Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Featured picture cited as original research?

User:CyclePat is being disruptive and pointy towards featured pictures. First, he added {{refimprove}} and {{original research}} to Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg,[1] which is a featured picture. The editor proceeded to list this image for deletion review, which is speedily kept and cited by the closer as abusive DR. A few days later, the editor went to the Features and Admins page on Signpost and hid the announcement that the image is promoted to featured status, citing the image as original research.[2] I would like to ask someone to step in and intervene this problematic user. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably also relevant; it's another (unrelated) image he's claiming is original research. --Rory096 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Images are traditionally given some leeway with regard to original research guidelines (see WP:NOR#Original images), but that doesn't mean users concerned over such issues are necessarily being "disruptive" -- it could just as easily be argued that such concerns are important to ensuring the integrity and accuracy of our content. While I do think the Signpost edit in particular was uncalled for, it's worth noting that it's over a week old -- is this an ongoing issue, anywhere? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely don't see how respiratory system diagram is original research. It is actually one of the things on earth that people don't debate about. Just go and flip open any human anatomy textbook and you cannot find any disagreement between textbooks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In which case the diagram author - or you - would not find it difficult to provide a citation for the image, in the image description page. OR is not about a work being accurate & factual, so much as it is about it being verifiable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is uncontroversial information, and probably not based on a single source. FWIW, CyclePat also requested a source at Commons. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It demonstrably is not an uncontroversial image, since there is a controversy about it. I'm sure it is not a plagiarized image taken directly from a single source. But it is clearly, for the reasons cited above, capable of being referenced to any number of other occurrences of diagrams of respiratory systems. Lack of a single source does not diminish its capacity to be referenced. Referencing it is the simplest and most effective way to solve the controversy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If the image had no problems on the commons, where it was originally uploaded, then there's no issue with sourcing. This is why the templates for sourcing here specifically mention "this article." Just because this diagram isn't taken from Gray's Anatomy doesn't mean it needs to be referenced to it. CyclePat has had issues with his behavior prior. Let's hope this isn't his new outlet from now on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I slapped a pile of references on the talk page for the image. That should put this absurd attention grabbing to rest. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To state that there is a controversy surrounding this image is laughable. A weak attempt at manufacturing one does not controversy make. Resolute 04:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, does Commons even have a policy analogous to WP:V or WP:NOR? As far as I know there isn't one. While I suspect that the Commons' community would choose to delete misleading imagery, as far as I know they don't have any policy requiring the sourcing of the information presented in an image (as distinct from sourcing who created the image). Dragons flight (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For context, it should be noted that CyclePat has a history of disruptive activity around references. Some months ago, he was engaged in a great deal of nonsense on the MS disambiguation page, insisting that every entry on the dab page ought to have a reference proving that the term could be abbreviated that way. The silliness spilled over to a number of other pages, where he started demanding footnotes on millisecond and mass spectrometry to prove that these terms could be validly abbreviated as ms and MS, respectively.

Based on that sort of conduct – and his tilting at windmills over WP:AMA – I am very concerned at CyclePat's tendency to WP:POINT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given CyclePat a note informing him of this discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Until some meaningful and sourced disagreement about this image shows up I'd say there isn't much to talk about other than CyclePat's WP:POINTiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Btw, I found that his username is actually the name of a company he owns. See User:CyclePat#About Me and User:CyclePat/CyclePat's. Isn't that a violation of WP:USERNAME? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as he's not promoting his company, I don't see a problem with it. --Conti|✉ 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He is promoting his company, in his userspace and on his main userpage. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment at [3], which may apply to several of the comments displayed here... Also, I find it to be of bad form to bring up past incidents "which may or may not" even be related to this subject. In this case, I find it being quite rude. To put it nicely I will make reference to this article which talks about previous criminal records. It is absolutely un-called for and will humbly accept an apology for the grotesque lack of WP:AGF. p.s.: I mean this in the most sincere of ways... and there is no hidden humor or sarcasm... as some of my past conversations. ありがとうございました •••日本穣 for the constructive reference and spending some time to try and find something that could help us keep this image. b.t.w.: see the talk page where you may see that someone else then I claims it has a mistake! No matter the case this is not the proper venue to discuss content issue which, may be found (this exact subject) at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Image without references. --CyclePat (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN is an entirely suitable venue to discuss user conduct issues, which certainly and conspicuously exist here. Discussing your past conduct is perfectly reasonable where a pattern of behaviour exists and corrective measures are being – or ought to be – considered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If your point holds true, CyclePat, then the entire Wikipedia will be removed and there is no Wikipedia. Why? Because every idea was proposed by a human. For example, if we follow your original research standard, we have to remove the article gravity (because it is originally proposed by Issac Newton, which is an original research when Newton was alive). I find that CyclePat is following the letters, not the spirit of the OR policy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well lets get started then... DELETE DELETE DELETE --Samuel Pepys (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys! You're being supercilious. I honestly want to know if there is a mistake or not in this picture. I need some references. That's it! Wikipedia should have authoritative sources to substantiate this. Newton's law's are substantiated by "recognized", 3rd party, references. This graphic is an interpretation by an unknown user (who can't even step up and claim his/her sources... did they read this in a book, do an autopsy, pull the names out a the medical school class, etc.) which as far as we know has not been peer reviewed, so the least we should do is provide some references. There is no arguing that this is a respiratory system, because everyone knows this, but since not everyone is familiar with the minute details, it's important to note reliable, peer-reviewed (preferably) and authoritative source. Plus this is different than "any other image" because it has incorporated some "text" (which I believe places it closer to the category of "article"). I trust this explanation and the ones found on the related pages is sufficient to prove to you that I am honestly attempting to do what is right and to find a reliable source. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary to reference every single thing. I don't need references on a map of the world, the image is based on common and accrued knowledge that is easily verifiable on the articles where it is posted. Stop being an asshat. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s.: I conclude that you are stretching Wikipedia's policies beyond common sense, i.e., I politely think that this maybe an interesting read for you. --CyclePat (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem, CyclePat, is not necessarily in a simple request for a reference, or in a desire for discussion about the appropriateness of references for scientific diagrams. The problem – which you have yet to acknowledge or, apparently, to understand – is how you approach those requests or discussions.

As near as I can gather from digging through your contributions, this is the timeline:

---

• CyclePat sees the featured image Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg in the article Respiratory system. He removes it, with the edit summary Removed unsourced image. Reason: No reliable source provided for imbeded text which identified parts of the organ".
• He does the same thing (diff) to Image:Merrimack Valley Map.PNG from Merrimack Valley.
• Both edits are reverted independently, by different editors.
• Twelve hours later and with no discussion, he removes the respiratory system image from all the articles in which it appears:[4][5][6][7][8][9]. That includes repeating his edit (which had been undone) on respiratory system. No attempt was made to contact the editor who had reverted him, nor to expand on his reasoning on the article's talk page.
• CyclePat adds templates and various messages to the image description page here and on Commons (diff). In all cases, the templates are inappropriate ({refimprove} and {original research} specifically state that they are meant for articles, not images, while {bsr} is used to identify images which are missing authorship info). Even at the time, he acknowledged that it was unlikely that the image represented original research (diff) so it is unclear why he felt it needed to be removed immediately from all our articles.
• He also messages the image's creator on Commons, leaving a message ([10]) that is based on an incomplete copyright info template. The message is confusing, and refers to the need for further licensing and copyright information.
• A few days later, CyclePat nominates the image for deletion from Commons ([11], [12]) despite having identified no error in the image, despite the featured status of the picture, and despite having allowed very little time for sourcing to take place. (Various mangled deletion templates and pages appear on enwiki as well, at RfD, MfD, and IfD.)
• His various deletion nominations are closed immediately by sensible admins at enwiki and Commons. The Commons admin notes that the deletion request is "abusive": diff.
• He proceeds to strip the image from a Signpost article: diff.
• CyclePat then goes to Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Image without references.
• He also attempts to file an RfC on the image talk page (diff). For some reason, he states that "Since the closing deletion discussion the fact that image was not listed in any article has come to light! Hence, in this case the image is not used in any article (and should not be used in any article) because it has no references." I don't know how it is that he forgot that he was the one who removed the image from articles in the first place.
• He removes references to the image from assorted Picture of the Day (POTD) archive templates (diff) as well as adding {fact} and {syn} tags to the image's POTD box: diff.
• Discussion continues in several places. Nihonjoe has provided several similar images and references from reliable sources on Image talk:Respiratory system complete en.svg. CyclePat is going through the references, but is badly hampered by either his lack of specific subject knowledge, or a failure to do any legwork himself. (For example, he compares our image to one provided by the American Medical Association, and offers the criticism "The "vocal fold" appears to be at the same location as the AMA's Larynx". Simply entering vocal fold into our search box would take him to our article, which says "The vocal folds...are composed of...membrane stretched horizontally across the larynx." Not surprising that they'd be in the same place in a diagram, is it?)

---

This is the second time I've closely examined CyclePat's conduct in a situation like this one. In both cases, he has chosen to zero in on a particular image or fact for which he believes a reliable source must be provided. So far, so good. (While others may disagree with the need for a source, opening a discussion is – within reason – a fair course of action.)

The problem comes with his approach. He is not content to add a {fact} tag and let things rest. Nor does he simply make a polite request of an article or image creator. Instead, he sprays inappropriate tags and templates everywhere, opens RfCs, posts to noticeboards, opens deletion discussions, edit wars, strips content from articles, and just generally makes a noisy, obnoxious nuisance of himself until someone either gives him the attention he wants (which seems to be what has happened here) or he is blocked after multiple warnings (which happened the last time around).

He seems either unaware of or indifferent – and I'm not sure which would be worse – to the disruption that his approach causes. He hasn't demonstrated that he has learned anything from the last go-round, at EgyptAir, MS, millisecond, and mass spectrometry. (This choice example shows Pat creating a footnote to demonstrated that ms really is an abbreviation for millisecond. The footnote is longer than the article's prose, and includes a comment that adding SI prefixes to SI units may be a violation of WP:NOR.)

The fact that he refers other editors to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering in his last comment above speaks volumes. How can he still not realize or acknowledge the tremendous amount of other editors' time and effort he has wasted over minutiae and abuse of Wikipedia processes? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, TenOfAllTrades, for making this extensive list to summarize CyclePat's disruptive behavior. Since CyclePat started this kind of behavior for over 6 months and did not show any sign of stopping, I would like to ask the community for a ban on CyclePat because 1) continuous disruptive editing 2) abuse of deletion process 3) following the letter but not the spirit of original research policy 4) being pointy 5) wasting editor's time and effort just to annoy them 6) destroying the editing atmosphere in Wikipedia. I haven't thought of the duration of the ban, but 1 month or longer sounds reasonable OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you must, block over this, to prevent disruption. Do it when relevant, not now when it's punitive. A community ban now would be frankly ridiculous, so I'm not surprised Ohana's proposed one (note he started this AN section). CyclePat does useful work unrelated to this dispute area (example), hence I oppose a ban. giggy _(:O) 05:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also oppose. While I can't stand the north korean style 'accuse others of doing exaclty what I do' approach. A ban seems totally overkill here. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not indef though. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved party, while I can see the frustration CyclePat's approach to this matter causes, any sort of outright block or ban here would be unfair. A more fair approach would be to give CyclePat a warning -- which, if ignored, would be followed by a block for a week or two -- to knock off this foolishness. Although many reference works do provide cites for their diagrams, Wikipedia does not expect it for noncontroversial diagrams; demanding in this manner that we change our expectations won't persuade us to. I suggest to CyclePat that if he wants to effect a change that he investigate current practices, then research which sources best support this Featured Image, & add them to this diagram. If he does this in a skilled enough manner, then the rest of us will gladly follow his lead. -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have so much to say... I could quote that "Citation required" image from my user space, but that would not be polite. Hence I refer you, once more, to 1) WP:V which states "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source.", 2) WP:CITE which says "The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book." In our case, we are using Wikimedia "Commons" picture. Do you believe such a "source" is reliable? Such an image, to which the author her/himself can't even step up to provide any reliable source... or at least a proper reference? What authoritative or reliable source are their? The ones that we added on the talk page that currently contradict the image? It's obvious there will be some discrepancies. That is all the more reason to have the "Original Reference"... who claims that those words go in that location to identify those parts within the image. An image is worth a thousand words, but once you start adding words to an image, "We require" references. It becomes an article. I can understand for regular images there may be some different code, or "unspoken rules" whereas the images remain, but in this case we are talking about an image which identifies, again, with text, body organ parts. There is most likely going to be some sort of POV. I want to know exactly who it is that has this point of view! I am allowed to know... otherwise this information is pretty much useless... and it's un-verified, which means it shouldn't be used in any Wikipedia article. For example, is it a pharynx[SIC] (per the AMA source provided on the talk page) or a pharynx? And even if we did manage to somehow source all the information, what really concerns me is the complacency of the closing administrator, during the deletion process, to simply accept "fact as fact" without "any references". What I mean is that, by closing the deletion process of the image, there is an acknowledgement that the image is in fact sourced... when it isn't at all. So I ask you, is there still an acceptance that we "WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT"? At this point, I acknowledge your complaints but would like to indicate that "Whoever brought this to this board is the one truly wasting time and I ask that my big brother, Tenofalltrades, please step aside and acknowledge that there is absolutely no mal intention in what I have done. This conversation regarding my mannerism and methodology of work is a true insult, a waste of time and I humbly requests it ends right now (which is taking away from my time to actually do productive editing and compare... and maybe even, throughout the several references added on the talk page (and perhaps my eventual loss of patience), sucessfully "VERIFY this IMAGE" (Requested approx. 18 days ago). Frankly, you guys can continue arguing here about whatever, but unless the next words are... "Here are all the verified sources for this image..." or "Let's work together at getting these sources verified" or "Yes! It's not properly sourced but where keeping it until it can be" I'll be ignoring your insults towards not only my inteligence but towards Wikipedia's widelly accepted policies. And again, thank you for those of you who did try to add some references, which I will now continue to verify. --CyclePat (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(dedent for jimbos sake) Tis true he who WP:words last WP:words longest. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'dd like to think of if more or less like agreeing to disagree and moving on... but meuh! :) At least we have a good sense of humour and I will pay attention not to enrage "big brother" next time I find an unsourced image. "B-B!..... B-B!...." (Love of big brother) Avoid the big Delete Delete.... "D-D!...."... do it qietly. Hey. I got the last word again :( Is that good? --CyclePat (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I DEMAND A CHECKUSER

Resolved

 – No requests for CU on self. A bit OTT here even if we did it. No need for further drama. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Im demanding a checkuser is done on my account RIGHT now. I have been accused of sock puppetry Here by an Admin. After making nearly 17,000 edits to this website I WILL NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have my name muddied my this little sweety pie. Get it sorted please. Regards. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All is well, nobody accused you of anything. If anything, I recommend you count to ten (really, please do try that before the unavoidable rebuttal). -Gutza ^{T T+} 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I want it done NOW. Im a good editor and I won't be accused of that. She/he/it openly admits to considering blocking me in the past. Do it, I want my name cleaned. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my independent assessment: you haven't been accused of anything, there is no need for a checkuser to clear your name. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then request it on the RFCU page, instead of the Admin noticeboard, since admins can't generally checkuser. --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a different board for that request. Also, whyu all the drama? --70.188.131.89 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a different board. However, requesting use of the checkuser tool on your own account is not acceptable. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't checkuser users on request to prove they are not guilty. If someone really suspects you are a sock of another user, they can file an RFCU with evidence showing who you are a sock of, but I very much doubt it will come to that. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You better take some cool-down time, you are acting agressively everywhere you go, calling someone "some bitter hormonal Admin" seems awfully sexist. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And you have no right to "demand" anything of anyone on this site. Mr.Z-man 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but on the English Wikipedia, we don't really do that - Alison ^❤ 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great to know you can be accused of any old rubbish by an admin who has a lot of sway but cant get it discredited. Hmm I wonder what would happen if I did that? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact is that any of us can be accused of any old rubbish by anybody (admin or not) at any time on WP and might have a hard time discrediting it. That's why Wikipedians need thick skins... -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I wish I'd kept the diff, but I've been accused of some very strange (and even conflicting) things at times. Orderinchaos 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything else aside, if a user makes a bad faith attempt to tarnish another user's reputation in the talk pages, there should be a good faith method to establish one's innocence (i.e. as opposed to getting back with a vengeance, or alternately just accepting to get thrashed around). However, in this case I have seen no such attempt to accuse anyone of anything, which is the point I was trying to make above. (I won't even try to touch sexist or aggressiveness here, I'm just pointing out a different POV.) --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I read the talk page too and I do not see anyone accusing Realist2 of sockpuppetry. Orderinchaos 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been accused of being pro-Korean and pro-Japanese at various times. I think it's funny, mostly. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been accused of being hard right and hard left in the same dispute by the same person before. Pretty crazy. Orderinchaos 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

page move vandalism statistics

Bugzilla:14191 has some recent comments about changing autoconfirm to 7 days/20 edits. I think it might be a good idea to collect some stats about the number of page move vandalism from before the autoconfirm change (exists for 4 days), the current change (4 days/10 edits) and if it gets changed again (7 days/20 edits). If 7/20 turns out to have little to no change, we can jump back down to 4/10. Something to the extent of how much page move vandalism occurred in those three time periods would be simple enough. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 03:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any help on this would be appreciated.. Even if it's just an idea thrown out there on how to best collect them. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can be done - you just need to download the logs (from the database dump), and then get a program to analyse them and work out what constitutes pagemove vandalism - say a user moves [number] page in [amount of time], they were all reverted within [amount of time] and the user was blocked indefinitely. However, the most recent database dump was carried out on 24 May and the autoconfirmed change was made on 23 May we'll probably have to wait for the next database dump, which should be in about two weeks. Hut 8.5 09:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for withdrawal of community sanction

Hi; in November, I was placed under a sanction under which I can operate only one account. Given the fact that I have successfully completed mentoring and am now a good boy, could this restriction be relaxed so I can create another account for the purpose of "segregation and security" - since I've created a global account, and frequenly use the remember me checkbox, I feel that this would increase the account integrity (I'd obviously not globalise my second account). I won't say precisely what the new account would be - just in case some nasty IP registers it! - but it would be along the lines of TreasuryTag and 2! Thanks for your consideration! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, you would like to have a second account to edit from public computers? I, personally, would be okay with this provided each account references the other on their userpages. Neıl 龱 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes! For the userpages, I'd simply redirect to my "central account" pages. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So long as the "central account" mentions the existence of a secondary account, quite clearly, then that wouldn't be a problem. I can't see why you would need more than one "other account", though, so keep it at that. Wait and see what a few others think before going ahead, and run it by whoever set down the restriction back in November. Neıl 龱 14:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to have more than one additional account; that is, I planned to create one further account than my current one, this one, and that's it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That should be fine. I've asked Rlevse, who imposed the restriction, and Dweller, who adopted you, for input here. Neıl 龱 14:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as this is out in the open, clearly stated on both the public and regular user pages, and only one public account is created, I do not see this as a breaking of the restriction. Note, this should NOT be construed as a withdrawal of the restriciton, simply as a clarification thereof. It is standard practice to permit an alternate public account if it's stated so on the two user pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I am OK with this under what is being described. On a side note TT, will you please not create a similar sig for your alternate account? I'm not sure why you are still using the current one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - TT, changing your signature, which takes up three lines on my browser, would be appreciated. Neıl 龱 17:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, his current signature, at 228 characters, is far shorter than his previous signature, which was 437 characters. 228 characters is too long, but it's not absurdly so, as was the older one. Horologium (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Breaking usual weekend silence to pop in and say I've no problem with this request. TT completed his mentor programme in exemplary fashion. --Dweller (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice please (User:KingsleyMiller and dispute)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had a look at this case last night (took a lot longer than half an hour, Neil!) and I endorse this block. Leaving aside the legal concerns, this is a tendentious editor who appears to be trying to use Wikipedia to push a very specific POV. I think he should remain blocked until he indicates he has read, understands and agrees to comply with our policies and guidelines and then once unblocked kept an eye on to ensure he doesn't backslide. The various talk pages, the mediation and ArbCom requests and so forth show someone who is pushing a barrow with a singular focus. The fact he withdrew his participation in a mediation case he requested because someone swore in an edit summary, the long screeds and bureaucratic nonsense (like complaints over the use of the word "editor" and this [13] kind of nonsense that is surely intended to tie other editors up in knots until they give up in frustration) gave me the impression of someone using obstructionist tactics to outlast (outwit, outplay?) their opponents, rather than someone genuinely coming to the table to reach a consensus. So I endorse the block and I think he should remain blocked until he agrees to edit within our policies and guidelines. Sarah 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Good News

I thought I'd mention a slight antidote to the general complaining, doom and gloom that normally appears here. On Monday last, some minor IP vandalism to a few pages came to my attention, and I emailed the diffs to the abuse@ for the IP range as shown by WhoIs, without much hope of any response. However, after an exchange of emails and an explanation of the problem, I have had return emails not only from the IP owner (a Canadian government body), but also from the IT manager specifically responsible for the school involved, which turned out to be a Grade 6 - 8 establishment. I have been told that those responsible, although not necessarily directly traceable, will be given certain advice. The result is that those kids will now be aware that while anonymity is possible, some detection is equally possible. To those who feel that reporting anon IP vandalism is pointless, I'd just say that it's worth an email. Result! --Rodhullandemu 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Certain advice" mmmkay.... I know I wouldn't have bothered asking what they meant by that, but did you? — CharlotteWebb 01:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No; I guess that's up to how serously they take it. I am just a humble whistle-blower. --Rodhullandemu 05:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! Tony Fox (arf!) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WBOSITG

Resolved

For an admin, this user sure has uploaded a lot of copyright violations. I was stunned when I saw how many deleted files he has that were deleted as copyvios. -Nard 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not infallible, contrary to popular opinion. Was this post necessary? xenocidic (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - fixed. ;> xenocidic (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My earnest advice to you is to study RFAs more closely. — CharlotteWebb 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved, for the simple reason that admin action is not needed here. Good night all...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt many of these would have been uploaded early in his Wikicareer. People learn and improve as time goes on. Orderinchaos 20:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess, another troll from commons. Man SUL has some downsides to it. Anyway, back to commons with you, no need to bother us with your copyright paranoia. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert war and ignoracne from an administrator

We really need help at some place. On the Russians page. A long time ago after a long discussion it was decided that a one-piece collage will be created. You can see it here. It had no problems, and it was agreed. Then User:Melesse for a not understood and not explaned reason for her did this. She was explaned on her talk page that she hurts a concensus and that we prefer it as a one piece collage, and you can see it here. Yet she ignored it and without explanation insisted on this. I dont want an edit was to continue so please explane her that even thought she's an administrator Wikipedia is not her private property, and that she can't go against a concensus and she must have a discussion before doing something.

Note that i'm not the first complaning on her one-sided ignorant towards the editors actions.[14] [15] [16] [17]. Please get into this. MaIl89 (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start here. First off, this is a content dispute - there's no administrator action or discussion to be had here, as far as I can tell. Secondly, you started this discussion 3 minutes before you tried talking about the issue on her talk page. Maybe try dispute resolution to see if you can resolve the problem, or ask for input from other users. Alex Muller 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The users are discussing this elsewhere. I'd consider it resolved as far as ANi is concerned, for now, and request that MaIl89 refrain from removing it and the comments of others from the noticeboad. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Having some issues viewing Wikipedia

All the Wikipeda policy articles have an image on the top left corner which locks the article from scrolling I assume.

For a quick look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility or any other would suffice.

Is there an on-going problem? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no problems here (Windows Vista with Fx 2). And how can an administrator help with this? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone vandalized Template:Nutshell. The template has since been full protected. Dave6 ^talk 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Admirał Bum

This account has been blocked by User:Nlu for - as far as I can deduct - using non-English characters in the account name. I can also suppose the use of the word "Bum" which does sound weird in English, but in Polish is the equivalent of "Bang!" If we consider using non-English, local-alphabet-specific characters, the block doesn't seem to qualify per WP:U.

I approached Nlu on his talkpage (see entry), where he clarified that non-English characters weren't allowed, after which he archived the discussion, therefore effectively terminating the discussion on the matter.

So I bring this matter to the attention of more pairs of eyes. I suggest that the account should be unblocked due to the fact its name doesn't seem inappropriate. An additional argument here is the Single-User login. This specific account has not been blocked on any other wiki where it has been SULed, even though the non-English characters have been used. If English Wikipedia starts blocking account names that do not qualify because of that one single minor criterion, it will have problems with global-login users and will probably have to face the need of blocking gajillions of accounts of burdening the bureaucrats with massive user renames into such account names that use only the prescribed 26 English letters.

Comments, anyone? Wpedzich (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bum has its English meaning nevertheless. Global usernames face global suitability worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the username is inappropriate (and I highly doubt it is), a hard block for one non-English character is overwrought. I'm gonna be bold and change it to a soft block ... I'd unblock him myself, but in deference to Nlu we ought to wait until he contributes to the discussion. I'm also leaving a note on Nlu's talkpage. Blueboy96 16:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The account never should have been hard blocked for this. I didn't even think of checking for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this block is unnecessary. Even if it was intended to be English, it would still be borderline. Non-latin characters are allowed in usernames and "bum" doesn't seem very offensive. Asking the user to be renamed because of the ł is ridiculous, especially now since he has a global account. This is an experienced user on other projects who was treated like a vandal here (and this is just now coming to wider attention, 2 years later!). I recommend unblocking him immediately. Mr.Z-man 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Note) as SUL gains more users we'll likely see more of these old incidents. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from asking the opinion on this specific situation that's also a general comment I wanted to make with this message. Wpedzich (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user since global usernames are swaying policies on this, the block was made two years ago and it looks like consensus is going to tend towards being ok with the word. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblock. That being said, I believe 2 years ago non-english characters were extremely frowned upon and blocking for this wasn't all that uncommon. Since consensus has moved away from this, there are probably a lot more like this we need to unblock. VegaDark (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I thought we have been allowing non-latin alphabet usernames for a while. Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-Latin_usernames makes no mention of having to be an 'established user'. Sasquatch t|c 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

10:20, 22 September 2006 Nlu (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Admirał Bum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Inappropriate user name). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible subtle vandalism campaign from 125.161.x.x

Beginning with Nero, which is on my watchlist, I've noticed edits from this subnet that increasingly appear to be efforts to subtly vandalize articles.

• 125.161.135.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.134.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.129.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

At first, I thought this editor was testing and/or confused, but when viewed chronologically as a group, their edits seem less innocent. I'm posting here because there may be other IPs in this range whose activity hasn't yet been detected. Dppowell (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

ACC backlogged

Resolved

 – All done by Animum. giggy _(:O) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is an admin with ACC access. It is currently backlogged with 9 pending requests that need admin attention. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like its been done now, thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Warren G Harding

Probably due to the Monday 6/9 episode of The Colbert Report, Warren G. Harding's page has been edited in several places (including in the footnotes) to list his middle name as Gangsta rather than Gamaliel. I can't get in to edit it as a new user; could someone check this out? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazjack (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been sorted out. Thanks for the notice. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Two seconds of your time...

Y Done Keegan^talk 06:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Salutations, I am trying to set up an assessment feature for WikiProject Objectivism and I need an administrator to edit the protected section here, replacing "Foo" with "Objectivism", clicking "run the bot" and then reverting their edit. Won't take a minute. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 03:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky attempt at policy-making by ArbCom

Those interested in the ongoing development of BLP policy might be interested to read this current proposed ArbCom decision. It's been attached to a seemingly unrelated case regarding a boring, technical issue of formatting of reference quotes, where few would be likely to see it before it's a fait accompli, and it grants sweeping new powers to admins to impose their will unilaterally on anything pertaining to a BLP. Whether or not one agrees with this specific change, some concern is warranted with the manner in which ArbCom is trying to sneak in such a policy change with little community input. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of Bsharvy

Already indeffed, new socks checkusered and indeffed today. Declared intent to violate the indef on my user talk page.[18] Requesting formal community ban so that editors who deal with the topics where he's been disruptive can revert new socks on sight.

As background, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bshanvy and this attempted arbitration request. Also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (2nd). This was a troll so skilled that his maneuvers had gotten one editor sitebanned. When two productive editors tried to follow up with a second sock investigation request it went nowhere and he had gamed the system all the way up to an arbitration request against them. The main account has been indeffed since March, but this deserves to have a few more eyes upon it so he gets the idea that we mean business. Durova^Charge! 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder for block-evading post by the subject of this thread: if you object to the proposal, post a defense to your user talk page. Durova^Charge! 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Valid point that Not following the rules regarding sockpuppets isn't the same as trolling. We should strive for accuracy here. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody suggested it's the same thing (well actually the blocked editor did...see straw man argument). Abusing the system to disrupt articles and seek unwarranted sanctions against productive editors is a variety of trolling, and a particularly insidious type. Durova^Charge! 07:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support full community ban. Having been deeply involved with this editor, some notes.

1. There was clearly a disconnect in the first checkuser request. User:Igorberger (a disruptive, now banned editor) actually presented a very persuasive case. I am surprised Jenochman declined it. Was it because he knew Igor was troublesome and then didn't take it seriously? If I had brought a request (which I kept meaning to) would it have been taken more seriously?
2. Should we reevaluate Igor's indef block? I don't know enough about the trouble he caused elsewhere, but on Anti-Americanism he could be cogent and occasionally helpful.
3. Bsharvy/Life.temp is skilled. We'll have to watch and perhaps tabulate where he is most likely to make an appearance. He would be stupid to come to Anti-Americanism again and I suspect when (not if) he reappears it will be elsewhere. At least at first. Marskell (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A technical clarification: that was a sockpuppet investigation request, not a checkuser request. Jehochman is not a checkuser. David Gerard, who is a checkuser, confirmed yesterday that these accounts are operated by the same person. Durova^Charge! 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry; I haven't been down these alleways much. What exactly is the purpose of a sock investigation request if not to run a checkuser? Marskell (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Better not to get into the details at a thread where an indefinitely blocked editor who has socked for months and has vowed to sock again is being considered for a ban. Suffice it to say that this was an easy call once the smoke generator got shut off. Durova^Charge! 08:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? Is this just a happy little notice with no further action required at this time? --Samuel Pepys (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Marskell) Not all SSP reports need a CU, if there are patterns/edits already familiar to the investigating editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban, for what its worth - it at least puts down a marker. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're chatting, I'll note that I'll still be watching Anti-Americanism in three or six months. What other admins will be? Precious few do now. We need to better coordinate radar for people like this. Marskell (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support community ban, to help the people who will be reverting and blocking sockpuppets of this person. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus needed - ANI subpages

Please have a look and comment on this discussion regarding ANI subpages. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kaizer13

If you look at the User talk:Kaizer13 page, you will notice that he has a history of unhelpful editing. The latest example is with The Beatles in which he reverted the gatefold photo of the group from the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band which already has formal fair-use rationale included and thus is allowed for use in the infobox for The Beatles article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with this guy, make me a martyr. --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize being blocked for vandalism isn't a worthy cause, and doesn't make you a martyr? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you team tag revert, and both get blocked, it might make you both a "two-martyr". Pip! Pip! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

I have noted the actions of one editor who appears to be on a campaign to remove images. Despite the many challenges to his actions, he is relentless in identifying images for deletion. Please check the edit history of User:Fasach Nua who does not seem to make any substantive editing other than challenges and deletions. Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC). (comment redirected from Village Pump)

I thought this page was for discussion of the village pump itself. My first impression is that the editor in question relies too much on the WP:BRD style of editing, but VP talk is not the place for Dispute Resolution. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#Fasach Nua disrupting IfD. seicer | talk | contribs 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that, I nominated an image for failing wp:nfc, it was deleted as failing wp:nfc, how disruptive was that! Fasach Nua (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I had an altercation with this editor this morning, warned them against 3RR and other innapropriate behaviour, had the warning removed immediatley and was called a troll. In preparation for further action (which thankfully I have not yet had to take), I consolidated recent evidence (over the past few days and this particular incident) proving this editors disruptive behaviour, and feel that it might be worth posting it here:

• Reversions at Template:TardisIndexFile without discussion: [19], [20], [21], [22] (3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.")

• Reversions at CITV without discussion: [23], [24]

• Unfounded accuastions of threats and Wikistalking, when I was merely making user aware of 3RR and stating that their behaviour was, in ways, unacceptable: [25] ("Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption")

• Unfounded threats of trolling, when I was merely making user aware of 3RR and stating that their behaviour was, in ways, unacceptable: [26] (see edit summary)

• 3RR warning given here: [27]

• Preliminary warning for unacceptable behaviour given here: [28]

• Final warning given here: [29] (all three mesages removed here: [30], [31])

Having only really interacted with this user over the past few days, I cannot really comment on past behaviour, though it would appear that there is a trend. _TalkIslander 22:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not wish to call anyone a liar, but I feel I must clarify a few things:

There was extensive discussion of Template:TardisIndexFile on multiplae forums, including Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and the consensus was to remove

The threats issued by Islander where using the 3RR template, when he was the sole editor wanting these copyrighted images included, when multiple users wanted them excluded. The "final warning" threat was issued for unknown reasons

Islander had wikistalked me onto Template:TardisIndexFile a page he had never edited, undid my edit using a legal determination which if the UK is deemed a legitimite country are unfounded

3RR warnings issued by someone to bully people off the pages they feel they WP:OWN is unfortunate, especially when this user has edit warred over this page.

Other warnings given for what ....?

I really would expect better of a sysop Fasach Nua (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Another case for you , Fasach Nua first put an imageoveruse tag on images showing history of station ident of RTE here . I reverted ,he reverted and I then left it for over a day until Copyrightdrone deleted them upon which I reverted and removed the tag .The editor a few hours later reverted thereby deleting the images again History of edits .At no stage has he put them up for any type of image review .Delete them if you will but let them go for review at least first .Garda40 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Grawp Eradication Program

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

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

• Edit summary blacklist
• Rollback all contributions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assistance on BLP please

Hi, per prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive432#Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) the same editor is again adding identifying content to a BLP of a person who has kept their identity and location hidden due to stated ongoing death threats. The editor has had this explained quite a few times that we need reliable sourcing and concensus to do so, of which there is neither. Banjeboi 22:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed. --Stephen 00:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have issued User:WillyJulia a final warning over the issue. [32] At this point, his editing has crossed the line into pure tendentiousness, and it needs to stop. There are legitimate concerns about the privacy of the article's subject, and considering that WJ has not been able to provide reliable sourcing, the information he has repeatedly added needs to be kept out of the article. Horologium (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not notifying WillyJulia to this thread, I will try to remember to do that in future use. Thank you for looking into this, on the original thread it was suggested this was a single-purpose account and it would seem that may be the case. Banjeboi 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If this has the background Benjiboi describes then this is quite serious. Recommend de-linking and seeking oversight. Full page protection may be advisable. Durova^Charge! 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing a city and state is not grounds for oversight Durova. In fact, should they be reliably sourced, listing city and state is quite appropriate. What is not appropriate would be to list street address and phone number, items which are grounds for oversight. Let's not blow this out of proportion. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:HARM. --jonny-mt 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:HARM, and if necessary WP:IAR. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Death threats, Dragon695. If the subject requests it I will also nominate for WP:AFD. Durova^Charge! 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the meantime, I've gone back and deleted the relevant edits from the talk page history. I haven't yet tracked down when the information first appeared in the main article, though, so I'm a little hesitant to do the same there unless it's possible to do so in such a way that all the relevant versions are deleted without losing GFDL-significant contributions. That being said, the information has been removed and the relevant edit summaries are reasonably innocuous, so it might not be necessary to go as far as deleting them. --jonny-mt 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The information was in the article for quite some time, as I discovered when WillyJulia responded to my warning on his talk page. It appears that his hometown was originally added by Benjiboi (!) in this edit, and updated with the correct spelling in this edit. There are over 300 revisions since it was added, which makes for an extremely unpleasant cleanup job, if it's even possible. Horologium (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Be on the look out for people like this guy—he made a talk archive full of Avril Lavigne crap, and transcluded it here. Lots of pages affected for 11 minutes. giggy _(:O) 09:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)