Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive93

docg

Does anybody know what "docg" means (per this [1])? I've seen it before in vandalism edits. -N 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• d________ of common good? not sure of the first word.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt this is anything since he mispelled "against", this word could be anything.. just revert vandalism and move on. — Moe ε 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A docg is one who campaigns against "nazimism". Next question? MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Does this fact make the d stand for defender?MarnetteD | Talk 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think people should refrain from using cryptic edit summaries. --Haemo 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One knows that one has been reading Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard too much … when one sees the above and immediately thinks of Doc glasgow. ☺

By the way: "Nazimism" is, roughly, the following of Nazim al-Qubrusi (the article being edited was Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi), who is a somewhat controversial religious figure. Uncle G 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Here I thought it was just a misspelled attempt to invoke Godwin's Law. MastCell ^Talk 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually did think it meant Doc Glasgow, and I was wondering why nobody had realized this (until I read your comment). --Rory096 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion?

I just locked Muhammad due to edit warring - but I'd previously commented on the issue that lead to the edit warring, but not participated. I took a bit of an ambigious stance, and I'm not sure if I locked it at m:The Wrong Version. I'd like a second pair of eyes to double-check and make sure I didn't overstep any bounds. Thanks, WilyD 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your actions were correct. A very quick glance at the page history shows that edit warring was getting way out of hand, and I didn't see an edit from you recently in that list. Just keep an eye out for protected edit requests. YechielMan 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlocking images?

Resolved

Image:Shinichi_Watanabe.JPG hasn't been on the Main Page for over 3 weeks now. Yet it's still locked with the reason given it's supposed to be on or will be on the main page. Minor oversight?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. Savidan 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin help

Wonder if anyone can help with this AfD? Sr13 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - noticed DrKiernan and Samir deleting, too :) - Alison ☺ 07:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I've blocked Asgardian (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. The user ignores discussion, marks major edits and reverts as minor, ignores consensus, removes talk page warnings, edit wars and is somewhat intractable. There's currently an rfc set up and we did look to community sanctions, but the discussion was closed as it was felt that the block log of the user did not warrant such action [2]. Therefore I feel the only recourse is to block the user, initially for a period of 24 hours. I believe the user is disruptive in attempting to prove a point across a number of articles, namely that a literal reading of a header named publication history indicates one should only include details of publications in which a character has appeared, and I believe the user is also disruptive in rejecting community input. Hiding Talk 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Loom91

user:Loom91 has just reverted part of mass action in spite of the presence of an inuse tag and after being earlier requested on the talk page to forebear until I had finished the edit. I was simply away on a lunch break when this happened. The article concerned is a piece of chemical history and I have taken the trouble of reading the original meterial. My edit was incomplete and Loom91 has made a real mess of it by some arbitry rearragements. I can state with certainty that the first paragraph that Loom91 has re-inserted is factually incorrect. The re-inserted definition (in quote marks) is also incorrect.

This user has also admitted inserting material into another article which he/she knew to be untrue - see user_talk:petergans#Equilibrium.

What's to be done about this situation? I would hope that he/she be given an official warning to moderate his/her behaviour. Petergans 14:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like an editorial dispute. A friendly note on his talk page could be all that's needed. -N 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrative decision-making

For context:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination) - This article, as well as a few related topics, have a long history of deletion debates. The consensus of the latest review was that nothing should prevent recreation of a properly sourced article. A new version was started and edited with strong intent to fix any problems. The page was put up for deletion again after an editorial dispute. Outcome of this debate is that a majority agrees the new article solves the problems that resulted in the deletion of the last one. — This AfD was closed by Kurykh as 'delete', on the subjective notion that the article still violated WP:RS and that this administrator decision about policy violation trumps any majority vote.
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12 - The deletion review was speedily closed, reopened, closed again, on grounds that the topic exhausted the community's patience. Radiant! apparently still holds that it wasn't wheel warring and accused Georgewilliamherbert of making false accusations of abuse in return. It's was opened again, but I think these events quite nicely compromised any possibility to settle, in a neutral environment, the actual issue about whether due process was followed in the AfD.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive91#Omegatron - discussion on the above
• User talk:Omegatron#HHO/Brown's Gas, #Outrage, #Query - related usertalk
• User talk:Kurykh#HHO and Brown's gas deletions, User talk:Radiant! ("rmv negativity"?!), User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Could you explain? - related usertalk for sake of completeness

I care about the results of this particular AFD/DRV no more or less than about any other. But it left me pretty much alienated, that's the word, at the inner workings of Wikipedia's power structure. I still am, a few days later, after these events made me take my first wiki-vacation ever, for the almost three years that I'm here.

There's one thing I learned from this: next time, stay out of deletion debates — I'll have more influence on the debate if I remain a neutral admin and close the discussion myself.

For crying out loud, this is what it has come to? I don't want to work like that. I don't want to live in a Wikipedia where I CAN work like that. It's dangerous to accept a community where this is possible. I have the admin tools to carry out consensus, and enforce it if need be — not to make consensus. Yet, it slowly appears to become acceptable.

Admins get more and more relied upon as decision-makers and holders of power. Generally, the margin seems to become wider, of what constitutes an uncontroversial decision at the sole discretion of a single administrator. There even appears to exist an atmosphere where it's considered more efficient when an admin cuts corners with the process. When you raise concerns about the process you're told that's not a productive approach. I don't think this particular case is an isolated one.

Just like in the real world, we're under a permanent threat of the creeping erosion of our freedom. A constant pressure from well-meaning individuals to act on behalf of all other people, and to decide for us what is right and what is wrong. All for the collective good of course. I have neither the energy nor the skills to actively fight against this.

So, what do we do to counteract it? Don't say the wiki-process is self-regulating, it isn't. Not when administrators may agree to "disagree with respect to the importance of said process". Femto 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no answer, having just noted basically the same thing on a different subject here and similarly here (without the rhetoric). Short of a series of administrative RfCs (which I am afraid I have neither the time nor patience for) I can see no recourse to stop this kind of administrative "God mode" (for the want of a better expression). Arbcom would never take these as cases individually. Perhaps a large community discussion on the role of an admin, might help reinforce that admins are servants to the community and their opinions never ever overrides community consensus. Viridae^Talk 13:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The similarity of what you say in your first link is almost frightening. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't underestimate ArbCom's willingness to look at wheel warring and other administrative abuses. One mistake by an admin will not be acted on but a pattern of repeated behavior may get their attention. Thatcher131 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not personally aware of a pattern, but there are discussions on Talk:DRV about it. If there is one, it needs to be stopped. — Omegatron 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the point, unfortunately. There are no patterns, no individual wrongdoings that would stand out of the crowd or that would justify going through an arbcase. Nevertheless there's a trend, and paradoxically, the danger doesn't come from admins who act in bad faith but in good faith. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's not entirely clear to me what this complaint is about. Is it in respect of Omegatron's undeletion of an article of which he was a significant editor? We already discussed that. Is it about the serial re-creation of this article, which has been deleted by four separate AfDs? I thought we'd discussed that, as well. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  I hoped I was clear enough. It's not a complaint about this case in particular but a warning about how cases like this get handled in general. About the creeping acceptance that administrators use their individual judgement and their authority to "resolve" editorial issues. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• It surprises me that people persist in the claim that something not involving the admin tools of deletion, blocking and protection can in fact be wheel warring, as the definition says the exact opposite. The only wheel warring I see here is this. >Radiant< 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think the actions of certain users in repeatedly defying consensus and recreating an article which the community has consistently voted to delete should be examined, although that is beyond the scope of AN. Orderinchaos 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, they voted to keep it, but the discussion was ignored by the closing admin. See the AfD. — Omegatron 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As for my undeletion, we've already discussed it, I've freely admitted that I made a mistake, apologized, and no one has a serious problem with my actions (which were arguably acceptable anyway).

As for Radiant's actions, I don't see how this could be any clearer.

• Wikipedia:Wheel war:
  • "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it."
  • "Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling."
• Closing a DRV is an administrative action.
• Radiant closed the DRV with no explanation besides the edit summary "No."
• George re-opened it, with the edit summary "Don't speedy close DRV on clearly debatable AFD articles."
• Radiant, without discussion, and knowing that another admin opposed his action, repeated it.
• See also WP:WHEEL#Possible indications.

Does anyone besides Radiant disagree that this is wheel warring, both in the spirit and the letter of our policies? — Omegatron 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • A half truth is a whole lie. You are quoting only half of the sentence, which goes "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article. " >Radiant< 09:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Call it what you want, people didn't disagree with your definitions, people disagreed with your actions. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone was curious, I didn't approve of the early closing of the DRV. But calling the repeated closing and re-closing of the DRV wheel-warring is ludicrous and misinterprets what wheel-warring actually is. Then again, arguing over the definition of wheel-warring when there are other things to do (like writing an encyclopedia) is ludicrous in itself. —Kurykh 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, isn't the idea of a consensus that everyone agrees? Or at least felt they not only had their say but were heard, thus will abide by the result? (I think the part about having a say & being heard is implied in WP:CIVIL; if it's not then it ought to be.) When things get to the point of repeated opening & closing of an issue before DRV, I think it's clear that no consensus exists, & the issue needs to be re-opened & discussed further. -- llywrch 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree Canvasing

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

• Duplicate discussion open at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:FatherTree_Violating_WP:Canvas_policy Shell ^babelfish 01:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This user was making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet [[3]], which I filed previously. An administrator seemed to support my filing,

":You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. YechielMan 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)"

Now he is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[4]] in response to an active mediation case at [[5]] This violates the policy because it is biased and partisan

I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time with this behavior. He is clearly an SPA on this article. I'd like him to stop making false accusations and stop fishing. Administrative action is required. DPeterson^talk 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am not an administrator; I just have a nose for messy situations. I do strongly recommend a block against User:FatherTree. He continues to accuse the complainant here of sockpuppetry despite the fact that Checkuser proved he is innocent. Unless I'm missing a critical detail, it's really simple, and the dispute resolution process will be better served by temporarily removing a bad influence. YechielMan 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove innocence. It can only prove strong likelihood of guilt. Lsi john 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how asking one editor to look into a dispute is "canvassing." I also don't understand YechielMan's assertion that a RFCU proved "innocence" as that is simply not true. I reserve judgment on FatherTree's other actions except to note that many editors involved in that dispute appear to be closely-related and focused very tightly on one group of articles; I have my own suspicions that several editors involved are sock or meat puppets but I'm keeping those suspicions to myself. --ElKevbo 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The primary issue here is FatherTree's violating WP:CANVAS. An administrator should look into this and decide. All other diversions by other editors are just that, diversions...to avoid the primary issue of this AN/I. In addition to his knowlingly making false accusations of sockpuppetrty...All in all a very disruptive set of violations. RalphLender^talk 18:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you have a nose for messy situations Yechie you'd like to stick it in a bit further and tell us what you thing about the constant personal attacks of COI and financial chicanery DPeterson makes on the talkpage against other editors and his accusation that those who oppose him are meatpuppets, made on the mediation referral page no less. And the fact that he has filed two ANI's against the editor without telling that editor, and his supporter RalphLeneder a further one, without telling that editor. This a very complicated dispute and you seem to have taken a very extreme view from one snapshot.Fainites 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RalphLender that diversions, such as the above, are diversions from the focal issue: FatherTree's violation of Wikipedia policy. As I read the WP:CANVAS solicting is not ok in that this was biased and partisan. I think YechielMan suggestion that FatherTree be sanctioned by a block is appropriate. The Canvasing and other wikipedia policy violations are disruptive. MarkWood 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I agree. JohnsonRon 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

About canvassing, an arbitrator said: Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. How can calling on one other editor to give his opinion be considered "aggressive propaganda"? It seems crystal clear to me that this falls into the "reasonable amount of communication about issues" category. Also, the purported sockpuppetry accusation was made in reply to a very similar accusation "It looks like the gang...er your group, sorry, is all coming out here now.", and the "accusation" is more to me like a musing: "How does anyone know that you are not Becker?" Nobody accused anybody of anything directly. These are flimsy, I would dare say inappropriate grounds for any block whatsoever.--Ramdrake 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a repeat of this same allegation here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:FatherTree_Violating_WP:Canvas_policy] Ramdrake of you're interested. Fainites 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed one. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. DPeterson^talk 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I had not noticed this thread. It seems that we have THREE of these open, two on AN/I and one here. And, rather than asking for two of them to be closed, as duplicates, DPeterson is updating them all at once with the same posts: here, here and here

That sure looks like DPeterson is using these boards, repeatedly, in order to get the system to remove editors with which he is currently engaged in mediation and against editors who opened an RfC on him. Lsi john 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed one. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. Another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. Try to assume good faith and not make personal attacks by assuming motivations. In this instance you are incorrect. DPeterson^talk 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then give me something to work with. How about you pick TWO and ask that they be CLOSED? Saying it was an accident is one thing, I can accept on AGF that you got confused between AN and AN/I and thought your post got closed. What I don't accept is that now you know that there are three, rather than picking one (and closing the others), you continue to post in all three, . Lsi john 23:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I respond to other editors...I'll leave it to an administrator to decide how to handle the two I filed and the one another editor filed, focusing on the two issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and the canvasing issue. DPeterson^talk 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Which one is the longest thread? Keep that one open and close the rest. Easy as that. Identical discussions should not occur at opposite ends of the earth (figurative meaning intended). —Kurykh 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That response, combined with his AN/I response:

Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open.-DPeterson AKA CANVASSING

pretty much confirms what I said about this issue. He asked for AGF but offered no Good Faith gesture in return. Thank you. Lsi john 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• All other discussions aside, to address the actual topic, did User:FatherTree offer up anything more than that one comment? I believe the traditional idea behind the canvassing policy was to discourage people from spamming multiple areas and/or talk pages because it was a disruption. Asking one editor's opinion, even in a biased manner, wouldn't appear to qualify. If he continues the sockpuppet accusations I would make sure to remind him about the personal attacks policy; feel free to hit up my talk page if he doesn't stop the attacks. Shell ^babelfish 01:30, 23 June 2007 (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.

Deletion of User:Chainsofhell

This user page was tagged with db-spam. The contents were in full "chains of hell death metal band from new york city formed by drummer jay persad in 2007"

I removed the tag on the grounds that this did not constitute blatent advertising, and that this was a user page, where soemwhat more latitude is usually given. I explained this to the tagging editor (here and here). I included the phrase "If this user is trying to use wikipedia as an advertising platform, s/he is dooing a pretty poor job." but tried to focus on the qualifing adjective "blatant" in WP:CSD#G11. Seizing on this phrase, the editor re-tagged with the edit summery "re-added tag - spam is spam, and there's no competetency test to exclude it" and another admin duly deleted.

First, am I out of line in thinking that this page did not constiture "blatent advertising"?

Second, is it unreasoanble to think that my view should have been considered before finally deleting, either by discussing on my talk page, or by bringing the matter here or some similar forum? I know that if I had deleted and another admin had wanted to undelete it would be considered very poor form not to discuss with me first. Is this unsymetrical?

I note that this user has made no substantive contribuitions to wikipedia, and delting this page page hardly harms the encyclopeida. But I think there is a reason not to go overboard on deletions, particularly of user pages. DES ^(talk) 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the usual convention was to WP:PROD user pages of inactive editors. There should be no rush to delete user pages. hbdragon88 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the deleting admin. First of all, if I was the one crossing the page, I would probably have prodded the page as I usually do. I crossed the article while I was deleting speedy deletions. The page was a 1 liner about the band, the user didn't make any contributions outside this page. That was clearly an attempt to circumvent our inclusion criteria and a misuse of the article space. I am usually a process freak, but this time I might have gone a bit fast. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me (from viewing the history of the deleted page) that the user's only two edits were to the userpage four months ago. Some latitude is given to userpages, but if it is apparent that the user uses the account purely to promote something, it should be deleted with or without process. Sr13 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As the original tagger (and thank you for notifying me, DESiegel -- oh, wait, you didn't), I wasn't aware that the adjective "competent" was included in the spamming criteria. Is an effectiveness test on spam pages required to see if they qualify for speedy?

Yes, a serious and valued contributor, as Sr13 points out. I note that this user has made no substantive contribuitions to wikipedia? No, try "no contributions", period/full stop.

Not to mention the whole issue of how a band (or company, or website, or organization, or any abstract grouping of people, whose alleged user pages I also tag regularly) can qualify as an individual editor. So, nope, perfectly in line with policy -- and common sense -- as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The "G" criteria are, well, general, and apply to anything in any namespace. A hypothetical Category: Best products in X category, created and populated to obviously promote one company's products, could certainly be deleted under G11. User pages aren't allowed to be ads either. I'll certainly grant some leeway to established editors if they have a link to their band's Myspace, company's website, whatever, on an otherwise fine user page, but if all the person's done is to put an ad on the userpage, it certainly falls under speedy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Confused merged articles

St. Joseph's High School (South Bend) was just merged into St. Joseph's High School (South Bend, Indiana). Unfortunately, the South Bend article had the longer edit history, so it probably should have merged the other way -- but then the title would have been wrong. Thoughts on what to do, if anything?--SarekOfVulcan 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll merge the edit histories for you. Sasquatch t|c 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'm not an involved party, but it seemed like the right thing to do....--SarekOfVulcan 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Danah Boyd or danah boyd

There is an ongoing discussion over whether the article should be named Danah Boyd or danah boyd. Admin help on this first was requested on June 17, 2007 on this AN board and most recently on June 21, 2007 on BLPN. The matter is not a BLPN matter and I listed it as resolved on the BLPN board. There already is a discussion on the article talk page about this. If there is a consensus in that discussion, perhaps an admin uninvolved in the matter would be so kind as to step forward, summarize the consensus, and close that discussion with archival templates so that everyone can move forward. Thanks! -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion

Resolved

Currently, there are 3 subcategories, 119 pages and 80 files waiting for speedy deletion. Please take care of this as fast as possible. --MrStalker ^talk 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"as fast as possible"? I see that you just now placed some speedy deletion tags. Be patient, and they will be dealt with. 118 is not a particularly large backlog for CSD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 100s isn't that huge a deal. When it starts getting over 150-200, then we have problems, but its hardly unwieldy as of yet... anyhow, its down to 90 now.. David Fuchs 23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland crime family

Several anons have been slapping inappropriate speedy tags on this article. It is completely unreferenced and hence a whopping BLP concern, but I don't think it meets any of the formal speedy criteria. Comments and intervention welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me who finds it interesting that the IP addresses of the anons applying speedy tags all resolve to Cleveland? I think someone has a personal interest in getting this article deleted. If that's the case, we should make it clear that they are welcome to use the talkpage for discussion about specific concerns, or e-mail our OTRS team about... even more specific concerns. Riana (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

PROD is mildly backlogged (haven't seen it at 2 days in a while)... anyone willing to get their hands dirty? Riana (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Got most of the 16th of June (someone got the last two) I love firefox tabs. Viridae^Talk 05:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted about 140 expired prods in the last 20 minutes, someone else can take over. Viridae^Talk 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam, ToFA, June 23

I just happened to take a look at the Islam article while reviewing a report at WP:AN3 when it dawned on me (or rather I noticed) that the article is going to make its Main Page appearance as Today's Featured Article on June 23. As many of you are aware, it's generally accepted that we not protect Today's Featured Article. Each day I (or, rarely, someone else) remove any edit protection and add full move protection to Today's Featured Article. But this is a bit different. Currently, the article is on near-permanent semi-protection, due (of course) to vandalism. If we remove the semi-protection from this article, the article will be an utter disaster. Yes, sadly, we all know it. Is it okay if we just leave the semi-protection on or should we (gasp) unprotect and see what happens? -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

According to our PR, the reason vandalism isn't much of a problem is because other editors will quickly correct it. Perhaps there is some way that can be made more likely to occur.Proabivouac 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of letting the camel's nose into the tent, the ultra-controversial, extremely vandalism-prone nature of this article leads me to believe that this is one case where the FA should remain semi-protected for the day. Raul654 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of losing my minty fresh admin tools, I've always felt that TFA may warrant semiprotection under certain circumstances. I'd say this is one of those times, but that's just me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You wont lose them for expressing an opinion on policy matters - you will if you ignore consensus. However, in this case I agree with you. Viridae^Talk 06:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I wholly think that this is "letting the camel's nose into the tent" aka setting a bad precedent. There will be additional people helping out reverting to deal with the additional vandalism. At least give it a few hours, if it's too much it can be protected then. -Ravedave 05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it a precedent. It's just what happens usually. Very heavily vandalised articles featuring on the Main Page are responsively semi-protected, otherwise neither the bots nor editors can keep up. In this case, the article is usually semi-protected, so I don't think it will require any new action on our part, i.e. pre-emptive semi-protection, because (when/if it features) it will presumably already be semi-protected anyway. Islam is not a good example to use in the MPFAP debate because it is clearly a unique article and situation. DrKiernan 09:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly agree per Tariq, that would avoid really awful and extreme and possibly racist types of vandalism and considering this that would have made the situation even worse.--JForget 02:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

More help

Needs some admin help again with this AfD. Note the redirects as well. Don't we just hate mass noms? Sr13 06:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems nuked, props to Ryulong and Viridae. Riana (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jackranga

Resolved

 – See my reasoning below. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, can an administrator look at this user's page please ? he has almost the same name as me and has copied the contents of my talk page and user page accross. If possible could you do a checkuser to be sure it wasn't me who made a typo when logging in or something? I think it's probably a vandal though, I don't see how I could have copied my user and talk pages across by accident. Sorry if it was an error on my behalf, I don't see how this could have happened though. Jackaranga 12:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have ran into a few problems with vandals recently, maybe that has something to do with it. Jackaranga 12:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% sure I was in bed when that account was created but can't 100% sure. I can't find anything about "Jackranga" in my browser history, so I'm guessing it's not me who created that account, I only noticed it existed because I have images on my user page (which the person copied across, and I saw User:Jackranga in the list of links to image on the image page. Jackaranga 12:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the account in question was only created two days ago, you probably want to read WP:U and then report this to WP:UFA. Before you do that, please consider if this might just be an honest mistake. In that case, it might be best to contact the user directly first. --S ^up? 12:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok but why did he copy my talk page, and user page across? Jackaranga 12:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just noticed that the talkpage was a 1:1 copy. The userpage could be explained (many people copy parts of a userpage they like) but I don't see a reason to copy someone's talkpage. I guess it's probably best to report this to UFA as an impersonation attempt. If it's legitimate account, the user can still take it to WP:CHU. -- S ^up? 13:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User blocked under (a) a WP:U violation (similar to another user's name) and (b) suspected harassment account. I deleted the userpage as a GFDL violation (since it was just a copy-paste move). We've got better things to do with our time than coddle assholes. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems a little excessive, but I've had my userpage duplicated by someone who was only interested in harassing me (right down to it still having my username on it), so I can understand exactly how frustrating this can be (even if it isn't the biggest of issues, it's still the sort of thing that eats away at the back of your mind). If the user requests an unblock so they can immediately go to WP:CHU, I'd be all for it, but there's no reason to assume jack squat given the details. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, EVula for taking care of this. However even though you blocked User:Jackranga, you left the message on my talk page instead of his. Had me scared for a minute. xD Jackaranga 16:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, this is evidence that the username truly is confusing. :) Notice has been shifted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:10014derek and copyright

This user has uploaded countless copyrighted images with improper licensing. He's received many notices (from bots) to this effect and his only response is to blank his talk page. He's uploaded yet another such image today. What should be done about this user? -N 16:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I've issued a 48-hour image deletion warning and a copyright warning. If he persists I'll report to AIV. -N 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive AGF towards a user with a long, long record of 3RR, edit-wars and POV-pushing

R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), suspended several times (days, weeks, even a full month) from editing because of his constant edit-wars is back and, guess what, edit-warring again, erasing whole passages without justification and randomly putting misspellt German names wherever he can, like here or here ("Garten Botanik" is no German). In spite of his long block log and the repetitive pattern of his demeanour, he is met with extreme AGF by Heimstern (talk · contribs), among others. This is abnormal ! Thanks, RCS 07:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an issue you should probably raise with Heimstern. It would help if you clarified what exactly his action was, e.g. to decline a report on 3RR or AIV, and now for you to appeal that decision because the past history was not considered. I found a mixture of good and bad edits in the last two days for this user; based on that pattern, I didn't see why he should be blocked again. Please explain further. YechielMan 14:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Has any dispute resolution been tried? If this really is a complex vandal masquerading as a legitimate editor, WP:AGF places the burden of proof on you to demonstrate how bad the problem really is. For a sample of a report I put together on an editor who eventually got banned, see User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. If things have really gone far enough you could start a thread at the community sanctions noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See here

R9tgokunks has specialised in putting the German perspective into articles dealing with towns and regions now belonging to other countries, especially France (Strasbourg, Colmar, Mulhouse...) and Poland (Szczecin, Wroclaw...) Nothing wrong about that except that he has no knowledge at all of the German language (although he pretends to be German - but he's not : i am German, and i know when somebody doesn't understand a word of what he writes) and of European history and replaces it with products of his imagination ([6] or [7]). Just have a look at his talk page and at the history of it as well. Genuinely mad people like him are expandable, i say, and calling their contributions "content" is beyond contempt for serious contributors. My card : de:Benutzer:Edelseider. Thank you. RCS 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have appreciated if you'd informed me before complaining about my behaviour here. I am making no assumption of faith whatsoever about R9tgokunks; I am simply stating, as several admins have when you have made your AIV reports, that this is not a case of vandalism, and therefore does not belong there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient. I've taken a look at RCS's report and this looks like complex vandalism to me. Please point me to any dispute resolution attempts that have been attempted and report future problems to my user talk page. I take this seriously. And if it helps to state this, Ich kann Deutsch. Durova^Charge! 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sehr freundlich von dir, vielen herzlichen Dank! --RCS 10:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Macht nichts. :) Durova^Charge! 04:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BAG Joining

Hey, I have been asked to post a notification of my request to join the Bot Approvals Group on here. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Joining. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Improper action by admin Omegatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Aquygen & Denny Klein were deleted per AfD and consensus. One was salted to prevent recreation. User:Omegatron was against deletion of these articles. Against consensus, User:Omegatron used his admin tools to recreate these articles as redirects and then protected them. This is blatant misuse of admin tools and could also be considered wheel warring as he essentially undid the actions of another administrator by recreating these articles. He was asked on his talk page to reverse his actions but he refused. These articles should be deleted per the AfD and deletion review. Omegatron should be admonished for using admin tools to further a dispute he is involved in as well as using admin tools wheel war. --Tbeatty 05:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Having the titles go somewhere as a redirect sounds reasonable to me. Keeping them protected prevents someone from trying to recreate the article. What is the issue? --BigDT 06:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[ec]Just a passing note: Denny Klein was deleted primarily because there weren't valid sources for notability. The way it is now, the article is still there, and can be corrected at such time evidence can be provided. I see nothing wrong with keeping the door open on a future article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

They were deleted and salted for a reason with consensus by multiple admins. Consensus has not changed. Omegatron was involved in two related articles that were also deleted in the last week. His recreation and redirect are direct contradictions to both the previous consensus on those articles as well as the recent consensus on the deletion of HHO gas and Brown's gas. His involvement in both of these articles should preclude him from recreating these deleted articles. This is wheel warring, wp:point and using admin tools to win an argument. It's improper. --Tbeatty 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to discuss content here as that is not the issue (this is a tool abuse case). But Aquygen should not be redirected as it is product advertisement spam/scam. Denny Klein should not be redirected hecause he has no contribution to creating/inventing/analyzing Oxyhydrogen. This is more spam. that discussion was essentially omitted with the unilateral action by Omegatron. --Tbeatty 06:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Omegatron. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would note that this article has been created/deleted/recreated/deleted/redirected/recreated/deleted, etc. The redirects existed after previous AfDs, long before Omegatron came on the scene. So if there's a wheel war, it seems to me to be one where the redirects keep being taken away. I'd also question that this is a 'genuine' wheel war, since this is more than just protect/unprotect/protect. And it looks like the article was closed very oddly, as the page history was (somewhat) blanked: previous versions of the article exist in the history, but not the versions deleted by the latest AfD. I left other points (specifically about Omegatron) in the RfC, but as I see it, maybe all the Admins currently involved in this -on both sides- should just walk away and leave the (deleted) article's care to other Admins. LaughingVulcan 14:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The DRV specified that the HHO gas and Brown's gas content should be at Oxyhydrogen, and they were undeleted and turned into redirects to that article. It was pointed out to me that the other redirects no longer pointed at the correct place, so I took care of it; I recreated the redirects from HHO, HHO Gas, Brown's Gas, and so on, to point to the new location. Aquygen is another name for HHO gas, used by HTA, Inc., of which Denny Klein is the CEO, so I recreated these, too. There are probably others that I missed. (Other names include Klein gas, Rhodes gas, Green gas, Hydroxy/Di-Hydroxy, Watergas and so on. It's a common theme in the pseudoscience world, with much the same claims made for each, and, in my opinion, should be covered in the same article.)

(It appears that they've been turned into redlinks. If the end result of this is deletion instead of redirects, I think salting would be preferable, to keep proponents from re-creating them as articles. Also, do we need them undeleted for licensing purposes, since the later articles are derivative works of the earlier deleted ones?)

For the record, I really don't care if these redirects exist, but I have yet to see any reason why they shouldn't. So I left them undeleted and asked for a third party opinion (not another antagonist from the AfD). See my talk page for the complaints and my response.

I think it's quite silly that creation of redirects, previous deletions or otherwise, is being characterized as a serious abuse of admin powers. — Omegatron 18:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DiabloSE30 (talk · contribs)

Ok, I have tried to take this guy down through the systems, but this guy is becoming a problem, fast. By the time that he gets taken care of through the systems, he will probably have a 1,000 socks running around Wikipedia. Anyways, There is this suer called User:DiabloSE30, and he has taken to making fancrufty edits to the Lamborghini Diablo article, claiming that he thinks the article is "very poor". [8] He acted like he was going to improve the article, but the only real edits he has made was removing the free use images provided by me and another user, and putting a fair use image in there instead, coupled with a high quality image of a Jota, albiet it is CC licensed, so I have perferred to keep it in the article. The diffs between his version and the article version that I am trying to keep in order are here. Well, edit warring is not the only thing that he is doing. Whenever anyone reverts his edits, he automatically tells them to stop editing the article, claiming that they "are adding wrong info on the car",[9] though we made no textual edits of any kind, it is simply a game of image shuffle. I now have requested that the page be protected. Anyways, last night, after the start of this mess, a sockpuppet of his and a lot of Ips started an all out assault on my userpage, which was only stopped by my page being semi protected. There are at least two accounts and many IPs which I link to this guy. I am 100% sure that the accounts are socks. The IPs are either numerous because he is in a library or something, and he switches computers, he is using a proxy, or the Ips are meatpuppets. The Ips have maiunly been used just to attack me. The main account (DiabloSE30) is the only one that touched the page. The use of the socks adn IPs were mainly to attack me. I believe that they belong to him, because when my page was vandalized, they said stuff like "I need to stick to stuff I know about" [10] and that I "don't know jack squat abotu cars" [11] and that is why I believe that this ties in with that. Anyways, this guy is quickly becoming a problem, and he needs to be taken care of, fast. Pretty much, this guy is just rampaging aroudn WIkipedia, and he needs to be stopped immediately, and frankly, doing it through teh systems has gotten nowhere and is taking to long when we are running out of time with this guy. We need to nip this in the bud before this becomes a full stop disaster. Anyways, I want immediate action. This guy needs to be stopped, fast. Karrmann 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a stern warning. If he continue, a block may be needed. Please note that you've been edit-warring with him without issuing proper warnings. Technically, you violated 3RR, but you've been reverting copyright violations, that's why I don't think you should be blocked. MaxSem 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the reason I continued to revert. By him trying to force that fair use image into the article, he was aggressively infringing copyright, so I made sure that the image stayed out. If it were not dealing with copyright infringement, I would have stopped after three. Karrmann 21:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How to avoid edit-warring?

Hello.
I wasn't sure if this was the proper venue for this question. The village pump seemed equally valid, but I didn't want to cross-post, and since part of my concern is how to also avoid being blocked, that seemed to be the tie-breaker.
I don't have a specific 'incident' to report, which is why this isn't on AN/I. I wanted to know how one should generally deal with editors who either won't discuss changes/tags/etc. at all, who only discuss via edit-summaries (which doesn't really allow further discussion without edit-warring), or who simply ignore consensus?
I know there's RfC, but that seems somewhat extreme (and a ton of work). On the other hand, even if they refuse to discuss changes, reverting them is still edit-warring. So, what do you do? AN/I seems inappropriate if they're presumably still working in good faith. RfC is drastic. What's the policy?
(I ask it here because I've seen people blocked for reverting people who refused to discuss changes) Bladestorm 18:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to not get carried award. First off, attempt to communicate with him. If he keeps on making bad changes, don't violate the 3RR unless there are extreme circumstances. Really, telling an admin you know or posting a thread here is probably a safe bet. I agree that RfCs, et al are usually incredible time-wasters for content disputes caused mostly by one editor. Above all, keep cool. David Fuchs 21:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll block the user you're warring with for 24 hours again. Apparently, the user had been blocked for edit warring just a day before, see a discussion on his talk page on that. Sr13 21:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I change my mind on that; I'll strictly admonish instead. Sr13 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually wasn't only referring to in this particular case, but also curious about the general rules of conduct. (It's often easier to find advice on what to not do than what to do.) That said, this was actually pretty helpful. :)
I've been more conscious about keeping my cool, pushing for more discussion, and simply not using any stronger tones than I really need to. And it's worked out pretty well. Thanks for the advice. :) Bladestorm 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't think that edit warring can be avoided. There are some cases where a certain editer who has an enthuiasm for a page, adn them takes ownership of the page and puts a lot of POV into it. Examples would be the Ford GT90 page or the Lamborghini Diablo page. And with these people, they don't seem to be able to be talked to. They constantly edit war with anyone who changes the page off of their version, or even goes as far as horassing them. There is a current incident where this user User:DiabloSE30 inserted fair use images into the article, and removed all the free use ones. I revert, and he just edit warred with me and started to horass me endlessly. I think that ocassionally, we just meet people who think they know everything abotu a subject, or think about a subject endlessly in POV, and kind of wants to glorify the subject. Anyways, we pretty much go until they finally horass and commit sockpuppetry, get blocked, and we move on. Karrmann 17:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rascals Mob Recordings & Friends

I came across these guys about a month back, and after a sock puppet tag got added to one of their pages I thought everything would be sorted out, but it hasn't been. Pretty much they're trying to get around WP:BAND by creating user pages with information about themselves. None of their edits have been constructive to wikipedia, they are only edit their user pages, which in turn have nothing to do with wikipedia. The users/pages in question that I've found so far are (although there could be more):

• User:Rascals
• User:Rascals Mob Recordings
• User:Dean 'Big Dean' Woodward

I hope this is the right place to go, I couldn't find anything about how to handle an incident like this, if not then please move it to the proper section. Guycalledryan 08:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpages deleted per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actions of Nick (talk · contribs)

Nick cleared and protected my entire monobook.js-page after I used twinkle instead of the normal "undo" button to revert someone. Could anyone please readd the other scripts that were in my page? (see also User talk:Salaskan#TWINKLE abuse) SalaSkan 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you were also revert warring and left an edit summary accusing Dmcdevit of vandalising the page that you were edit warring over. ---Spartaz

Stop wikilawyering. You should have been blocked for disruption. Consider yourself lucky to have avoided an enforced wikibreak. Moreschi ^Talk 11:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the non-TW scripts, please do not use automated scripts to undo non-vandalistic reverts. Hell, I don't even like people using 'undo'... Riana (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have notified Nick that he is being discussed at AN. You might also have tried to resolve this on his talk page before bringing this here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should've been clearer in the name of this section: this is not a complaint against Nick's behaviour in general, but against the clearing of my entire monobook page instead of just the Twinkle script. I responded on my talk page, but he was offline, so I added a request here. SalaSkan 12:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you, Riana. This is no big deal aside from the removing of all my scripts, so now my other scripts are restored, we'll leave it there for now. SalaSkan 12:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal Information Posted on Wikipedia

Resolved

- Oversight took care of it. YechielMan 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an administrative please purge this edit from your website immediately [12]. An individual at a computer lab posted personal information, to include the real name of a Wikipedia user and information about his present whereabouts. It was posted from a VPN account at the computer lab, of which only a few people have access to, so we are handling that on our end. We apologize that this happened and ask for a quick response from Wikipedia. Thank you. -195.229.236.216 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to requests for oversight, and send a request to them. They will delete the revision of the page which contained personal info. GrooveDog 16:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the edit, but GrooveDog is right that in the future an email to the oversight mailing list will take care of the problem without calling attention to it. Thatcher131 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of my page

My user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Hyams has been vandalized by User:Pancasila for the second time. That user was already warned by an andministrator not to do so. Therefore, please:
1) Restore my user page to what it used to be.
2) Block user User:Pancasila from editing Wikipedia. Writing "fuckface" on my user page after being warned is something that should be unaccptable by the Wikipedia community.

Thank you. John Hyams 10:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The vandalisation appears to have occurred in April this year, and is the last contrib by Pancasila to date. I don't see any point in a date expiry block for an individual who doesn't appear to be contributing. LessHeard vanU 10:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC) I note that User:Rettetast has blocked Pancasila for one month. LessHeard vanU 10:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, John Hyams had also not edited WP since early April before coming here to request action on some old vandalism of his userpage. I note there has been no subsequent contributions. I have to ask, what was the point? LessHeard vanU 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

user Sesshomaru

im not sure if this is the right place to post this or not but this user keeps trying to say im a troll and a sock puppet. He is also telling others that I refuse to listen to him and hes giving me grief about my archive. He refuses to listen to reason and I was hoping a admin could talk to him. Thanks.TheManWhoLaughs 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• TheManWhoLaughs was blocked as a sock by Yamla. Keegan^talk 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

POV on the "In the News" template.

Could an administrator please address the concerns stated there? Italiavivi 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ongoing discussion here, for those who'd like to take a further look. Keegan^talk 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpages

I noticed that Xdt (talk · contribs · logs) has a huge list of Doctor Who monsters - with fan-like commentary - on his userpage, and dropped him a note suggesting that it may be against WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. If I did wrong, would someone please tell him and me? Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion like that might be best made as 'please move that to your sandbox'; there's actually nothing wrong with keeping an inventory like that around and available so that you can refer to it and occasionally move it into articles as it becomes usable (and it looks like this user does, from time to time). You're right about usage, but I think in this case, it might just be the user not realizing they can use other space for the storage of info they use on wikipedia. --Thespian 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It should really be moved off-site if he intends to as a resource for fans. We don't need to be hard-nosed about it... just offer gentle reminders. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Contributor using multiple IPs

Resolved

Almost identical vandalism to the article Keith Jardine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is coming from different IP addresses:

• 203.59.187.129 (talk · contribs) diff
• 155.144.251.120 (talk · contribs) diff diff
• 203.166.243.179 (talk · contribs) diff
• 192.30.202.20 (talk · contribs) diff

Other than page protection, how can this be investigated/dealt with? Sancho 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've taken on a few sockpuppet cases in the last week, and reports of this nature usually go to WP:SSP. If these were logged in accounts, we could block them indefinitely as socks, but for IPs it's not allowed. So the question is, will blocking any of them prevent vandalism from now and forward? To answer that, I observe that only 203.59.187.129 among all the IPs you listed has edited within the last 24 hours, so he's the only one who could reasonably be blocked as a preventive (not punitive) measure. I would support semiprotecting the article for a full week, and I will make such a request at WP:RPP. YechielMan 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Yechiel's analysis on all substantial counts; hopefully semi-protection keeps these guy(s) off, for now. Tagging this resolved, for now, as semi-protection has been applied, but feel free to remove that if problems persist. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of Editor Reviews

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

• Cross posted at WP:VP. Please respond here: [13].

User:Mcr616 has violated 3RR on his own Editor Review, and any sort of reprecussion was declined on this basis of his ownership of his own review. This raises serious issues regarding WP:OWN and whether or not legitimate comments on an ER can be construed as vandalism. More here: [14]. 72.128.85.212 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Users have considerable latitude over control of their own user pages, sub-pages, and talk pages. They are certainly not bound to respect anonymous reviews by sockpuppets of blocked users. Furthermore, editor review is for the benefit of the user - if they don't want to listen to comments, so be it. It's a totally informal process. --Haemo 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The user is free to ignore it. What he's not free to do is remove it, or violate 3RR. Allow me to remind you that an ER doesn't reside in User space, it's in WP space.72.128.85.212 04:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Users are granted serious latitude, especially when blocked users are trying to game the review process in retribution for past slights. That's a not a fair review, and it's not what the process is for. --Haemo 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the user in question could have solicited another to remove the comments, if they really were so serious as to constitute harassment or vandalism. The way I see it, there are three issues here:

• 1) Should an editor who lists himself for Editor Review have the "serious latitude" you mention to remove comments they don't like?
• 2) Should 3RR violations be ignored simply because an editor was cleaning their own Editor Review? and
• 3) Does an editor maintain "ownership" over an Editor Review page in the same way they would over a page in their Userspace?

As an Editor Review is entered into voluntarily, and occasionally to "test the waters," as it were, for a run at adminship, I believe that once created, a user should leave the substance of reviews regarding them alone. This is both to the end of maintaining an atmosphere that allows for free expression of thoughts on an ER, and maintaining an accurate records of people's opinions of an editor seeking review. What is the good of an ER if people are worried that negative reviews constitute harassment or vandalism? What is the good of reviewing an editor's ERs when said editor is seeking elected position if the editor has cleaned every negative comment up? To that end, I believe that an editor (1) should not be allowed to remove comments from their own ER. If something is harassment or vandalism, it should be obvious enough that someone else can clean it up. It follows that (2) 3RR vio's on ER pages should certainly constitute serious violations. Finally, because of the previously listed reasons, an ER should (3) not constitute a personal page, and the reviewed party should not be affored WP:OWNership rights over it. It is in the WP namespace, not the User namespace, for a reason. 72.128.85.212 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As the IP user starting this thread is clearly evading a prior block on 72.128.88.130 (which in turn may have been used to evade another block), I've blocked their current IP address, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would anticipate getting some serious wikilawyer-ish complaints over that block. --Haemo 04:31, 25 June 2007 (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.

user DBZGokuSaiyan

not sure what his problem is but he made some very derogatory statements here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrenDJ I dont know what to do though can some one help me?BlueShrek 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just try to talk to him, and mention that personal attacks are not appropriate. --Haemo 04:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actions of Alansohn in relation to continued WP:POINT disruptions on Wikipedia talk:Schoolcruft

Since 14:26, 18 June 2007 (diff), Alansohn has engaged in disrupting editing on Wikipedia talk:Schoolcruft to the point where users are becoming significantly frustrated at their inability to achieve an appropriate resolution to the specific users' concerns despite reasonable and continued attempts to do so. The user has also specifically attempted to breach the spirit of WP:CANVAS by attempting to bring like-minded users into ongoing discussions relating to his discussions on the talk page in question.(diff) This has now escalated to the point where the user has been significantly WikiLawyering and falsely accusing users of making threats towards the user and engaging in personal attacks.(diff - refer to edit summary) He has also engaged in the same editorial practices that he has continued to accuse others of.(diff) Further to this, the user has gone within minutes of committing a WP:3RR violation on the essay itself (diff1 diff2 diff3), and as an experienced user with over 37,000 edits and using his account since May 2005, should have known better.

Further to this, the user is more than aware of WP:3RR having been blocked on 23 February 2007 for a 3RR violation on Springfield Park Elementary School.(user logs)

From information received from other editors, it appears on the face of it that the user has been engaged in a long history of poor editorial and consensus building practices despite such issues being constantly raised with him.(list of issues relating to users editorial practices). Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia:Schoolcruft article contained a statement on dealing with "Schoolcruft" that insisted that "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing." I was struck by the incivility of a statement that those who have been involved in a content dispute regarding school articles must inevitably be punished through the AN/I process if they have a disagreement on wording. After reviewing discussion and previous edits, I followed the "Please update the page as needed" invitation at the top of the essay and changed this to "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors can be more difficult to deal with.", among other changes ([15]) to address the clear WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations; this change was reverted ([16]). At this edit, the text was changed to the even more offensive "... AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." In turn, I proposed the compromise wording of "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with.", which in turn was reverted back to the new and more offensive version. A third and final attempt was made to address the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations, which in turn was reverted back to the newer blatantly offensive version. As it was clear that the two individuals involved were blocking any effort to address the problems with the article, I made no further changes to the essay. There was no violation of WP:3RR policy. All of my edits to the section in question were made in good faith, retained the basic sense of the text in question, and were made to address clear violations of Wikipedia policy.

• On the talk page compromise wording was proposed by User:TerriersFan, who had also been effectively blocked from making changes to the article by User:Thewinchester's bullying and abuse. I indicated my general acceptance with this wording, noting that "the changes proposed indicate that there must be significant complicating factors to justify pursuit of an AN/I in such circumstances.", only to be informed (at [17]) that this agreed upon suggestion to deal with the issues involved did not need to be addressed or considered. Attempts to discuss the multiple Wikipedia policy violations involved in this article were met with increasing threats, bullying and multiple personal attacks (see [18], [19] for some of the more egregious examples). Ultimately, in response to an acknowledgment that the wording was "less bad" than before, came the proof of the poison in the pudding: at this edit, Thewinchester insisted that the efforts to discuss the largely closed issue demonstrated that my expression of opinion on the issue was "just crying out for spanking at WP:ANI" and concluding with an yet another shameless WP:NPA personal attack to "go back to New Jersey and continue [sic] create useless redirects for bus route numbers".

• User:Thewinchester has shown abundant bad faith in writing the offensive WP:SCHOOLCRUFT essay, and in his use of bullying, threats and personal attacks in dealing with constructive criticism from me and other experienced editors (see [20], [21]), and has chosen the path of incivility in dealing with a series of constructive suggestions. There is no consensus on the wording of this section; the equal number of editors who disagree with the offensive wording were bullied one by one into walking away from the article in disgust, a path I had already chosen. Just as shooting horses is seen as the only option to deal with many equine veterinary ailments, User:Thewinchester has decided that WP:ANI is the solution to deal with any and all Wikipedia problems, as he has done here. In dealing with the supposed "schoolcruft" issue, Thewinchester has demonstrated a persistent refusal to consider reasoned discussion and proposed compromise, and has used bullying and threats, abusing the WP:ANI process in an effort to circumvent violations of Wikipedia official policy and to suppress any suggestion that he disagrees with. Alansohn 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In a conversation with another user (see here), which I assume was supposed to be unseen, User:Thewinchester made a hate-filled rant that those who disagree with him have to be dealt with through "appropriate procedural action", a process that he has abused, is abusing, and will continue to abuse. His final statement that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." demonstrates that there was no good faith involved here. Rather than dealing with the Wikipedia:Schoolcruft article's Wikipedia violations in a proper fashion, the sole goal of the process was to make a WP:POINT through bullying and provocation, as he himself has acknowledged and bragged about. I had hoped to make a constructive change to a less than constructive essay; In response, this AN/I, and User:Thewinchester's responses to those who have shown any disagreement with him, are part of a self-described premeditated effort to let anyone who disagrees with his own personal biases know that "they get dealt with accordingly". Alansohn 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And let's not omit this comment, that "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them [sic] from the nearest freaking yardarm." In some parts of New Jersey, as seen on The Sopranos, threats like this are followed by a bullet to the back of the head; here on Wikipedia that bullet is here at WP:AN/I. This systematic and pre-planned abuse of the AN/I process must be put to an end. Alansohn 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have to concur with Alan. Apart from antagonising a whole slew of editors whom he berated, censoriously accusing them of attacks and poor faith, offering up lectures on civility and providing an all-round peacock display of wikilawyering, finally driving one to an outburst of total exasperation, Alan has done nothing wrong at all. He should be quite rightly aggrieved that his innocent inquiry into reversing the tenor of the Schoolcruft essay, an essay that, as he notes, violates all manner of Wikipedia policies by espousing a POV on a controversial topic, which is not what essays are supposed to do; he should be quite rightly aggrieved that his clearly demonstrated willingness to listen to those with whom he disagrees, his sincere desire to establish consensus with editors who disagree; indeed, he should be quite rightly aggrieved that his very good-faith intervention on an issue over which he has consistently demonstrated an open-mindedness, tolerance and willingness to listen that can only be characterised as flabbergasting; he should be quite rightly aggrieved that this has inexplicably ended up at AN/I. Barging in on a group of editors and informing them that they have violated policies of good faith, civility, point, and personal attacks is certainly not trollish behaviour and I for one salute Alansohn's vigorous defense of his actions and salute the diplomatic finesse with which he consistently deals with those whose views differ from his own. Eusebeus 15:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • My most sincere thanks to User:Eusebeus for his exceedingly genuine support on the persistent problems created by User:Thewinchester. One correction, though; User:Eusebeus's remark that editing an article to address policy violations constitutes "Barging in on a group of editors and informing them that they have violated policies..." and is somehow inappropriate, would mistakenly imply that the editors involved have a right to prevent participation from other editors, in violation of WP:OWN, a claim made multiple time by User:Thewinchester. The suggestion to move the article to userspace was made multiple times, consistent with relevant policy at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." I would be more than willing to tolerate this as a userified article. As a mainspace article, policy dictates that it will be edited. I appreciate the most helpful remarks, and hope that this one small correction will only improve the overall tenor of User:Eusebeus's WP:POINT violation here. Wikipedia would only benefit further if User:Eusebeus makes more constructive remarks. Alansohn 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Alansohn has literally been given enough rope, and has proved the exact problems that have been gave rise to this AN/I report. And if the user wishes to continue a baseless and unjustified attack on an essay and refuses to participate in multiple attempts to build consensus that's entirly their prerogative. And on the subject of essays that clearly breach [{WP:AGF]], let's look at his own work - Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, which not only fails to completly assume good faith and proposes no attempts or action paths to reach positive outcomes. WP:SCFT has achieved community consensus (Demonstrated by a near snowball keep at an XfD discussion) and encourages strongly undertaking attempts to resolve the issues it covers unless the users causing the problems just refuse to participate in reasonable attempts to do so. Seriously, this could go on and on to the point where someone will just have to open a WP:RFC on the user in question, and i'm half surprised that no one has done so already. The continued rantings of this user about pointless and baseless arguments and claims have exhausted my good faith towards them, particually since they totally take figurative comments out of context for their own person and try to claim that there has been a threat of violence towards them. That's just pathetic and to me comes across as a sign of desperation for the sole purpose of a faulty claim to the moral high ground in order to prove a point. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Thewinchester continues to demonstrate a pattern of bad faith and abuse of process. The XfD keep only proves that other editors are willing to tolerate the article's existence as an essay. Multiple editors have tried to achieve compromise at Wikipedia:Schoolcruft, only to be rebuffed by User:Thewinchester's repeated bullying, threats and regular ordinary refusal to consider any alternative to the article he thinks he owns in violation of Wikipedia policy. The physical threats -- especially this comment, that "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them [sic] from the nearest freaking yardarm." -- are disturbing enough coming from someone on the other side of the world. It's the persistent threats and continued abuse of the WP:ANI process that are by far the most disturbing aspects of User:Thewinchester's behavior. His final statement that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." demonstrates that there is no good faith involved here and never has been any. User:Thewinchester is someone who doesn't just make empty threats; he follows through on his bullying and regularly abuses Wikiepdia process to make his WP:POINT that it's his way or your brought up on WP:ANI. It's time this is put to an end. Alansohn 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to try and stay out of this one, but I would point out that contrary to Alansohn's statement above, this is to my knowledge only the second time Thewinchester has ever brought a case to AN/I. Orderinchaos 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm thinking an RFC is in order on this matter, or preferably going to WP:MEDCOM. It seems like a couple of people whining about an essay, and both parties blowing it way out of proportion. If one of you wants to do an RFC, then do it. Better than here, us admins can't really do much here.--Wizardman 22:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Essays are meant to be edited, but when the thrust of the essay is at odds with an individual users point of view, particularly when there is a consensus for the current version, then the opposing user is free to write his/her own essay (see Wikipedia:A treatise on essays). It is only an essay and is not policy and its reasonable to have opposing essays within the wiki (See for example WP:FAIL and WP:NOTFAIL). I agree with Wizardman that this seems to be a disagreement about content and that AN is really not the ideal place to be discussing it. All parties need to step back from this for a few days and calm down. Perhaps a moratorium or cooling off period for say 7 days where the 2 or 3 involved parties agree to not edit the article or talk page. The world will not end tomorrow. —Moondyne 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that Wikipedia:A treatise on essays is, merely, an essay, and has no standing whatsoever as a policy or guideline. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., which actually states that it "documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia" states that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." Wikipedia policy makes all essays, even this one, open to editing by all editors and grants no one ownership rights, unless moved to userspace, as repeatedly suggested. Alansohn 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be helpful to visualize the efforts to modify the wording to something less offensive, and the effort to maintain the status quo by User:Thewinchester:

Iteration	User:Thewinchester and User:Eusebeus	Alansohn and other suggested changes
1	Original version: "Schoolcruft articles can always be improved, but even longer term Wiki editors know where to draw the line. Users contributing Schoolcruft to Wikipedia need to be watched closely. If they are a registered user, gentle coaching and comments on their talk page from more experienced editors will usually pull them back from a self-induced death spiral. However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing."	First change: "Schoolcruft articles can usually be improved. If they are a registered user, gentle coaching and comments on their talk page can be useful. However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors can be more difficult to deal with." ([22])
2	Reverted to: "Schoolcruft articles can always be improved, but even longer term Wiki editors know where to draw the line. Users contributing Schoolcruft to Wikipedia need to be watched closely. If they are a registered user, gentle coaching and comments on their talk page from more experienced editors will usually pull them back from a self-induced death spiral. However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing." ([23])	No change
3	Changed wording of final sentence to "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." ([24])	"However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with." ([25])
4	Revert to "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." ([26])	Suggested edit "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with." ([27])
5	Revert to "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." ([28])	User:TerriersFan suggested compromise wording of "However, articles created by anonymous IP editors are always the most difficult to deal with. When it has been clearly demonstrated that they have not heeded the call, or fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing, and the Schoolcruft crosses the line into vandalism then action through AN/I should be considered." ([29])
6	Compromise ignored	Compromise wording accepted "While less than ideal, the changes proposed indicate that there must be significant complicating factors to justify pursuit of an AN/I in such circumstances. As currently worded, the death spiral by those opposing "Schoolcruft" to open an incident for someone with what is at worst a content dispute would be almost automatic." ([30])
7	Compromise rejected: "*Um, this is an essay that lays out a point of view. It does not require any course of action. Since User:Alansohn is one of those whose actions are enveloped by the critical analysis proffered by the terms of the argument, his objections, while understandable, hardly need to be taken very seriously. Alansohn disagrees with the entire tenor of the argument. Why accommodate his own tendentious pov-pushing when he could simply write a counter essay?" ([31])

I disagreed -- and continue to disagree -- with the general tenor of the article and its insistence that content disputes revolving around school articles that are deemed to be "Schoolcruft" must continue on a path towards WP:ANI if other editors disagree with User:Thewinchester. All of my attempts at rewording the article left the essential gist of the article unchanged, but sought to remove the most uncivil and bad faith aspects. Compromise wording that I will still accept would leave in the possibility of a path to WP:ANI, but only where vandalism is involved. User:Thewinchester has refused to consider any alternative wording from an article that he has decide is his WP:OWN. Suggestions to move the article to userspace was made multiple times -- consistent with relevant policy at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." -- and have been repeatedly ignored.

In a nutshell, User:Thewinchester has made a determined stand for the moral high ground that those who disagree with his personal biases will face AN/I if they have the audacity to disagree with him. It's not just an empty threat; It's happening right here, right now. Alansohn 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering both of you whacked warnings on each other's talk pages before it got here, and that you came close to violating other policies such as WP:3RR, I'd say it had gotten well past disagreement. You have every right to disagree with an essay, I disagree with many I see around the place. Likewise, I cack myself laughing at the ingenious wording of some which are blatantly anti-AGF (the vanispami whatever one, and WP:CB as examples) - despite assuming AGF in my own dealings, sometimes frustration is a factor! I'd rather see it expressed in an essay as a catharsis of someone's feelings that someone understands how they feel and move on, than for them to take it out on people who may be contributing positively. Ironically, the essay to which Alansohn posted a link to on the Schoolcruft page on 14 June [32], Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, is one of the most nasty pieces I've ever read. I, however, choose to ignore it as a view that doesn't match mine, and move on. I suggest Alan do the same re this one. Orderinchaos 10:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap. Alan seriously needs an extended wikibreak, or at least a moratorium on AfD-related issues. That's totally insane. Eusebeus 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• While it is an improvement over User:Thewinchester's threats of physical violence, what's with this latest personal attack. This is the second time you've violated WP:POINT right here on the Administrators' noticeboard. Again, address the issues in the article in question. I have. Alansohn 11:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the title of this piece is "Actions of Alansohn..." so discussion of your actions is entirely on-topic here. Orderinchaos 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Noting out that you've gone completely and obsessively over the top, Alansohn, is NOT "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" -- in fact, it's completely the opposite. You DO understand what WP:POINT means, right? Hint: it doesn't mean "pointing something out", even if it shares a verb. --Calton | Talk 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I had completely failed to notice the authorship of the essay I cited (thinking it was just a link-in), and the tenor of my opinions has changed markedly - this is hypocrisy at its finest. I am curious to know if Alan would be so keen as for those of us who disagree with his definitions and, in particular, his characterisations of hard-working users and administrators to be refactored or removed. I note with curiosity Alansohn's comment on the Cruftcruft talk page[33] with consideration of his behaviour at SCFT. Orderinchaos 12:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As another aside, to show that this is a pattern and not an isolated incident, Alansohm seems to have done something similar in a "discussion" on the Kristi Yamaoka AfD where it didn't matter what I said as long as Alansohn got to reiterate his points about what I was doing wrong, despite the reasoning I gave him.. MSJapan 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please take a look at the AfD in question. User:MSJapan was warned by another user that "You've tried four times now over the last 15 months o have this article deleted. Enough is enough please. If 15 months after the first AfD you've been incapable of demonstrating lack of notability, it isn't going to happen. Continued attempts over and over again to have this deleted serves no purpose. Please, stop. Thank you." (See for details). User:MSJapan's actions in this AfD and the three previous ones he created speak for themselves in terms of failure to observe Wikipedia policy and persistent abuse of AfD policy. Alansohn 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not my point, and it only distracts from the real issue at hand. In the AfD, you asked questions regarding why I felt justified in doing what I did, and every time I answered, you basically screamed "POINT violation!", which means you didn't really care what I had to say. That illustrates a pattern similar to what is going on here, which is either a total disregard for or a weak facade of "discussion" in order to show that you're right and no one else is. MSJapan 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly sought to improve an article that violates Wikipedia policy, only to face malicious attacks directed at me. In addition to User:Eusebeus's shameless personal attacks here, he also seems to have the same problem elsewhere on this same subject. Eusebeus' latest derisive remarks, "Have you seen the latest derangement at the Schoolcruft talk page" would fit squarely as a prima facie violation of No Personal Attacks. (see [34] for the details). Alansohn 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How the FRACK does an essay -- which is, you know, NOT A FRACKING ARTICLE -- violate Wikipedia policy by having the temerity to not agree with your views? Wait, don't bother answering unless you can do so with fewer than twenty-five words, that doesn't rely on calling other people evil, and that cites actual policy WITH ACTUAL CITATIONS.

If you have a problem, write your own fracking essay and be done with it. --Calton | Talk 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Who WP:OWN's this "fracking" essay? I encourage you to read the relevant Wikipedia official policy on the subject at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." Whether its just a "fracking essay" or not, the article is open to every single editor, regardless of their connection to the subject matter. Every single "fracking" edit that I had made to this "fracking" essay was intended to leave the "frackingly" malicious tenor of the "fracking" essay as is, while toning down some of its most WP:UNCIVIL elements. Why would anyone have a "fracking" problem with that? Feel free to move this essay to your userspace if no one else is going to be allowed to edit it, per Wikipedia policy. And by the way, "frack" you, too. Alansohn 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• What part of write your own fracking essay and be done with it is causing you great difficulties? Apparently, the only word you actually saw was "fracking", given your mindless regurgitation of it. Here's a hint for you: The horse? Dead.

• Calton, Alan did write that essay; he calls it Cruftcruft and it is a model of the restraint and fair-mindedness that he shows generally. Anyway, I think the suggestion made somehwere in all the above is correct: an RfC would be a more appropriate venue for the issues that have been exposed here. Eusebeus 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It was very carefully modeled on WP:SCHOOLCRUFT, building on its fair-minded and balanced coverage of the subject, with many sentences kept as is, with a few words changed. I was very careful to remove the text in WP:SCHOOLCRUFT that advocates bullying and threats to subject to WP:ANI anyone who disagrees with the essay. And what's the big deal, it's just a "fracking" essay? Alansohn 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• This user has a long history of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations. What's going on with the Schoolcruft essay is nothing compared to the plethora of problems interacting with others, some of which are documented here. I don't think there's anything that can be done about this essay. Someone should just file an RFC and let community consensus make the call. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The threats and bullying from User:Thewinchester -- including threats of physical violence -- are what are relevant here. One only has to look through Thewinchester's bad faith actions in defending his patently uncivil essay in the face of good faith efforts to address some of its most malicious aspects. For all the personal attacks, there has been no one here who has justified User:Thewinchester's efforts to falsely claim ownership of this article in violation of WP:OWN and his abuse of Wikipedia process that involved him following through on his bullying. There is plenty to do with this WP:SCHOOLCRUFT essay: follow Wikipedia policy and implement the good faith proposals to improve it. Problem is that folks just refuse to observe this policy. Alansohn 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you still crapping on and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill Alansohn? I've crossed five state borders and three different timezones since I last checked in on this, and you've continued to persist in beating this up for your own purposes, a viewpoint that I can see many of the comments to this AN/I report support. Would someone please open an RfC and help put a stop to this continued WP:POV and WP:POINT ranting? Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You're still crapping about an attempt to take a sentence that read "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing." and attempted to change it in various efforts to any one of the following:
        • 1) "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors can be more difficult to deal with." ([35])
        • 2) "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are often more difficult to deal with." ([36])
        • 3) "When it has been clearly demonstrated that they have not heeded the call, or fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing, and the Schoolcruft crosses the line into vandalism then action through AN/I should be considered." (As suggested by User:TerriersFan at [37] and supported at [38])
        • You are absolutely right that an RfC needs to be created to deal with the abuse by User:Thewinchester. In the face of multiple good faith efforts on my part to amend the malicious bad faith tone of the original wording, which demands WP:ANI as the only solution to an imagined "Schoolcruft" problem, User:Thewinchester repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy by insisting that he WP:OWNs the article, refuses to consider any edits to his essay and repeatedly violated WP:NPA and WP:POINT through his bullying and threats to initiate this notice. Above and beyond the grotesque physical threats, the exact abusive action that User:Thewinchester threatens to impose on those who disagree with him about "Schoolcruft" are what he has abusively created here. I stand 100% behind my actions in attempting to edit and improve this Wikipedia:Schoolcruft essay. This shameless violation of WP:POINT by User:Thewinchester must be dealt with appropriately. Alansohn 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • • It's interesting to note that the line you keep quoting appears to no longer be in the essay, due to changes by another editor which I think have changed it for the better (and probably addressed nearly all of the AGF concerns). Orderinchaos 10:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
              • The original wording was problematic, to say the least. I proposed two variations to reword the sentence; another user proposed a third version as a compromise. Given that the text was deemed perfect and was set in stone once the XfD passed, the fact that this offensive sentence was changed by a third editor shows that there is broad agreement that the original wording was unacceptable. While the modified version may be more accurately described as "less bad" than "better", it further demonstrates that there is a clear consensus that the original wording was indefensible by Wikipedia standards. No one supports the original wording. Alansohn 11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Case of beating a dead horse if ever there was one - the wording was changed nearly 48 hours ago. I recall saying at the time (way back on 18 June, actually) that the only result of revert-warring is that two inferior versions battle it out - which is exactly what happened. I do not believe the original wording was problematic, but I believe it was capable of misinterpretation - something that can't be said for the new version, which I thank Zivko for putting in the time and effort to produce - something which, I might note, he did with the utmost of civility towards those who wrote the bits he decided to remove or reword. Orderinchaos 13:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Calton, Alan did write that essay - Good, then he can confine his bitching there instead of trying to take over someone eles's opinion. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My god, this section reads like alphabet soup in parts. I'm amazed that no WP:USERs have written a WP:ESSAY to address the overuse (or overabuse?) of WP:POL WP:SHC's in WP:AN. :) That being said, I think we need to all stand back and look at this objectively. Yes, the essay needs improvement. Nothing is set in stone. No, waging a POV campaign because you don't like it is not going to fix it. Accusing editors of threats of physical violence and whatnot (I have read four entire talk pages this morning and failed to find one, other than a metaphorical reference akin to "X should be hung from the nearest tree" - perhaps a failure to understand the Australian idiom is part of the issue) is only going to inflame the issue. Writing essays which are more ridiculous just to make a point is not constructive. An editor with 37,000 edits should know better than to act in such a ridiculous manner and I hope that this stops very shortly. Before this interchange ends, I would like to propose that someone should make a really silly cartoon of this section of WP:AN before it descends into the archive pit. Zivko85 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OMGWTFBBQ. --Carnildo 06:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a suggestion: everybody step back, take a deep breath, and relax. You seem to be a few steps away from request for comment or arbitration committee territory over a couple of essays. I've half a mind to nominate "schoolcruft" and "cruftcruft" both for deletion as they appear to be much more trouble than they are worth (and no, that wouldn't be just to make a point, I genuinely see both of these essays as comprising very little in way of value to the project).--Isotope23 20:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. There really is a page "Wikipedia:Cruftcruft". And it's written in a far more serious tone than I'd expect. -- llywrch 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Thewinchester seems to have a chronic problem with civility, that resulted in an administrative block imposed at the beginning of this month. Thewinchester was asked to apologize to the user he had abused, something who could not manage to do (see [39]), which makes the claim of an "almost" violation utterly irrelevant. While User:Orderinchaos and User:Eusebeus have taken on the role as Thewinchester's chief apologists, neither can feign ignorance of Thewinchester's chronic incivility, personal attacks and abuse of Wikipedia process. Orderinchaos had to be rather disingenuous in discussing Thewinchester's block, when he stated that "I see that 'persistent gross incivility or gross harassment' is the standard required to achieve a block", but given Thewinchester's track record since then we seem to be well past the point of "persistent". His discussion with Eusebeus that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." demonstrates a deliberate effort to provoke and disrupt, a textbook definition of a WP:POINT violation. My good-faith edits to WP:SCHOOLCRUFT seem to be only the latest trigger of Thewinchester's long-festering incivility. User:Thewinchester has repeatedly lashed out at anyone who violates his definition of this arbitrary and malicious term; I am far from the only victim of his abuse. It's time that serious action was taken to address these chronic violations by User:Thewinchester, who has made incivility, personal attacks and abuse of Wikipedia process his hallmark means to disrupt Wikipedia. Alansohn 03:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My complaint was one of process in that instance, and has been resolved since with the fellow admin concerned. I still believe that block was unjustified based on the circumstances which led to it. Had I been disingenuous, I would have noted that neither WP:COI nor WP:BLOCK would have obstructed me from lifting the block myself, and done so, rather than raising it at AN/I and on the blocking admin's talk page. I think, however, this is a distraction from the point that many others have made that your behaviour is really the core issue here (not least because Thewinchester hasn't edited any related articles or talk pages for two or three days now) Orderinchaos 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeating and slightly rearranging your collection of pejoratives and Wikipedia shortcuts over and over again won't change anything at this point, since at this point, the main generator of disruption appears to be you and your never-ending foot-stamping. That horse? Dead. What you're selling, no one's buying, so you best drop it before someone figures out the simplest way to deal with the main generator of disruption involves pushing certain admin buttons. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your statement that I am "trying to take over someone eles's [sic] opinion", repeats the false claim that User:Thewinchester has some sort of ownership rights to this article, in direct conflict with WP:OWN. Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. could not be any clearer, that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." The move to userspace was suggested, and ignored. I stand by every single edit I made to the WP:SCHOOLCRUFT essay as a good faith effort to address the incivility in this article. User:Thewinchester in turn has repeatedly bragged about his disruptive actions, bragging that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there..." (see [40]), as part of a deliberate effort to provoke and disrupt, violating WP:POINT by definition. It's high time that Thewinchester's consistent pattern of abuse is addressed appropriately. Alansohn 05:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats of blocking for an outside view on RfC

Yesterday I was presented the inaugural award for 200 contributions to DYK. Has anybody had more articles on the Main Page? Now, that is a big question. Earlier that day, User:DLX had expressed his opinion to the effect that I am an ordinary troll.[41] Instead of blocking him on the spot, User:BigHaz came to my talk page and posted what he termed "a final warning regarding personal attacks".[42] At first I thought he confused our talk pages and then I thought it was another attempt to oust a content creator from the project. When I asked BigHaz to specify my remarks which he considers to be personal attacks, he referred me to my outside view on WP:RfC.[43]

In my statement, I allude to the actions of the nominator of the RfC, User:Digwuren, as trolling, e.g., his (now deleted) page about Petri Krohn's History of Estonians.[44] I also take issue with his routine rollbacks of my good-faith and proper edits as "vandalism"[45][46][47][48] and his generally rude and defying manner of conversation, as clear from the list of his accusations against Petri on RfC[49]:

• "Petri Krohn's possibly most unusual behavioural aspect, the prospensity to construct elaborate fictitious ideas influenced by WP:POV and then present them as fact."
• "Various peculiar, but invariably nasty theories surrounding the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn"-- An actual header, visible in the TOC
• "Attempts to represent private fantasies as historical fact,"
• "Representing pet theories as fact,"
• "A truly bizarre rant," etc.

Instead of dealing with real disruption, BigHaz finds it helpful to threaten me with "final warnings" and blocks for referring to Digwuren's actions as trolling. I maintain that keeping a sarcastic page about your opponent's views on your nation is pure trolling. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" isn't a rule one can apply to a *user* RFC. His whole idea of warning and threatening people for what they say *in an RFC* is strange, unless it's something really extreme.

The examples of "personal attacks" presented by him on his talk have several points where the "PA" aspect is supposed to lie in the fact that I don't have (=don't give) any *evidence* for what I say. Now surely that's not the way to look at an RFC Outside view. It's *supposed* to be my opinion. And opinions on the nominators are as appropriate as opinions on its subject; compare "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors", at WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. I would like people to comment whether my conclusions are correct or, on the contrary, I should provide tons of diffs to buttress my outside view on RfC (as far as I can see, nobody does substantiate his outside views with evidence).

P.S. I question BigHaz's impartiality in issuing "final warnings" to me. According to his own confession, the removal of the WWII memorial in Tallinn induced him to "start digging around the internet to see what on earth the story was here" and to "form some opinions" on the subject of the Estonian-Russian debacle.[50] It's hard to say how the opinions of a "Baltic German" of "Teutonic ancestry" (as BigHaz identifies himself on his user page) qualify him for the role of a neutral arbiter in the current debacle which he seemingly seeks to assume. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not "user requests for comment", they're "user conduct requests for comment". The focus is always on conduct. --bainer (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for buttressing my argument. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New users making multiple accounts

Several times today I have noticed users creating other accounts even though they have only been registered for under a minute and they have no contribs, talk pages, or user pages. It seems a little weird to me, maybe sockpuppets or secondary accounts? Most of the other names are completely different, and because it's tracked back it doesn't meet any of the legitimate sockpuppet requirements. It might be request an account, but users who don't even have any edits yet?

Ah well, it seems strange, so I thought i'd post it here, as it may be a new type of sockpuppeting from someone who doesn't know it can be traced. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If they're sockpuppeting, they're not picking a very bright way to do it, if a user creates another account that stays in their log forever. It's not against policy to have multiple accounts, though, only to use secondary ones in certain ways, so there's nothing to be done unless they actually try to abuse the secondary ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I expect during the first month of school you'll be able to see a lot of such things. "I just heard about it too, this is how it's done..." (SEWilco 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

• Or the IPA is a school's and the multiple users are all at that school. Anthony Appleyard 08:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange unblock request

Can someone please have a look at User talk:Jayneyalice? They say they are autoblocked because 217.41.217.24 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked, but since that IP was blocked anon only, I don't see how this is possible. I asked the user to double-check that they really are blocked, and they confirmed it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird at best, the blocking admin did not trigger any autoblock either. Since the block expires today, I think it's safe to directly unblock the IP and see if that unblocks this user. Doing it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, if the user was able to edit your page, he was not blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I initially thought, but apparently autoblocked users can edit talk and user talk pages. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I double checked (I blocked my test account), and you can't edit anything while you're autoblocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Well, the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Autoblock makes it sound like autoblocked users "often" can edit talk pages. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Any idea on the reason why some can and some can't? Length of the block maybe? I tried with an indef block. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking that Jayneyalice is the same person as 217.41.217.24 - the contribs show they've been around for a similar period. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Something weird happened when I was trying to test the autoblock system:

• I blocked my test account (same IP than me, different computer)
• the autoblock triggered: I can edit (I assume admins are on a white list), and the IP is blocked
• I unblocked the account. The autoblock stayed, and I couldn't find it in the autoblock tool. I had to manually unblock the IP.

Is that the intended behavior? I thought autoblocks were lifted when you unblocked an account. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The autoblock stays until you manually lift the autoblock, I'll see if I can find it. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No they are not lifted. And admins have ipblock-exempt. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's in your autoblock log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it appeared afterwards, I must have been too impatient. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

9-day old CfD still open

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.

---

Resolved

 – This is the place to request a close, not the place to discuss how it should be (or should have been) decided. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The CfD for Category:Wikipedians by religion is still open after nine days at WP:UCFD (the quoted time to keep open is 5 days, unless I'm mistaken), not to mention that its length alone is impressive. Could an admin go take a look and close as appropriate whenever there is time? Thanks!--Ramdrake 13:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

UCFD's may be closed after 5 days, but administrators have the discretion to allow them to remain open longer to allow for additional discussion, to properly gauge consensus or access the weight of the arguments. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus. Right now, I personally couldn't in good conscience close this either way—does anyone else have any more productive opinions? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say personnally it can be closed as no consensus, which defaults to keep, or if you actually want to gauge by the !votes, it's about 2:1 in favor of keeping. In any case, the chances of this turning into a delete consensus (even rough) seem to me to be akin to WP:SNOW. But please, don't take my word for it, as I involved myself in the discussion.--Ramdrake 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't close this one because (1) I'm not an admin, and more importantly (2) I commented in the discussion. It looks to me like this could stay open for a month and we still wouldn't resolve it. I see legitimate arguments on both sides, and I would suggest closing it as no consensus, defaulting to status quo. Shalom ^Hello 16:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that after recounting the !votes, I counted 30:11 in favor of keeping the categories. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, and doesn't go by votes alone, this should count as something.--Ramdrake 16:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Closed. I read the debate and decided on delete. THese categories are not helping the encyclopedia, same as many other user categories that have been recently deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was closed in error and against a demonstrable rough consensus to keep, ignoring valid argument for keeping the categories. Thus, I have requested a DRV at: [51].--Ramdrake 17:40, 25 June 2007 (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.

Bots of former Wikipedians

What happens to the bots that belong to editors who have left Wikipedia? Do they have their bot flag removed, or are they adopted by another user? —Kurykh 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Typically nothing, unless they're malfunctioning. As long as a bot that was designed to run fully automatically performs within specs (ie. does what it's supposed to do, doesn't screw up and doesn't do anything not approved by the BAG), it can theoretically run indefinitely without any human intervention or even supervision whatsoever. It's obviously preferable to have an operator around who can respond to queries and fix any issues that might come up but, technically, it's not a requirement.
HagermanBot, for instance, was working perfectly fine for quite a while without any human oversight. Now, that you mention it, I recall an an older discussion we had on this but, personally, I don't recall ever seeing a bot deflagged. I don't really consider that a problem either since there's always the possibility that a bot could just come back (even after an extended period of time) and still work flawlessly and due to the fact that the potential for abuse is rather limited. --S ^up? 09:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The only two deflaggings that I can find in the last 500 botflag log entries (both granting and revoking of flags) that were due to the user leaving (not counting situations where the owner turned out to be a sockpuppet of a vandal) are EssjayBot (and Essjay's other bots) and BlueBot. Other reasons for deflagging included cases where the bot flag had only been given temporarily, where a user had accidentally been flagged instead of a bot, and in one case where it was decided that a bot would be more effective without a flag. --ais523 08:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that bots are not allowed to run without an editor around who is available for contact, can vouch for the bot's edits, and who has agreed to fix any problems caused. Of course, I suppose someone could always 'adopt' a bot if its user disappears. --Aquillion 17:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been a problem, as seen at LDBot creating pages from....where?. 64.126.24.12 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Links

Something that myself and quite a few acquaintances have noticed, is that it has become near impossible to add links to Wikipedia articles, without someone immediately removing it and possibly even giving an unfair warning. While I'm sure there are some cases when this is called for, it frequently happens to people who do not deserve it. For example, I recently added a link to the following section: Higurashi no Naku Koro ni

Prior to adding it, I read all the neccessary guidelines and saw that it violated none of them. It possesses a growing wealth of information, the section in question has very few links, and the one I added is to the ONLY english site currently in existance. Since then, several editors have deleted the link, claiming it violates the ELG or is not notable. I am positive it does not violate the ELG and considering the rare and exstensive information on it, plus the fact that it is the ONLY english site for the series, should make it more than notable enough.

I've read the articles about dealing with this sort of thing, but they were really no help at all. Something should be done about this, because people should not have to be attacked or have their links removed every single time that they add them. Wikipedia may not be a "Depository of Links", but that does not mean that every new link added needs to be eliminated without the site even being looked at properly.TomitakePrincess 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You added a fansite to the article. This is contrary to our external linking guidelines, and was removed on that basis. --Haemo 07:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And as an addition, those so-called other english sites in that search are all sites that review anime and not actual english sites with information beyond a basic plot summary.TomitakePrincess 08:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC) There is nothing in those guidelines about adding fansites. Personal sites are not fansites. Personal sites are sites for one's own resume or information about oneself. The site in question is a site that possesses a great deal of information not in the article itself, translations, and is the ONLY english site for the article topic. It is wrong to keep removing it by twisting around words/meanings in the guidelines, when the site is both rare and informative.TomitakePrincess 07:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is -- see "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" -- a fansite, such as this, tends to fall into that category. You should also see the three revert rule, which you are violating. --Haemo 07:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly are the "unique resources" beyong a featured article that you are referring to? The site contains information translated from many of the original Japanese games, books, and other such things, exstensive information, summaries, and analysis, plus shall soon have cast interviews as well. Sounds like more than enough to qualify it staying.TomitakePrincess 07:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

None of those things are unique to this, as opposed to many other sites about it, nor are they something which would not be dealt with in a featured article version of this page. Your tone also belies a serious conflict of interest, and you are seriously violating the three revert rule, and can be blocked for it. --Haemo 07:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you avoiding my question? And with the exception of two, all of the other sites on the Higurashi page are in Japanese. One is a forum and thus in violation of the guidelines and another is a site with little to no actual information. You are not providing a very good argument as to why the site cannot be added. Are you telling me there would be cast interviews in a featured article? Exstensive analysis of the plot, plus the complete guides and translations? Because, according to what I read, that is not true. This is the ONLY english site for this series. Why are you so bent on getting rid of it?TomitakePrincess 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And as an addition, those so-called other english sites in that search are all sites that review anime and not actual english sites with information beyond a basic plot summary.TomitakePrincess 08:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're at about 10rr on that page right now TomitakeHime... Kyaa the Catlord 08:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because people like you keep provoking me over something unfair. And stop getting my name wrong on purpose-it is very rude and not appreciated.TomitakePrincess 08:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that none of the material covered in this site are in any way "unique" to it; as is required by linking guidelines. None of them should be linked, because none of them provide unique information. You seem to believe that because no other site does them all better than your link, that it's acceptable to add it. This is not the case. I'm not "bent on removing your link" -- I'm bent on enforcing our policies and guidelines. But, I've already done my three reverts, so I'm washing my hands of this. Someone else can handle this. Perhaps you should notice that when five different editors all say you're doing something wrong, you might want a gut check. Just for future reference. --Haemo 08:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Note - I've placed the spam1 warning template on this TomitakePrincess's page. Kyaa the Catlord 08:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is why I dislike Wikipedia. It's nothing but a bunch of bigshot editors who enjoy ganging up on people, at least for the most part. And there is material that is both unique original. No one else has most of the the translations I do. No one else has the same cast interviews I do. There is no other site will FULL episode summaries and theory analysis. There are no other sites in English! You guys are just continuously making up excuses to delete this link, which is a huge injustice to Higurashi fans everywhere.TomitakePrincess 08:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

TomitakePrincess, yes, you have a very nice-looking site. However, there's no indication that it undergoes fact-checking or editorial control, which tends to be about the minimum that we require to consider something a reliable source. Unfortunately, if we allow linking to fansites, we'll soon have external link sections five pages long, if not longer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But you have turned it into a crusade. With your current guidelines, no sites but official sites have any hope of being accepted, which is a huge injustice. This series has just been release in the US, but new fans will have nowhere to turn for information, because all the sites are in Japanese. And let's face it, even official sites these days have very minimal information. Most contain a tiny plot and character summaries, with a few wallpapers to download and that is it. Fans looking for more have nowhere to turn, since exstensive sites are always turned down here. It's one thing to be picky about links with sections that have huge fanbases, but this is for a series with a very tiny fanbase and a section that desperately needs some english links. There is no way for any site but the official ones to meet ALL the guidelines. There is no way for any site, even yours, to verify it's facts. You can link to sites that confirm it, but how do you know their info is accurate? Even if the site meets all the guidelines, you'll accuse it of being not notable, and if all else fails, you will try to claim it infringes copyright because a screenshot or quote is on it. But by that, no sites but official ones can exist. And when all the official sites are either uninformative or not in english, fans are left with an "encyclopedia" that lets them down in the link department.TomitakePrincess 08:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of external links is to provide material which is impossible to include in an encyclopedia, and which is not producible by other sites. For instance, an interview with the subject of an article would be a good external link. A link to a video where the creator talks about the subject would be a good external link. A pdf which forms one of the subject's most important works of fiction, or literature, would be a good external link. An essay written by a notable individual about the subject would be a good external link. Wikipedia is not your "one stop anime shop" -- we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to provide fans of a series with a directory of links to go shopping for. External links sections are not a "oh, and by the way, see these other places too" depository -- they are meant to extend the content of the article in an encyclopedic fashion, especially when we cannot do so ourselves. The links provided should be resources that are unique, reliable, and authoritative - a fansite, regardless of its quality, is none of these. --Haemo 09:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TomitakePrincess blocked indefinitely, move long now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing his block at CAT:UNBLOCK , I decided to assume that what was done was in good, but ill-advised, faith. It is not an endorsement of his behavior, I just hope he will learn from his mistake. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You can say all that as much as you want, but it is not true. Fansites can be just as authorative as any article here. And in reality, you have no way to prove most of the info on here is legit. Most of the "citations" you use to prove the facts on your site ARE fansites, in case you have not realized it. And also, fansites rarely contain the creator's personal views, as opposed to the facts. I think that you are just afraid of linking to sites with more information than your articles could ever have, and I've more than enough proof to back that up.TomitakePrincess 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Touchy issue... fansites can even be used as citations, yes, but it depends on the development of said fansite, and the amount of editorial control the owner(s) have. For example, Outpost Gallifrey is often sourced because the amount of editorial control and development the site has is on a large scale - it's so notable that writers for the show post on the forums. But a site on a free provider, and I mean no offence, is less likely to be as authoritative. Looking at that particular site, it's only a few weeks old at the most, isn't likely to be as exhaustive as a big fansite, and the design is a bit of a turnoff, to be honest. However, please refrain from edit warring, and discuss the matter on the talk. Thanks, Will ^(talk) 00:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But talk pages have proved to be of no help, especially for sections forgotten by most. I've seen too many brilliant fansites be victimized, which was the purpose for creating this post in the first place.TomitakePrincess 00:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock}} backlog

Resolved

 – Looks like it's been resolved, as there's just one anon in there now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let people know that those requesting unblock here have been waiting rather a long time.--Rambutan (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CN closure requested

The discussion at WP:CN#User:COFS has seen minimal traffic for the last day. Under discussion is a three month Scientology topic ban, reducible to one month if COFS enters WP:ADOPT, and COFS may post to Scientology talk pages during the ban. An uninvolved Wikipedian is needed to determine whether consensus exists to implement that proposal. Durova^Charge! 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• ...and on an unrelated WP:CN note, some outside input at the Bus stop (talk · contribs) entry would probably be appreciated. As of right now only one uninvolved editor has chimed in there. I'd rather not see the WP:CN report just be another venue of an ongoing dispute between editors.--Isotope23 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any serious danger of the board degenerating that way, but an editor challenged my fairness at the COFS thread and we just need someone who's above suspicion to close it. If no one replies to this request I could petition some individual people, but I'd rather not take any action that could be misconstrued as canvassing. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested history merge - Welland Viaduct and Harringworth Viaduct

Resolved

On 6 June, the contents of Harringworth Viaduct were moved to Welland Viaduct by cut and paste, with the former left as a redirect. There have been subsequent edits to Welland Viaduct. Is it possible for an admin to merge the histories of these two articles please? – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - next time you can use WP:SPLICE. KrakatoaKatie 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't create AfD page for IEEE 754r/Annex Z due to slash embedded in article name

Resolved

Trying to follow the steps at WP:AFD to nominate for deletion IEEE 754r/Annex Z, the 'subst:afd2' expands into a nonsense string due to the slash embedded in the article name. This prevents me from creating the deletion discussion page. Does anyone know how to escape the slash? Note that this article is not a subpage; the slash is part of the name. Any help would be greatly appreciated. EdJohnston 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The pagename Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IEEE 754r/Annex Z looks fine to me--VectorPotential^Talk 20:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I created the page without trouble. I'm guessing that when you were trying to create the AfD page, you neglected to manually replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} with IEEE 754r/Annex Z, which is necessary when nominating /-containing titles. You should probably go overwrite or add to my nomination depending on how well it reflects your reasons. --tjstrf talk 20:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Help Me

Can something be done about Rklawton who wants to block me for removing post of my talkpage which i'm allowed to do, He is being very rude. ExtraDry 05:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, refraining from calling his simple warning a "personal attack" and "vandalism" is a good start, although his responses have been a little heavy-handed I think. Grandmasterka 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose account User:Whydoesthisexist

Single purpose account User:Whydoesthisexist. Please investigate. SakotGrimshine 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked SakotGrimshine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. The majority of his edits in the past 24 hours have been disruptive. I cannot see any constructive edits, several of which were to userboxes.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I have shortened the block to 48 hours. For information on disruptive activities, see the pages I have recently deleted that were in his userspace.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I had been editing under my school's IP, but wanted to list Wikipedia:WikiProject Cow-tipping for deletion, so I had to create an account to do that. An admin can probably look at that history and see that. I then proceeded to list other nonsense junk by C.m.jones (talk · contribs) for deletion too. If that was wrong of me, please let me know. Whydoesthisexist 11:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

24 characters too long for a username?

Resolveduser unblocked, policy edited to reflect reality

Naconkantari (talk · contribs) has blocked the new What love has made of me (talk · contribs). When I asked about this at User_talk:Naconkantari#User:What_love_has_made_of_me, they replied that the username was blocked for excessive length. I haven't gotten a reply on my following message, so I'm posting here for review. Is this a reasonable block? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, its not. There is nothing wrong with that name. The name is not confusing, isn't not hard to remember and contains all latin characters. Hell, it's probably a better username than mine. I think we should unblock and apologise to the user. --Deskana (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody better go block Can't sleep, clown will eat me then. That doesn't seem like a good block at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) No, it's not. Then again, I'm more lenient on usernames than many. What about ... umm .... this one? - Alison ☺ 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many people are rigorously enforcing WP:UNP with no regards for the meaning of the policy at all. Scaring off new users isn't good. --Deskana (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree, Deskana. Hence this report I filed yesterday - Alison ☺ 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

heck, it's more easily remembered than Naconkantari. :-) Seriously, 6 short words in a sensible order over one made up one? Easy.--Thespian 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a very bad block. The excessive length section is deliberately vague, as I don't think we've been able to come up with an actual number, but that certainly isn't it (for cryin' out loud, it's only 24 characters). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is within policy. 24 characters could be too long if the words are run together and difficult to distinguish - but this is a straigforward phrase. We clearly allow User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (33 characters) and User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (31 characters)... WjBscribe 03:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean the block is within policy or the username? Incidentally, I have always been against this policy altogether. Obvious disruption is blocakble under other policies, and, as others have pointed out, all kinds on newbie-biting goes on with borderline usernames that were obviously intended in good faither. Chick Bowen 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant that the username is within our usename policy IMO - I think that's clear from the rest of my post but I could have phrased myself better :-) WjBscribe 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous block. Everything that's needed to be said has been said though. Wizardman 03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of unblocking? We've already lost a potential contributor. S/He ain't comin' back. Riana (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) And remember - there's nothing more BITEy than taking the plunge to sign up for an account in good faith only to be broadsided by the banhammer over some policy you're barely aware of!! Indefblocking a username, where there's any doubt at all, should be a last measure. - Alison ☺ 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

from the comments here, I've seen enough. I'm going to unblock that account and apologise, if they've not left in disgust already - Alison ☺ 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah - Samir just beat me to it :) - Alison ☺ 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Something like 80% of the accounts on Wikipedia have no edits. In my experience, username blocks can create a whole lot of grief over nothing (like this one) and think I'm pretty liberal with what I allow. Grandmasterka 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari's a good kid, don't be too hard on him guys :) Very classy apology note btw, Alison -- Samir 03:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. He's one of the Good Guys™ :) - Alison ☺ 04:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I trust you, because you're nice and sweet and cute and stuff, but Naconkantari's page shows someone who is a wee bit quick on the deletions and blocks, and whose response to people whose stuff he's deleted, sometimes minutes after creation is 'go request a deletion review'. Very few things really need a rush, and taking his time could help him be a better admin. This isn't the place for this, but I think he needs a little more guidance with his admin stick :-) --Thespian 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking through his deletion logs, after encountering some IMO problematic deletions by him, and I have found some troubling patterns. Lots of deletions for Patent nonsense of stuff that might be deletable, but is pretty clearly not PN. A number of deletions for A7 that are, IMO very questionable. No response to date to any of my comments on specific pages, nor in any of the resultdeletion review discussions. I think that this editor is trying to help the project, I have no question of his good faith, but I think that Thespian has a point. DES ^(talk) 17:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What things are displaying as deleted for sometimes has more to do with the tagging editor than the deleting admin. Sometimes when working with speediable stuff, I forget look what the thing was originally nominated for, and delete it for a totally different speedying reason. One example would be a vanity bio being tagged as patent nonsense. It's not really nonsense, but if fails bio, so I delete. If I forget to change the "reason" field, it will show up as having been deleted as nonsense. --Masamage ♫ 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Which makes perfect sense. I was just seeing a lot of notes that reviews were being called on the deletions. Actually, I've never seen an admin's talk page with that many 'Why did you delete....' questions, and when I have seen questions like that, the admin usually is able to effectively explain why they deleted, even if it doesn't make. Naconkantari's stock response it 'get it reviewed', and people who ask politely, who worked on a page in good faith even if it wasn't up to Wiki standards, should get a little more; esp. since the reviews seem to result in a fair # of overturns. --Thespian 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary from edits of Oli Wood

Resolved

Can some admin please look at the edit summeries used by Oli Wood, and confirm on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hel Hufflepuff (2nd) whether or not the summery is based on a link to WP:IAR? A partial list of pages (based on his talk page history): Jan Steeman, Mikhail Davidov, Tim Hurst, Sitara. Deletion log suggests a few more: Caribou Public Library, Jacky Bonnevay, OdinJobs, Luz Del Mundo, Superwookie, Press Records, Exclusion of evidence on the ground of unfairness, Cleland Boyd McAfee, IFrogz, Rings (film). Od Mishehu 07:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Riana (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just checking

Resolved

As an admin, when I want to delete stuff in my own userspace I can just do it, right? (This is just housekeeping, not anything strange like my talkpage.) --Masamage ♫ 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If {{db-author}} would apply, yes. You don't need to tag it, just do it. As no one else is supposed to be editing your userspace, it probably applies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Provided it's done in good faith, yes. The user talk page might be an exception, but beyond that, it's difficult to think of any obvious or common example to the contrary. For non-admins, {{db-owner}} works just as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all what I figured, and it makes sense; just wanted to be sure. Thanks. :) --Masamage ♫ 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. We'll all now have a look to see what you are hiding ;) --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

68.192.56.88 again!

Resolved

He has been insulting me again diff after this warning User_talk:68.192.56.88#Where_we_assholes_come_from, third message. Can he get a block now? W1k13rh3nry 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for serial vandalism and trolling, which I consider a much bigger problem.--Isotope23 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

False 'New Message' bars on people's user/talk pages

I'm allowed to remove them when I see them, right? It is technically disruptive. HalfShadow 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I suppose you are right but as long as the link doesn't go anyplace bad, I don't really care. Most such removal attempts seem to involve users who are already in conflict over other issues. If this is the case, it would be better to bring the matter to someone else's attention rather than escalate a dispute. Thatcher131 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What Thatcher said. If you do remove them please don't fight over it if you get reverted. It just creates unnecessary drama. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing them is likely to be far more disruptive then just thinking to yourself "what a jackass" then going about your business. It's just shit that doesn't need to be disturbed. WilyD 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I must really like worms, 'cause check it out -- I'm opening a can. I ask this because I really hate them: why isn't it policy to forbid them? It's either someone posting it for entertainment value, which is prohibited per WP:UP#Games, or it's someone being a dick, which is prohibited by, well, m:DICK. I understand there were beans-y objections to explicitly forbidding them, but it's come up often enough just in the past week. Granted, it is somewhat nice to have the dick-y editors categorized for me, but, well, did I mention how very much I hate them? Ugh. -- Merope 19:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Making a rule against it is an interesting idea, because it would put a stop to the edit wars over their inclusion. --Masamage ♫ 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was some sort of restriction against having things that pretended to be Mediawiki features, but I can't find any page at the moment. In any case, there should be a rule preventing such "spoofing". Chaz ^Beckett 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I did find an inactive (not rejected) proposal at Wikipedia:Avoid imitating MediaWiki user interface elements. Chaz ^Beckett 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed at WT:UP#JOKE, but it didn't appear to be resolved -- someone threw out WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP and the matter was dropped. -- Merope 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me the whole issue could be dealt with simply by having the software generate a more personalized message: instead of "You have new messages", it should say (for example) "Jpgordon has new messages". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't respond to the text, though, I respond to the box itself. --Masamage ♫ 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, that's in the category of "your problem and your problem alone." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That was supposed to be a general "I". :P My guess is that a lot of people are so used to the orange bar at the top of the screen with the bolded "new messages" in it, that they immediately know what it means without needing the text, and click on the link. I don't think replacing "you" with a synonym of "you" over at the beginning of the line would do much good. --Masamage ♫ 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of replacing "You" in the beginning is that the spoofs all say "You", not whoever comes to the talk page. Unless someone is a miracle worker in wiki-syntax, I don't think it's possible for someone to spoof what he suggested. — Moe ε 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's the orange bar, not the text itself that causes a response. Would it be practical to make the message bar a specific color that could only be used by Mediawiki (i.e. this particular color couldn't be set manually)? Chaz ^Beckett 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For one I think every color is already on Wikipedia, and two, I think it might be problem to restrict the use of the color orange on the site. :) — Moe ε 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't thinking of orange necessarily, maybe some seldom used color. It's probably not a very practical solution, though. I think I'd prefer just restricting people from faking the message boxes and asking them nicely to remove them. Chaz ^Beckett 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm going to be bold and nominate some pages directly used for the prank to be deleted. — Moe ε 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a half bad idea Jpgordon, do you know which MediaWiki file it is when someone gets new messages? Ideally, it shouldn't be that hard for the MediaWiki to recognize the user getting new messages and list the users' name instead of "You" since it already has a link to the talk page and latest change listed. — Moe ε 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the message is actually generated in includes/Skin.php. But -- it's a globalized message, and you'd need to reshape every damn message so that it can take the user name parameter. I don't know who does string globalization... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to change the colour of real "new messages" bars in your monobook.css, so that you learn to only respond to puke green message bars or something. Sancho 20:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the solution... put this in your monobook.css: .usermessage {background-color: #669933;}. Of course, you can pick your own colour. Sancho 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that there is a great idea. --Masamage ♫ 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, fine, if you want to be all logical about it. I still think the solution is to ruthlessly remove them and then protect the pages against re-adding them, but that's probably because I'm a power-mad rouge admin. -- Merope 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, crap, that doesn't work! The fake messages are the same color since they use the same parameters. I still think that massive rouge warfare is the answer. -- Merope 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw... I didn't know they completely faked the message bars. Yeah, then this doesn't work. But I like my new color :-) Sancho 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Can an admin please delete? Template:New Message. — Moe ε 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Merope 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you do happen to get a new message at the time you see one of the fake message bars, you end up being greeted by two message bars, the real one above the fake one. I personally have gotten into the habit of looking at the bottom of my browser to check the target location of the "(diff)" link. --Kyoko 21:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That time of year again, is it? The reason it isn't "policy to forbid them" is that we only forbid stuff that is important not to have. And because many people feel strongly about getting to put harmless, non-disruptive, non-insulting stuff on their pages. And I think especially because too many people get too much of a kick out of forbidding, removing, and protecting against, stuff on other people's pages. I don't have anybody who has posted above in mind when I say that, by the way. But please try to think of more useful things to do to help Wikipedia than touring it exploring your "hatred" of some silly joke. Revert vandalism. Edit articles. Avoid obsessing about other people's pages and instigating edit wars, hurt feelings, and humiliations. If the hate is nevertheless getting the better of you, how about going for a walk or something? Bishonen | talk 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

Those words are so wise that I wonder did they come from Bishzilla, forgetting that she was logged on as Bishonen? The "new messages" hoax is the kind of joke that gets a bit tiresome, but not so tiresome that putting a stop to it at all costs is more important than writing articles, than not hurting feelings, or than not getting into silly edit wars. Don't make a big issue over something that may be mildly annoying but that really isn't doing any harm. ElinorD (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Bishzilla would have said it something like this:

Box is problem 1 big. If annoys you 1 big, you are happy, in control of self. If annoys you 100 big, you are problem 99 big. Seek therapy. RoarRR!

Hesperian 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Even without any context, that's hilarious. --Masamage ♫ 00:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Making a rule against this would be a serious over-reacting. It's mildly annoying, but you will only ever encounter it on a user's talk page. I find when people put a ton of extraneous material at the topic of their talk page "mildly annoying" too -- but I don't think we should ban those, either. --Haemo 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If quarrels joke banner, please apply at Bishzilla Dispute Resolution Board And Swedish Massage Parlor. [/Bishzilla goes off to put joke banner at top of her Dispute Resolution page.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

By the way, for anyone who cares, there's a way to turn the links to black on all fake message bars. Add this to your Special:Mypage/monobook.css:

 .a[href *="USERNAME"] { background-color: #FFFFFF; }

replacing USERNAME with your own username. Ral315 » 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to not have to change my own 'new messages' box at all. :)

That said, you inspired a neat trick. Changing all links that follow that class, and then adding a special case for links that include your own username.

It may not work for specifically the case of background colours, since they may choose to include the 'plainlinks' class, but you can always fiddle with the text decorations. :D

.usermessage a {text-decoration:underline overline!important;}

.usermessage a[href*="Bladestorm"] {text-decoration: none!important;}

That way, all links in your 'new messages' dialog that aren't actually intended for you look normal, but all other links get bars over and below them. Bladestorm 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark all fake message boxes in CSS?

Anyone else in favor of adding:

.usermessage a[href] { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: none; }
.usermessage a[href*="/w/index.php?title=User_talk:"] { color: #002BB8; text-decoration: underline; }

(or something similar) to the global CSS?

It would turn the links in most false user message boxes white, but leaves the links in real message boxes the same as they are now. Dragons flight 07:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Plan! ... until some wise guy figures out how to override the style - Alison ☺ 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd rather not. Obviously, it wouldn't bother me, but the same CSS class is used for non-spoofs. For example, for people who say, "Leave a message". Turning that white would make it awfully ugly. And, besides, Alison brought up a good point. If we do a site-wide 'fix', then they will find a way around it. :) Bladestorm 14:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Practically anything we put in the global CSS can be overridden by an inline CSS declaration. This, while nifty, fixes nothing. Sorry. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

request history merge of William Arthur Bruce to William Arthur McCrae Bruce

Could an admin please do a history merge of William Arthur Bruce into William Arthur McCrae Bruce, and then decide if William Arthur McCrae Bruce ought to be moved to William Bruce (soldier)? --Eastmain 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First, please merge in the content and create a redirect, and then we can do the history merge. The move isn't really for us to decide--that's a content issue. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Founded by IP adress: 111 New South Road Hicksville, New York 11801. www.news12.com local cable news channel. maybe it's important..or not. sorry for my english. Francesco(Italy)

Hmm? Chick Bowen 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell Canada vandalism

In the past 72+ hours, I've dealt with a load of vandals (all probably the same person) with Bell Canada as an ISP. I've traced them all to Toronto, and they all like to point me out as a Nazi (which I'm certainly not). The most recent one was a bit of a...how shall I say this...phallus, who vandalized my and another user's page. Check my user page and talk page histories, and all of those IP's get traced back to the same location. I have a sinking feeling that there will be more, once the semi-protect on my page goes bye bye.

Anything that can be done? --DodgerOfZion 06:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, seems like a too big range to block. However, it is reasonable to indef semi-protect your user page (I had it done to mine). Unfortunately, such an option is probably not reasonable for your talk page - anons may have a valid reason to want to talk to you. If, however, vandalism there gets to be too bad - have it semi-protected for a short period of time. Od Mishehu 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How about if I compile a list of these IPs and go to Bell Canada myself to see if they can track down this donkey fool? --DodgerOfZion 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good plan, I'd say. Also, your userpage has been scrubbed of personal info, deleted and selectively restored. That should help with future vandalism (and there will be more. I guarantee it, given you're a vandal fighter) - Alison ☺ 07:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Requested

Resolved

An unblock of user:100110100 is requested.199.126.28.20 13:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Shadow1 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Block check

Resolved

 – user unblocked. All done and sorted - Alison ☺ 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I had a lapse in judgment when I just blocked User:Deeptit for violating username policy (I encountered the user when reverting his vandalism). I guess I saw the name as offensive (tit), but I don't think it's blatant enough. As soon as I did it I couldn't understand why I felt so sure about it. Now it's making me feel like crap thinking about it, so can someone take a look. I've been an admin for a week and I don't want to start off on the wrong foot here :( Leebo ^T/C 14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem blatant to me. Od Mishehu 14:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, these things happen. The name seems fine to me (It's the Indian, "Deepti", with a "T" on the end. Deepti is really common in India). I've unblocked and removed the message. And hey, thanks for coming here and saying what you did. That takes a lot of honesty and bravery. I'm sure there are others who would not have - Alison ☺ 14:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for handling it, Alison. I still feel like crap, but at least it's rectified. I'm disappointed that I let myself do that. Leebo ^T/C 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't feel like crap. You handled it honourably! Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone owns up to them - Alison ☺ 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC) (a whole twelve minutes of block time was served!)

Indian names! Grumble grumble :) Riana (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

*you* complaining about Indian names! Outrageous!!! :D --soum ^talk 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know... what's even worse is that I have co-workers in India... I can usually identify Indian names. Leebo ^T/C 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if the name is OK, someone should keep an eye on account, based on the users first edit --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for extra admin eyeballs on Chris Benoit

Major story breaking now out of Atlanta that he, his wife, and their five year old son were found dead. Of course, this is touching off the usual fast and furious edit war on the article with rumors (that it was all a hoax), and wild stuff from all over the place. It's already been semi-protected, and I'm gonna try to keep it under control, but it might not be a bad thing to have extra admins looking over it (especially for BLP matters etcetera) SirFozzie 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

it was a seven year old son ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a hoax – AP has it now too. We should watch all the WWE articles a bit more closely than usual. - KrakatoaKatie 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an ANI report on it already, and it was semi'd preemptively. hbdragon88 04:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that preemptive protection and blocking was against policy, has this changed? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It just came informally about due to some really heavy and nasty vandalism going about after Kenneth Lay, Steve Irwin, and Jerry Falwell died. The Lay one (where there was ugly speculation that it was a suicide, or something) gained some media attention. Jerry Falwell gained some attention on wonkette [52] hbdragon88 23:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sizable C:CSD backlog

About 700 items or so. Have fun! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd get to work on it, but... Naconkantari 04:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a tiny stab at it, but I've got work in the morning. Oh, how productive I'd be if I didn't have bills to pay somehow. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For those playing at home, it's still backlogged Riana (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

...to be fair, though, it's still backlogged, regardless of where you're playing from. ;P EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know how much screaming and yelling would ensue over this, but it would be so nice if we could automate deletion of redundant images. It really shouldn't be considered deletion at all if the images are identical--no content is being removed from the encyclopedia. Chick Bowen 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What about a separate category for them, similar to Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion? I agree that it'd be nice for there to be a "damn simple" category that could get cleared out faster so we could focus our attention on just the issues that require a bit more thought. Maybe sic the newbie admins on it to give them a taste of things to come. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think automation would be better and safer. If there were a separate category and people just went through them like mad things, bad people might try to take advantage, but a bot could make sure the redundancy was a genuine redunancy and the image was unused. Chick Bowen 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help "salting" a page

A user has requested deletion of her userpage and talk page. I have deleted it but I think it should be salted as well. As a new admin, I can't figure out how to do the salting. Can someone else do it for me and leave a note on my talk page explaining what I should have done? Thanx. --Richard 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does it require salting? From WP:SALT: "Pages that are repeatedly re-created after deletion in unencyclopedic form or against policy can be protected from further re-creation." Is this page continually being recreated against policy? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the directions on how to do it are listed on WP:SALT, if page recreations are really a cause for concern. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. What I think I'm confused about is... if a user requests her userpage to be deleted, is it the case that only that user would be able to re-create it? That is, I am assuming that, short of her account being compromised or usurped, only she or an admin would be able to re-create the page. No one would be able to just come along and re-create an account with that same name. Right? --Richard 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The page can be re-created by anyone (though who would? And we don't protect a page unless it's clear there are persistant problems). The account cannot be re-created, even by an admin. 'Crats can usurp a username, if the account has no edits. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Salting it is probably unnecessary, though probably harmless as well. I've been using protected titles recently, as I think it's the preferred method of salting these days. You can go to WP:PT and just follow the instructions there; by transcluding the page and providing a short rationale for the salting (and signing with the date), the page is salted. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I agree that salting is probably unnecessary. I'm still learning the ropes (second day as an admin). --Richard 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:PT. Viridae^Talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Assistance requested with WP:BLP violation

If Neil is an administrator, he should know better. Assistance is requested overseeing the Warrior (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page. Burntsauce 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Theres a difference between unreferenced material and a BLP violation. BLP violations are context that include contentious statements, unreferenced is not. — Moe ε 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* lame edit war, trying to apply BLP to a person who has been dead for 7 years. — Moe ε 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you guessed the IP Statement I just removed about Rodney Anoa'i was a JB196 Open Proxy, you win a kewpie doll! SirFozzie 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Has this happened before?

Resolved

 – Image deleted by Jkelly as a copyright violation. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Karine a.jpg is in a rather strange state. It's from a Federal State Department website (PD-USGov-State, etc), and yet it is quite clearly watermarked "© Reuters" ! 68.39.174.238 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not public domain. From the source website, "Photographs on this site are in the public domain unless a copyright is indicated. Only public domain photos can be reproduced without permission." Coming from a US government website doe not automatically make it public domain as the government will sometimes use copyrighted materials with permission. -- JLaTondre 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Note and question

Note to all fellow admins (man, I love saying that): at the suggestion of Zzyzx11, I have created an alternate account for use on public computers, FV alternate (talk · contribs). I will note it on my userpage—are there any appropriate categories which should be added to the alternate account's page? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as you say that both are your accounts, and you do not use it for disruptive purposes, there is no requirement of categorizing it. --soum ^talk 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts - you could add this, but it's not necessary. Riana (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out mine - I've added the userbox, category, etc, etc. Also, see User:Alison/Userboxes - Alison ☺ 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I've gone for the category. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just have the userbox on my alternate account, though the category isn't a bad idea, either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've also got alternate accounts too. See User:SunStar Net X1 - which edits my userspace only (I assume that's a fairly legitimate reason!) and also User:Cæg - for use at public terminals as well! Both are categorised and used when needed!!

--SunStar Net ^talk 08:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Images not getting deleted.

I saw these 4 images with the {{subst:dfu|reason}} after I did a general cleanup of some other related article:

• Image:NFS Underground 2 (screenshot4).jpg
• Image:NFS Underground 2 (screenshot3).jpg
• Image:NFS Underground 2 (screenshot2).jpg
• Image:NFS Underground 2 (screenshot1).jpg

Is there just a general backlog of deleting images, or must they be hunted down to get them deleted?--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to C:CSD, then click "show" next to "Category:Disputed non-free images ". You will see the problem. Jackaranga 12:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol looks like there are several thousand of them, I pity the person who is going to have to look through them all and deal with 1000 "you deleted my image" on his talk page. Jackaranga 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah after much drama there was sort of a "gentleman's agreement" to temporarily extend the time limit from 7 days to one month for the "no rationale" tagged images. The reason beeing a bot had been run over the images and the result was tens of thousands of images tagged for deletion for lack of fair use rationales, and it was just not possible to write rationales for them all in 7 days. Come 1 July it's open season on these images again though, but given the size of the backlog it will probably take a while to work though it. --Sherool (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I volunteer to at least help out. --293.xx.xxx.xx 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious edit to Chris Benoit

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

Resolved

 – this is also being discussed here

Fox news story[53] about the Chris Benoit murder/suicide involves Wikipedia. Not expecting any discussion, just want to make sure people are aware.Risker 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Refering to this edit. It seems that whatever necessary action we should take as editors and administrators has already been taken.↔NMajdan•talk 18:03, 28 June 2007 (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.

Block me!

Hi,

I'd like to request a voluntary block for 48 hours for coming close to violating the terms of my arbitration hearing and violating the spirit of it. I'm a disobedient user and should be dealt with accordingly.

WLU 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just not do it, rather than doing it and requesting a block on yourself? This cries a bit of attention seeking. --Deskana (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For one thing I've already posted a comment regards this on someone's talk page and better to own up to it than have it bite me on the ass later. For another, I've got work to be done and wikipedia's pretty distracting. WLU 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've given you a block of a more appropriate length. Enjoy. WilyD 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User requested blocks don't go down well on Wikipedia. --Deskana (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"I'm a disobedient user and should be dealt with accordingly." I wasn't aware Wikipedia had a 900 number. More seriously, I'm not a huge fan of self-requested blocks, either, and this particular format seems to be a cry for attention. If this warrants a block, we should block; if not, we shouldn't -- further discussion of whether a block is warranted here should probably ignore the source of the request, I suppose. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Move bug

(OK. I know this is the wrong place but I cannot remember where the developers' notice board is.) When I do a move, I get a message like:

The page "$1" (links) has been moved to "$2".

Please fix. -- RHaworth 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I confirm this, but MediaWiki:Pagemovedtext hasn't been edited. Will ^(talk) 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like $1 and $2 aren't being passed at all, based on what's coming up in the resulting message. (RHaworth, you're probably thinking of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for the main such forum on Wikipedia itself, but bugzilla: (off-wiki) is the appropriate place to report bugs; VPT is a good place to get a sanity check before reporting them, though.) --ais523 16:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Another MediaWiki page has broken in similar circumstances (MediaWiki:Removedwatchtext and MediaWiki:Addedwatchtext. It appears to be related to some templates transcluded on these pages, {{MediaWiki unwatch page}}, {{MediaWiki watch page}}, {{MediaWiki direct link}}, and {{MediaWiki direct link 2}}. My current understanding is that these templates were developed to work around some other issue with MediaWiki parameters, so beyond noticing that possible connection, I'm not sure exactly what the problem might be. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Substing {{MediaWiki direct link}} and {{MediaWiki direct link 2}} fixed it, which means template parameters do work now? Prodego ^talk 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, odd behavior at Removedwatchtext and Addedwatchtext, with that fix implemented -- watch/unwatch a page, which brings up the Ajax message box; click the watch/unwatch link in the Ajax box, and it works, but sends you to a full-page MediaWiki message, where the watch/unwatch link no longer receives the $1 parameter appropriately. Anybody else care to give it a shot? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for AFD closure

Resolved

 – Closed as no consensus (default to keep).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automatix (software) has been open for several weeks without being closed or relisted. There seems to be a pretty solid consensus for keep, but I've participated in the discussion - can someone else go through the motions? Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. —Kurykh 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin Bad Faith Edits

There seems to be a problem with a wikipedia admin making bad faith edits. It's my understand of wikipedia's linking and reference policy that editors cannot use a copyright violating source as an external link or reference (particular sites which infringe on the copyrights of others such as youtube). I've come across a site which places its links on a variety of wikipedia pages, each link resolves to a bookmarked area of a given page, and that bookmarked area contains links to "articles" on the subject matter. When you click on an article's link, rather than be provided with original content, you're provided with the site's page in frames, and another website's page placed within a target frame. Since there is nothing on the site to indicate that you're viewing a page from another website, it gives the impression that the content being essentially hotlinked into a target frame belongs to the site you're own (when its basically funnelling copyrighted material without permission). This means that the link is in violation of another site's copyrights, and that we aren't actually linking to the source of the material that the external link was placed on wikipedia for. I removed several of this type of link from a few articles, and an admin reverted them. I explained to the admin why it's against wikipedia policy before making the change again, and the admin reverted the edits and then set all the articles to full protection. This seems like an abuse of admin priveleges, I'd like to know where I can report this admin for these actions. 70.149.165.21 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have any links or diffs to where you say this happened? --Haemo 21:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by administrator Crum375

Resolved

 – Crossed wires - Crum meant no ill feelings. Will ^(talk) 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In a minor editing dispute at The Holocaust (which of two images of the same photo should be used, and whether D-Day should be prominently mentioned), the admin [accused me of vandalism], when there was clearly only good-faith involved [54], [55], and [56]. I've [reminded her/him] of what vandalism is, and that ill considered accusations WP:ICA are considered on Wikipedia to be a form of Incivility. Can someone here remove the false accusation from the edit summary? Jd2718 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't talking to you I think. He edited at exactly the same minute as someone else changed the caption of an image from "pwned" to "A grave inside Bergen-Belsen, liberated by the British on April 15, 1945.". I would think that was what he was referring to, hence why he said "remove vandalism, victim's face is more imporant[sic], and d-day is relevant" not "remove vandalism: victim's face is more impor[t]ant, and d-day is relevant". Sometimes what happens is there is an editing conflict and he forgot to change the edit summary. Also don't take things to heart like that. I have had much worse (ex:here. Jackaranga 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See this also, don't feel to bad, even if people do accuse you unfairly, just ignore them. If he really meant it he would have added a warning to your talk page. Jackaranga 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that IP should have read about TW before copying and pasting the edit summary. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted this, walked away, and came back to found Jackaranga, Will, and Crum himself had calmed things down. I'm glad for my few minutes away from the computer, and thank all of you for helping (and for your patience). And Jack, yes, your edit summary was a little worse... Jd2718 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the edit summary was aimed at someone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:OP

Could people who can check for open proxies start hacking away at WP:OP? I would love to help, but I only know how to check for CGI web proxies. Jesse Viviano 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Does WP:CSD#G12 cover this image?

Resolved

Image:WhichShouldBeTheInspirationForTheGenocideLogo1to5.PNG is a derivative work of an image in this story. The original image is copyrighted to Associated Press. Sancho 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion, yes. False copyright tags are equivalent to copyright infringement. --Haemo 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I agree, that makes sense. Sancho 03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at AFD

We have a modest backlog at AFD; four days and about 120 articles. Any help would be appreciated. --Coredesat 04:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AFDO for links to overdue discussions... WjBscribe 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Immediate fix required

Resolved

MediaWiki:Pagemovedtext must be fixed. A bug in the MediaWiki software has made it no more work as expected. The bug is detailed here. Because it is not likely that they are going to shift back to the previous version of the software, and untill the new version is applied and the new Page Move text is shown, it is wise to revert the page to this or a similar revision.

One can use the test page I provided on the Bugzilla web site, to test the message is working fine. huji—TALK 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See #Move bug thread, above; are you suggesting the same changes, or are the changes made today causing another problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the changes made today have fixed the issue. Thank you huji—TALK 07:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. :) Thanks for bringing it up, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Update to Common.js

If anyone interested could take a look at MediaWiki_talk:Common.js, I'm making a proposal I'd like input on, thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce

I would seriously like an admin to have a chat with User:Burntsauce about what WP:BLP is and how it should be enforced. I know he has some knowledge of what it is, but he overuses this policy to make it seem like he has the right to blank anything that doesn't have a reference next to it. From WP:BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles

The key word that Burntsauce is forgetting is "contentious". Simply blanking articles for a BLP without removing statements that are contentious is just blanking, which is reverted as vandalism. He has been doing this to many articles like Warrior (wrestler) and Rodney Anoa'i recently and the only one who seems to support his position is JB196 sockpuppets, which also removes these "violations". Users, including admins have warned him about this now. And when he couldn't revert anymore, he resorted to creating a WP:POINTy AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Anoa'i). Applying BLP doesn't even apply here as Rodney Anoa'i has been deceased for 7 years. Someone seriously needs to sit down and have a chat with him. — Moe ε 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One note: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."⁽¹⁾ --Iamunknown 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not vandalism, but with the JB196 sockpuppets running around committing vandalism, and then Burntsauce going and doing the same thing, he's being treated like one. This is why I want someone to inform him of this a little better. — Moe ε 17:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pokemonman

This is User Pokemonman. Unfortunately, I have lost my password. Could an admin please help me get it back?! Please?! I think it was either "pokemonman" or "Pokemonman", but I can't log on to my user! Again, could an admin please help me recover my password? Did I already say please?

There is no e-mail address recorded for user "Pokemonman", so there's nothing administrators can do to restore your access to the account (if you had given an email address, it could be used to send you a new password without fear of giving the wrong user access to your account). --ais523 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

...and if you create a new account I'd suggest that username/password being the same is probably not a very good idea.--Isotope23 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, passwords that are the same as usernames aren't allowed by the software any more; such passwords can't be entered as new passwords, and any account whose password equaled its username was blocked from even logging on by developers for security reasons. --ais523 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cjmarsicano blocked for 48 hours

I have been in contact with Cjmarsicano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the past couple of days because of a thread started either her on WP:ANI about the WikiProject he is involved in and its complete disregard for fair use policies. I've been trying to explain to him the fact that fair use images of living individuals are replaceable, but he continued to say how he feels that they are not replaceable, and he has been referring to others in this as copyright nazis and then proceeded to leave messages on everyone in the WikiProject's talk page in lieu of WP:CANVASS. I had tried to discuss the issue with him civilly, but he feels that fair use allows him to use the promotional photos in the English Wikipedia's articles. After he was warned about WP:CANVASS, he proceeded to repeat the talk page spamming, but giving out his e-mail the the individuals. This stemmed from his belief that he is the moderator/owner of WP:H!P and had warnings on the page that users who were not part of the project were not allowed to edit it, as well as the fact about fair use images (that myself, Abu badali, hbdragon88, and others have been trying to fix). I have currently blocked him for 48 hours. If this needs to be shortened, extended, lifted, let that be brought up here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cjmarsicano's reply can be seen here, where he explicitly gave me permission to post the e-mail.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

He referred to people as "copyright nazis"? Right there is incivility unbecoming of a contributor who has been here this long. (messedrocker • talk) 03:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, no one linked to the actual WP:CANVASS page on his user talk page until I did (nobody informed him that Abu badali also filed an ANI report on him, either), just 16 minutes before Ryulong blocked him. "Canvassing" is a somewaht vague concept; on Wikipedia the definition is somewhat different than the general idea. hbdragon88 03:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

According to previous discussion (might have been ehre, or another noticeboard) that there is no requirement to tell users they have been reported to anything - the template for doing so was also deleted. Therefore, the fact that no-one said there was an ANI report on him was not violating anything. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it was violating anything. It's just mentioned that users should be notified as a courtesy. The user would have a better understanding of the situation had he read the noticeboard postings. I should also mention that he was at it again and requested that all the H!P members email him. hbdragon88 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. He was at it just before Ryulong blocked him, and has only participated in an rfu debate before then. hbdragon88 04:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mreh. All of my actions were in good faith whether the other parties involved truly realized it or not. My block is long since a thing of the past and I suggest that we all move on. --CJ Marsicano 02:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit and wikipedia announcing the death of Nancy Daus before it was announced

This edit announced the death of Nancy Daus several hours before it was publically announced by the Atlanta police department which is odd in its ownhowever more interestingly the IP resolved to the ISP Optimum Online resolving to Stamford, Connecticut which is the location of World Wrestling Entertainment headquarters. It seems wikipedia got a news leak before it became public knowledge. Is this anything to worry or inquire about? –– Lid^(Talk) 15:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, news is frequently added to Wikipedia before a lot of news press releases. One notable time I remember this I belive is when Steve Irwin died. [57] — Moe ε 15:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably hearsay because the anon seems partially informed (due to the "peculiar text messages sent over the weekend"? [58]). Sources claim that wife and kid were killed a couple of days earlier than Benoit, and some implicate him in a suicide-murder. We'll see in the next few days. NikoSilver 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked that last night and there were several wrestling sites that were reporting it before any news sites had it. Corvus cornix 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, that reads hoaxish; it refers to the June 11th fight, weeks before either of their deaths. While it might have been based on anything (the earliest reports were just of a 'husband, wife and child', before Benoit was a named, so not hard to figure out her identity), it's more the sort of thing we lock down recently deceased articles for, and not a real issue. It also seems to have been cleared up quickly. --Thespian 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the line it was added to was Vengeance which was this Sunday during the weekend it is thought to have been when he trangled her. –– Lid^(Talk) 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a suspected edit by WWE HQ in Connecticut mentioned, quite matter-of-factly, that Chris Benoit's wife (and only his wife) were dead leads me to believe that Benoit contacted somebody after killing his wife, but before killing his kid and himself. Maybe he didn't say "um, boss, I just killed my wife" but something more like "um, boss, my wife has passed away, I'm going to be gone for awhile". Whoever made that edit:

1. Might not have known Nancy was murdered.
2. Definitely knew Nancy was dead.
3. Had no idea about the murder of the kid or about the suicide.
4. Made the edit before the three deaths were reported (in the same announcement, some 16 hours later).

Am I missing anything? —freak(talk) 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to conclude that Benoit contacted anyone. It could be that a policeman contacted WWE, but gave them only partial information. In any case, this sort of thing has happened before: I've known of cases where someone from a news organization has scooped the organization's own story by adding it in here. Chick Bowen 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are news sources saying that Chris Benoit sent text messages to his co-workers, so yes, he was trying to talk to someone. — Moe ε 21:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well here's what we know:

• The Wikipedia edit to Chris Benoit noting Nancy's death was at 04:01, June 25 (UTC), which is 00:01, (12:01 a.m.; one minute after midnight eastern U.S. time; -- which includes WWE HQ in Connecticut, and the murder site in Georgia) on the night of June 24. [59]
• Sources say that Fayette County Sheriff's Department entered the house and found the bodies at about 2:30 p.m., EST (18:30 UTC) on June 25.[60][61][62]. This is some 14 1/2 hours after the "Nancy is Dead" edit.
• Unless of course the police actually found the bodies the previous day, on June 24, before midnight, the WWE knew Nancy was dead before the police knew. It's more likely that someone at WWE told the police that Nancy was dead rather than the opposite.

—freak(talk) 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, hold on - this seems a bit suspect to me, so someone added that nancy had died before the police entered the house?? Maybe we're trivialising this a little too much, there just seems a little more to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the edit, yes. However, there is no reason to believe that whoever made the edit knew that she had been murdered. It could be that Benoit contacted the WWE and told them that his wife had died from natural causes/accident and then when the WWE was unable to contact him the next day, they asked the police to swing by and that's when the police discovered the bodies.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is, surely we have an ethical responsibility to contact the local police investigating the murder about this, it may turn out to be information they already have, but it may help the investigations. Would anyone mind if I emailed them? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it appears that people are running off a fowl stench that symbolizes nothing. If this is true, and more importantly: actually does play any relevance in determing what was the driving force behind such incidents, it would require someone whom had prior knowledge about something that important and was/is in a position of prominent power, why would they actually bother by going on Wikipedia to actually place a bizzarre edit like that. It could be from rumors or information slipping through the grapevine, regardless, it doesn't really appear to have anything that is of crucial or dire need of the care of the community when there are bigger fish to fry and more Zapruder-esque things to disregard. Yanksox 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This discussion should be closed if there is no furthur administrative action needed. Ryan, feel free to e-mail them or take it to WP:OFFICE, but it's probably not worth it. — Moe ε 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that WP:OFFICE should, or even could, do anything about this, but I believe this incongruity of events is worth noting in the article if it can be properly sourced, that is, if news agencies publish this startling discovery. Perhaps Daniel Brandt would be willing to contact the press regarding these anonymous edits, as he has so many times before. —freak(talk) 22:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make one note; I've worked for companies who work for the WWE; worked on their sites (in Toronto 2 years ago on the current site, 5 years ago when I lived in Atlanta and it was WWF. The little > made out of dots that's all over the site is my work, and that's INCREDIBLY lame of me to mention, and not the point). The thing that I want to bring up is that, in *another country*, working on a website, with no access to any 'current' storyline info, just older pics and text for placeholders, I was under a tighter confidentiality policy than I was when I was working for the CDC at 'confidential' classification. I see several people who are discussing it as if it was a 'leak' or that if it comes from WWE, well, they just didn't know. But the WWE is really slick on their PR issues, and there is no way that anyone who works there is not incredibly well versed in how tightly they clamp things down. While I'd not be surprised that someone messed up, said something casually to a neighbour or a kid and they posted it, the chances that a slip like this was posted from a WWE computer are practically nil. --Thespian 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

True, WWE isn't foolish enough to slip out information about a employees' wifes death. I think something happened after Benoit made those text messages (what ever they said, presumedly that his wife died) and someone found out in the area of Stamford, Connecticut and posted it here. I don't see any other scenarios possible. — Moe ε 23:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the IP's other edits, it's pretty obvious that this was just a garden variety vandal whose vandalization sadly proved true. SirFozzie 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow thats a 1 in 10000 coincidence. ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence or not, I'd have to agree with SirFozzie. It looks like nothing more than a sad coincidence. P3net 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the exact nature of the communication between Benoit and WWE after Nancy's death is yet unknown to us, but I refuse to believe this can be dismissed as a coincidence or a (clairvoyant) "garden variety vandal" as has been suggested. —freak(talk) 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's pretty much known.. Benoit sent five-six text messages to co workers with his address and the fact that the door was open (that's what caused WWE to call the police to do a welfare check and they discovered the bodies) SirFozzie 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that the IP's previous edits were vandalism, this is a dynamically assigned IP. (reverse DNS returns the name ool-45786f17.dyn.optonline.net). There's no guarantee that all these edits were made by the same person, much less from the same physical location. There's also the possibility of an open proxy, TOR node, open WiFi node, or simply a compromised workstation operating from this IP. If you assume that the second edit an hour in which the death announcement was added again was done by the same person, this supports the TOR/proxy/compromised workstation hypothesis. 71.146.153.115 21:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just saw it scroll on Fox News that the FBI is now looking into the Wikipedia/Benoit issue. --72.16.51.2 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fox news is a bunch of plagerisers — n:Death_of_Nancy_Benoit_rumour posted_on_Wikipedia hours_prior_to_body_being found vs the coverage on the fox website.Bawolff 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That sound's a little POV to me, but regardless I fail to see what more the FBI could uncover, as the IP address (which is all Wikipedia logs as far as I'm aware) is very much public knowledge already. It may be worth nothing that the particular user who made the edit has a history of vandalism. P3net 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this edit is actually the more important one, naming the source of the rumors as "several pro-wrestling websites" only 1 hour later. -- Renesis (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am interested as to what websites had this information. As it was unsourced, it may have been an edit to attempt and back-up the earlier revision. It still is rather suspicious, though, but I can't find anything about her death that broke before the official police announcement. P3net 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

n:Chris Benoit mystery editor confesses: claims "terrible coincidence". Bawolff 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is one of several things, none of which are good. Either a member of Wikipedia's resident contingent of typewriter-monkey IP vandals managed to finally compose Faust, or there's something rotten going on. Either way, we're going to get the Patented Media Screwjob...again. The story is blowing up everywhere (generally insinuating that we're a disorganized, half-assed repository for murderers and vandals). It's the leading story on my local news, and I'm from FL...ugh...Jimbo needs to get on the horn to somebody. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I might be way off, but has anybody looked carefully at the timestamps? I have been fooled and confused in the past by the way Wikipedia handles time zones and time stamps. I must confess that I don't understand how it works, so I can't contribute any kind of answer. But has somebody knowledgeable looked at this carefully? -Pete 23:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Powers

Resolved

Charlotte Powers I dont know exactly what's going on there, but Wikipedia is not a testbed. That and it appears that it's somehow scripted or automated, so might be some WP:BOT abuse. Q ^{T C} 00:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the user needs a block. Accidentally wandering into one of those pages before it gets fixed would be enough to crash someone's browser, as well as the fact that they've yet to do a single constructive thing. Dan 00:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks very odd, and suspicious to me. I also would agree with the "automated/bot" theory there. --Haemo 00:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked pending an explanation of those edits. WjBscribe 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, some nice person has already removed all the edits. (Translation: user contributions aren't very informative anymore). -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit to blanking the pages :) thank User:Stephen for the deletes. Q ^{T C} 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

watch out for bots adding subtle vandalism

Aside from being an administrator here, I'm also an administrator at the DciWiki. Over the last ten weeks, I've blocked several accounts (check DciWiki's block list) for subtle vandalism, such as removing the "+" sign from articles. [63] [64] [65]

Their usernames all have the same format:

• exactly six characters
• first and fourth characters are capital letters
• remaining characters are lowercase letters or numerical digits

In other words, they would match the regular expression [A-Z][0-9a-z]{2}[A-Z][0-9a-z]{2}. Some of these accounts have added spam links instead of subtle vandalism. [66] [67] [68] One of the accounts did make a legitimate edit ("unicodifying" links), but that was it. [69] I don't think that these bots have hit Wikipedia yet, but users should still keep their eyes open. --Ixfd64 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, scary stuff -- I'll keep my eyes open. --Haemo 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This user KEEPS on vandalising pages with RUNESCAPE IS BETTER

Resolved

 – Vandal goes bye-bye. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.2.0.223

That guy. He even vandalised my user page and he has been warned tons of times but he has not been blocked. Please help.Dacheatcode 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV next time, it's usually quicker. Riana (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

iPhone

The article has been semiprotected for 3 months, and today was the launch and is still semiprotected. I am willing to unprotect it, even as I know some vandalism can happen. Anyone prefers keeping the article locked for new users still? -- ReyBrujo 02:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this supposed to be the time when the article should be locked? —Kurykh 03:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred. This is not the way we work. -- ReyBrujo 04:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sure. I predict a re-protection, but if policy dictates... —Kurykh 05:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just edited over there before reading this here. The article is pretty quiet right now with semi-prot on. I'd remove it myself but .. well .. - Alison ☺ 07:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. Viridae^Talk 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, a good deal of the editors who might vandalize the article are playing with their brand new iPhones... ;~) LessHeard vanU 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you email an Administrator? Where are the addresses?

RM—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ray Martinez (talk • contribs) 18:37, June 29, 2007 (UTC)

Find an administrator's userpage, and click "E-mail this user". Or go to Special:Emailuser/USERNAME_OF_ADMIN. So, to e-mail me, go to Special:Emailuser/Deskana. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Any user, not just administrators, with an email address enabled can be reached by going to his or her user page and clicking on the "Email this user" link that appears in the toolbox below the search bar. Leebo ^T/C 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Move request

Resolved

Could you please move BEEF or CHICKEN? to Beef or Chicken?. I would put the article through requested moves but the process seems too bothersome and unnecessary for this small move. The article needs to be moved due to English naming conventions. Douglasr007 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Ocatecir^T 23:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Douglasr007 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey no problem. — Ocatecir^T 03:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Japanese album and song names are in all upper case. Is there an MoS policy on this? The move is inconsistant with other useage. Corvus cornix 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

For uncontroversial moves where WP:RM is too heavyweight but admin assistance is required, you can place {{db-move|page to move from}} at the name to move to. --ais523 08:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming scheme for the north american area code articles

The hundreds of articles under Category:Area codes in the United States are all named as "Area code xxx". However, these are actually referring to only North American area codes. (unlike International calling codes which are universal). I think these articles should be moved to "North American Area code xxx", as they are clearly specific to North America. For example, Bangladesh also has an Area code 352 (for Kaptai), and US has the Area_code_352 for Florida. Similar examples can be cited for many other countries. --Ragib 00:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally fail to understand why there is a page for every area code in the first place. Maybe Area code 212 should stay (although perhaps at a different name), but most of the other area codes are noteworthy only for the fact that they exist. List of North American area codes works perfectly fine. -- tariqabjotu 00:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm betting that there is a better place to discuss this. It doesn't seem to be an admin issue. If you are looking to rename the cat, try WP:CFD. If you want to rename the articles, try WP:RM. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging discussions for wider attention

Betacommand is coding for me a bot where you can tag a page (or as soon as the feature gets added, a specific section) and a bot will add that page on a list which will be transcluded onto pages including the community portal. This bot would be useful in situations where a very important discussion arises yet on a page that doesn't receive much traffic. By tagging a page with the {{wider attention}} template, a bot will advertise that page wherever the list is transcluded. The bot is not ready yet, though I would still like to hear comments on it. (No, it has not undergone the arduous bot process yet). MessedRocker (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up

Since it is July 1^st and per the FUI discussions I stopped BetacommandBot tagging until today. Per the agreement I will now proceed to resume the FUR tagging. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also extermination time for members of CAT:DFUI and CAT:NR. Have fun! MER-C 03:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So it is. Damn it, I have not been looking forward to this... --tjstrf talk 04:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE

User:Robert Chares Summers has two edits: one creating his userpage (which is chock-full of personal information) and one uploading an image to be used on said userpage. Should something be done? I'd like to report this on another more specific page, but I'm not sure where that might be—can someone point me in the right direction, in addition? Octane ^{[improve me]} 28.06.07 2253 (UTC)

IMO, Remove the personal information, but don't block - he may well just want to edit the encyclopedia at some point in the future. Will ^(talk) 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Account is too new. Wait at least a month before prodding. hbdragon88 01:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- don't bite the newcomers and assume good faith are foundational principles of the site, in my opinion, and with good reason. We need to be careful what new users' first few experiences are, and "you broke some policies you were never warned about, we're deleting your stuff" will probably scare people away from trying again. We can afford to give people a few chances, or a little time to get on their feet. If they haven't done anything in a month or two, we can more comfortably assume they're not going to. If they do something clearly disruptive where they really ought to know better, my opinion changes, but at this point they just seem to be a new user. My two cents. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

note: User:Ryulong has deleted this page anyway. --Random832 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Then have it restored. Good job by Ryulong. One potential editor less to "worry about". --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik decided

The above named arbitration case has closed. Tajik's indefinite ban is endorsed; additionally he is banned by the Arbitration Committee for one year (concurrently).

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little backward to have an Arbitration Committee ban run consecutively with an indefinite ban - if for some reason we were to decide that Tajik should be allowed back on the site, he'd still have to sit out another year. I know it doesn't matter for all intents and purposes, but it just seems odd. Ral315 » 04:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I think this was a misunderstanding on Penwhale's part; the implementation notes on the proposed decision page make it quite clear that the two bans are meant to run concurrently, not consecutively. In other words, it's effectively a community ban that can't be lifted earlier than a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. is correct about this. I'll leave Penwhale a note. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, my goof. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Minority posts

I have asked Texas Android why it seems he specifically hunts down posts made by African-Americans and deletes them. He has not answered and just deletes the question. Could you check this please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.143.230.26 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Please provide some diffs as to what you mean. howcheng {chat} 02:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete log here - Alison ☺ 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And how do we suppose to know if a wikieditor is Afro-American or Asian-American or European-American or whatever? If an article was deleted out of process please refer to the article Alex Bakharev 10:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the question as trolling because I saw the question as not being worth dignifying with a reply, and given it's insulting premise, did not think it was being seriously asked. The question has at it's core a totally false premise that attacks my credibility. Alex has one of the key reasons it is false: 99.99% of the time I have no idea the race of an editor, and no way I could know. Even if someone announces their race on their User page, I cannot think of a single time I actually visited an editor's User page when deciding whether to delete something. I base my deletions on the content of the articles, not the editors. I really couldn't care less about the race of the editors, generally.

That all said, if you have a problem with one or more of my deletions, you are going to need to be very specific on what actions you have a problem with. I honestly have no idea which deletions might have prompted these attacks on me. I've deleted a lot of articles in my time as an admin. WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and the Short Pages list are the main place I find them, but some I just stumble across. Unless you can tell us exactly what article(s) you have a complaint about, I really don't think there's much left to discuss. - TexasAndroid 13:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF places the burden of evidence squarely on the accusers. It's unacceptable to make this sort of claim and provide only a blanket link to an account's entire contribution history. Provide specifics; we don't do fishing expeditions. Durova^Charge! 15:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)