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

Current issues

User talk:Joejoebilly

Resolved

Look at that. And his contribs! The has repetedly recreated Pandapede and has been warned for it. User should be blocked. —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}@11/27/2007 04:18

User:Pegasus got him. east.718 at 04:34, November 27, 2007

SUGGESTIONS

I've archived this thread, having read it through for at least the the third time; it's already been discussed in thepast, including twice being on the Signpost: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-23/In the news, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-08-13/In the news. There is no action we can take right now based on what happened then, we now have a COI guideline, the problem was in any case more one of WP:NPOV and the rather unwise whitewashing of articles from an easily traced and identified IP address. The article on the hapless staffer has been deleted, which was a principal part of the request.

What remains is to ensure that we take reasonable care whenever real-world identities are involved. As far as I can tell it was not Wikipedia that named the individual; the irony of Giano being lauded for publishing private email while Durova is simultaneously castigated for an apparently quite unintentional piece of whistleblowing is not lost on me here. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted ArbCom voting page

Resolved

 – Page restored by Mercury himself. Chick Bowen 18:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Mercury deleted? Who did it, and how is this being justified? I know the user left, but there are certainly many who have not been on in the last few hours and now they know nothing. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:48, December 3, 2007

It seems he is exercising his right to vanish. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish does not apply to project-space pages. The page should be restored and protected. Blank is fine, but it should not be deleted. I will undelete it myself unless someone provides a very compelling reason not to. Chick Bowen 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. Mercury used his "right to vanish and had the page deleted. From Meta:

“ The Right to Vanish is a long standing right of any user on any Wikimedia project. It means that under certain conditions, a range of material testifying to your actions and existence on the project may (at your request) be removed or obscured. ”

John Reaves 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chick, he's just upset. I don't see a compelling reason to restore it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't this deletion for right to vanish falls under the Wikipedia namespace that attachs his name to it. This is like deleting a Request for adminship, it should be overturned. Courtesy blank if you like, but it should not be red-linked cause he didn't like the results of it. — Save_Us_229 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The compelling reason to restore it is that, if we take these elections seriously, we ought to maintain a record of what happened in them. Similar things have happened before and we have not deleted the vote page, merely closed the voting and protected it. Chick Bowen 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Falls within spirit of the right to vanish, if not the rules. So best to leave it as it is. But John, as a candidate, you really shouldn't be editing the vote pages. Bring it to Talk, ask the election officers... Jd2718 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have created and protected a placeholder page. But I still think the history should be restored. I don't like the precedent here. Chick Bowen 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because they didn't request that the pages be deleted. It's just a page full of signatures. Can't we let him leave in peace? I really don't see how my candidacy is a COI except maybe as a mere technicality. John Reaves 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Other people have withdrawn from elections before because of bad results, and those vote pages haven't been deleted. I see no reason to do the same here. But maybe wait until the elections are over and (hopefully) Mercury has returned. Then it can be undeleted for the record. At the very least, the Signpost will probably say something about this, if only reporting who withdrew. Having no page to point at will look silly. Carcharoth 06:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the restored page with the concise explanation of what happened is a good idea for the time being. For the record: I posted here under the assumption that he left because of the vote, not because of any other more pressing issues. I dorftrottel I talk I 06:29, December 3, 2007

I wouldn't necessarily oppose recreation, it just seems unnecessary. John Reaves 06:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the voting page was useful, insofar as it was something of a referendum on the sleuthing meta-issue. We shouldn't seek to rub Mercury's nose in it or anything, but at the same time-- 50+ straight opposes in less than 6 hours was a pretty substantial record of the amount of opposition to sleuthing. Perhaps scrubbing Mercury's name from the page and replacing it with "Candidate M" or something, so that he can vanish without people's comments vanishing along with him? --Alecmconroy 08:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If Mercury wishes to leave to leave the project (Something I hope he'll reconsider, he is a good admin), I see nothing of much interest in the content of the page worth arguing over restoring it if he wants it deleted. It's nothing more than a vote page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One way or another, it should be part of the record. Deleting the page here creates the appearance of impropriety; it suggests that we are trying to hide unpleasant recent history within the project. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not just votes, I had commented too which was moved to the talk page, and other people had placed small comments next to their votes to indicate their reasons. And they weren't all exactly the same reasons. It does hide what people think, and no doubt Mercury will be back- well I hope so anyway. It is not 'his' page- we keep Requests for Adminship, RfCs and Arbcoms etc- dozens of people had commented/voted on that page.Merkinsmum 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I support not restoring the history until after the election. It takes courage to offer to serve the community in such a public way, and giving candidates some grace here is good for all of us. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(Entered after the resolution) To be fair, if Phil Sandifer and Danny are allowed to blank their vote pages, shouldn't Mercury? Or, to turn this the other way, shouldn't all vote pages be kept intact as a permanent record of the vote? -- Robster2001 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanking is fine. Mercury unblanked it himself. It's deleting the history that some of us are queasy about, but Mercury has eased all concerns about that through his actions here, which have been entirely proper. Chick Bowen 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I had it deleted for my right to vanish. I'm back per this. So I'm not vanished. Leave it be please and thank you for the concern. :) Regards, Mercury 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to have you back. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

I am very sorry about the circumstance that I have to come to this site back again. It seems that this article is an advertisement for the living person with information coming from his personal homepage. The whole article is missing sources and is not balanced. I therefore inserted today a neutrality box. Also missed is essential information (like birthday and birth place) which is easily found, because it is published. Beside the fact, that one IP tried to intimidate me and threaded me (see talking page); it seems that there is a group of friends of the living person, which are thinking that the article owns to them. They deleted the neutrality box and some information I inserted today and I do not want to start any Edit-War or something else. I would be very appreciative if an administrator (ore more) can have a look on this. Kind regards--KarlV 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The static IP making some nasty legal threats has been blocked (I don't think this is a WP:DOLT issue!). I've tagged the unreferenced statements with {{fact}} as they aren't particularly contentious, restored the DOB (of course we include it if we have it!), and restored the neutrality tag, as it really does read like a resume. If edit warring starts up again, you'll have to ask another admin to step in and take action, though. Neil ☎ 10:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the instance, unfortunately I should contact another admin (I did it already). Regards --KarlV 10:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As Gancefort (talk · contribs) and KarlV (talk · contribs) have continued to edit war without trying to discuss it with each other, either via their talk pages or the article talk page, I have restored the version that has fact tags and the DOB and blocked them both for 24 hours (they'd both breached 3RR, but that was, frankly, incidental). Hopefully the article can be put in shape now (I'm not editing it again). Neil ☎ 11:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And now an IP ([1]) is making the same edits Gancefort did. I rather suspect sockery is afoot, but the IP's already been blocked. Neil ☎ 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this. Just to let you know that I will as soon as I have some spare time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose people have already noticed, but "Gancefort" also seems to be (I am being careful here - google finds only one internet Word document not connected with Wikipedia) a pseudonym of De Zayas and in view of the fact that this info also seems to have been deleted quietly (in any case not being called a lie on the talk page, as far as I see) and that many of the IPs editing the article are from Switzerland, perhaps there is some COI involved here?--Paul Pieniezny 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some OTRS tickets going on about this article; apparently the German wikipedia is having the same problem over the article there. It appears that the subject, KarlV and possible others are edit warring in both places. Shell ^babelfish 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that de:Benutzer:Gancefort edit warred in an identical manner on the German article to the extent it has been protected, also (see [2]). I'm going to ask a German admin how they are dealing with this, as my German sucks. Neil ☎ 09:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The administrators in Germany dedicated to the article are Achates and Seewolf, please contact them. Anyway I can confirm that on de:WP we have problems because of (I think you named it) COI (Conflict of Interests?). Before doing allegations due to edit warring (I was convinced that I was restoring the version of Neil), please have a careful look, what is going on there. Regards--KarlV (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on Seewolf's talk page, as he has an account on this Wiki also, and speaks good English. Thanks Karl. Neil ☎ 11:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The single point of contact for the german OTRS-Tickets is Unscheinbar, he will probably tell you more about how the german OTRS-Team deals with the Spam. Best regards Achates (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (en-1)

Hi, the case is disputed also on the German administartor notice board. Regards --KarlV (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell from the de.wiki discissuion and what I have garnered here, the problem is that over the last few years, de Zayas has become quite right wing, to say the least, including supporting David Irving. This has attracted attention. His article is now replete with self-interest (there's even an article here on his writing club, the United Nations Society of Writers‎ which was (not now) terribly self-indulgent). It is also the stomping ground of a number of IPs and SPAs who will revert anything that could be seen as remotely critical, keeping the article as a glowing piece of self-promotion. The fr.wiki article is also suffering from the same problems, but they have not yet taken any action. Any advice on how to proceed would be welcome. Neil ☎ 11:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Most recently this article was unprotected by Admin Richardshusr, who did some formatting & added a source or two after Gancefort added several. According to the talk page, he is monitoring the article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINTy or otherwise strange action

I am not sure what these three edits were supposed to mean. I noticed them because after a previous encounter with the said editor I thought it necessary to wathclist the then red Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dorftrottel as an editor seemed "admin material" enough, so to speak (This was rather exceptional. I do not normally watchlist non-existing RfA's.) Anyway, I am now watchlisting Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dorftrottel 2 to be safe. Not sure on what to do with the joke RfA as this is yet a new type of a joke. --Irpen 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Userfy. GRBerry 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done this. Chick Bowen 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? What's the harm? A real real RfA would be much more of a disruption. How isn't this legitimate (setting aside for a moment that I created, withdrew and closed in one single edit)? Do I really have to open a real RfA? What for? It would fail anyway, I just wanted the page.

One reason not mentioned there is that recently someone told someone else that he'd watchlisted the page. Since I intend to never seriously run at RfA, I thought I could at least create the page, include serious criticism, oppose myself, withdraw and close. No harm done, or is there? I dorftrottel I talk I 02:37, December 4, 2007

Nevermind, the friendly guy who had watchlisted the page incidentally is the one who first posted here. Btw: previous encounter with the said editor is not the full truth. At our last encounter (the only one I remember), where he was grotesquely uncivil without ever getting so much as a warning, he alluded to me (or so I think, he never answered my according question to him) as "the admin material editor" when he told Mikka he'd watchlisted my non-existent RfA page and suggested that Mikka do the same. So, Irpen, maybe you can tell us now what you meant with that? There must have been at least two encounters, the earlier of which I honestly can't remember. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:41, December 4, 2007

I reiterate my question to Irpen. I don't do it at his user talk for obvious reasons. I ask him to unwatchlist any RfA pages with my name in them or to give a proper explanation what he meant with "admin material editor". What was that about? I am not willing to just let this go, not in the face of him posting sanctimoniously here as if he hadn't been unnecessarily and unprovokedly uncivil to me. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:49, December 4, 2007

We've had joke RfAs before. The general rule use to be more or less what the US courts seem to use in deciding if something constitutes legitimate parody of another work, that is, is something funny? However, at this point the project doesn't tolerate much humor (certainly much less so than it did 1.5 years ago or so). There are a handful of joke RfAs, but they are generally kept in user space. See for example the indefinitely open Bishzilla RfA (formerly in Wikipedia space). I don't see much of a problem leaving them in Wikipedia space but I suspect that many straight-laced editors will object, so it is probably best to leave them in userspace. In any event, Irpen your behavior looks close to Wikistalking. I suggest you leave Dorftrottel alone. JoshuaZ 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we consider this resolved. The RfA wasn't really valid, but it's not a big deal and it's dealt with now. As for Irpen, I agree with Joshua that he should best avoid escalating this conflict. Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? It doesn't appear so. Chick Bowen 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's December 4, dorftrottel; save the jokes for April 1. --bainer (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't really intended to be a joke. Or disruptive, for that matter. Btw, I just db-userreq'ed it. Who has their RfA page in their userspace? As for Irpen: I'm trying not to escalate this, but I have no idea what he meant with that "admin material" remark, and I would really like to know. Also, I would much appreciate his confirmation that he unwatchlisted the pages. Not talking wikistalking, but it's kind of annoying, and it's a first to me. I dorftrottel I talk I 03:50, December 4, 2007

What stalking? I thought my original post is clear on what prompted me to the page. I did not get to the link by clicking on his contributions and have no intentions to do so.

I am most adamant opponent of stalking and would have no objections to even eliminating the "user contributions" button or having it coupled with a feature that a user is always notified by email of who and when clicked on his/her contributions. Vandals, copyvio uploaders and their likes would then still have been checked but real abusive stalking would have stopped like magic.

I have no beef left with Dorftrottel. We actually have no common interest to even interact. I also appreciate a good joke and the Bishzilla RfA seems like one. But this one did not seem amusing enough to warrant being kept in the Wikipedia space. Besides, neither was Bishzilla's RfA.

As for my explanation in the thread starter about having his RfA page watchlisted, it was made exclusively to explain how come I saw it and to avoid precisely the stalking accusations that were nevertheless brought up. If anyone needs background on my one time experience with the user this thread from ANI archives would provide some insights. I did not seek retribution (for what?) as there is no issue that I see unsettled. Neither I stalked the editor. I saw the created page out of place and brought it up here for attention. The rest in my original post is merely an explanation on how I found it. --Irpen 07:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys don't really have to reach for your guns. I don't think there's trouble down at the OK Corral. Anyway, Dorftrottel can keep his RFA in his user space, if he wants. I'm not sure it's a parody, and the distinction between parody, satire, and mistaken wishful thinking is unclear enough that Irpen could be concerned and the rest of us aware. Geogre 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem. The page was userfied, then speedied on my request. All done. The other problem remains as I described above. Irpen talking about "stalking accusations" is really nothing but a bad joke. I did not make any such accusations. I merely asked him to please finally disclose what he meant with that "admin material" remark, and also to unwatchlist the non-existant RfA pages. He appears unwilling to disclose, and I'm frankly disappointed that no admin is willing to really help resolve that situation. Whatever he says above, Irpen surely acts like he despises me for some reason, and I would like to know that reason. In other words: I assume there is a reason for him to pre-watchlist my RfA page and recommend that others do so as well, talking about me as "that admin material editor". I assume there was indeed a reason beyond mere incivility on his part to revert my innocuous question what that was all about from his user talk with the edit summary reading "rm obnoxious rant". And finally, I do assume there is a good reason why he instantly posted here, alerted by his questionable watchlisting of my non-existant RfA page, instead of contacting me first. I do assume good faith on his part. But I really require some sort of intellectually honest explanation for Irpen's behaviour towards me in order to sustain the assumption of good faith on his part. What can I say? Any admin, please assist in resolving this for good. He still has my non-existant RfA page bookmarked, I want to know why, and I want it to stop. I dorftrottel I talk I 11:47, December 4, 2007

Incidentally, it's good that Irpen linked to this thread from ANI archives, demonstrating e.g. how I instantly notified him of that thread[3] while he did nothing of the sort when he started this thread here. After El_C had directed me to WP:DR, I posted there (to no avail, since it's only for content disputes) and immediately notifed Irpen again. He removed my good-faithed notifications here (please take a look at the edit summary, if you will). I was really friendly all along, yet his unexplained behaviour was and continues to be less than civil, to say the least. I would like to know why, and I would like it to stop. I dorftrottel I talk I 11:58, December 4, 2007

Please. Let's not get into what we think of each other. Let's focus on the issues at hand, and this seems resolved. --Irpen 12:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't until you give an honest reply and unwatchlist my non-existant RfA page. I have diffs on my side and have been open and polite about everything. Time for you to do likewise. Please reply to all the points raised by me directly above. E.g., why didn't you contact me first beofre posting here? Why, after you decided to post here, didn't you notify me? What did you mean with "admin material editor"? Why did you remove my polite posts and notifications as "obnoxious rant/stuff"? Do you still have my non-existant RfA pages watchlisted or not? I dorftrottel I talk I 12:48, December 4, 2007

Dude, what's wrong with being called 'admin material'? Isn't that a compliment? --Masamage ♫ 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dude", please read before posting. Irpen meant that remark in some way that made it clear he had picked up the word somewhere and did most obviously not agree with it. He watchlisted my page so he would be notified in order to oppose me. He even suggested to another user (an admin) that they watchlist my page as well. I'm not paranoid, and please don't call me that, I'm just annoyed by Irpen's utterly uncivil behaviour. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:20, December 4, 2007

From context, it looks like he watchlisted your non-existent RFA so he could vote for you immediately if someone nominated you. Why are you getting offended over that? You seem a bit paranoid. I can't see how it could possibly not be a compliment (even if you don't want to be an admin, hearing that someone thinks you could be is still a complement)—Random832 20:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read before posting. Irpen meant that remark in some way that made it clear he had picked up the word somewhere and did most obviously not agree with it. He watchlisted my page so he would be notified in order to oppose me. He even suggested to another user (an admin) that they watchlist my page as well. I'm not paranoid, and please don't call me that, I'm just annoyed by Irpen's utterly uncivil behaviour. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:20, December 4, 2007

For those admins who are incapable of understanding this: What Irpen effectively did, besides his unprovoked uncivility, is that he canvassed against me before I ever ran for adminship. He did so with the malicious intention to distress me, and he refuses to unwatchlist any non-existant RfA page with my username in it and give me some explanation as to why he pre-canvassed against a potential future RfA of mine like that. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:38, December 4, 2007

Creating, opposing and withdrawing your own RfA is quite thought-provoking, if somewhat idiosyncratic (shades of the tree falling in the forest...). I think it makes a valid point about adminship and those who do and don't want it. I don't think anything further needed to have been done there, though that is a bit late now it has been userfied and user-db'd. As for watchlisting of possible future pages, that is a useful function. Asking someone to de-watchlist a page (any page) is a bit like asking them to stand on their head. They can say they have done it, but you can't see whether they have done it. So it's a bit pointless really. Whether watchlisting certain pages counts as "stalking" (and I'm not expressing an opinion on what happened here) is also interesting. I think what Geogre said was best "You guys don't really have to reach for your guns." If both of you walk away now, everything will probably be OK. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:25, December 5, 2007

Moo Duk Kwan

There has been some controversy at Talk:Moo Duk Kwan and over trademarks, can someone look into it please. It may need someone familiar with copyright/patent law. From a brief search here a registered trademark exists, the numbers given in talk match if you remove the comers. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Send the article to WP:AFD, as it looks NN to me. Bearian 14:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really helpful. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. We have a basic notability guide for the martial arts project here which this article meets. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User is now making borderline legal threats (I've sent a warning, not blocking since the wording isn't 100% clear as a legal threat) —Random832 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy tag

I saw this on a talk page [4] of a living person's bio and tagged it as controversial, but it was removed. Is this the appropriate use of such tag? Was it wrong for the other (newbie) editor to remove the tag from a talk page? I feel the whole article and its talk page has a distasteful POV. Please advise what to do. Bearian 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not wrong at all. But templates often annoy - especially if a user doesn't understand the purpose of talk pages. I've replied to their post on Talk:Priscilla Painton and offered to help with any article problems they perceive. If there are none, we can ask for the post to be removed by the author (or I'll remove it myself if it is actively unhelpful).

But no, you did nothing wrong by Wikipedia rules. However, it is always preferable to use real discussion rather than templates on article talk pages. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for ANI clerks - discussion on talk page

Please contribute at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for ANI clerks. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created a proposal Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Clerks. The proposal envisions an open process where any editor in good standing can participate. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Discuss exact proposal points here. Thanks, Davnel03 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And to those who may be interested, there is a list where you can volunteer. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:H ?

I suppose this belongs more at WP:VPM but I figure I'll have more luck getting someone knowledgeable here... I totally missed that User:H left. Apparently someone making threats? It's quite sad. Could someone please tell/direct me to a (privacy sanitized) summary of what happened? —dgies^t_c 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any more publically-known details than what're on his user page, but I guess I could be wrong. --Masamage ♫ 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it, it looks like personal information was given away and it was used against H. See, this is why you should try to remain at least partially anonymous, so you can avoid threats. Maser ^(Talk!) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He's returned under a different account. I won't say which for fear of being crushed by an elephant. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Protecting policies

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Policy for discussion of policy policy

This appears to me to have gained a rough consensus, but as proposer I may be seeing what I want to see. Are we ata point where we can try, for a while, protecting the main policies which lead to blocking and sanctions? I'm thinking here about WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:BP, WP:BLP and WP:BAN. There are others in Category:Wikipedia_official_policy, I wonder if some of those should be marked as guidelines, or whether they should also be included. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I for one don't think it's a good idea to implement this without a clearer idea of what we're implementing. There are many unanswered questions about how this should be done. First - should we protect all policies or only ones where there is not active editing? Second - what does that protection mean? Does it mean that admins should reject suggested changes until they've been thoroughly discussed and have gained consensus? Should the implementation of changes be up to admin discretion? This isn't like the "stable revisions" feature that might be coming because it leaves no room for a "current version", just the stable version -- so are we trying to simulate "stable revisions"? If so, how can ordinary editors work on the drafts, and does this entail moving the meaningful edits out of peoples' watch lists? I would say, write the overall idea up as a {{proposal}} and move from there. Mangojuice^talk 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It means policies marked {{policy}}, and yes it absolutely does mean no changes without consensus on Talk, all edits via {{editprotected}}. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then, I definitely don't support it. There's really not much wrong with the way things work now - yes, anyone can edit policy pages but off-the-wall changes get reverted fast. And anyone can do those reverts, whereas under the new system admins will be required for every change: I'm sure this would triple the workload at CAT:PER. Besides, I don't think the policy pages are so great that we should be crystallizing all of them, and I really don't like how discouraging this would be to non-admin users who want to get involved in policy writing. Mangojuice^talk 03:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support this. If we're protecting frequently used templates, we shouldn't be leaving the core policies open. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose this, as it tends to make adminship more of a "big deal", which we are often told it shouldn't be. It increases the seperation between ordinary editors and admins, and will increase the disgruntlement of those who are less than happy with the behaviour of certain admins. Policy shouldn't be up to admins, but if only admins can edit policies, then in effect policies will no longer be written by the community, but only by a select few.DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I understand you concern, but I think it will rather help facilitate productive discussion and determining consensus in little, better traceable steps. I for one think it's a great idea, and I'm not an admin. I dorftrottel I talk I 00:07, December 5, 2007

Codifying this will help prevent any abuse of it from anyone. (Unlike, for example, WP:AGF, which codifying only made more capable of being abused.) Why not write out the general principles on a Wikipedia page, for future reference (village pump archives are only kept for a short while, and digging out a link might be tedious)? In the WP:VPP thread, people seemed to agree with their own version of the proposal – better that they agree on a centralized one, especially if/when this system is used.

I don't think it's developed enough at this point: who reviews? Can any editor decline a request? Suppose two admins disagree on whether to implement a change, or a change is implemented unilaterally, or only two hours is given for discussion, and some one disagrees strongly after three. How soon after a developing page is marked as policy does it become protected, if at all? Will all policies be protected?

Another suggestion: use a different template from {{editprotected}}, for example {{editpolicy}} (not yet created), to separate mostly technical and article-related requests from standard policy-updating procedure. Gracenotes^T § 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I already see discussion is starting up here, kind of fracturing the discussion, but I'll restrain myself and save my comments for the village pump. But to answer Guy's original question, I read the thread on VPP, and while you certainly have a (Father forgive me for I am about to sin) majority, I'm not sure you have a consensus to just do it. Many of the more recent comments seem to be against it, at least in its original form. I would say you have widespread interest (or even a rough consensus) to pursue something further, perhaps as a trial. Would it be wise to consider this AN thread a notice for interested people to wander over to the VPP thread, rather than fracture it further? --barneca (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this is a really, really, really bad idea. It seems like protection for it's own sake. ➪HiDrNick! 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This would kill the process as stated on Wikipedia:Consensus, which requires open editing. Right now, policy/guideline/essay maintenance is a hell as it stands. Consensus is fundamental to how wikipedia works, and I'll go down fighting defending it! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. Our whole freakin' encyclopedia is built around the idea that anyone can edit, and we're talking about putting something in that would potentially dissuade people from editing our very policy pages? Madness. - Philippe | Talk 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But then we have the absurdity of ArbCom linking to the version of the policy on 3 October 2006 in order to discuss whether it was violated. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But then, certain finer points of policy do actually change over time. And also, that "absurdity" doesn't have much effect on anyone except for arbcom and the few people involved in the case. This proposal will affect a lot more of the community. Mangojuice^talk 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a profoundly bad idea that fails totally to connect with how consensus editing and development works. Insisting that you must have an admin's permission to update policies either by way of correction or bold proposal is wrong and creates a police-guard around the policies in question. Anyone can edit this encyclopedia, and its policies exist and mutate only because of that fact. If the motiviation to this is vandalism, then you know where to get off, and if it's bad changes to those policies well, just revert then discuss. There is no effect to either vandalism or a non-consensus change since neither carry any actual weight at all. Splash - tk 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the arguments against protecting the policies here more compelling than those for. Any vandalism will be quickly reverted: minor modifications will come under "Consensus can change." I see nothing absurd about the ArbCom linking to a particular revision of a policy, as long as that's the revision that was in effect during the offense.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a question of vandalism. It's more that every so often you get someone out at the barn wall with a ladder and a can of paint and nobody notices. Other times people do notice and there is a huge fight back and forth about which version is 'the policy'. This kind of thing has brought us such 'policy' gems as 'you may be blocked for removing warnings from your talk page - even completely bogus warnings' and 'you may be banned for linking to Michael Moore's website if Moore says something bad about a Wikipedian'. Currently we have this philosophy that 'real' policy reflects standard practice, but we find that people have different ideas of what standard practice IS. Requiring consensus before policy updates are made would allow us to actually decide as a community when policy should change.... rather than individuals making it up on their own and then insisting that their changes are 'consensus' because they are on the policy page. --CBD 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

People having different ideas is fine, though. Certainly, sometimes people get all carried away, but even when they do it doesn't actually change the policy - the words on the page don't mean anything if noone is going to stick by them. Policy is as policy does, not as policy is temporarily written. If some new editor sees a badly drafted version of a policy page, we just leave them a note explaining what happened. The upside of badly drafted policies existing for short periods is that we get the chance to demonstrate the more clearly that they are indeed considered bad. And note that this proposal is not to require consensus before policy updates, since that is an underlying pre-requisite anyway, the proposal is merely to construct an enforcement of the status quo in preference to changes in consensus. It's far too easy to stifle a talk page debate if the ability to execute the changes being proposed is not there in the first place. Which is precisely the idea of the proposal. But life's tough on a wiki somtimes. Splash - tk 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• On just a handful of pages, this is a very good idea, because some of our policies are eroded by constant rewording (or attempts to reword) by people who disagree with them. As the ArbCom noted, it sometimes becomes difficult to ascertain if someone has "violated policy" because it takes some time to figure out what the policy exactly was at the time the alleged violation took place. >Radiant< 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Excessive merge nominations

User:Ejfetters just nominated a large number of Star Trek articles for merging and/or deletion (another user counted 102). It's kind of hard to defend that many articles at once...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, what is with the mass rush to get rid of character and episode articles lately? We're not paper, we're both a general and a specialized encyclopedia and these crusades are getting a bit out of hand.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is users enforcing WP:FICTION -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

All these minor articles have no place in an encyclopedia, all fancruft, we should get rid of them all, there is no need for multiple articles on Star Trek, for example, all the information should be put into one article, keeping only the most important, if someone wants to know more they can just watch it, or look it up on the Star Trek wiki, I'm sure it exists. Also see WP:NOHARM. There is way too much about random fan boy stuff on wikipedia. The goal of this place is not to make a detailed explanation of every single detail of every fictional universe. Please re-read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is the reference~, consensus is that we just don't want all that here. Jackaranga (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also what do you want administrators to do about this ? You posted this here, but did not say what you were expecting to get out of it, so it's unlikely anyone will be able to provide you with whatever it is you want. Jackaranga (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - a hint to the editor in question to take it easy would have been nice. Noticing that WP:FICTION may be overused as a deletion excuse would also be nice.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD

Over a 100 nom backlog. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The backlog at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is being cleared, but the "purge" function does not work. Please, can someone clear the list of closed debates? Bearian (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I need some help from someone who can create a bot

I'm a new administrator and this is my first time dealing with this situation. An editor who does a lot of work with the taxonomy of various snakes and has a solid background with the relevant project came to me with this request: "I need to move everything in [[Category:True vipers by taxonomic synonyms]] to [[Category:Viperinae by taxonomic synonyms]] and everything in [[Category:True vipers by common name]] to [[Category:Viperinae by common name]]," and asked me to help him do it. I spent an hour or so doing the first task by hand and managed to complete the letter "A", with more than 300 to go; it's a huge task. I strongly suspect that because this is a repetitive task it could be automated, but I haven't the least idea of how to do that. (a) Do I need a "bot", or is there a tool/toolkit of which I'm not aware? (b) Is this the right place to find someone with that enviable skill-set of creating a "bot" or equivalent tool? If I've ignorantly come to the wrong place or asked the wrong question, I'd appreciate guidance. Thanks in advance for any help you all can provide. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:AWB can make a list of all articles in Category:True vipers by taxonomic synonyms and replace it with Category:Viperinae by common name. WODUP 05:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, actually, you want WP:BOTREQ... :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, fast, accurate and two different ways. Many thanks... I wasn't aware of WP:AWB because I'm the old-fashioned type that does things by hand. I think I will lead the user to that tool and put them together; if that doesn't work, I'll go for the WP:BOTREQ. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If the first doesn't work, I'd suggest you just use WP:CFD which comes complete with a bot to do exactly this kind of thing. Splash - tk 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of copyright needed

Hi All, Sound_from_ultrasound is one of the pages on my watchlist due to its historically high rate of vandalism. Recently a new user User:Skinduptruk has added a large amount of good material (about 1500 words), in a single edit. He says it's a cut-down version of his graduate engineering thesis. Is this likely to be a problem? Regards AKAF (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it needs formatting, but if it is his thesis then it's fine, I believe. He needs to provide a link or a reference to his thesis, however. Neil ☎ 09:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine from a copyright perspective (unless someone funding the work has claimed ownership as happens sometimes), and since it appears to be a factual work rather than a research work, it's probably ok from that perspective too. However, a graduate thesis is not a properly peer-reviewed work (they are unpublished) even though it has been assessed by a university somewhere. Which is to say, the claims it makes still need citing to properly reliable sources as appropriate. Splash - tk 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The assessment by the university is similar to the process of peer review. Most graduate theses are read and critiqued by multiple people, and a degree isn't awarded until errors and problems are corrected, so I'm not sure that these would not count as reliable sources. But that's probably a discussion for the WP:RS talk page or similar. Natalie (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out the section added did have 20 or so citations within it. Neil ☎ 14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Duh, I scanned the page really quickly, and didn't see any little blue numbers, so thought the obvious. My bad. Splash - tk 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Card sharp (reopened)

Thoroughly-sourced changes at Card sharp (and Card shark redir) are being reverted by 2005 (talk · contribs) who labels his reversions "Rvv". Not a huge deal, but could probably use a talking to about what "vandalism" means and how reliable sourcing vs. personal PoV works. [5][6][7] — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like SJP (talk · contribs) already talked to 2005 (talk · contribs) about it.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar but unrelated incident, and it hasn't stopped. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I left a level 3 warning on that user's talk page. Carlossuarez46 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Does not seem to have had an effect; User:2005 is now deleting my posts from the article's talk page, evidently simply because they are critical of his reductio ad Hitlerum and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUNDing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Neil ☎ 10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the friendly message I was leaving him now goes to waste! ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Friendly messages were tried and, sadly, didn't work :( Neil ☎ 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I went over there and it's not that simple. The so-called "thoroughly sourced" changes are an argument made on a talk page to support an out-of-process redirect/deletion by User:SMcCandlish. This isn't about reliable sourcing or verifiability in article space, it' about User:2005 and SMcCandilish disagreeing in talk space about what to do about an article, and both of them engaging in simmering borderline incivility. 2005 deleted some hostile comments by SMcCandilish. After reviewing the matter I think 2005 is correct as to the substance and process of the proposed deletion, and SMcCandilish is taking a rather eccentric and confrontational approach to arguments in talk space. Nothing here is remotely appropriate for a block. Both editors ought to simmer down. Wikidemo (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the matter is not simple. User:2005 requested unblock on my (and Neil's) talk page using an IP. Since I have no reason to believe this is someone else posing as User:2005, I think this should be considered as a formal unblock request (and let's let the block evasion slip please, he only used the IP to post the unblock request) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, having said what I did, it's reasonable to ask 2005 not to call people fascists, not to delete content from a talk page (even if he takes offense), and not to engage in contentious editing. I think the block was a premature and too harsh, but it was for a real problem. Sorry if this sounds like wishy-washiness but SMcCandilish is a solid, experienced Wikipedian who was operating in good faith, and nobody should have to put up with being called a fascist and having constructive talk contributions deleted for that. Wikidemo (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on User talk:Christian07TARDIS

Resolved

Christian07TARDIS (talk · contribs) (blocked for being a sockpupet) - placed a note on his talk page (change here) which is not allowed after block. StuartDD _{contributions} 13:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He is allowed to write on his talk page. As part of Wikipedia:Appealing a block he is allowed to edit his talk page to ask for an explanation of his block. It is not vandalism as far as I can see. Woody (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree - It's clear that the only reason for that edit is to understand the reason for the block and/or appeal it - which a blocked user is allowed to do on his/her own talk page. Od Mishehu 16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Block & Protect

Sorry but I've decided to leave Wikipedia because I don't have enough time to work on this website yet. Please block my user indefinitely from editing Wikipedia and protect my user and my talk page. I'll let an admin know if I decide to continue working on Wikipedia. But please accept my request and do so. D@rk ^talk 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've protected your userpage and talk page, but I'm affraid we don't block accounts on request, also this would make it extremely difficult for you to return should you wish to (as you would find it hard to request an unblock). Best of luck in the future, and I hope you decide to return one day. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

82.112.146.44 (talk · contribs)

I'm not quite sure what this person is doing =S § Eloc § 18:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nor do they, by the looks of it. I think they're trying to use the talk page as a means of communication with someone else but not getting any reply. I wouldn't worry about it. BLACKKITE 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Userwho

I don't have much experience with usernames, so I'm hoping someone can help out. What to do with User:Userwho, considering User:Who is already in use by an admin? --Kbdank71 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They're not that similar - I mean, you could possibly confuse Userwho with User:Who, but in any given context you know whether the prefix is likely to be used or not. —Random832 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Banned user talk pages

I know we often protect banned users' talk pages, especially if they abuse the unblock template. I'd like to suggest that we put an expiry on this in future; six months should be sufficient for a community ban or indefinite block, the duration of an ArbCom ban less a month or so for those banned by ArbCom. We allow for the possibility of redemption, I think. I've had several rational conversations with long-term banned users who seem to have done some growing up. Thoughts? Guy (Help!) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If banned for a specific time, I can see this. If indef banned, no. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Worst that happens is they abuse the unblock template once every six months. If someone was banned for harassment, posting personal information, etc, I could see why not, but if it's for edit warring, persistent vandalism, etc, less of a problem. Maybe it should be something decided on when discussing a ban. Consider that the oldest bans are over five years now. People can change in half a decade.—Random832 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, unprotecting those does little or no harm (and if we delete the page, it has the added benefit of not making a permanent memorial to the vandal). >Radiant< 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked users (not banned) talk pages are normally tagged with CAT:TEMP, and are deleted after a month, which resets the protection anyway. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was only the user page and not the talk page? In any case, where there is a constructive editing history and the talk page contains history of talk page discussions, and the user page contains details of the user's interests and editing areas on Wikipedia, the pages shouldn't be deleted. Use "|category=" to remove the "temporary wikipedians" category. Deletion should only take place if it was a vandalism-only account or other throwaway account. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, to me. Forever is a long time, after all, and while a blocked user's talk page isn't strictly their last line of communication, it's probably one of the last easy or public ones, and that has its importance. As Random said, it'll probably be a rare case where somebody comes back in six months to troll on some random page (I have seen it happen, but there's another six month lock, or a year, or I suppose eventually indefinite). We can leave open the possibility of escalating durations. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Takezo Kensei.jpg

Resolved

The original file and description was overwriten. Can anyone check it and restore the old version please. Thank you. --GeorgHH (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the overwritten version to Image:Adam Monroe2.jpg. —Random832 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Billy Hathorn

Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are two issues with this user. First, he is a prolific creator of non-to-barely notable obituaries. As in, articles combined from obituary notices in the papers, originally just copied and pasted but now copyedited a bit to avoid WP:CSD#G12. Look at his deleted contributions. I have never seen a non-vandal with so many deleted articles to their name.

Second problem: he is citing "Billy Hathorn, "The Republican Party in Louisiana, 1920-1980," Master's thesis (1980), Northwestern State University at Natchitoches" in articles. This tells us, I think, where the vast swathes of marginally notable people are coming from.

There is a request for comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn. He ignored it. There are many, many AfD and CSD notices on his talk page. He ignores them. There are earnest attempts to engage him. He ignores them. His only participation in discusison seems to be to defend his articles at AfD, and he doesn't always do that.

I hate to see all this effort go to waste. I've suggested he start a Louisiana Wikia, there is not one yet, but no response. What can we do? Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, I would suggest Texas or East Texas as his location (I was born and raised there). I guess the problem is they are notable to him the local area but not on a National/International scale. I don't want to seem like I am butting in but mind if I try to talk to him? spryde | talk 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen several prolific, content-oriented editors before that were just plain stubborn about following all our rules. I've come to the conclusion that we're best off grinning and bearing their idiosyncracies, working around them as necessary. It's like "dealing with the creative talent" on Madison Avenue.

From what I've seen, you guys are doing a good, patient job. I have a couple of comments:

1. I suggest you userfy any deleted articles. Then they're around if someone does start a Louisiana Wikia
2. I think we can get overly aggressive on notability of local historical figures. I submit that one of our best uses is serving as an online source for the less famous, local historical figures. I wish someone like this was doing this sort of work for the area I grew up in.
3. We're biased toward stuff we can find reliable sources for on the Internet but paper meets WP:RS just as well. I think we can assume that any paid elected politician from earlier years has a media trail in a library even if we can't find it online. I suggest giving this guy's articles the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

That's my 2 cents worth. Thanks for your and the other RfC participants' efforts working with this person. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Community ban of spammer

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek because this is 38kb of wikitext, 201kb post-expand, and literally half the rendered page.'

Executive summary: Webgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous IPs added many links to sites apparently run by him. —Random832 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Futuristic timestamp to keep this from getting archived by the bot: 23:59, 31 December 2037 (UTC)

User:Coveritus

I just ran across this edit. Is there any process for verifying the death of a User and/or protecting or archiving their pages? Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Given most users are anonymous, no. It could quite possibly be a (rather lame attempt at a) joke. Since the user in question has only 30 or so edits, I wouldn't worry about it. >Radiant< 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Confirmed deaths of established editors are preserved at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians and it is customary to indefintely block the account and protect the user/user talk pages from editing. In this circumstance, I wouldn't do any of it. It was made by an IP address saying that he died. We get quite a few of those, most are either sick joke or unconfirmed. There is nothing that actually confirms this users death. — Save_Us_229 03:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Voretus is apparently a friend of his. We might be able to find out from him/her. Corvus cornix_talk 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Has clearly shown abuse of power by locking RD Reynolds completely, and not following proper procedure. Also, keeps removing info before we have a chance to source it. ^---SilentRAGE! 14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a content dispute going on, he protected the page under the basis of "BLP issues" wich is plausible seeing that the entirety of the material removed is unsourced, I suggest that the users interested in the addition of said material find some references to avoid further conflict, if the refences are found and are reliable drop me a line and I will unprotect the page to allow for sourced inclusion, please note that I may be inactive later today so if the references are found before tommorow please contact another admin if its inclusion is considered that urgent, otherwise I will be available to attend this case from tomorrow onwards. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec'd)Looking at the history of the article [8] you kept on adding an unsourced fact. Would not the better method have been to find a reference before adding this "fact" rather than engaging in a revert war? Protection seems sensible to me in light of this. Pedro :  Chat  14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that protecting the article was the right thing to do - but that Can't sleep, clown will eat me shouldn't have been the admin to do it. This is because it seems like this was a dispute that he/she was involved in. Od Mishehu 14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

/me reads first sentence. Troll. Move along. (and by the way, removing BLP violations is not a content dispute ) Will ^(talk) 14:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anythying involving that many reverts is a content dispute regardless of its nature. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Removing BLP violations isn't a content dispute. If it was, it wouldn't be a 3RR exception. (The same applies to copyvios, vandalism, and banned user contributions) Will ^(talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said BLP violations within this text are plausible, however this is not a obvious BLP violation and the admin involved should have tried to resolve this before doing several reverts. - Caribbean~H.Q. —Preceding comment was added at 15:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Not obvious"? I think the text "{{fact|date=October 2007}}" about ten times is pretty much obvious. From BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles.", emphasis policy's. Will ^(talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I must admit that the fact templates weren't particulary noticed by me, but you are just giving to much emphazize on this, the issue here is concerning edit warring which is not apropiate of a admin, and any kind of edit warring is a content dispute that is logic whenever a editor may have policy on his behalf or not, why because there is actually some material being disputed we are wasting our time discussing the proper definition of this kind of revert war here anyways, I doubt that this will help the case in any way. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an edit war when an admin, or anybody is trying to enforce policy. Corvus cornix_talk 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SilentRage, the best advice I can give you is to not revert war and find sources. So what if the material isn't on the current revision of the article? Once you find sources, revert and add the references. I would prefer if the article wasn't protected by CSCWEM though. CSCWEM was actively revert warring on the article and he should not have been the administrator to add the protection if it was nessecary. — Save_Us_229 14:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Can't sleep, clown will eat me's actions in this matter, the aggressive removal of material that violates WP:BLP is allowed and is not subject to WP:3RR. Can't sleep's protection of the page to prevent continued addition of unsourced material to a BLP article was the right move according to WP:BLP#Semi-protection and protection. There’s no abuse of power here, just an administrator doing his job. Dreadstar † 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a revert war, it was an attempt at enforcing policy. Corvus cornix_talk 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Investigation of alleged RD Reynolds revert warring

• RD Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here are diffs showing unsourced biographical material being added: [9] [10] [11] Don't be fooled by the {{fact}} tags. Those don't make it kosher

Here's a spot of nasty vandalism: [12]

Accounts that have been blocked thus far by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

• Pebblesmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfonso Tyson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Barney Rubbleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We know that a certain banned user has a fixation on wrestling articles and likes to mint sock puppets. I am not sure if these are socks belonging to him, or if they are others behaving the same way. After these accounts were blocked, SilentRage (talk · contribs) twice tried to add policy violating material [13] [14] and was reverted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I think page protection is appropriate and that CSCWEM has done nothing wrong. I do not see CSCWEM editing the article, except to enforce WP:BLP policy or revert vandalism; he does not seem to be involved in a content dispute at all. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we have at least two known puppeters that enjoy adding nonsense to the wrestling pages, however this appears to be quite common even by users that aren't proven as puppets of either. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This creates a confusing situation. Perhaps we should request a checkuser on the above parties and the two known puppetmasters. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's almost certain that Pebblesmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Barney Rubbleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of each other [15] . A CheckUser to see which sockpuppeteer this is might be in order. — Save_Us_229 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to file the request? You may copy a portion of the material above as your evidence. Add the third account as well. By going through with WP:RFCU, the Checkuser may discover additional, unknown accounts operated by the same party, thus helping prevent future disruption and confusion. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm skeptical about whether a checkuser would accept it, but it's worth a try. Although it's fairly obvious that the sockpuppeteer is User:ECW500. What is the name of the other puppeteer on wrestling articles that was mentioned above? — Save_Us_229 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196 spryde | talk 16:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with JB196 several times now and his modus operandi is usually removing large amounts of text (falsey) citing WP:BLP and adding a reference tag at the top. This user appears to be doing the opposite by adding the material.

Also I'm considering the contributions of User:ECW500 which include edits to WrestleCrap and RD Reynolds (same location as the suspect users' edits) and the article Fruity Pebbles (i.e. User:Pebblesmaster and User:Barney Rubbleton) — Save_Us_229 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly JB had a stage where he would actually create false promotions and championships just to mock how long it took for someone to figure it out. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll file the CheckUser to check for sleeper accounts, but JB196 seems like a non-factor here. — Save_Us_229 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it seems unlikely but it may as well be him trying to spread misinformation again, I'm just saying we shouldn't discard him until a CU proves otherwise. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser has been started at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ECW500. Feel free to comment and add on at your own discretion. — Save_Us_229 17:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Intuitionz (aka: User:68.111.191.29)

Can I get some other opinions on what to do with this user/users? This diff connects the two accounts. The whole account seems to only used for trollish activity on the talk pages and their edits to add similar nonsense (that they'll try to argue on the talk pages) like that the Thirteen Colonies declared themselves provinces and not states (here) and here or that Canada should be refer to as The American State of Canada (diff) and another example. He also claimed to have some personal knowledge that disputes birth records in the Hitler article here. This editor has been accused or troll activity before here and was warned to stop adding nonsense here. What should we do? The whole account seems to be set up to troll and make sneaky/nonsense vandalism. Can we just block both the ip and the user account indefinitely? —MJCdetroit (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SKS Copyvios

After coming from the recent shooting article, I found a copyvio tag on this article. After a little investigating, some portions of the article were direct word-for-word copy & pasted from the website http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.sks.html. I had to cull much of the article and I believe that I got most of it, but someone else should really take a second look.

Second point here, how in the world did we not pick this up before? The entire article on that website was incorporated into our article! This is copyvio at it's worst! Some of it was incorporated in the middle of a legitimate looking paragraph. This is quite alarming, given the copyright paranoia we have around here.

Anyways, the SKS article is now in need of a ton of TLC, so someone with much more knowledge than I have about weapons and guns (which is nill) needs to make this their top priority. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How long has the copyvio been in the article? Is it possible that gunnersden.com could have copied it from the Wikipedia article? Corvus cornix_talk 17:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that you mention it, that's a real possibility here. From what I can see, our page dates back over a year with some of that information. Hmm. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've requested help at WT:GUNS SQL^{Query me!} 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this a little more, and it appears that they are the ones infringing on our copyright (the GFDL). I compared our article on the M14 rifle which theirs. Some sentences are the same again word-for-word, but I think the chances of us having directly copied two articles from them is slim (these are the only two similar ones I've found so far. Maybe looking way back in history's will revel more though?). I'm tempted to just restore the SKS article right now, but I'd like a second opinion before I go ahead. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

archive.org shows that gunnersden.com only recently added the text to that page. Definitely sounds like a reverse copyvio, though I haven't looked through the history to see exactly when they may have copied our article. Someone may want to examine any existing links to gunnersden.com to see if they are being used as references. --- RockMFR 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We are being talked about

We are being talked about: today's Technology Guardian. (To be sure, they're not mentioning any names, but there are links to diffs and stuff.) 131.111.8.102 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• And what administrator action is required here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• While perhaps - like sausages- it's better not to see the product being made, any familiarity with how Wikipedia operates should give rise to enormous scepticism about its alleged example of harmonious collective action. I find that to be a very accurate description of Wikipedia. Let's face it, it gets ugly behind the scenes. If people really thought that it was all peace, harmony, and cooperation happening here then I'd ask them what fantasy they're living in. If people can't accept that we're not perfect, then that's just pathetic. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's mainly slagging against Jimbo, and has to be taken with a grain of salt (or maybe a full shaker). But the statement that Jimbo is skillful in "knowing how to sell a dysfunctional community effectively" hits uncomfortably close to home. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposing unblock of User:RS1900

I am asking the community to consider allowing RS1900 (FKA Devraj5000) to edit again. He was banned for leaving a harassing message on my talk page. He has since apologized, and I accept his apology. I do not believe any other users were harassed. He has had a number of sockpuppets, which were used in two AfD discussions[16], and was also uncivil with me on a few occasions. I am unaware of any other misbehavior. I know him to be a generally constructive and prolific editor who has made positive contributions to articles in many areas, particularly physics.[17] [18] He has also added many valuable citations to the List of atheists article, on which we cooperated in the past. I understand that I am not the only one affected by his behavior, but I believe his pledge to no longer engage in such behavior is sincere, and that he will prove to be a constructive editor again. Nick Graves (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, unblock an editor with a record of harassment and abusive sockpuppetry because he promises to be a nice boy. Sure, why not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your expression of goodwill toward this editor - and your word goes a long way in this - it simply has not been long enough to make me feel comfortable, given the level of harassment in which this user engaged. I, personally, will not unblock this user. Other admins may, of course, have other opinions. As of now, I think this user deserves a good long break. It speaks highly of you to request this, however. - Philippe | Talk 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I note Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RS1900 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive304#RS1900 personal attacks and threats as prior related discussion. GRBerry 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I need help

Hello. An admin must contact me on my talk page. I have serious problems and I'd be pleased if an admin would listen to my problems. I need to contact an admin privately with an e-mail. HelpMe114 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Richler

Since I nominated this article for deletion, information on the notability of the subject has come to light that I think makes the grounds for my nomination inappropriate. I would like to withdraw my nomination and have said as much in the AfD discussion. Would someone mind closing the debate without prejudice - as seems to usually be the case with withdrawn nominations. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]]