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

User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again

• Note:I repaste this, because it was manually archived by User:Ncmvocalist along with its parent thread Archive455#Comfort_women. The matter is not even touched yet. And Nanshu (talk · contribs)'s problematic attitude continues like this.[1][2]

• Past ANI Archive38 on 2channel and Nanshu

I've noticed that editors deeply associated with 2channel, Japanese biggest internet forum resume their systematic meat/sockpuppetry again. I predict this same disruption would repeat again because Checkuser system does not hold info more than 4 months and they know it and discuss about it.

Among them, User:Nanshu, being deeply associated with the Korean bashing forum also falsely accused me of abusing RFCU system to ANI to to evade much attention to them. I found his plot on one of 2channal pages. After this, Nanshu scarcely appeared to Wikipedia. Anyway, whatever article he has edited has been strongly opposed by Korean editors because of his tendency of exaggerating and distorting information to minimize Korean culture and history.[3] His view is always same as follows. Korea had been a tributary state of China but luckily saved and modernized by Japanese colonial rule. "Koreans always cook up with new theories to make themselves superior than Japan regardless of their Inferiority". He claims that Korean influence on ancient Japanese history is minor, so removes such information. Whoever objects to his tilted point of view, he accuses them of doing vandalism, even thought those accusation are actually content disputes cuased by him[4][5][6] This can be recently seen at Talk:Kangnido and Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. At Kangnido, he deliberately has repeatedly removed Korean geographer's credit in the lead and claims it as a mere Mongol's copy or tried to merge the article into other articles.

He also frequently makes personal attacks against me like "harmful to Wikepedia", "useless hard worker"[7], "doing things in unconstructive ways", "nuisance" and "obstruct" of Wikepedia[8], because I don't agree with his crooked point of views. Also his edit on Yeongeunmun Gate has been disputed by several editors, and 2channel people ridicule the gate and article as a symbol of Korea's humiliating diplomacy. So I put {{NPOV}} tag and he has tried to remove it as calling me "vandal" as his usual.[9][10] He also accused me of not improving the article. On the other hand, I have a lot of interests aside from Korean history, and he disappeared so often. Therefore, I don't feel urgent to edit Yeongeunmun Gate. He suddenly reappears again today and make a threat of accusing me again. I think this user's behaviors are totally not acceptable in Wikipedia. Earlier his such behaviors were watched and pointed by several admins too. He also creates articles by hearsay to denounce Korea such as Samurang which has been up for AFD. I believe his reappearance is just as same as the last case. Japanese editors are recently being blocked for their violation of policies, so try to remove their common enemy like me out of Wikipedia. They consult about how effectively to remove me like RFC or Arbcom files. They regard Wikipedia as places for their political propagandas or battlefield. Unlike Nanshu's accusation of "useless harmful editor", during their absent time, I've created or edited many "useful articles", so got more than 10 DYKs. Therefore, I believe their disruptive behaviors make editors unable to article in a peaceful and constructive way.

Moreover, they said they would move their forum to other places, but still retain the bashing forum within 2channel. According to their page, their meatpuppetry plots are evident. They still stalk me and other editors and record every move related to Korean history or Japanese, Chinese history. You can find my name mentioned there so many times, including even today and yesterday's my activities[11][12]2channel meatpuppeting 1

Japan-Korea related articles are really necessary to being brought from more adminins' attentions. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I also implemented Yeongeunmun Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with two reliable sources (Korean encyclopedia) yesterday. However, today, he continues his habitual false accusation against me like vandalism again.[13] Even if I would want to agree with his biased edit, that would mean I conducted vandalism which is totally false and unwarranted. Nanshu should apologize his disruptive behaviors to me. He removed not only two respectable sources, but also insists that his original research version is valid.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate#Please consider if this article should be deleted admins, EdJohnston intervened in this[14], but still there is no answer from Nanshu.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At Prostitution in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), meatpuppetry was evident today.[15][16]--Caspian blue (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa‎ Massive sockpuppetry confirmed
• 2channel on this [17][18] --Caspian blue (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Could an uninvolved admin keep a watch on the page. I've edited several times, including the disputed section. PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries), Labcoat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) and 88.108.146.110 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries), have between them made eight edits to the page, which has resulted in it ending up in the original state. I've warned both the users and pointed them to WP:3RR and WP:Edit war. They stopped several hours ago, so no action other than monitoring is required at the moment. I'll let them both know that I posted this here. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than "keep a watch" on the article, could I make a plea that an uninvolved admin actually intervene here. The repeated removal of important words in the relevant section by CambridgeBayWeather on the justification of his/her arguments alone (as provided on the discussion page) is in my opinion (and at least that of two other users) both disruptive and unhelpful.

CambridgeBayWeather, the reason I (and presumably the others) stopped editing that section was by no means intended as an indication that I accept the nature of your edits. Rather, (1) I simply don't have any interest in engaging in an edit war with you, and (2) since I found your language (on the discussion page and edit summaries) to be rude and at times vaguely threatening. I note from your entry above that you've now resorted to issuing "warnings" to us, which is a real shame. The fact that you possess Admin status does not, as far as I am aware, automatically entitle you to force through edits according to your own opinions on articles (as is the case here). The arguments you have presented on the issues under discussion have been one-sided and I for one remain entirely unconvinced by them. Labcoat (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Labcoat, I think that you are confusing me with someone else. Could you point out which of my three comments on the talk page were "...rude and at times vaguely threatening." The only three comments I ever made were 28 July 2007, 29 July 2007 and 10 August 2007 all of them almost a year ago. Also it appears that out of the last 500 edits to the article I made about nine. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, CambridgeBayWeather, you’re very well aware that I’m not confusing you with anyone else because I’ve already raised this with you before, and I’ve been addressing you directly throughout. Your sarcastic suggestion of ‘mistaken identity’ is (again) unhelpful and rude.

You’ve demanded that I indicate where your comments have been rude, threatening etc. I do this not for your benefit, but for the uninvolved Admin I’m praying will intervene here to provide some resolution to this sorry episode:

• In the edit summary – “Ref discussion yourself, dude.”

• In the edit summary – “We've already been over this. Stop.” – you wrote this in the full knowledge that the only person disagreeing with the edits in the discussion is you (i.e. there is no consensus). Furthermore, your use of the word ‘stop’ suggests that we are doing something akin to vandalism and is intended as a threat.

• “I'll be reverting now, please don't do this again.” – again, implies that the edits made by myself and others were in bad faith, and that you are giving us a ‘dressing down’ with the implied threat of negative consequences for myself and the others if we persist with our edits

• “I will be reverting your change until you can demonstrate how putting a value judgement on his statements is NPOV.” – in other words, despite the discussion, you are insisting that everyone else is placing a ‘value judgment’ on the subject and that you will simply avoid the discussion and continue reverting the edits according to your own whim. You then continued to sign-off this latest entry with the parting shot…

• “Okay? Good.”

I also note from the exchanges you’ve had with the other Users that there is a pattern of rudeness in your language and interaction with others - my only experience of interacting with you has been on the Prince Philip article, although it's probably a reasonable guess that this is something you do in relation to anything you’re in dispute over. In view of the manner in which you have behaved, I will not be responding any further to you in relation to this or any other article.

Labcoat (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

None of those edits were made by CambridgeBayWeather. You have mistaken them for PrinceofCanada. DrKiernan (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he thinks that PrinceofCanada is my sock. I thought that was who he had mixed me up with. So it goes. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No, I don't think that. I've made a mistake, and I'd like to repeat the apology I've made on my User page for that. The rude nature of PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) comments remain undiminished however and I would like someone to address them and the original discussion re Prince Philip. Labcoat (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No harm done, just a simple mistake. Labcoat is correct, someone univolved needs to look at what is going on there. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the edit warring has stopped for now. Everyone involved has been warned, so I don't think any admin action is needed at the moment. It may be worth taking to dispute resolution or reporting to WP:AN/3RR if things flare up again. Papa November (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the best way to undo a large number of good faith page moves that had no consenus?

User:P22575R15 has unilaterally imposed a cumbersome, wordy and awkward title scheme to various articles about student organizations. His move log is here, but here are just a few of the moves he's performed with no consensus:

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• Student organizations in Sweden (nationer) went through several iterations (none of which was discussed) but should probably be Nations at Swedish universities
• Student organizations in North America (fraternities and sororities) was originally Fraternities and sororities before P22575R15 went on his moving spree (I think we could probably come up with a better title than either of these, this is not the place to discuss it)

I don't think the user is trying to be disruptive, but I have no doubt these moves should be undone. I tried to move them back to their rightful place myself, but encountered the familiar error: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text".

PROD the place you want to move them to. There's a special one that is used -- I can't remember what it is, and it doesn't seem to be listed on the PROD and MERGE article ... II | (t - c) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How can I do undo these moves having to go through 10 different RMs?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Where the move was undiscussed I'll move it back. The RM process takes the current location as a default and so isn't terrible useful for undoing arbitrary undiscussed moves (but can, of course, be used to discuss them and get consensus for a change). Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I really do appreciate the help. I'll try to add a few un-discussed moves to the bulleted list above, and I think we can catch most of them that way..--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

{{db-move}} is the correct tag if you want to clear out the desired name for a move. as long as the history of the redirect page is trivial. –xeno (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is falsely presented, and wholly inappropriate. First off, the fraternity pages were horribly disorganized. The page 'fraternity' was mostly redirects, (which is fine). However, one of the sub articles was 'fraternities and sororities', which makes no sense on the face of it. Why is the plural of the same term a different article? That article was 85% about American college fraternities, with a lot of references to other countries, redirects everywhere, and endless qualifying terms. One way to organize things was to make the article specific to one topic, and provide an organized series of redirects to other countries and other kinds of fraternities.

That lousy organization was the situation, and lots of people noticed it. There was extensive discussion on the wikiproject fraternities page and again on the wikiproject disambiguation page, (which noted that the third highest redirect page in all wikipedia is the fraternity page, and that something should be done). SO, when people now present the situation as being one of consensus before I made my changes, they are wrong. The prior situation was NOT a consensus, there was active discussion going back weeks.

I tried to organize the articles, and to give them appropriate names. An article should not be named "Fraternities and Sororities" if it is only about *North American* *College and University** Fraternities and Sororities. What this really gets to is that a few editors here only think of their college fraternity when they hear the word "fraternity" and this dispute is attributable to that narrow thinking. I placed American college fraternities in a context with European and Asian societies, and with non-university based societies. (There were valid claims posted by others dating back sometime that one serious problem with the Fraternities and Sororities article was that it was 'Ameri-centric'.)

And yes, I did change the article names, and no, I did not wait for consensus about it, and I WAS RIGHT TO DO SO. Who ever said that in wikipedia you wait for consensus first and then post something??? That is complete bull. (Again, the only existing consensus was that the prior plan was worthless and confusing.) There's an awful lot of people here who are apparently unaware how wikipedia is supposed to work. People come and make edits, in a good faith effort to improve the final product, and consensus should develop over time. I went ahead and did just that. Apparently I need to remind all of you of Wikipedia:Be bold.

Not only have I gotten hostile posts over it, I have also been publicly accused right here. I am getting hostile posts from Nwwaew, ElKevbo, and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back; but at least The Fat Man Who Never Came Back had the character to admit that he could see that I had a point. You all, frankly, should take a time out. You're squawking about restoring a series of article names that, the consensus was, was wholly inadequate.

The proper wikipedia approach would have been to see the problem and address it frankly, openly, and with a little creativity. It is no surprise to me that my most hostile attacker has not offered one constructive word in dealing with any of this. I have not insisted that my work be preserved, (although I have been stupidly accused of that); and I have, from the very first, suggested that anyone with a better idea should go right ahead and make changes. That's how wikipedia is suposed to work.

Nor should I have been accused here. This was wholly inappropriate.

Furthermore, this atmosphere of hostility and aggression makes posting here less than pleasant. The long term posters in wikipedia CAN effectively run off anyone who dares question the status quo, but the end result is not a free encyclopedia, but a meaningless collection of mypoic personal views.P22575R15 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

AdultSwim is asking for a review of his block

AdultSwim, recently revealed and blocked as a sockpuppet of Lemmey / Mitrebox has asked for a review of his block: User talk:AdultSwim#Blocked. I would've suggested he do so from the original account, but it seems to have been given the {{pp-usertalk}} treatment. Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Banned Constant evasive socking, keep him blocked and block on sight. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Socking, yes. But to be fair, have a read over Ned Scott's summary of the situation on the user's talk page. I wouldn't disagree with it. Mitrebox/Lemmey/AdultSwim has never done anything to attempt to harm the encycolopedia. The aim has always seemed to be in good faith, but not within our procedural bounds. The user has the potential for a future of valuable contributions. Needs a nice tutor. Keegan^talk 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock I agree with Ned Scott. What's keeping AdultSwim away is basically policy-wonkery. He's a clear positive for the encyclopedia, IMO. What's keeping him out is a technicality. Unblock provided he promises not to sock anymore or to use unapproved bots. Enigma ^message 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• A second account I can understand. Perhaps even a third. But five or six accounts indicates a real issue. I'd be incredibly hesitant to unblock. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• That does have me confused as well. Some of them seem just.. odd. Like LemmonBoy, who's obvious connection wouldn't even make the account useful for sockpuppeting or block evasion. Some of the others were only used for a single day and thrown away. Still, I don't see any attempt to have one sock support another in discussion, nor do I see any real disruption by most of those throw-away's. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• In regards to User talk:Mitrebox being protected, he was clearly told that he needed to contact ArbCom or the blocking administrator via email and had already had a block declined on his talk page. He chose not to, and instead went ahead and created another account to circumvent his block, and then continued to do so even after being caught a third time. Does not seem like the type of user I want editing... Tiptoety ^talk 06:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if he's the kind of editor we can even stop editing. Wouldn't it be better to at least try to work these issues out, rather than endless sock hunts? He keeps coming back because he honestly believes he's doing something good here, and desires to keep doing that. I understand some socks coming into edit war over a POV, but never to come in and fix references.. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• So by all means just let him stay unblocked? If you can not beat them, then let them edit? I think not, Tiptoety ^talk 07:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have someone who passionately wants to contribute and is improving the wiki. Where is the logic in fighting that? Their "crime" was running an unapproved bot, an issue long since resolved. Threads like these are likely the reason he didn't bother with an unblock request for the original account. People get so hung up on what you've once done that they just close their mind to the possibility that someone might be good for this project. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• In other words, from a technical standpoint, we can stop them, even if it means reverting after we catch a new sock. However, most people aren't going to want to revert the changes he makes, and it would be really counter-productive. We would be reverting good edits simply because he was once banned for something that is no longer an issue. We can help the situation with things other than blocks. We've not big stupid cavemen who can only hit things with their clubs. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked The value of anyone who abuses sock puppets is questionable. Jtrainor (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's an incredibly shallow view of the situation. This editor has been proven to be very valuable to the project, and has never once tried to hurt it. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked Simply because the accounts we know of haven't harmed the encyclopedia, doesn't mean that he hasn't done so. We don't if it's a good hands/bad hands scenario here. I just don't trust serial sockpuppeters. He was told what to do. He should be able to show he wants to be here enough that he would actually do what people asked him to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wait, are you even paying attention? There's no good hand/bad hand happening here at all. He's already stop using an unapproved bot, so there's no reason his original account should even be blocked at this point, other than the evasion of that original block. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• A checkuser was run, showed his accounts, and none of them were abusive, IIRC. This is a good contributor. No "bad hand" exists. I really don't understand how you could say this. "We don't know if it's a good hands/bad hands..."? Actually, we know more about him than others because a checkuser was run. Your argument of we don't know could apply to everyone, including you or me. Enigma ^message 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. I want to see him not sockpuppet for three months before I support an unblock. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock and find a mentor. Viridae^Talk 07:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• (EC)Even though I'm a Pro-Block Admin™, I support an unblock in this particular case. Yes, he socked, but was it malicious? Did he harm the encyclopedia? Did he attack someone? Three NO's, right? Then probably we shouldn't consider the block on his first account as permission to shoot on sight, and give him a benefit of doubt? I support unblocking AS, or probably his Lemmey account and his bot that was certainly useful. If there are still some problems with AS's behaviour, assinging him a mentor would be really more constructive than ritual "bad, bad sock" banhammering to death. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I concur heavily with MaxSem said above...Someone who have contributed for good of Wikipeida and hitherto done/does no harm, should not be demoralized by a indefinite block...Just my 2 cents -- Tinu Cherian - 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock, it seems as though the user is essentially constructive and a net positive. Prohibit any further use of sockpuppets by him. Everyking (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional unblock, the user needs to get a mentor and restrict himself to two accounts (one that doesn't do anything automatic, one that does (semi-)automated things with community approval). We do have stricter norms for bots than for non-automatic contributions (and for good reason), and the user has to accept that or we'll have to do without him. Kusma (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment just to say that I have noticed this user doing an extraordinary amount of helpful work with referencing on a wide range of articles lately. Skomorokh 11:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock. If its true he is a net positive, I see no reason we cannot allow him to edit. He needs guidance apparently, like others are pointing out. If this cannot be accomplished, then reblock. Synergy 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Leave blocked He has clearly demonstrated recently that he was still incapable of understanding the etiquette issue of editing other people's sandboxes, issues that contributed to his original block in February. Until he can demonstrate he understanbds why he was blocked, there is no point in leaving him unblocked. Circeus (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed that is only an etiquette issue, not a violation of any policy or guideline. In fact with every edit, users are given a no-nonsense warning to the opposite effect: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I'm not convinced this is actionable (though other behavior might be). — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Per most of the above, I think, at this point an unblock would be a good idea, along with a mentor. SQL^{Query me!} 13:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I would like to be sure that any future bots this user is to run seek explicit approval before they are run as a condition of unblock. I remember now, that this user, appeared to think there was nothing wrong with running an unapproved bot, in order to lock a page at a specific revision. [23] Having dealt with this user in two out of three of his most recent socks, I don't think this is going to happen, however. SQL^{Query me!} 14:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Unblock Synergy took the words out of my mouth. Per Synergy. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Based on previous interaction, I'll say I'm somewhat skeptical that this user is going to be open to mentoring; but due to the fact they are trying to be of use, I'd support one more shot, based on the conditions above by Kusma and SQL. --barneca (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can almost guarantee that this user will not be open to mentoring, just look at the way he handled a request to have his username changed. He is not open to help, and more or less wants to do things his way or no way at all. Tiptoety ^talk 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock I see no major reason to leave the account indefinitely blocked, and in addition, the user is not community banned (at least, there is no discussion of a banning that I am aware of). Good arguments have been provided to unblock, and I agree with them. Give the user guidance and another chance: I've only seen good things from the AdultSwim account, and I was surprised to see it blocked. Acalamari 17:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Might I just add that this user has adamantly stated and thinks that there is nothing wrong with running a unapproved bot, what makes everyone think he is going to change? Tiptoety ^talk 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• And yet he's also stated that he's willing to follow our rules and improve how he handles these situations. Feeling that there is nothing wrong with the action isn't a blockable offense. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but acting upon those feelings is. Tiptoety ^talk 04:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which he has not done. The only thing even close would be the block of Samuel, where he explains that he thought it was approved because it was the same task and code that was approved before. (see User talk:Samuel Pepys#WTF Mate)-- Ned Scott 06:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. Unrepentant block-evading sockpuppeteer, come back when he has fixed those issues and shown a commitment to fix the other issues which led to the original block as well. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• A prime example of a drive-by admin who isn't paying attention to the discussion. He has already fixed the issues related to the original block. He has no other issues that would justify a block, and is only currently blocked because he didn't get his first account unblocked. Process wonkery caused by ignorant admins. Get off the damn war path, because you're not helping the wiki. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, that last part was a bit over the top. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. As someonewho tried to cleanup the trail of destruction User:Samuel Pepys (who, lest we forget, returned as a sockpuppet to operate the bot which had already been blocked)left behind, I have no sympathy at all for this "good faith user's" ability to change. – iridescent 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've spot checked a bunch of Samuel's edits, and none of them so far have been bad. What edits are you referring to when you say "trail of destruction"? -- Ned Scott 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I seem to have found it. Seems he was editing user drafts, commenting out the ref tag to remove the page from the maintenance category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. From the comments on the talk page it seems he was able to update the bot to exclude user pages, so I'm not sure what the issue is. The bot itself was very useful, and that same code will likely be run again by someone, if not Lemmey/AS. Again, the only reason for the block of the bot is because of the ban evasion of the original account, which is now a non-issue. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked - He may be constructive, but I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks. In addition to the original block for edit warring using a bot, LemmeyBOT was blocked twice for running unapproved tasks and AdultSwim was blocked for incivility, while I supported the unblock for that last block, his responses after being unblocked were less than encouraging. The fact that AdultSwim was created 2 years ago but only made a handful of edits before June is a bit worrying as well. Mr.Z-man 21:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Those are some very weak reasons to block someone indefinitely like this. If his bot was acting up, it gets the bot status removed. Problem solved. You just said yourself that there's no current reason to block AdultSwim for civility reasons. I've been blocked for civility-type reasons before, and I would hate to think you would endorse my banishment from the entire English Wikipedia for being human. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Basically what I meant was, he does have positive contributions, but he can't seem to go very long without ending up in some degree of trouble. Incivility is one thing, but there's also the edit warring bot, the unapproved bots, the sock puppetry, the fact that this last account looks like a sleeper account. I don't think the positive contributions he makes are worth all the extra trouble. The AGF view says that he's just a good editor with a complete inability to follow rules for more than a month or 2, but after so many block-evading sockpuppets, I'm not really able to AGF anymore, it looks like he's just trying to see how much he can get away with. Mr.Z-man 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I never saw any of the constructive contributions Lemmey is said to have made. I only saw the contributions to ANI and related noticeboards, which while short of being disruptive or incivil were certainly confrontational and impolite. So, I don't think this is a simple case of a good-user-who-fell-foul-of-bot-and-then-sock-policy, and if unblocked I hope that any mentor would be aware of such concerns. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock I noticed that I've only been replying to comments, and haven't gotten to make my own shiny bold endorsement. Unblock per my statement on AS's talk page, and per my above comments. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• No unblock I might be able to forgive the other stuff, but not being a Checkuser-confirmed sock of a user who posted someone's personal information. Blueboy96 06:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• A mistake they made over two years ago. Do you have any evidence of postings of personal information since then? Any at all? -- Ned Scott 06:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:East718, the original blocking admin, if he would be willing to review the first block. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AdultSwim

Found here: User talk:AdultSwim#Response. –xeno (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We saw that same type of bullshit when Mitrebox got caught running a reversion bot. I see no indication he's changed, nor any indication of an apology for his actions, which he doesn't seem to even acknowledge were wrong. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this is far more than just a "Oh, I was blocked for using a unapproved bot, so whats the big deal if I sock?". Just look at this users history, he has had two years to improve his behavior and yet here we are again. Tiptoety ^talk 22:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew, how about the fact that he never used a reversion bot after that? The next bot he used got full approval by BAG, and has been praised by several good editors in standing. That's a pretty damn good improvement. Tiptoety, your statement is even more absurd. You say he's had two years to improve his behavior, except that this current block has nothing to do with behavior. This is entirely dependent on block evasion of a block that is no longer an issue. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to add to username blacklist

Posting this here so it gets some attention - very recently I've seen a couple accounts with the phrase "666" in them (link for those who don't know the reference). One (User talk:Drake Younger 666) was a vandal-only account, the other (User talk:666thedevil666) was a clear violation of the username policy and almost certainly not here for good intentions. I can't think of any reason why someone would need "666" in a normal username, or any incidental occurrences like you get with the common swear words. Would this be a reasonable addition to the Mediawiki:Usernameblacklist, or at least to the list of red flags the UAA bots look for? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "666" names even need to be blocked, let alone blacklisted. Then again, I'm a heathen pot-smoking bastard. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

...and all this time I thought you were crusading for more hand percussion in popular culture... Keegan^talk 05:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a list of all usernames on en.wiki from a few months ago. I generated a list of all usernames that contain "666". There were 10,056 usernames out of 6,540,007 (0.15376130331359%). That's quite a lot of usernames. I don't think it should be blacklisted, regardless of whether or not it should be allowed as I fear it will inadvertently negatively affect too large a number of users. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As a regular WP:UAA patroller, I don't think a name containing "666" is blatantly offensive and would not block it unless it was combined with some other patently offensive element. It certainly does not belong on the blacklist and I don't think it should be added to the NameWatcherBot. --MCB (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above and would add that I'm not quite sure whether this proposal would be feasible. What about variations with punctuation - 6-6-6 or 6.6.6. and so on ad infinitum. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not support adding 666 to the username blacklist. As someone who edits around the subjects of black and death metal, I've seen a lot of good faith editors who add '666' to their name (for example, Irina666)- sticking 666 the sort of thing that email providers recommend when your first choice is taken, so it's rather common as an online identity. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. I also don't agree with using the extremely cranky {{Uw-uhblock}} on User talk:666thedevil666, nor do i think the inference that the user was up to no good is very obvious. We live in a largely secular age, and for many, these are iconic but entirely fictional references, along the lines of a user:caliban or user:yossarian. 86.44.27.125 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User is warned that someone is unhappy about the username for "no reason given" and 1 minute later is blocked? Not good. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be open to unblocking them if they requested it, but I really don't see why anyone would create a name like that if they weren't here for the purpose of disruption. I'm not particularly religious myself, but that username is way over the top for me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive blocks because you suspect someone's going to be disruptive are a bad idea. What is it about usernames that makes people panic and start blocking left and right, while we give vandals second chances? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to Hersfold, the user did create one inappropriate page: [24] (admin only). The page by itself certainly isn't the worst I've seen, but that combined with the name make me agree with Hersfold's take on this; I've certainly used a usernamehardblock myself on someone with such a username combined with 2 vandalism edits. I agree with others that a general prohibition on 666 in a user name shouldn't happen. --barneca (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any notice or warning on the user's talk page about that deleted page (deleted for "no meaningful content"), or any mention of it at the time of blocking, it is rather hard for proles like me to comment. DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While "thedevil" may get close to the line, it has been decided time and time again in debate that we are not going to prohibit numbers. 666, 686, 13, 86, they are all offensive somehow for some beliefs, but they are just numbers. Chillum 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't comment on the blacklist suggestion earlier. I do concede the point that there could be undisruptive uses of the number, and withdraw the suggestion. As to the concerns about the pre-emptive block, the page created had no purpose on Wikipedia, and preemptive blocks can and do happen if there's a reasonable reason for them. For example, would you wait for a User:KillThisStupidSite to make any edits? (didn't use "KillWikipedia" because that is blacklisted). But that's another discussion for another time. I guess this is resolved. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

User with constructive edits but a name that puts his user/talk pages in the title blacklist filter thingo. If admins can bypass that, anyone want to suggest a rename? —Giggy 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Perhaps "User:Screaming loudly" - though I don't think that was what you were asking for. Viridae^Talk 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've welcomed him on his talk page, are you able to edit it now and discuss the username issue with him? –xeno (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note explaining the situation but it may be a bit confusing for someone new. I know that if I had received that message when I was new I would understand none of it. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The user is probably going to need some help in figuring out how to change his name or some one may want to request a name change with the user's consent. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

By trial and error I determined that the repeated "!" (three or more) is the source of the problem. The infamous User:!! (if he were still editing ) would narrowly avoid being affected by it. "AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH" by itself does not trigger anything (though it would still be a less than desirable username). — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The user name is confusing (now how may 'Hs' should you type to write his name?) and should be changed. It is not conducive to accepting the user as a serious editor. Give him/her a couple of days to respond (if they don't resume editing sooner), then block as inapropriate user name and allow them to change it. -- Alexf⁴² 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to play devil's advocate, there's exactly 5 of each character... Maybe he's doing a kind of The Legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh thing, but missed the R? –xeno (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, don't be playing "devil's" ANYTHING in this joint--it'll get you marked as a dangerous influence.Gladys J Cortez 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that even one ! in a name will interfere with templates and that 3 !!! gets hit by the name filters. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

help with suppressredirect

Hi, again I'm asking for technical assistance here, even though it's at cy: that I have admin tools and not here. Hope you don't mind.

I see in Special:ListGroupRights that there's a right called (suppressredirect) "Not create a redirect from the old name when moving a page", but I can't see anything in the interface that lets you do it. Is it actually implemented, or do you just have to move as normal and then delete the redirect afterwards? Thanks. — Alan^✉ 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the code is in place in MediaWiki for suppressredirect to function (a third, optional argument to Title::moveTo()), but the option hasn't been added to the protection form, so it's still impossible I'm afraid. krimpet✽ 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. I might edit the description in the MediaWiki message to say not supported. — Alan^✉ 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked at the code for this, its used by the editing API, but that isn't enabled here yet. Mr.Z-man 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closing of an AFD

This AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (4th nomination) was closed by a non-admin because it was "too soon" after a non-consensus AFD. I can understand not relisting for AFD if the result was keep but this is a badly done article that violates basic wikipedia core policies. Deletion review seems to only deal with procedural issues in the AFD not the actual rational. I think opening this up to debate with a carefully laid out rational for deletion (which was lacking the first time because an admin listed it with no opinion) is appropriate and necessary. Keeping an article that violates wikipedia policy that is not being improved only for the sake of letting enough time go by seems very much the wrong decision to make. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to smack of forum-shopping, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I agree with the close, as did other people in the AfD itself. The fourth AfD two weeks after the third? I could be wrong, I guess, but I don't think TPH was out of line here. Also, the third and most recent AfD was very robust, and had ten keep !votes.Tan ǀ 39 20:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping MBisanz ^talk 20:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. The close by a non-admin is a technicality: Would the outcome of this AfD have been any different? PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several reasons to suspect that it would be, not the least of which that the original AFD was not proposed with any rational, it was a "no opinion" from an admin. What then is the amount of time we let a bad article rot till we can put it up for AFD again? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant whether or not the 3rd AfD (not the original) was proposed as "no opinion". There were two dozen opinions presented in the AfD by other people, and the outcome was keep. Tan ǀ 39 20:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good close. Chillum 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorsing the closure. It should be noted that repeat AFDs in a short time frame waters down the whole aspect of AFD in the first place, and only results in early closures. seicer | talk | contribs 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Good close. Since this is an unofficial DRV, it seems. And to answer the "loaded question" of "what is the amount of time we let a bad article rot", yes, I've stopped beating my wife. Keeper ǀ 76 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: I had a big comment here but it got wiped out in an edit conflict. Anyway, I have talked to the above user, and have let them know of their actions (they also tried to redirect Andrew Schlafly to Conservapedia, then self-reverted). Looking at the article, I think that it might not be a bad idea to redirect/merge Schlafly's page to Conservapedia's page, but I've already informed the user that this would best be carried out by means of {{merge}} templates and talk page discussion. Also re the user's question above: It's been my experience that a wait of a couple months is usually good. I agree that Schlafly's article is "bad", but there are others who disagree, so we need to find an alternative route here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The outcome was not keep, it was no consensus there were more people asking for it to be deleted, I think there are people here who are not paying attention to what is actually going on. So whatever, we can "mege" this article to conservapedia without the AFD anyway. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you that. However, the outcome was also not delete. Tan ǀ 39 20:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)It was no consensus, which is a keep by default. Please do not go against the AfD and do your own thing. Your interpretation of the 3rd closure is not a reason to begin merging. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider it dropped, I think a policy that keeps article rotting because some arbitrary time period has not run its course is bad policy, but apparently it is policy. In this case there is another avenue to take that can bypass the bureaucracy entirely. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c galore, gah). According to WP:MERGE, if it is a controversial merge, it should be proposed, discussed, with the goal of arriving at consensus. This qualifies as a controversial merge. Just an FYI to help alleviate future frustration on your part Tmtoulouse. Keeper ǀ 76 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ignore the article, delete Conservapedia as a hopeless joke. Not the article, the site. Have you seen their article on Barack Obama? And you can bet those wingnuts come straight over here to "correct" the bias we call NPOV. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that - the Obama article is the best bit of internet insanity I've seen since I blocked User:Neutral777 and he went off to set up a "rival to Wikipedia", complete with the "Why Jesus is like Unix" article Wikipedia inexplicably declines to host. – iridescent 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• What is this doing here? I urge someone to close this as an absurd and counterproductive use of ANB. DGG (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen the AFDor Merge to Conservapedia. It was claimed above that those at the latest AFD agreed with the close. I was in the process of typing in my rationale for why deletion was necessary when Hammer prematurely closed it. I want it to be reopened so it can proceed. The subject is non-notable, and there is no good rationale for waiting a certain number of weeks before another AFD. Merger to Conservapedia would be quite appropriate also, since he has no references with substantial coverage, but is the editor of that work. Edison (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Archive this discussion, then re-open it, just for fun. Chillum 01:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka user conduct request for comments

It's with considerable regret that I have to announce that I've started a user conduct RfC concerning Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Although I have a lot of respect for her as an editor, some of her recent actions, combined with extensive feedback that I've received from a considerable number of people, suggests that there is a systemic problem with her approach to managing disputed articles.

I have raised this issue as an RfC because it goes beyond the scope of other forums such as WP:AE, and I do not wish to turn this into a drama-fest here on AN. It needs to be discussed in a calm, structured fashion, hence an RfC. This is the first time in four years as an admin that I've had to take such a step - and it's particularly unfortunate that it involves someone who's only been an admin for eight months - but there really seems to be no alternative in the circumstances.

I have illustrated a number of aspects of the problem from my own perspective in editing one article and I understand that other editors have very similar concerns relating to other articles. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka for details. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage deletion question

Note: This is not an attempt to create drama. I would like to clarify something though. If a talk page for an article exists but only has a {{talkheader}} template with no other content, should it be deleted? I'm asking based on this [25] and other related talkpage deletions. It just seems unnecessary to me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the big problem is with leaving it undeleted. It gives instructions for whomever wants to post there. Unless the article is deleted (thereby making the talk page eligible for CSD - G8), I don't see the point in deleting a helpful template. Seems overcooked when there are so many other more relevant and serious "problems" on wiki. Am I missing something? I realize that talkpage was deleted, I'm failing to realize why. Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You could always find a WikiProject to put it in. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Or you could stuff beans up your nose. I would rather see a red link than slapping myself every time I open a talk page which contains no actual talk. — CharlotteWebb 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever created a talk page containing only {{talkheader}} ought to be trout-slapped for violating both common sense and the instructions which say This template should be used only when needed. Do not add this template to every talk page. In particular, it should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages! — CharlotteWebb 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. But instead of instantly A3'ing, it would be more helpful to add the relevant WikiProjects. They don't take a few minutes to find. And if the talkheader itself is misplaced, remove it. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get what is so bad about having a talk page that just contains a talkheader, regardless of what the instructions say (which I hadn't seen until now). I can't see what's so vexing about talkpages that don't contain talk yet. Seems like a kind of policy wonkery, IMO. And I think its a lot nicer than redlinks, personally. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people get agitated when they see redlinks because it feels like something is missing. Some people get agitated when they see an empty talk page because it's taking up space. It's not process wonkery, but more like human nature. It's something we can't really deal with. —Kurykh 22:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Practical matters are by definition anti-wonkery. If a talk page is completely blank I'd like to know before clicking on it. — CharlotteWebb 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's not completely blank, there's a talkheader there. What if there were a couple Wikiproject tags there as well? Those aren't discussion, but I don't think someone would delete the talk page if it contained nothing but Wikiproject templates. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Still useless. Some talk pages contain several banners instead of one, and may be less likely to be deleted, but that does not make them more useful. — CharlotteWebb 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't just for discussion. WikiProject templates categorise articles for individual projects. They serve multiple purposes. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I would like to know whether it pertains to the {{talkheader}} template. — CharlotteWebb 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No. My argument was that a talkheader could be replaced with WP templates, instead of a simple page deletion. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This just creates more work. I pity the fool who spends an afternoon looking for the most applicable wiki-project tag to use in order to save an empty talk page with no salvageable value. — CharlotteWebb 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) Well it's not that difficult. If it's a bio, tag with {{WPBiography}}. Most of the time it's blatantly obvious which tags to put on the article. For 90% of articles, it's no chore, but sure, there will be the odd exception. But my argument was in relation to strolling across talk pages. Instead of G6'ing, tag it; all biographies, for example, should use WPBiography even if there's no discussion on the page. This is especially important for BLPs. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd like to know too; the documentation says "see the talk page" for why adding this everywhere is wrong, and the talk page says "see the documentation". I could guess (Saving someone from wasting time clicking on a blue link, thinking there was discussion when there wasn't? Dragging down the server with lots of needless transclusion?), but would prefer someone who knows actually explain why it's not recommended, instead of just saying it. Quite possibly there's a good reason, but I'd like to hear it. --barneca (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c*2)Surely it is ok to have a talk page with just a banner - it provides guidance for new users on what's appropriate, how to sign etc. Seems a bit anal to be deleting pages like this, plus does it really come under G6? - Toon⁰⁵ 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I think too. It seems helpful and informative for newbies at least. I've added them to a number of talk pages just because I thought they contain helpful instructions. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If talkheader belonged on every talk page, it would be added to the interface. I remove it whenever I'm otherwise editing the talk page unless there's actual questionable discussion that it seems to be a response to. --NE2 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe the template was intended for talk pages which tend to receive comments from new users who don't understand the purpose of talk pages, generally articles about current events or very famous people or other web sites. However if we could find an appropriate interface page to contain this material (and then delete the bloody template) it would be more than acceptable as a compromise. — CharlotteWebb 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Talkpagetext appears when editing a talk page. Is that good enough? — CharlotteWebb 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

<--I just re-"bluelinked" this particular talkpage (which I'm well aware is one of thousands of redlinks, perhaps rightfully so). I readded the talkpageheader template, and two wikiprojects that seem appropriate. Please see Talk:Freebie marketing. Now that I've read this particular article, I find it to be rather AFD-able, but still, there is no valid reason (policy is descriptive, not prescriptive) to leave it a redlink if there are valid and active WikiProjects that may find interest in any particular article. Keeper ǀ 76 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you can help me -- How many angels can dance in a talk page with no header? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged from ANI

An admin has been deleting article talk pages. I can't see the sense in it? Don't we have enough server space at Wikipedia or something? I'm a little concerned because one page I had on watch had it's talk page deleted. So I didn't worry that much but added a cat to the page and then went to an associated page and added a cat also. Shortly after that article had its talk page deleted also. Gave me a bad feeling. So here I am. Articles are British Homing World and Royal Pigeon Racing Association. Also on my watch list with a deleted talk page Tendring Hundred Show. The admin doing the deleting is User:MZMcBride. So I'll see people here have to say about this? Oh, and I'm not sure because I cant access the deleted pages, but I was thinking one of the deleted talk pages was in a wikiproject? If not it should have been.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Talk page of the deleting admin, he's deleting Talk pages that have Template:Talkheader as their only content, since the instructions for that template indicate it should only be used on Talk pages that have other content anyway. It seems kind of an odd choice of endeavor to me, but I can't argue with his logic. Propaniac (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting empty talk pages is disruptive. It's confusing and wastes the time of editors who have the article watchlisted as they try to chase down what happened and why. Just a glance at the contents of the deleting admin's talk page shows what a timewaster this practice is for all involved, including the deleter. It's a net loss to the project. Please end this practice. --CliffC (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I echo Cliff's concerns. Could the deleting admins at least state explicitly in the edit summary (or deletion log, whatever) the precise rationale for the deletion? Skomorokh 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, deleting the page is fine, but a clear explanation of why the page has been deleted would save a lot of time and also be much more considerate on the part of the deleting admin. Tom H (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting empty talk pages is useful, as it gives pages with no WikiProject templates and no discussion a redlinked talk page. WE use {{Talkheader}} only where necessary (else we'd just use a MediaWiki message for this anyway). Kusma (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Redlinked talk is a barrier to new users

Has anyone considered the fact that new users might be intimidated by redlinked Talk pages? It leads them to a page telling them they're creating a new page, with no instructions whatsoever for how the Talk page should be used or formatted. At least with a talkheader template, we've got a page the user can see and which has links to instructions on what to do. It's much more encouraging to see a page welcoming comments than a blank edit window telling you to dive right into the deep end. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times above, if {{talkheader}} is supposed to go on every talk page, it can be worked into the interface somewhere. Otherwise, if you're going to add it, at least add a WikiProject tag so he page will be useful. Mr.Z-man 15:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

BenBurch comments on the recent suit against him for editing Wikipedia

This just showed up in my watch list; User:BenBurch I suggest ppl read it. (If this isn't the right notice board for this, feel free to move it!) --Betta Splendens (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs deletion and oversight. It's pretty strong stuff. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Reading through again to check whether it fully warrants oversight. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Under what condition for oversight does it (perhaps) meet?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it does; the other party instigated the matter (if BenBurch is to be believed - per AGF), meaning there will be public records, and BB did not give the RL name of the party. The offending edits are deleted, BB has retired, and I think we can all move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What condition did it even meet for deletion ??? Yes, it's strong, and includes information about a real-life legal case, but it doesn't evidently violate any of our policy that I could see. What gives? If you can articulate a policy problem with it, fine, but ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't warrant oversight. However, the deletion was appropriate. We don't need strong records of legal action in the page history. If another admin disagrees, as always, I'm fine for it to be overturned, but I think we should just move on. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if deletion was necessary, but WP:BLP probably called at least for reverting or blanking it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any BLP related issues in the final deleted edit - a possibly sensitive name was removed by BenBurch himself before anyone asked him to, but that's it. Specifics please, on what is a BLP problem?

WP:LEGAL is all about "Don't threaten editors with lawsuits", which is not what happened here at all. BenBurch was sued (or more precisely, a restraining order filed for...), for Wikipedia activities. He reported on what happened, without including (as far as I see) any threats against anyone or any information which is private info about any participants. That someone in the community was sued is open knowledge - his report on what happened seems entirely appropriate here. How does deleting that info fall under any of our policies or help the community or project or encyclopedia? I don't see there being any point to deleting it, and though it's not "an abuse" of process or someone it seems to clearly have been a mistake that should be un-done... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's uncited contentious POV material about a living person. That's what BLP is all about, right? -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The online court records appear to support this as far as they go. I am betting that if we get the actual records (Original research I understand) that they will say the same as he said here. This did not sound contrived. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I posted that here because I thought people needed to READ it not DELETE it. It ought to be restored and protected. Geeze, guys. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think Ben deserves our congratulations. DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've restored and reverted back to the last revision by Sarah. I'm not sure if the deletion was a mistake, but my actions are unsupported, so I'm happy to bow to the community. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I still don't see the statement. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) (edit) Sorry, I see it, I am an idiot. Arkon (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in the history, the last three edits before my reversion. Per WP:BLP, his edits should not be un-reverted. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be unreverted, too. It says a lot that others need to read, I think. But then IANAA. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to the user's original statement. It needs to be said. Enough with the fucking WP:BLP whining, Violet was a liar and any cursory search of google shows this to be the case. I recommend any and all assist in deterring Peter's vandalism. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to war with you; I undid your edit before you came here. My edits, however, are not vandalism. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Peter, it isn't unsourced information, Ben Burch is a primary source. We need to stop censoring stuff that isn't a violation of our policies. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What Ben did was finally stand up to the pathetic whiners who bitch to OTRS, threaten to sue, and anything else just because they don't like the truth. Well the truth hurts, and this incident has galvanized my believe that we must be as apathetic as possible towards the subjects of our articles. WP:NPOV must and always will trump WP:BLP. What Ben has done is win one for the good guys. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, can you avoid describing the incident in terms this lurid? That does not help in any way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Are you saying his edits are NPOV? They aren't. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, for all external subjects, it isn't. However, when an editor, in good standing, is sued frivolously and has his name dragged through the mud on wiki, I think we owe him the courtesy of posting his vindication. It is the least we could do, considering I do not think WMF covered his attorney fees. It was Ben who stood up for WP:NPOV in the face of an unsavory, litigious character who wanted to POV push on her own article. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I realize that this incident involves Wikipedia, so of course, we're all interested and have opinions about it, but in any other case, we wouldn't allow anybody who had a personal encounter with another person to post a long screed about how terrible that person was on their userpage. There are forums for this sort of thing (Wikipedia Review or wherever), but this just isn't one of them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a screed, it is a statement that tells other editors to be bold and not be afraid of those who cry WP:BLP. Just because someone doesn't like the truth doesn't mean it should be removed. I will continue to revert any attempts to remove the very necessary statement on his userpage. I'm sick and fucking tired of people whining about WP:BLP, it is time someone stood for WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And which of those supports not elsewhere reported allegations of perjury against identifiable people? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Violet filed a frivolous suit, it was dismissed with prejudice. At the very least, that makes her a liar. In order to bring the case, she had to lie to the court. Lying in court testimony is perjury. However, since you are WP:BLP fanatic, I'll excuse your oversight of these facts. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe both suits were actually dismissed without prejudice, weren't they? For the record.  :) -- Vary | Talk 01:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does not mean that. Having a complaint dismissed means that you lost, not that you lied. And it definitely doesn't mean that the loser committed perjury. You really need to moderate your tone. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Dragon, please stop the showboating. Just because Blue is clearly (and objectively) a dipshit doesn't mean we go no holds barred.Yeago (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not showboating. Yes, perhaps my language was strong, but I feel that we are under attack by those who wish to spin their biographies and those who would warp policy to fit this agenda. It is important that an editor's experience be given light to show that standing for WP:NPOV against WP:BLP is possible and that one need not cave because a subject is unhappy about it. I feel strongly that his userpage should be left in tact without being scrubbed by well-intentioned persons who have their hearts in the right places but who are taking things a little too far with WP:BLP. I WP:DGAF about Violet Blue or her feelings at this point, she had to lie in order to bring the claim as Ben pointed out. His statements are backed up by the facts and the correlation only involves minor original research. Given that it is a userpage and that many users who have retired in the past have left lengthy rationales for their departure, I see no reason that any part should be removed. He has been careful not to reveal any information that would personally cause harm, I think that is more than enough. --Dragon695 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• SIGH - I hadn't intended to come back HERE at all, but an admin wrote me asking that I do so.

Here are source documents for this case. We do not have the ruling or the minutes of the hearing yet;

[26] [27] [28] [29]

Here is the court log of action in the case;

[30]

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm DONE here. --BenBurch (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sadden to see you go. In my mind, you did the right thing. Please know that there are users and editors who appreciate what you have done. Thank you for standing up for our rights! --Dragon695 (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

heads up NonvocalScream (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Um, this is lame. Ben was sued by a litigious and distinctly odd individual (who ha salso had spats with Boing Boing and other places). I don't think there's much to be gained from writing up the case report on his user page, but I certainly can't see that he's done anything wrong or actionable here. I don't think we sanction people for being attacked and exonerated n the real world, do we? Guy (Help!) 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

I'd like to propose a community ban of PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's been through numerous mentors trying to curb his behaviour and yet he still continues to push his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles. I actually blocked him a few days ago because he came back after four days off the project and made three article edits, all of which were reverts. He's well known to edit war to get his point across. He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action, but there's still a problem with this as shown in his block log. Numerous users have tried, and failed, to lead him on the right path, but he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place. Thoughts would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite and broadly interpreted topic ban on all articles related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict--if only because judging by his edit history, it would have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I will support such a topic ban. I don't think he needs a siteban, and he might decide to contribute constructively to other topics. However, he has demonstrated an inability to adhere to NPOV editing on PIA-related articles. Horologium (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A topic ban could work, and I'd certainly support it, but I just have concerns that he'd simply take his problematic editing to other pages. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While I think that a topic ban will certainly become a de facto site ban, it does look like there are no options left to keep the warring down. — Coren ^(talk) 00:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally we do topic bans when an editor has a problem with one area and a productive track record elsewhere. No opinion on the proposal (due to my mentorship of another party PR has been in dispute with), but suggest PR's productivity in different areas merits review since both options are under discussion. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I got this idea from WP:RFAR/Waldorf education/Review, in which a mostly single-purpose editor was topic-banned in a way that had the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy do I remember that case... Durova^Charge! 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban Not everyone is knows all the details. Therefore, I oppose community ban unless and until the proposal details what are the objectionable edits (recent diffs, please) and what non-objectionable edits have been made. The prosecutor (person wanting the community ban) should present the material in a neutral fashion and not slanted toward community ban. There is mention in the beginning of this thread that the ArbCom case was closed with no action. Thus, banning may be bucking ArbCom.

I could change my mind if the proper background is described. Based only on the information above (and not doing extensive original research), I must default to oppose. Presumptive (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Presumptive. Can we have some actual evidence of disputed conduct, please? I'm a little concerned that we seem to be rushing to a topic ban without any discussion of specific issues. I couldn't in good faith support such an action merely on the say-so of an admin (sorry Ryan, nothing personal!). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I thought this was an extremely well known problem with his editing. Numerous admins have been involved with him before. I'm at work today, so I won't be able to provide more details until after work, but I'll certainly get the diffs out when I've finished. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I've seen mentions of his name before on AN/I but I would imagine that most of us won't have much awareness of what's going on with him at the moment. If you could cite specific problems that would be a great help. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• PalestineRemembered is, I believe, precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed. A textbook case of an agenda-driven account. If he wants to contribute productively to other areas then fine, but his involvement in articles related to Israel and Palestine is, as far as I can tell, a substantial drain on everybody else concerned and serves to perpetuate the state of dispute on those articles. I'd be prepared to rethink this position if anyone can show me evidence of PR proposing a moderate compromise in any dispute, and that compromise achieving consensus. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Of his last 100 edits, most are not in article space. He seems to be involved in many discussions on talk pages and noticeboards, but isn't editing articles much. What's the specific problem? --John Nagle (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The specif problem is that his article-space edits are either reverts, or tendentious editing based on bad sources, and that his Talk-space edits are soapboxing, which does not improve articles. In short, he is a net detriment to the project. Canadian Monkey (talk)

• Since joining wikipedia, PR has been blocked 13 times, by 9 different administrators. He has been assigned mentorship as a result of an ArbCom case against him, but has exhausted the patience of 4 different mentors, of whom Ryan p, the nominator of these sanctions, is the latest. I don’t believe I’ve seen any other editor on WP with a block log quite as long as his – almost all of which is related to disruptive editing on I-P articles. I find myself in agreement with Guy on both points he makes – that this is precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed, and that this is a textbook case of an agenda-driven account, which PR himself admits. I would support a topic ban from all I-P related articles, and if PR wants to be a positive contributor to the project, there are 2 million other articles for him to work on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the history, could someone please explain what spurred this move recently? I understand if people think that in the past PR was uncivil. I do think s/he takes a harsh and unconciliatory tone. However, in recent months I have mostly encountered him/her at Battle of Jenin, and I guess other than taking a harsh tone, I can't see what the problem has been recently - s/he has not engaged in edit-warring there.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• support topic ban Given that he has gone through 4 different mentors and that the latest is now calling for a general ban on this user, and the length of PR's block log, I really don't see a reasonable answer. PR makes occasionally good edits, but most are just POV pushing. Also I have some hope that a topic ban might teach PR to work better within the community framework so that he can eventually return to these articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per everyone else. PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful. He has been guilty of calling Zionists "proud of their murderous racism,"[[31] spreading Zionist conspiracy theories,[32], comparing Zionists with Nazis,[33] comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers,[34][35][[36] and basically committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. Enough is enough. --GHcool (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, I just took a look at the links you inserted re: the nazi comment and "murderous racism", thinking that if indeed PR said these things, s/he should have been blocked at the time. However, forgive me, but I did a search on "nazi" and "murderous" and did not see the comments. Could you please specify where the comments are? Thanks much, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

For that first diff, scroll down to the section on Norman Finkelstein, open it, and then take a look at PR's comment (the last one in that section). He does indeed use the statement GHcool ascribes to him. I've not looked at the others, but if they are similar to the first, the search function will not find keywords inside collapsed comments. Horologium (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It would help to give links to the ArbCom case, which I believe required that PR be placed under mentorship, and the main AN/I's etcetera about PR, esp those dealing with mentorship. Note also that the Ryan himself has been PR's mentor for some time. The specific history would help put concerns over editing in context. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic

Some of you may recall a recent dispute where some respected editors thought Blechnic had crossed the line about following another Wikipedian's edits (see this and this in particular as examples). Well then back I defended Blechnic because I thought her heart was in the right place and her patience had been worn out. This time she's targeting me: following my edits, making unfounded accusations, and escalating the disruption each time I try to resolve the problem informally. Yesterday she deleted my second post to her user talk and requested that I not post there again. Her problem behavior continues so I am forced to raise it here. Requesting impartial review and intervention.

The problem concerns RFAR posting guidelines and featured pictures. The thread at an arbitration clerk's talk page and the diffs at my post here[37] sum up the basics. Blechnic's response was to blank my post with an edit summary that accuses me of personal attacks,[38] then edit an article where a recently-featured picture I restored is hosted,[39] then return to a featured picture candidate I was running (I had asked her to recuse herself until whatever grievance she has against me is resolved)[40][41] following up with further dialog about the nomination and the article where the FP was hosted.[42][43] Then, two hours after I put an image up for peer review (Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Ursa Major and other constellations), Blechnic starts a biography about the artist.[44] and inserts the image at another article.[45] This is the reverse of the polite distance I had asked for.

That's a very strange way to respond to a neutral procedural request, followed by my good faith explanations and finally a request for recusal: escalate the accusations, involve third parties, and follow me around? I've asked a couple of people to reality check my posts and see whether I've made any personal attacks; they don't think I have. Unfortunately Blechnic's actions have become a self-fulfilling prophecy: I really don't want to come to a noticeboard with any complaint, but this is happening on a week where my health is poor (I'll discuss that side of things with administrators offsite) and I want to be left alone. Please help. Durova^Charge! 01:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being accused of editing articles I watch, in my topic area, creating new articles about encyclopedic topics in areas I've edited before, adding comments to discussions I'm involved in, and adding relevant images appropriately to articles, and trying to better format images in articles I edit.

I won't be able to think of a worthy response, so I probably should be as excluded from this conversation as Durova's lack of an alert intends me to be.

Durova, please provide a count of how many images you've nominated and how many I've stalked you on when you alert me on my talk page that you're discussing me at AN. --Blechnic (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, Blechnic never edited Bingham Canyon Mine until the day I asked her to avoid me. There's really no reason to create a new biography article without any references at all, two hours after I list an image for peer review, or to insert that very image at another article. The problem now continues: more posts to a delisting candidate I nominated.[46][47][48] Blechnic, you directed me to cease posting to your user talk. Obviously when you insist upon escalating the problem afterward I'm forced to go elsewhere, and prevented from notifying you. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Durova, you can check the edit history here for the mine.[49] I first edited the article on July 15. Please verify before you accuse. Your accusations here just sound strange. The edit history is not secret or privileged.

Would you like me to forward the e-mail you sent me on Sunday July 13th requesting that I move the image in the mine article? Or shall I quote your request to move the image here for you to remember?

If you disagree with the article I created about the engraver, feel free to nominate it for deletion. WP:AfD. I also, in another instance, linked to an illustrator's article at FPC when you nominated one of his works. I also edited his article. Please accuse me of that, also.

The problem is not escalated, it only exists with one party, you Durova. I'm not following you around, your edit history and mine will show that. I'm not editing outside of my area just for you. I'm not interested in you. You have tons of nominations on FPC which I have not made a single comment on. I only comment on a few pictures there, ones that interest me. I'm not doing anything I haven't been doing at Wikipedia for months.

You could have simply asked another editor to post at my talk page to alert me of this. You did not.

--Blechnic (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, point about the e-mail. I'd forgotten that. Take a look at your own words over the past few days and ask yourself how that looks to a person who's under the weather. I expressed again and again that my actions were neutral and policy based, and I held no ill will. In return you bandied accusations of favoritism, vendettas, and personal attacks, expanded the dispute, refused to withdraw when requested, and cut me off from using your user talk again. I really just want to relax: one FPC a day is a breathtaking pace to maintain for a solid month; I'd hate to lose stride over a bad week's health and an honest misunderstanding that spun out of orbit. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Blechnic, my health happens to be very poor right now. Obviously I'm not completely on top of my game. Yes, for a couple of weeks now I've had doubts about your behavior; it only really came to a head after the RFAR incident. I assumed good faith as long as possible. You have been blocked for POINTy disruption before; all I ask is to be left alone. Please respect that this has some grain of validity; Wikipedia has 2.5 million articles and only a few dozen of them host my featured pictures. Suppose you are absolutely correct and something is wrong with my perception: how hard would it be to humor me a little while? If I were that far gone I couldn't be reasoned with anyway (and I create enough featured pictures so why break a crazy lady's stride?) Durova^Charge! 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment about most of this, but the creation of Sidney Hall seems innocent enough - Blechnic sees an image come up on FPC and finds the topic interesting enough to write a bit about. Right now I'm studying the history of the railroads of Utah, and keep coming across and getting confused by Bingham Canyon, but even if that were a while ago I might be reminded of it by this discussion and decide to revisit it. --NE2 02:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice from Blechnic

I won't keep discussing this. Something is wrong here that has nothing to do with me. --Blechnic (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So, resolved?

Durova, you go ←. Blechnic, you go →. Should the paths ever cross again, just consider Wikipedia to be a mobius strip. Agreed? Keegan^talk 06:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heartily. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuzain

Resolved

 – Warned by User:Rlevse. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuzain is currently making conflict of interest accusations on User:Thrindel. User Thrindel has been making good faith edits to the article Ctrl+Alt+Del, explaining all of his edits rather lengthy on the talk page. Several Anon ip users have accused user Thrindel of being Tim Buckley, the person who makes the comic the article deals with. Recently user Kuzain has begun to post very publicly that Thrindel is Tim Buckley here and here and here. Kuzain has been warned twice on thier talk page to assume good faith and to not try to out other users on wikipedia here and here, he responds by accusing the others that are the ones making a personal attack on him here. It has been requested that he supply his evidence for accusing user Thrindel of being Tim Buckley, and having a conflict of interest here, and his reply is simply that it is his own evidence and he will not supply it as stated here and here. Kuzain has now stated that unless Thrindel can justify his edits to him by a deadline his edits will be reverted here.

I am requesting some administrator assistance as this seems to have gotten out of hand with coi accusations and threats to out Thrindel and revert edits unless he can justify his edits to another editor. Knowledgeum (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Warned Kuzain on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to mention, WP:OUTING covers this instance - although the warning given is sufficient for any good faith editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Kennedy

Resolved

Noticing that there seemed to be vast amount of uncited material on the Raymond Kennedy, I addressed my concerns on the talk page. Soon after, anonymous IP 76.15.204.152 removed my comments and then, after a few superficial changes to the article, unleashed a personal attack against myself, questioning my abilities by cherry-picking details from my profile to make me appear incompetent. I responded, admittedly with more emotion than was perhaps prudent, but nevertheless outlining the specific policies that were at play and asking them not to engage in personal attacks. The response I received was another cherry-picked attack on my argument. At that point, I decided to point out, more specifically, where his arguments failed policy-wise then decided that I didn't want to continue the argument, since I'm liable to be cajoled into doing something foolish or rash.

I would like to recuse myself from any administrative action regarding this page, but ask that another administrator watch the IP and/or the page itself so that, when I clean up the uncited material, I do not have to engage with what is likely an attempt to merely anger me and cause me to make mistakes or say things I will later regret. Alternatively, if someone else would like to clean up the page, that would help too. In any case, the editor's behavior is simply unacceptable. An explanation of the policies from an uninvolved admin may help. Cheers, CP 15:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be removed from the editing of this page generally since your first message on the talk page of that article included a threat. Furthermore, you did not yourself follow the policies of Wikipedia in resolving the dispute by continuing to claim your own personal qualifications in editing this page. (Exclamations and protests of your membership in Phi Beta Kappa, for example. "Cheers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.204.152 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the talk page and the article. Canadian Paul's first message on that talk page was perfectly proper, as far as I can see. You (IP editor) appear to have a serious misunderstanding about who can edit what articles: the short version is, everyone can edit any article. Complaining someone else is "not following Wikipedia policies" when you are demonstrating a pretty obvious misunderstanding of how things work here does not help your cause. I suggest you two retire back to the talk page, and that you (IP editor) address Canadian Paul's legitimate concerns, rather than try to undermine his "credentials" to edit the article. I'll keep an eye on the article and talk page; suggest one or two others do as well. --barneca (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out another personal attack against me here. That is all. Cheers, CP 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really a personal attack, IMHO; just their misunderstanding that you require some kind of "qualifications" to edit the article. Their comments at the talk page skirt much closer to the line, but that's in the past, and I'll be more concerned if such comments keep happening in the future. --barneca (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting when a thread starts on this topic. COI disclosure: Raymond Kennedy was one of my seminar professors a long time ago. I've added an orignal research tag to the article and recommend mentorship. This reads more like a magazine profile than an encyclopedia biography and is mainly sourced to original letters in a university's private collection. Suggest it would be a viable solution to actually publish a magazine profile on Mr. Kennedy and then cite that for the Wikipedia article. Marking resolved, since no admin intervention is necessary. These look like honest misunderstandings. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sindh historical articles and User:Dawoodabro

Dawoodabro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added a series of articles about the history of Sindh, mostly about individual rulers. Several of these have been speedily deleted as lacking context or as copyvios, and the user's talk page is full of notices about deletions which he or she has apparently not responded to. I've discovered that the source of the text is A History of Sind, Volume II, by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, a book published in 1902 and therefore in the public domain, with an online scan at http://www.scribd.com/doc/420317/A-HISTORY-OF-SINDVol-II

Based on the {{1911}} template created for articles from the Encyclopedia Brittanica's 11th edition (now also in the public domain), I have created {{HistoryOfSindh2}} and added it to the articles in question, together with Category:History of Sindh

I think the articles about past rulers all pass the general notability guideline, although they are weak in context. On that basis, it might be worthwhile to restore all the user's deleted contributions and to apply the appropriate tags, templates and categories to them. I'm not an admin, so I can't restore the articles myself. --Eastmain (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User blocked relating to NFCC

Resolved

 – never mind this - probably going to unblock the user since the page was protected - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I blocked Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for continued edit warring (after a final warning was given) over the inclusion of a non-free image in the M1 carbine article. As you'll see from looking at the history, several users (including myself) have reverted this users additions, as the image is being improperly used, according to WP:NFC. This is a rather obvious case of inappropriate use of a non-free image. Other users (one currently) is now beginning to include the image, despite several administrators attempts to explain why the image is not acceptable in that particular article (see discussion at Talk:M1 carbine#Malcolm X photo).

I guess I'd like some more eyes, and opinions on the matter, as Nukes4Tots is currently requesting unblock. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid getting involved, but I have been following the incident for weeks, and I am not sure it's an improper use of the image. It's a well known iconic and historical image of a major historical figure with the weapon in question. It's both topical for the article and unavoidably not freely re-creatable, given that the man died decades ago. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good argument for using the image on the article about Malcolm X, but not so much for using it on four different articles (!) as the image page Image:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif tries to justify. The interest in the picture is not in the particular gun, but in the person who is holding it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So many questions, so little time

Please forgive me for disturbing you.

I would like to know how Wikipedia administrators coordinate their work. For example:

• Who is helping with each one of the many task administrators have to deal with?

• What is the most backlogged or critical task at any given time?

• What is the status of each task at any given time?

What about the help from regular users:

• Where can a user find out where his(her) contributions will be more effective?

• How does a user know who else is involved in a particular task?

• How is progress measured in any given task?

• What policy decisions are being discussed/voted/made that could benefit from a user's participation?

Thank you so much for your attention.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

vapmachado ^talk.cw 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this for a report? If so, I'm sure your answers can be found be inputting these sorts of questions in Google. Rudget 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, we all just do the work we choose to do. It amazingly gets done more often than not. Chillum 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgilio, if this is actually for a report, let me recommend Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) as another place to post these questions. People may be more helpful in that forum. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindness of your answers and the time off you took from your busy schedules.

I’ll do my best not to answer your question with another question: This is not for a report.

You suggested an interesting way to find answers to my questions. I had not considered that option. I was more interested in hearing them “from the horse’s mouth.” If you care to provide an example of how such search would be successful, I will pursue it, and will not use any more of your valuable time.

From the second answer, I deduct that nobody (administrator or not) knows what the administrators are taking care of. Furthermore, when an administrator chooses to do something he or she is usually successful in his(her) endeavor. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you, once more, for enlightening me.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

vapmachado ^talk.cw 20:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In order:

• We do not have lists of which admins are currently helping with which admin activities. However, the current participants can usually be found by looking at the history of the relevant process page. The broad classes of activities specfically requiring admin powers are:
  • Deletion. Look at the deletion log to see how is dealing with speedy deletions, image deletions, categories, templates, stubs, articles and copyright problems. I probably missed some.
  • Protection. See the history of WP:RfPP.
  • Vandalism monitoring. From an admin perspective, this is now just blocking the relevant reports to WP:AIV, so see the history of that page.
  • There are others too, like the histories of WP:3RR, WP:DRV, WP:AER.
• The most backlogged varies greatly. A backlog tends to go away when a relatively small number of admins decides to really have a go at something for a length of time. Then what was a backlogged process is temporarily not so much. Probably the most oft-complained about is CAT:CSD. The most critical depends a lot on your view. There is no formal hierarchy of criticality. Again, probably CAT:CSD gets the most frequent attention from the largest individual number, but it's easy to argue that copyright problems and images (which have many copyright problems) are the most pressing since they have (theoretically potential) legal implications. Then again, one might argue that protecting and reverting problems on biographies is critical because of the libel possibilities.
• What do you mean by "status"? Tasks that someone has identified as being particularly out-of-date usually get tagged with {{Adminbacklog}}, so we can use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Adminbacklog if we wish. Most of the process pages in my first answer have a section(s) on them listing those items that need dealing with, and there are things like WP:AfD/Old and other bot-managed pages that give lists, too.
• As a matter of definition, a user's contributions are valuable wherever and whenever they choose to make them in good faith. It is entirely a matter of personal choice. With so many more 'ordinary' editors than admins, there is rarely a shortage of voices or helping hands on non-admin tasks for long.
• In a similar way to my first answer. Addtionally, there are many WikiProjects which co-ordinate editing in various spheres. These usually have a 'members' list on their front page, although they are often out of date.
• What do you mean by "progress"? Proximity to have 0 items in the not-done list? Then clearly, it is measured by the number oustanding. This can be determined in a similar way to my earlier answer. The editorial drudge work often has a progress graph on a co-ordinating page. See for example the long-defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax.
• See WP:CENT

Splash - tk 21:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Video

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary. —Travis^talk 01:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just thought I would share this video with you, it seriously mocks Wikipedia. I know this might be a little bit off topic but I was on YouTube looking at my subscription videos and notrious Hot4Words, posted a new video just less than 5 minutes ago, this one, and she seems to mock Wikipedia has an unreliable source. It is disappointing people view Wikipedia this way just becuase any one can edit it. I thought I would share this video with you becuase Hot4Words gets a lot of views on her videos, thousands, and I feel she made a terrible remark towards Wikipedia. BUT! Not much we can do about it. Just thought I would let you guys know. Thanks. Also, please feel free to tell me to move this to the Village pump, or somewhere else if it bothers you. :) --eric (mailbox) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's be blunt; at least at the present time, Wikipedia is really not a reliable source for academic research. It might serve as a good starting point, but not as a source unto itself. And I'm not too worried about a single person mocking Wikipedia; heck, we even have an entire article documenting it. —Kurykh 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

True. --eric (mailbox) 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, here is the video, About Wikipedia, becuase at the end she asks the viewers to see if Wikipedia is a good source. Turns out she isn't all brians after all if she gets her answers from the internet and not her education in teaching English. --eric (mailbox) 01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think getting all worked up (or even giving the impression of doing so) about one person criticizing us is exactly the reaction she wants. I say just ignore her and go about your business. —Kurykh 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done :-D --eric (mailbox) 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo

Hi, I'd filed an incident report last week regarding several months' of arguments and disruptions at the Taekwondo page, but I see it was archived (though it's still marked as unresolved and needing attention). I was just wondering what the status of this is, or if there's something I need to do? Someone mentioned ArbCom in the article — is this the suggested next step? I'm not familiar with that process, I'm afraid. Could someone give me guidance as to how to proceed?

In case it's needed, here's a recap in the briefest of nutshells: The issue we're having is a single editor (User:JJL) who favors advancing one opinion of taekwondo's origin above the others. The page's history section current presents the theories neutrally and provides various sources for each. JJL's chief assertion is that sources supporting opposing theories fail to meet WP:RS, and months of debate and appeals to accept consensus and compromise have had no effect. Help is greatly appreciated! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Before ArbCom, you should try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/HouseOfScandal

I have no reason to doubt the good faith or competence of this editor, and definitely do not wish to imply any intentional wrongdoing here, but I am a little concerned by the mass creation of redirects in this contribution history. Can an admin take a look at this please? I don't know if this is good practice or not - to create so many redirects - but I have the feeling that it is not. Setwisohi (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• After exploring Setwisohi's concerns, please investigate this editor's placement of Speedy Delete tags on Nevins Farm and Equine Center and David C. Nevins and, if appropriate, council this editor on their proper use. Thanks. - House of Scandal (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, and then please review which editor has turned this a little nasty. And, then perhaps council HouseOfScandal on good faith etc.. Setwisohi (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If it can be established in the article how or why all of them should redirect to one specific article, then they stay (as redirects are cheap). Also, these pages are not speedy applicable. I'd recommend you remove them and take it to AfD (but only if you are certain they should be deleted). Synergy 09:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input Synergy. Your response and the original editors obvious and genuine indignation convince me to remove the tags. I still dont like the very many immediate redirects however. Setwisohi (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Its standard to create them, so long as they are possible search terms. If one article has several likely search terms, its inevitable that they will all redirect there. Also, fyi, these types of reports should go to AN/I and not to the general noticeboard. Synergy 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada: Indef blocked user's trolling and revenge

Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked by his abusive sockpuppetry, vandalism, trolling, countless block evasions, propaganda approach, personal attacks, racist attacks, etc. This user's wrongdoings were spotted and reported by me with WP:RFCU, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, so it is so natural for the troll to have a deep grudge against me. The user has done nothing but harm to Wikipedia. His abusive sockpuppetries have been discovered more than 3 times. (2 cases were reported by me) The user falsely accused me to ANI as gaming the system and here as well. I think range block should be upon to some of IP addresses designated to NTT Plala that the lucy uses. "Banning indefinitely the troll would be appropriate in order.--11:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada spread this personl/racist attacks against me over to multiple users whom he think would likely side his malicious revenge. Per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits and WP:NPA, I removed such attacks from the users' talk page. Regretfully, among such users, Carl Daniels (talk · contribs) reverts to keep such material [50][51]. I requested him to remove it, however he refuses. He even cites that I have to follow a certain official rule that I've never heard of before.[52], and even says to support the banned user's scheme.[53]. I think the user does not understand the policy. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada is blocked, not banned, as far as I can tell. So WP:BAN or parts of it don't apply here. I'm of the opinion this isn't worth edit warring over, so I'd suggest you just ignore it and let the user have what they want on their own userpages. Unless they file something against you, of course. I've taken no action, because I'm not sure what should be done here. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking to remove the personal attack message on User talk:Carl Daniels that he wants to keep. Also, I think baning Lucy would be appropriate for his countless block evasions and disruptions. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted the content provided by Lucyintheskywithdada, and explained my reasons for doing so to the editor. I have also removed Caspian blue's later comments on Carl Daniels talkpage so to help cool matters, and I would urge Cb to realise that CD did not choose to have the material initially posted on their talkpage and to AGF why they felt it should remain. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I receive this threat from Carl Daniels[54]. He does not seem to regard the policy of WP:NPA.--15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuan.C.Lee would be relevant references for understanding of why Carl Daniels supports such attacks on me.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jiuguang Wang

Jiuguang continues to attack and harass Julie Dancer by proxy on the grounds of his difference with the article she wrote in the Wikia which uses logic to define, support and defend the existence of God. I agree that some Jews may be offended by her personal conclusion that Jesus Christ is God but she is only claiming that as the personal basis of her religion and not implying that anyone else does not have the right to believe whatever they choose. In the case of Jiuguang he is not Jewish and was born in Beijing, raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist, train from a very early age on computers and sent to the Atlanta at age 12, where he eventually entered Georgia Tech where he is now a robotics student. His statement that he disagrees with Julie Dancer's article in the Wikia makes his subsequent nomination for deletion of her Optimal classification article in the Wikipedia a personal attack and his subsequent deletions of her links between her article in the Wikibooks and references in the Wikipedia and act of stalking and harassment against her. The Wikipedia is not above reproach and such actions are quickly loosing the favor of the men and women who have accommodated or tolerated its existence from the beginning. Bight the hand of the powers that allow the wikipedia not to pay taxes and you may find yourselves paying dues. His deletion of her article, in light of his refusal to read the primary reference, is tantamount to an entomologist seeing a new bug in the forest he had never seen before and squishing it into the ground for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.50 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC) |}

This is likely User:Julie Dancer evading her indefinate block. No one else ever said that AfD was a personal attack against her. I'd also like to note that the threat above is not likely to induce rational discussion and more likely just to get you blocked. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked for 12 hours by Nandesuka. Takin' a look at [55], this is unquestionably a sock. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ibtikari -> Promoting Business

Resolved

as this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ibtikari&diff=229579408&oldid=229577531

[spam removed]

Tell what to do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DualHelix (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I nuked the user page. You can use {{db-spam}} for this. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)