paperless encyclopedia. Britannica had limitations that paper encyclopedias had to have, but if you look at what the philosophes really wanted, then it would be the cataloging of all human knowledge and I am confident that if they had the means to make a Wikipedia it would indeed be far more extensive than the historical paper encyclopedias had to be. What is and is not eneyclopedic as pertains to a paperless encyclopedia is therefore not the same as what pertains to a paper encyclopedia and if thousands of our editors and millions of our readers believe these articles to be encyclopedic than I care far more about helping and working with them than a vocal minority that thinks otherwise. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• With all due respect, given your previous history on this issue, I'd suggest it might not be the greatest idea to introduce this discussion - on which you've previously been shot down numerous times, and eventually blocked - on a high traffic page like this one. Black Kite 19:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have never been "shot down" by unbiased editors and was never blocked for making this valid argument. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Black Kite, I wasn't one of the people editing WP:NOT (or PLOT) when you protected it for edit-warring. And you weren't an uninvolved party then either, having given your opinion about PLOT multiple times at WT:NOT and having been an involved party of E&C2. There was never a "project-wide consensus" to add PLOT to NOT, so why should there be a "project-wide consensus" to remove it? Besides all this, WP:PLOT poses a blatant conflict of interest for Wikipedia, and for Jimbo Wales in particular. --Pixelface (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• I think the main issue here is one of intent. If User:Pixelface honestly believed that the edit would stand without being reverted, that's one thing. If he made the edit knowing full well that it would be immediately reverted, then that edit was made only to anger and annoy people that he disagrees with, which is clearly a form of disruptive editing. I tend towards the latter explanation. As for User:A Nobody's concerns, it is true that Pixelface is not the only person that has problems in this regard. Some users have even been known to try to hide their history of involvement with these disputes by pretending to vanish.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• He clearly knew it would be reverted; you only need to look at the history to see that. I'd remind people that Pixelface was blocked previously (by User:AGK on 16 April) for exactly the same thing. Black Kite 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You're wrong. But that's okay Black Kite, it won't be the first time you've made false claims about me at ANI. I was not "blocked previously (by User:AGK on 16 April) for exactly the same thing." Check the block log yourself. I was blocked for "vandalism" because Sceptre (who is currently serving a three month block) made an AIV report after I removed PLOT from NOT. An AN thread started by AGK later decided it was not vandalism. --Pixelface (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, you were blocked for removing PLOT from WP:NOT, and now - you're removing PLOT from WP:NOT. Same thing, no? A quick scan of the history of WP:NOT from April 2008 will conform that to anyone who wishes to look. Do feel free to substantiate your claim that I've lied about you at AN/I at any point. Black Kite 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was blocked for "vandalism" after an AIV report, and this AN thread showed my edits to WP:NOT to not be vandalism. And here is where you've previously made a false claim about me at ANI, when you accused me of "stalking" — which is why you were included as an involved party of E&C2. But you know that already. Besides that, you edit-warred with TTN[122] in January and used rollback to revert edits that were not vandalism. And you protected WP:NOT[123] to further your position[124] in a content dispute over PLOT, in violation of the protection policy. --Pixelface (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• *Sigh* none of those diffs show anything of the sort. (1) You clearly were stalking TTN's edits, so that comment was correct. (2) Myself and another admin reverted a bunch of edits back to their encyclopedic form - so what? I note they're still in the state we reverted to. (3/4) I protected WP:NOT because there was an edit-war going on which was not involving myself. Now then, if you want to continue to post random diffs with misleading summaries on here, then that's completely up to you, but I'd make a very clear suggestion to you now that calling people liars and completely failing to back it up is not a good idea. Black Kite 22:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, now you're really lying. I was not stalking TTN's edits. I was un-redirecting every Scrubs episode article based on all of the complaints at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. See here. And take note of whose edits I was reverting. I was found to not be edit-warring in E&C2 — and certainly not stalking as you claim. You were supporting TTN's edit-warring by using rollback[125] to revert edits that were not vandalism, a violation of WP:ROLLBACK. You were not an uninvolved admin when you protected WP:NOT since you had commented multiple times about PLOT at WT:NOT [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162], you were an involved party of E&C2, and you started the DRV on the History of For Better or For Worse in order to set some "precedent." That you still insist I was "stalking" TTN shows that you are a liar. --Pixelface (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Though this is completely false, I'll let it stand as an example of where the problem lies. Black Kite 00:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• [EC]I partly agree and partly disagree. I believe he knows it will be reverted, but also knows that a few naysayers shoot down any discussion on that page. I think an RfC is the right way to go. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unsure how an RfC would be any more than an extended version of the same arguments on WT:NOT which have generated far more heat than light every single time. Black Kite 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The intent here seems to be to insult other editors' work by calling it "junk" and prevent other editors who contribute to building the encyclopedia from "enjoying themselves" by indiscriminately removing their edits. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You couldn't have misrepresented TTN's comment there any more if you'd tried. Try assuming good faith once in a while with people who disagree with your position. -- Sabre (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The reality of how his edits have affected others suggests otherwise. --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The opinion held by other users of one particular editor still does not give you any right to misrepresent that editor's comments to imply something other than what the editor actually means. -- Sabre (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• He has made clear plenty of times his negative opinions of so-called "extreme stalker inclusionists", i.e. other editors, i.e. colleagues. --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Many people hold that opinion of editors that obstruct the process of merging and deleting articles that violate WP:NOT#PLOT. It's well deserved. There is a small group of editors that are dedicated to ensuring that truly bad articles stay. In this discussion, we've got Pixelface showing us the contributions documenting his personal dedication to make sure that every Scrubs episode has its own article, despite the fact that the ones that remain redirected are blatant violations of WP:NOT#PLOT. The mysteriously vanished User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles used to add misleading and barely relevant citations to fiction articles in an effort to mislead other editors into believing they were actually well sourced and passed WP:N, a major guideline. These behaviours are not the behaviours of colleagues. The point that you and Pixelface and others miss ... it really doesn't matter much what you think of WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:N. So long as WP:NOT#PLOT is policy, and WP:N is a guideline, you should adhere to them. If you can persuade people to change them, that's fine, and then people should adhere to the changes. But to violate any policy or guideline en masse is disruptive, and that's what TTN and others are fighting.—Kww(talk) 03:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you would look at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes, you would see why I un-redirected those articles. The consensus to redirect them changed when more people became aware of the redirects. List of Scrubs episodes was viewed over 223,000 times in January 2008[163]. WP:NOT was viewed under 30,000 times in January 2008[164]. Episodes for every article of The Simpsons were mentioned long ago in WP:NOTPAPER on meta. That is why Wikipedia has so many episode articles — the simple fact that Wikipedia is not constrained the way paper encyclopedias are constrained in the number of topics it can cover. The fact that Wikipedia is not paper is probably why would you decided to create the article GTD-5 EAX. There were 6 people who supported making WP:PLOT policy when it was first proposed. There were more people than that complaining at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that every Scrubs episode article had been redirected. Polices are not laws to be followed blindly. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. WP:N is a guideline, that's true. It was written by Radiant! (no longer here) and that user tagged it as a guideline after a mere 16 days. And there was plenty of warring over the {{guideline}} tag after that. Notability is a subjective opinion. I see after your failed RFA, you added some references to GTD-5 EAX which you created. And it only took you 19 months. Good for you. I guess that makes you look like slightly less of a hypocrite when it comes to your strict insistence on "adherence" to WP:N. Personally, I've added reception information (according to WP:PLOT) to tons of articles about fictional works. I've even been told I added too much. But WP:PLOT does not have the consensus required of policies.

• WP:PLOT and the WP:GNG were heavily influenced by one editor, Hiding, another user who has changed their name now that you bring it up. WP:PLOT was proposed by Hiding, and the WP:GNG evolved out of Hiding's summary of various subject-specific notability guidelines (which Hiding now laments — "The staggering thing to me, is that words I wrote have become, I really don't know how to put this, but they appear to have become almost religiously followed, raised to some sort of biblical meaning that I just never intended.") There weren't even subject-specific "notability" guidelines until this proposed rename and move by Jiy (who is also no longer here).

• There are over three-quarter-of-a-million articles on Wikipedia under the umbrella of Category:Fiction — over 28% of the articles on Wikipedia — that's more articles than we have about people, dead and alive. And WP:PLOT affects most of them — so it better have damn strong consensus to be policy. I don't see how a policy proposal that has 6 editors agreeing and 6 editors disagreeing means that it has "wide acceptance" and that it's a "standard that all users should follow." Policies require a greater degree of consensus than that. If it only takes 6 editors to make something policy, and then 8 more editors to force that policy down over 8 million editors' throats — that's sad, and wrong. TTN is actually violating WP:NOTLAW. But with this kind of thing in TTN's contribution history, I guess he just doesn't know any better. And TTN shouldn't be fighting at all because Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I get it, you think people who create episode articles are "vandals." Maybe you should re-read your failed RFA; you might learn something. --Pixelface (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Fortunately, the community was able to recognize's Kww's history of disruption, micharacterizations, and bad faith at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww#Oppose. --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Rather than generalizing the problem, why don't we do what we would for any policy edit war--revert to the wrong version and fully protect the page? Protonk (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Because the edit war, if that is what it is, is too slow to justify that? Hobit (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe, but this is an important content policy and read widely. It won't do for editors to expect that WP:PLOT is there and then find that the section has been deleted (or, expect that it not be there only to be faced with it). If this post has stopped the slow edit warring, then fine. If not, it just seems easier to protect the page for a few days and start an RfC on this exact topic. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the RfC by itself should be enough. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• No problems with an RfC, as long as certain people understand that "no consensus" on an issue isn't carte blanche to mess about with policy pages. It'd be useful to post it to WP:CENT as well, so that the discussion isn't dominated by people with an axe to grind. Black Kite 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would not want to see a duplication of the notability RfC, which I understand is undergoing review by a non-involved party. As the issues are closely related, maybe it would be worth waiting to see the outcome of the notability RfC before fanning the flames with another one. Fletcher (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm not trying to anger or annoy anyone. The intent was to remove a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy. In addition to that, it's a bad policy, one that's horribly misunderstood by a certain editor on a crusade after his recent six-month editing restriction. In addition to that, WP:PLOT poses a conflict of interest since it's used to ship articles about fictional characters off Wikipedia to Wikia in order to generate a profit. --Pixelface (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Was kindly pointed here by Pete Hurd. From my reading Pixelface has been tendentious and should leave the policy pages alone. (BTW tenacious is a good thing, Masem!) Fletcher (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think this dicussion is better carried on at WT:NOT; this dispute is not a matter worthy of consideration by the Administrators - I am sure they have better things to do. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sweet Lord in Heaven, please guys. Just ban Pixelface. He's never going to stop his single-issue crusade to water down and ideally abolish each and every last guideline and policy that provides any barrier to any form of content. He is simply an enemy of the encyclopedia part of that anyone can edit. The very least indicated measure is a one-year ban from project space, and certainly from WP:NOT/WT:NOT. Everyme 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If we ban users for removing sections of policy that don't have consensus to be policy, ban away. I'm not the one on a crusade. But I can think of one user who's just off a six-month editing restiction who is. Policies don't exist to enrich Jimbo Wales, and that's what WP:PLOT does. --Pixelface (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just leave WP:NOT alone forever, please. Everyme 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• If PLOT is removed from NOT, I will do that. But how would I know you wouldn't then try to get Hobit, Hiding, and Colonel Warden banned from NOT as well? The idea that people who think Wikipedia should have articles on Baldrick and Cosette are "enemies" of the "encyclopedia part of that anyone can edit" is asinine. --Pixelface (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Look, I really don't give a fuck. I edit only in my free time, when I don't earn my living in the closest Walmart parking lot letting strangers spit into my face for 2 cents. Still, PLOT is an integral part of Wikipedia and I dearly hope it will survive all silly attempts to remove it. The assumption, for lack of a better word that wouldn't get me blocked, that pure plot summaries can be surrogates for encyclopedic articles is ludicrous. Anyone who doesn't understand and who, like you, refuses to be educated on the issue instead of aggressively defending their own ignorance, has no place in project space. I freely admit I can be a zealot and I'm dead wrong most of the time, but you manage to make me look like Yoda. Everyme 21:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You clearly "give a fuck" enough to be here now and call for my banning, which is the second time you've done so that I know of. Your claim that PLOT is "an integral part of Wikipedia" is false. It became "policy" two years ago. But pure plot summary articles, like Baldrick, have existed for over seven years. And plot-only articles are often kept at AFD. [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] So WP:NOT's claim that "Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply Plot summaries" is false. Apparently everyone who's edited Baldrick, 271 unique editors, "has no place in project space" either. You refer to Yoda, yet that article itself currently does not meet PLOT. So, if you can manage to find some space in your free time, feel free to nominate the Yoda article for deletion — since PLOT is an "integral part of Wikipedia" and everyone who's edited that article is an "enemy" of the encyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You really know how to make me put my head in my hands. Everyme 04:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Both those articles are in a terrible state. If an article on a character as clearly notable as Baldrick can have no sources whatsoever, it is hardly surprising that articles on many more obscure characters are in a worse state. Black Kite 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Are those articles what Wikipedia is not, content not suitable for Wikipedia, and need to be deleted? --Pixelface (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Since you're deliberately missing the point, I'll make it for you. A character like Baldrick clearly has sources available, even if no-one could be bothered to put them in. Put an article like that to AfD and it'll survive every time, even if the article itself is of poor quality. However, many episode and character articles also don't have sufficient suitable secondary sources, because they don't exist. That's the difference, and you know this. Oh, and this thread needs to go to WT:NOT now. Black Kite 22:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing the point. If a plot-only article such as Baldrick will survive AFD every time, then there is clearly no consensus that articles are not simply plot summaries and therefore WP:PLOT does not belong in WP:NOT. If people deem plot-only article like Baldrick suitable for Wikipedia, then plot-only articles like Baldrick do not qualify as content not suitable for Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Baldrick would be kept, not because of its current problems, but because it has the potential to be developed. Its current state should not substantially change its viability for inclusion. Baldrick is currently a dreadful article, but the potential for development under WP:WAF and inclusion of sources is why its kept, not because plot-only articles are accepted. -- Sabre (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• But plot-only articles are accepted. [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] And WP:PLOT itself says nothing about "potential." And essay like WP:POTENTIAL does nothing to dissuade editors on a crusade to enforce WP:PLOT like a law through mass AFDs. --Pixelface (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sabre, how do you measure or predict "potential"? Almostr anything has potential to be written about if a grad student is looking for a thesis topic:) DGG (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic-banning may be a solution, or it may be overkill. I will agree with Everyme that it seems highly unlikely that Pixelface will accept any form of compromise that makes restrictions on the coverage of fiction articles. I think it is clear that A Nobody is much the same. If they aren't topic banned, it needs to be accepted that this issue will never go away.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that my complaint is not about Pixelface's persistence on arguing against it - it's the means (in this specific case, the removal of PLOT repeatedly) that I believe needs some type of admin action. Banning is not an option I think is supportable - that's equivalent to simply censoring an argument and "winning" the battle by shutting up the resistance. --MASEM 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already written a survey in order to generate discussion at WT:FICT, so the idea that I will not accept any form of compromise that makes restrictions on Wikipedia's coverage of fiction is simply untrue. You may not be aware of it because Collectonian keeps removing any mention of it from {{fiction notice}}. I think such a survey would be helpful in achieving a compromise and consensus. Please edit the survey if you think it could be improved. --Pixelface (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If I can voluntarily avoid commenting in AfDs, as I have this entire month, then topic banning Kww per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Proposed_motions_and_voting seems like a sound solution. --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion would go better if we did not talk about topic bans, but try to find some way to get a settlement of the issues. Pending that, we might want to freeze some policy pages for a short time, to everyone. Obvious we otherwise have entirely different ideas of who should get banned, and that's simply an extension of how we stand on the issues. As for freezes, if we block new fiction articles from afd for a week, we could similarly promise not to try to restore any during the period Anything we do should be equitable. DGG (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to remind people this is AN/I - I brough this forward not to debate the issue of PLOT (WT:NOT is the correct venue for that), but Pixelface's action, and by necessity, anyone else involved with this (including myself) if there are admin steps needed. The entire issue of PLOT, FICT, and so forth is a much larger discussion that doesn't need to waste admins' time - only the questionable editing actions. --MASEM 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I personally hold many views that are contrary to Pixelface, but trying to silence him by making a complaint about him in this forum is not appropriate. As far as I can see, he has done nothing wrong. There are many other forums for discussing your disagreements, but here is not one of them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• If Masem has a good faith belief that Pixelface is editing policy without consensus to do so, then he's not necessarily wrong to bring a complaint here. That doesn't mean his complaint is valid, but it isn't "trying to silence him" by any stretch. Protonk (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Point taken. However editing without concensus is not a crime, so I disagree with you about the validity of the complaint. I think this matter should now close. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• There is a big difference between a complaint being acceptable and the complaint being accurate. I don't think that Masem's charge about Pixelface is completely correct, but that isn't the threshold for bringing complaints here. In other words, we can agree that Pixelface isn't out of line and still feel that Masem was not wrong for bringing the complaint here. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not about our views of WP:NOT, and cannot be. We have to stand up for people we disagree with who are reasonable, distance ourselves from people we agree with but WP:GAME our processes. If Pixelface is indeed edit warring policy pages, he needs to know this is unacceptable and get the idea. This is an example of WP:GAMETYPE#4, breaking the spirit of the 3RR while defending yourself with wikilawyering. Revert warring, only to return a few weeks later and start up again does not give you a free pass. And if a policy has been around for almost two years, you can't pretend WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT say there was no consensus in the first place. The most important part of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, in this case, is "note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem." Whether Pixelface is merely towing the line or has full on breached it, there needs to be a stern warning so that edit-warring policy pages doesn't happen again. It's not a witchhunt to humiliate one editor. It's just about stopping the disruptive behavior. Randomran (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Antarcticsuburbs and coordinate attack from skepchick.org

I'm not sure exactly where to report this, but...

Some folks at a forum site called skepchick.org are closely following[175] (and taking part at) a deletion discussion about some of their friends.

So far so good. We should keep an eye, but this is no violation per se. They do use nasty words and threats of physical assault towards me there but... whatever. It's their site.

But I think they crossed the line when someone at their forum suggested to add my e-mail address to spam lists:

“ Any hackers or merry pranksters in here? Maybe Damien might like to automatically be subscribed to every magazine that exists? Or at least a few hundred of them. ” — attack posted on skepchick.org

Followed by

“ I'm going to look around for that address. In fact, I just got an idea about how I can get it. I'll post it once I find it. If I find it. I think I'll find it. ” — attack posted on skepchick.org

And indeed, early today, some James Bond posted this weird message on my talk page asking for my mail addressed.

What do we do in such occasions? I personally don't think it would be a great harm to ban Antarcticsuburbs (talk · contribs) (MikeSmith on the attacking site), since he's not active anyway.

Again, I was not sure if this was the right place to report this or if it should be reported at all. --Damiens.rf 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd ignore the rather obvious phishing attempt (the email address even matches an earlier edit), but other than that there's not a lot more we can do. The AfD debate will stand or fall on its own merits, and if the threat of off-site harassment concerns you, you can report it to the group's Internet Service Provider or your local law enforcement agencies. In the meantime I've blocked the above account. EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PS - it's often worth using throw-away email addresses for public online stuff (ie hotmail, gmail etc). If they get harvested by spammers, you can always abandon them and create another ;)

(ec) Given that the editor seems to be actively trying to carry out his threat rather than just joking about it, I do believe a block per Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats would be in order. This would be the case whether or not Antarcticsuburbs actually is Mike Smith, although the balance of the evidence does seem to suggest he is. (Anyway, on a tangent... just how stupid do you have to be to use your own non-disposable e-mail address while fishing for someone else's address to spam them?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, already blocked ;) Per your other... :$ EyeSerene^talk 11:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, EyeSerene. And everyone else as well! --Damiens.rf 14:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:GENIUS(4th power) and User:Programmer888

Moved to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Programmer888

 – ANI is not for advertising SSP cases. --slakr^\ talk / 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

---

GENIUS(4th power) (talk · contribs) Programmer888 (talk · contribs) A case has been opened here. You can comment there to try and come up with a consensus. I suspect GENIUS(4th power) (talk · contribs) and Programmer888 (talk · contribs) are the same person. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Was posting here needed? CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 05:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly not, but as long as Mister Alcohol is here: can you please reduce the size of your signature? It's quite large and distracting. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Thanks! CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 05:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But the username is awesome! Everyme 10:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree this could be Genius but would want to see more contribs first oh and yeah, Mr Alcohol, please littlefy your sig, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Is that consider personal attack?

Resolved

 – No personal attack. Kinda uncivil. -- Fucking Smashville^talk 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DanielTAR (talk · contribs) respond with the word "fuck". Is that the word "fuck" consider as civil? [176] --Aleenf1 08:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The response seems somewhat irritated, and probably not all that civil; but just because someone uses a curse word doesn't necessarily make it uncivil. JuJube (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on how you use the word "fuck" as to whether it's a personal attack, uncivil, an invitation, or merely invective? -t BMW c- 10:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Fuck you", "Fuck me", "Fucking awesome", "Fucking Chelios", "Fuck it", "Phuket" and simple "Fuck" all have different meanings. The mere use of the word does not imply incivility. --Smashville^talk 14:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Chelios? He's too fucking old to be accused of being fucking Chelios. Just my fucking and fucked-up opinion.  :) Unless we're talking about another fucking Chelios. Then I retract my statement and beg for fucking forgiveness. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Smashville is a Predators fan. Every time Chelios whines about the hangnail on his pinky, it's more of a "shut the fuck up, Chelios, waaaaahhh, whaaaahhhhhhh", until they take him away in a Whaambulance. Chelios ... Chelios ... Chelios ... YOU SUCK! -t BMW c- 15:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can call this thread resolved. The use of "fuck" is not a personal attack, but in the fucking context it was used it was kinda fucking uncivil, but not a personal attack. Fucking Wikipedia is not censored. --Smashville^talk 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69

Resolved

 – Final warning given regarding personal attacks Tan | 39 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has been blocked 9 times in the past for vandalism, sock puppetry, personal attacks, edit warring, etc. He has been warned by countless admins and editors like myself to stop making personal attacks. I have warned him recently about personal attacks for this edit summary, then days later he calls an admin incompetent simply because he doesn't get his way. He doesn't listen to me so I'm hoping if another admin warns him about personal attacks he will stop. Blocking doesn't affect him in the least, or the previous 9 didn't anyways. If he doesn't stop a topic ban may be in order. Virtually all he does is edit war on music related articles regarding genres in the infobox. He refuses to use the talk page, almost never does. On August Burns Red here recently he ignored consensuse of a dozen or so users and a lengthy talk page discussion and just continued to revert away. Landon1980 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe I issued a final personal attack warning after his last contribution, and before your post here... Tan | 39 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see that until just now when I was informing him of this thread. Landon1980 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call asking for people to provide sources "edit waring".Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The nine different admins who have blocked you seem to disagree. 136.245.4.252 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tired of cleaning up after Mac

Mac (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2003. In that time he has cultivated an intense interest in electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and solar power. The result of this has been that although he does make some good edits, his editing does not follow policy or guideline much of the time, and instead produces hundreds of bad redirects (often circling to the top of the very page a reader is on), spam links and articles, very messy categories, and copyright violations. A non-exhaustive list of the warnings he has been given in the past, as well as difs of 33 poor edits he did in one day are here, and more notices follow. Mac does not respond to these notices, and continues with the bad redirects, copy/paste violations, spam links, etc...

Is there someone here who has more experience dealing with editors who, while not being "bad people", are harming the project because they are so blinded by the "righteousness" of their cause? The many people who have warned Mac in the past have not yet had an effect as far as I can tell, and he definitely does not pay any attention to me. NJGW (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then it's time for a short-term block of that user for disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

From briefly going over today's edits, this is copied from here (not copyright, but no attribution, which he has also been warned about several times), this redirect was made only so this edit could be made, this redirect to a company was made instead of to Upgraded metallurgical-grade silicon (which may or may not be a neologism, as Mac created that as a redirect this June), category:Ford was added to the Mazda page (the do business together, but aren't the same company as far as I know), inserted a bad redirect into the lead of an article (this redirect was created by Nukeless (talk · contribs), which other editors have questioned might be a sock of Mac's)... I don't have time to go through all of them... here are a couple of other strange redirects created today: [177][178][179] NJGW (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also cleaned up after Mac. I came across this spam link on a disambiguation page that he inserted and promptly warned him.

I am now suspicous that the user listed below may be a sock of Macs.

Solarfuture2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is a minor issue and is based on this edit. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Only a tiny proportion of Mac's edits result in a positive change to the article, usually people just revert back to the previous state, rather than attempting to sort his edits out. His general refusal to discuss edits, or to change his behaviour in response to several months of this, is most frustrating. Greg Locock (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: SandyGeorgia was very helpful with AnnieTigerChucky, who is now a great editor. I'll ask SG's comment. --Iamunknown 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a tough situation. I probably invested more hours into cleaning up after AnnieTigerChucky than I care to remember, but a good editor did result. On the other hand, her edits are confined largely to one area, and they didn't number in the hundreds. It did make me want to tear my hair out some days, because it took so much of my time, but it worked: we got a productive editor instead of someone turned vandal. What was the most helpful in the process of bringing ATC up to speed was me working with an admin, who was firm but patient and did block ATC several times. That got the message through. A perusal of AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)'s talk page (in particular the warnings and blockings from admin Sarah) might be instructive. I mentored and delivered help and praise and instruction, while Sarah delivered the stern discipline and a few needed blocks. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of the poor edits Mac has done today while ignoring the notice EdJohnston put on his talk page yesterday about this thread:

• turning Wikipedia into a commercial directory: [180][181][182][183][184][185][186]
  • redirecting a process/product to a company or visa-versa:[187][188][189][190]
  • advertising for a company:[191]
• creating redirects so that he can use the new terms in articles: [192][193][194][195][196][197]
• miscategorization: [198][199][200]

These 20-30 bad edits a day (maybe more, as I don't have time to go through all 100-200 he does every day to fact check and look for more subtle problems) will eventually add up to huge head aches for those that decide it's time to straighten out the relevant topics. I've fixed a lot of the places where Mac and I have overlapped in the past, but there are hundreds of pages he edits that I don't have watch-listed. SandyGeorgia, can you please try to talk to him, and maybe Ed or Bugs? NJGW (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will work on something later today, but I think you really need an admin willing to deliver the stern but kind warnings such as Sarah left for ATC:[201] [202] [203] [204] otherwise, you might not get his attn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GNU FDL 1.3 released!

• http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/date.html

• ""Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site."

• "Section 11 imposes two deadlines on licensees. First, you can only use works under CC-BY-SA 3.0 if they were added to a wiki before November 1, 2008. We do not want to grant people this permission for any and all works released under the FDL. We also do not want people gaming the system by adding FDLed materials to a wiki, and then using them under CC-BY-SA afterwards. Choosing a deadline that has already passed unambiguously prevents this."

• "Second, this permission is no longer available after August 1, 2009. We don't want this to become a general permission to switch between licenses: the community will be much better off if each wiki makes its own decision about which license it would rather use, and sticks with that. This deadline ensures that outcome, while still offering all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision."

There appears to be a problem. From November 1, 2008 on we can not accept any contributions by someone other than the copyright holder that were first published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License at other than a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" such as Wikimedia projects.

I suggest we say so on the edit page and tell people at various forums and remove any such material that was placed in Wikipedia over the last two days. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we choose to stick with 1.2? This one seems a bit oppressive to me. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The plan is to go to GNU FDL 1.3 and then switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0. Of course we will have a community wide discussion first to get consensus. That is why it gives us a year to decide. I think the community will support this, but if it does not then we stay with GNU FDL 1.3. The not being able to use stuff made on non-wikis after Nov. 1 is only about avoiding stuff that we can't migrate to CC-BY-SA 3.0. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such plan. WMF requested the option of a switch, and we now have 9 months (not a year) to decide. I'm not really sure why there's a thread here, as it has absolutely nothing to do with admin responsibilities. I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be more appropriate. Superm401 - Talk 00:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can mention it, though I think there is very little material that enters Wikipedia after being copied from a GFDL licensed non-wiki by someone other than the copyright holder. In other words I think the impact is pretty limited. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the impact is limited, these measures will make the impact even less. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The material restricted from addition if we plan to convert is pretty limited - I don't think there is that much work going on that involves moving previously published FDL material to Wikipedia. I'm also not sure that adding the bit to the notice would help - although if you include on the edit box "You assert by adding this material that it has not previously been released under an FDL license" that could be useful as cover later on. Avruch ^T 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well as I understand it will be ok if it has been previously released under another FDL license but they were the sole author. So it should say something like "You assert by adding this material that it has not previously been released under an FDL license or that it if has that you are the only author." JoshuaZ (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

what exactly is now being done that is affected by the first deadline? And what will have to be done by the second deadline? And, to get to the real basics, what is the difference between gfdl and- CC-BY-3.0 ? DGG (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread on that here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

← Q about the dates from the FAQ:

“ Q. What is the purpose of the two different dates in section 11? Why did you choose those specific dates?

A. Section 11 imposes two deadlines on licensees. First, if a work was originally published somewhere other than a public wiki, you can only use it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 if it was added to a wiki before November 1, 2008. We do not want to grant people this permission for any and all works released under the FDL. We also do not want people gaming the system by adding FDLed materials to a wiki, and then using them under CC-BY-SA afterwards. Choosing a deadline that has already passed unambiguously prevents this.

Second, this permission is no longer available after August 1, 2009. We don't want this to become a general permission to switch between licenses: the community will be much better off if each wiki makes its own decision about which license it would rather use, and sticks with that. This deadline ensures that outcome, while still offering all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision.

”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 3 November 2008

• I've brought up the question of how this will affect the current language at WP:C at WT:C. Please weigh in there, anyone who has a thought on the matter. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If understand this correctly, the plan is to migrate Wikipedia to CC-BY-SA, and the 1.3 version of GFDL is a necessary intermediary step for legal reasons (the viral provision of GFDL). BTW, Citizendum already moved to CC-BY-SA for new articles. So, this essay should explain the issues in excruciating detail. For those looking for a summary, see GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism_of_the_GFDL. VG ☎ 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• To keep further discussion in one place, please take further talk to Wikipedia:Transition to CC-BY-SA. Thank you! ViperSnake151 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)