Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Porsha Blaze

As with the Jordan Capri and Tawnee Stone complaints elsewhere, Porsha Blaze, an entirely unnotable pornography actress, has had a page written about her. The sole purpose of this page appears to be to give out her real name and link to a blog she maintains outside her professional life. Could someone with admin powers delete this information, please? Also, I'll repeat my request regarding a firm and binding policy on publishing the real names of porn stars. This is just wrong, surely? Vizjim 07:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Done. I've edited it to only mention her pseudonym and the link to her cumfiesta.com page, deleted the article and undeleted only my newest edit to it. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's bad though, now it's a GFDL vio. I've added a comment about the original poster on the talk page, but I do think we need some policy on this fast. (Personally I don't see a problem with posting personal information as long as it's verifiable). --fvw* 07:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • • I agree we need a policy for this, seeing how many cases like this have popped up recently, but I don't see how handling the problem like JIP did creates a GFDL violation - surely the tiny bit of info now present in the article can be viewed as being entirely PD? -- Ferkelparade π 08:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, we could probably get away with calling that uncopyrightable. There'll be other articles in future where we can't though. --fvw* 08:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
          • And there has been in the past. I'm an admin who was some months ago contacted by a more famous porn star who wanted her recently added real name stricken from the article on her for the sake of her and her family's safty. Wikipedia was the only site on the net that had her real name (and it was obviously the right one since she was worried). I wasn't sure how to handle it, and decided that making a big fuss about it then would just make matters worse, so I just let her edit it out her self. It made most sense to me then, but I'm not sure how to handle cases like this. People will scream bloody censor and that wikipedia should simply state facts, but, well, maybe we shouldn't state every fact at all cost. (anon for the occation) 83.227.105.210 00:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
            • It's really not that complicated. Either it's verifiable, in which case leaving it in the article isn't going to make matters any worse, or it isn't, in which case WP:NOT says we should remove it. --fvw* 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a stupid idea even having the article porsha blaze. Not only does it give out little, if any, information, it gives an active link to a crude & disgusting porn site. If it doesn't get deleted altogether, it should be placed under a title such as: List of Mentionable Porn Stars, or List of Porn Stars. This way everyone goes away happy. Spawn Man 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:ISNOT censored, including in external links, and a porn star's article could reasonably expected to link to a porn site. Though it does sound like this article did deserve deletion for non-notability. ~~ N (t/c) 14:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Article has been deleted, thanks to Gamaliel. Vizjim 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yay! Spawn Man

Even if something is verifiable, it does not nessesarily belong in an encyclopedia. Stalker-like edits are simply inappropriate at best, and can be life-threatening at worst. There are way too many weirdos in the world who would love to have an easy source of home address, etc, to porn stars. My 2 cents. Func( t, c, @, ) 14:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Too creepy. Wikipedia is not stalkepedia. El_C 22:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I also believe that if someone's life could be harmed (physically, like stalking) due to the posting the information should be deletable, and I am sure the GNU folks will not have a problem with that. Zach (Sound Off) 23:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The GNU folks have nothing to do with it though. The person who posted the material has agreed to licence it under the GFDL; if we violate that agreement we are violating the copyright of the original uploader.

Also, I think calling reposting material freely available on the web putting someone's life in danger is a little bit alarmist at best. --fvw* 23:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

True, but we also have to consider how the original poster obtained the information. If illegally, it would not be covered under GFDL to begin with. It is just safer not to include such personal information unless easily obtainable from verifiable sources. ∞Who?¿? 23:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

We have no reason to assume the poster got the information through illegal methods, not only WP:AGF but also just common sense. If you were going to break the law, would you really do it just to find out someone's real name and post it to wikipedia? Anyway, whether or not they aquired the information legally has no bearing on their copyright on the material they created. --fvw* 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The present version of the software allows any who visits a page to see the "X deleted versions" link in the history and follow it to see the page history log for those deleted edits. They can't see the content of those edits, but they are able to see who made them and the edit summaries. I am sure this was put in to minimize the GFDL problem associated with selective deletion. Dragons flight 00:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me about this? In the US anyway, their names are already a matter of public record because of record keeping requirements. Are you really suggesting we should have a policy saying that we can have biographies of people and yet censor their actual name? It seems to me to be about the most fundamental thing a biography requires... Fawcett5 12:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Those records are not public. They are required to be kept and be presented to the attorney general or his agent upon request, but the rest of us have no access to them. In many cases the persona associated with these roles is an entire fabrication, and totally disconnected with their real life identities. Since their real life identity is both unverifiable and unconnected with what they are notable for then yes, an article on a notable porn role has no business discussing the life of the actress playing that role. The situation would of course be different for entertainers choosing to use their real name, but that is not the case here. Don't think of it as a biography, think of it as an article on a fictional character. Dragons flight 12:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't much of this breach the no original research requirement? The argument that "The person who posted the material has agreed to licence it under the GFDL; if we violate that agreement we are violating the copyright of the original uploader." would, if taken to its logical conclusion, preclude all editing of text once submitted, plus all page deletion, so it has no validity. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• They are not fictional characters. They are biographies, of people who are solely known by their stage names, a situation that exists for actors and actresses outside of the pornography industry as well as inside. fvw has it exactly right. We can verify Michael Caine's real name, Diana Dors' real name, and Cary Grant's real name. We cannot verify the real name of an actor or actress who keeps that information secret, and so our biographical articles cannot contain that information. Our normal verifiability policy in action is all that is required here. Uncle G 03:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, sure, everything must pass the verifiability test. But if the actual names were verifiable (and other standard biographical information such as date and place of birth), they should be included. The expectation of privacy in the case of porn stars is not in principal different from that of any other public figure. On the other hand, certain verifiable information, such as current address, etc. should not be included simply because it is unencyclopaedic. Fawcett5 13:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing should be included simply because it's unencyclopaedic. Don't you mean "simply because it's encyclopaedic"? — JIP | Talk 21:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that Uncle G and Fawcett5 have it right. Adult performers should not be treated differently than any other notable entertainer who has a bio entry in Wikipedia. Those bios typically feature the subject's birth name or legal name, and details such as place of birth. Those facts are indisputably encyclopedic. I think that what Fawcett5 means by things like current address not being encyclopedic is that minor items like that are (1) changeable, and (2) are at a level of detail inappropriate for an encyclopedia (which is not a phone book or a directory) which summarizes facts. MCB 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

The subjects of this article have been editing from anonymous IPs to remove information critical of themselves. I've warned them to stop doing this, and will be blocking IPs to enforce this. They're staying on the same IP for periods of time, but can also clearly shift. In any case, anyone who wants to revert these on sight and also block the IPs will be appreciated. Snowspinner 18:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: Bogdanov Affair is eerily quiet just now, after a huge edit war. I removed one POV rant from each side, and everybody (that I've heard from) seems quite happy with the result. Igor Bogdanov has registered a name account, and declared that he doesn't feel any need to change the article any more. And hey, it's a good article, much better than before the wars! Admittedly, this may be the calm before another storm, as the talk page remains a horror story and I just had to threaten to ban two editors--acrimoniously discussing everything but Bogdanov Affair--from it. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Howard Stern vandal

I've just blocked 71.100.85.190 (talk · contribs · block log) for 48 hours for continued vandalism to Howard Stern, (I tried 24hrs, 24.5 hours ago, but he was straight back at it - and that wasn't his first block). Have I acted correctly? 1) Sure as eggs are eggs, he'll be back at it in 48 hours. 2)the IP page (before blanking) states it has 'multiple users' - although there is no sign of any edits from it that aren't our vandal. PS. Is this the right place to ask this? --Doc (?) 23:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. Report this here. And yes also, you acted correctly in blocking him. Spawn Man 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And the talk page for all IPs says that they may be multiple users. It's boilerplate - we don't have any reason to suppose this particular address is in fact used by more than one person. Yes, you were right, and if he comes back, the blocks will just get longer. - Nunh-huh 00:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Michel Lafosse

Anon keeps reverting an accurate version of Lafosse's article to a partisan one. I've reverted 3 times, but won't do a fourth even though this seems to me to be clearcut vandalism. Feel free to keep an eye on Michel Lafosse, though, the rest of you<g>. - Nunh-huh 23:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Agriculture on West Virginia

This user is persistently inserting the following statement into the "Trivia" section of West Virginia:

"The state is often the butt of jokes with neighboring states due to it's reputation for inbreeding"

It isn't vandalism, but it isn't encyclopedic either. I find it hard to assume that this is a good faith edit. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a long-running joke, which actually turned into a real-life dispute where a shirt was made that said "It is all relative in West Virginia." See [1]. Zach (Sound Off) 01:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the inbreeding has led to the inability to distinguish "it's" from "its"? - Nunh-huh 01:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Zach (Sound Off) 03:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you think NPA applies in some way to the discussion, Zscout370, but I certainly can't see how it does. - Nunh-huh 06:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not vandalism.. the state does have that unfortunate reputation, but it's probably not appropriate for the article. Rhobite 03:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

While I think it is questionable for the article (although I think it could get a mention somewhere on Wikipedia, in some form, not sure where would be most appropriate), I don't have any trouble assuming good faith about it. Everyking 06:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Suugestion, create It's All Realtive in West Virginia and explain about the phrase, why it became popular, who started it and mention the issue from the BBC I posted above. Zach (Sound Off) 06:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Since we have a List of ethnic slurs, I can't see a problem with recording regional ones, even in the article, providing they are notorious and it is made clear that they are otherwise unfounded. --Doc (?) 10:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like we've lost at least one new editor, User:Whitby Mark, who was adding new articles about coal towns, over this insistence on including a piece about the ethnic slur in the article. He has asked me to have all his contributions erased from the wiki.

I think this is a matter of perspective. We wouldn't put a note about the "Ugly American" stereotype into United States or sheep-fucking into Wales. This isn't because those slurs cannot be written about but because they're not significant enough to merit comment in those particular articles. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

But in my experience, inbreeding is one of the first things uninformed people think of when they hear West Virginia. It's certainly notable enough for the article. ~~ N (t/c) 15:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I like Doc's idea, create a List of regional slurs and just start piling on to it. I also heard about the sheep fornacating a lot in the States. Zach (Sound Off) 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well the point is that this is what uninformed people may say about the state. Such folklore is probably not on the list the things about a US State that are significant enough to belong to the article on the state. Do we list under African American the common legend about male penis size? Under Poles do we have a list of Polish jokes? There's no reason in principle why not, but we don't. We don't do so, I would guess, mostly because giving such myths prominence would cause needless offence. They don't tell us anything useful about the subject of the article, so they're unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Informed people often think of this as the second thing that the state is known for, right after skiing. When it comes down to it, major corporations don't make shirts about Black penis size, or pole jokes. The WV jabs have made it onto popular clothing lines, and are the reason why UVA no longer has a pep band (the Governor of WV was outraged by an inbreeding joke made by the pep band during a UVA vs. WV game). It's significant and notable and belongs there. Evidently Tony doesn't feel so strongly against the page on Wikipedia which lists slang terms for penis and masturbation, but then again as I wasn't the author of it, Tony isn't against it. Agriculture 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony may be right (or not), but ultimately, this is a content dispute - so take it to the talk page - and if it can't be settled there list the issue for an RfC. This is not a discussion about administration, so it doesn't belong here. --Doc (?) 19:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:83.132.240.187

I have blocked 83.132.240.187 for one year for vote stuffing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Emmanuel de Cériz and for this threat. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No complaints from here. Longer bans are better. --Golbez 05:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, not that I object to stopping harmful editors, but do you have any reason to believe this person will still have the same IP address tomorrow? Dragons flight 05:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

One year is entirely too long except for major offenses, and even then only if you know it's a static IP. User:83.132.240.187 appears to be a Portuguese cable modem account. I've reduced the block to 48 hours - the two edits in question are the only two from this IP. --Carnildo 06:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Not much point in having a No threats policy, is there? Not much point in blocking him at all, then, is there? User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a DHCP address for a TVCABO-Portugal cable modem user. I think blocking a dynamic IP for one year is a bad idea. Jonathunder 06:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you know it's dynamic? User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's dynamic, then tomorrow's owner can ask us for a reprieve. --Golbez 06:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's definately DHCP, per SORBS:

Dynamic IP Space (LAN, Cable, DSL & Dial Ups)

Netblock: 83.132.0.0/16 (83.132.0.0-83.132.255.255)

Jonathunder 06:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, fine, you have a point. --Golbez 17:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleting tactics

User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See [2], [3], [4], [5]. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from another page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted. See [6].

There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.206.236 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've copied this from my Talk page. If I get time (which might not be for while) I'll look at it myself, but there'd be little point my approaching Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) about it, as his knee-jerk response to me (well, to most people) is a snap and a snarl — and that's on a good day. If the accusation proves to be correct (and Ted Wilkes has gone in for this sort of thing before), what would be the best response? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

One last warning and then a 24 hour block, scaling upwards for each violation, would be appropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Ann Heneghan's stalker

Please be on the lookout for sockpuppet accounts of SarahPhelpsjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This individual has been involved in user page vandalism, and has been creating attack pages via a blog site:

• http://byebyeann.blogspot.com/ (attack against User:Ann Heneghan, now removed by the site)
• http://sexygordy.blogspot.com/ (attack against User:GordonWatts)

I would suggest performing google searches of blogspot.com for the word "Wikipedia", in case any more of these pop up.

• SarahPhelpsjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheStalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dannyrodgers45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richardharrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnnopryce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GordenWatts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note the "e")
• 203.147.0.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.142.214.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Eh...there are more details to fill in about this situation, but I'm late for a family thing. Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Func, I'll just add one more:

• 58.11.10.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I tried an apnic search for the three anonymous ones. I'm not very well up in tracking IP addresses, but they seemed to be based in Thailand. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 16:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the majority seem to be proxies in Thailand. And it seems that Thailand has legitimate uses for proxies, so we can't indefinitely block. Ral315 01:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Ral and Ann. I've removed a tiny bit of sensative information from my user page; Whether the user is crazy or not, she (or he?) seems to have a good point: If someone really wants to find me, they have to work a little bit. I've ignored the vanity blog. Interesting...--GordonWatts 17:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Scott Fisher

Scottfisher (talk · contribs · block log) seems to have gone on a rampage due to some edit dispute. He's been deleting his own useful contributions from all over the wiki. I've temporary blocked him, and left a note on his page. I will be gone for a hour or so, if anyone wants to pik this up. Some rollback may also be required. --Doc (?) 16:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, he went insane. --Golbez 17:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, back. I've now indefinitely blocked him to stop further damage (I think his last spree has now been undone). He may be gone anyway. If he calms down, and wishes to return, he can be unblocked. It look like he was a useful editor. I've still no idea what or who pushed him over the edge.--Doc (?) 17:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate: deleting your own valid edits cannot be undone once made because you're angry or you've decided to leave for some other reason. Once submitted, you release your edits under the GFDL which cannot be retracted as further edits on the article are based on the assumption it stays that way. Exceptions can be made for people who added their own copyrighted material without this knowledge and reconsider. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Got that. I wasn't undoing his valid edits - I was undoing his deletions of his valid edits. --Doc (?) 12:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

By e-mail Scott has indicated a desire to return, and behave. I think I've unblocked him, but not sure I've done it right - he wasn't showing up on my block log. Can someone check this and complete if I've messed up. --Doc (?) 16:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

From your log it looks like you unblocked his autoblock #, but not his username. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Which is strange, because his username doesn't come up as blocked [14]. -Splash^talk 16:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, strange :0 the reason I unblocked the autoblock is I found nothing else to unblock - and yet the original block does show up in my register - but not in his. I don't get this - and as I say I have to go. Much obliged if someone can ensure he is currently unblocked. --Doc (?) 16:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Ironbrew and User:IMNOTEMICO

Anyone know anything about these two users? They keep posting sockpuppet notices on each others userpages, mini edit war at this point. ∞Who?¿? 20:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The name of the second one seems to read like "I'm not Emico". --cesarb 20:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea, so it does. I didn't notice that, I was looking at both of their histories and just saw the constant addition/removals of the banner. It is quite odd for them to create a username like that, think I will have to look at the user histories of Emico and IMNOTEMICO. ∞Who?¿? 20:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look further up in this page for a clear explaination for this edit war. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 21:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains that user somewhat, I have also requested that Theo look in on it. I still am not sure whether Ironbrew is a sock of Onlytofind. I went through the "evidence" listed on the notice Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#Evidence_of_Onlytofind.2FIronbrew_sockpuppet, and although they are editing the same article and one stopped soon before the other began, its not clear-cut to me. I would appreciate an admin posting the sock notices on the userpages, and not a user that is only 2 days old. ∞Who?¿? 21:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that User:AypeeESME (IP is me????) had a series of edits similar in view and style to Emico's. When asked about being Emico, he denied it, but was determined to be a sockpuppet of Emico's and banned by TheoClarke.--Ironbrew 23:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What the... IMNOTEMICO gets an indef block. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Adrigo

The user user:Adrigo is Donald Alford (AKA DotSix) who has been injoined by the Arb Committee from editing any page except the evidence page for his Arb Hearing [15] and his own user pages. He has been disrupting [Theism], [Atheism], and [Agnosticism]. Please block him until the Arb action is completed. Thank you. --Nate Ladd 01:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. If appropriate, the block can be lifted once the ArbCom has deliberated. Yes, I know this prevents this username from editing RfArb, but he shows no signs of abiding by the injuction, and has plenty of other usernames to choose from. -Splash^talk 01:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Could someone please enlighten me and link the evidence these users are the same? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, User:Adrigo is specifically mentioned in the RfArb, though admittedly only by the 'accusers'. The username does not deny it. It edits the same pages in the same style as Dot6, and established editors have reverted its edits with comments along the lines of "revert Dot6". -Splash^talk 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've looked at Adrigo's edits, either it's him, or it's someone who should be blocked for the exact same reasons as Dot6, (it's him, though). Func( t, c, @, ) 15:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I think these edits are telling: [16], [17]. Also Adrigo uses many of the same mannerisms and tactics as DotSix: Insistence on pointing out "logical fallacies" in articles, adding the {{dispute-resolution}} template to discussions, etc. [18] [19]. I'm convinced that Adrigo = DotSix, and he should be blocked per the injunction. However I'm still not sure about this "Donald Alford" business - I think that the user who edited under that name was an impostor and it shouldn't be held against DotSix. Nate, I think you've been too hasty in assuming that Donald Alford is DotSix. Rhobite 16:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Help-desk spammers

This user, 24.210.167.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), blanked WP:HD to add a single (presumably spam) link earlier today, and yesterday spammed a set of links at the top of that page (though without blanking). I'm not sure if this is inherently a bannable offence (though if it was up to me, it would be); could someone keep an eye on it? 67.80.21.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also hit the helpdesk, twice yesterday and once this morning. Thanks for any assistance. Shimgray 11:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Checking recent page history, we also have 81.250.52.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.81.198.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 70.250.70.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 69.199.194.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 80.58.9.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), too; these last two seem to be competing, which is kinda cute but also bloody annoying. And another: 68.59.156.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.245.186.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 24.210.58.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 218.229.249.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)... that's the last two days sorted; it only seems to have started recently. Some of these are blankers or otherwise deleting text; some are simply spamming in links (sometimes vandalising previous spam). My ability to assume good faith from anon.'s is rapidly going out of the window this afternoon... Shimgray 12:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's seriously disruptive, given the nature of that page. I say block for 12 hours each. If they come back again, double it. [[Sam Korn]] 12:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Given the vandal edits, for the ones that spammed repeatedly, were over 12 hours apart but under 24, I'd recommend starting at 24 hours - on this pattern 12 wouldn't be noticed, but I reckon it's good on principle. Since you have the blocking button & I don't, would you be so kind? Shimgray 12:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn... We'll have to do something about that. I'll do the blocks now. [[Sam Korn]] 12:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

All gone for 24 hours. I could be wrong, but I think they are open proxies, as (of those I tested) one was from Texas and the other Montevideo. I'm not up-to-date with WP's actions on open-proxies, nor how to verify them, so I'll leave this to someone else. [[Sam Korn]] 12:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Wikipedia:Blocking policy suggests shoot-on-sight for anonymous proxies, but I'm not sure how to determine precisely what these are. Ho hum. Shimgray 13:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Another one, just now: 201.132.12.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Shimgray 12:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The only one I can verify as an open proxy is 68.59.156.243, which I've blocked. The others may be open proxies too, though if they're chained through non-open proxies there's often no way to tell. --fvw* 15:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There is of course one solution, the preemptive open proxy blocker bot which scours the web for open proxies and blocks them. Act quick on this limited time offer to resurrect it: Go and gush about how wonderful it is at Wikipedia talk:Bots#Open_proxy_blocker

Hmm. They don't seem to have returned as yet, a few hours after the block expired; will keep a close eye on the helpdesk history, though. Shimgray | talk | 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

They're back. 80.92.7.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 70.244.34.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 64.53.254.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 24.161.95.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting those - I hadn't been able to get WP:HD to load up any diffs to confirm they were spam, system running slow today. Shimgray | talk | 14:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Diffs were tooo slow. I resorted to using the history view. Most of them have been easy to spot as they blank the rest of the page when they insert their spam. I did miss one of the above that just inserted the link somewhere in the top of the page. Somebody else caught and fixed that. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Add 82.199.190.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list. Doesn't appear on any RBLs that I checked. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:JimmyCrackedCorn

Edit-warring and repeated personal attacks and incivility, using multiple sockpuppets to avoid 3RR violations, refusal to comply with NPOV policy. Pages affected include (Talk pages are not listed, but should be assumed to be affected as well):

• Ray Nagin
• First responder
• First responders
• Nagin (disambiguation)
• Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy and associated AfD page

Accounts presumed to be sockpupppets of this user:

• Roger Ramjett (talk · contribs)
• DKorn (talk · contribs)
• Kirby Morgan (talk · contribs) -- see Talk page link below for evidence

"Long John Silver" (never created an account, AFAICT, but signed several anon edits with that handle before registering, and accused at least three editors of being sockpuppets of each other under said handle)

• 66.43.173.74 (talk · contribs) -- anonymous user with identical editing style and editing targets
• 166.73.21.146 (talk · contribs) -- anonymous user with very similar abrasive attack style, vehemently right-wing, many similar editing targets

More information on the sockpuppetry can be found at Talk:Ray_Nagin#Sockpuppets.--chris.lawson 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted Nagin (disambiguation), as there was nothing to disambiguate. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The user has now created two more redirect pages to point to this article Nagin Buses and Nagin Busses. He also keeps reverting First responder to a version that is worded to support the POV theory that FEMA is not really responsible for responding to emergencies. --Gorgonzilla 04:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to do anything about those right now. If the page they point to is deleted (which it very much looks like it will be, going by the AfD), then they can be speedied as redirects pointing to a non-existant page. Most admins, I think, check for redirects and deal with them as necessary every time they close a deletion anyway. If you do want to delete redirects directly, you don't nominate them on AfD; there is a special Redirects for Deletion page specifically for redirects. That's not needed here, though. --Aquillion 04:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Incidently, as Long John Silver, they would sign anonymously from the IP ranges 209.247.222.** [20] and 12.74.187.** [21]. These should perhaps be added to the above list for completeness. --Aquillion 04:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to work with him to develop an Rfc on the issues he contests and with little luck. I haven't given up hope as I think he may realize that the only way to get his way is to follow procedure. The editor is no dummy, he's just new to the way things are done here...we need to try to give him a chance ...maybe a day or two longer unless he 3RR's or continues to make personal attacks.--MONGO 05:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

User:216.175.112.9

Someone at this IP has three times removed a suspected sock puppet tag on the user page, first placed there by Derex, then reverted back by Hoary, then by me. This page and the user page has been blanked in the past. Please advise. paul klenk ^talk 05:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet tags are pointless and an endless source of conflict. Just leave the tag off; if the user is a sock puppet of a user that has been blocked or banned and there is concensus that they're a sock puppet the same counts for them; if the user they're a sock puppet of isn't blocked or banned, just mentally substitute the name when you're reading their signatures. --fvw* 05:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll leave it alone. paul klenk ^talk 05:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Does EarthLink give their IPs out dynamically, statically, or something in between? Func( t, c, @, ) 15:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The web suggests that static IPs are a premium service on earthlink. On the bright side, the user in question doesn't appear to have figured out how to change his IP yet. --fvw* 15:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

I'd appreciate it if an admin or two could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#Dbenbenn Violations of CfD and express an opinion there. Thanks! dbenbenn | talk 20:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but I left a comment. I was about to move the contents of Category:Washington, District of Columbia back to Category:Washington, D.C. per Cfd decision as well as prior deletion. I also left a note on Category talk:Washington, District of Columbia. ∞Who?¿? 20:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have moved the contents back to the other category following this cfd discussion. I will not place a speedy tag on the category however. But think Category:Washington, District of Columbia should be deleted under WP:CSD general rule #4. ∞Who?¿? 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Khan

Can someone look over the situation here? Sher Khan is a probable hoax article that I marked for deletion, believing it connected to another hoax perpetrated around this time last year. Someone using South African IP addresses has removed the AfD and dispute tags, and altered my signed comments to remove reference to the original hoax, remove information about an IP address used to edit the article, remove a request not to edit my comments, and to again remove information about the IP address. He says he "cannot and will not leave personal indiscretions on this site which are of no concern to the matter discussed"; for reasons which I've explained there, I believe information about the IP address is highly relevant to the discussion. I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could have a word with this guy about discussion etiquette, as I don't seem to be getting through to him. I'd also rather not block him over a dispute in which I'm involved, but I don't want my relevant comments deleted from the page either. Thanks. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Warned and I put the page on my watchlist. If it happens again, I'll block him. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

70.19.72.158 is repeatedly adding some very POV material to Rick Santorum. I've used up my 3; could someone else take a look please? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted his edits and blocked for 3 hours for inserting ridiculous, bloggish opinion bordering on vandalism. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Jocker City

Can we have a vprotect on this page please - it's vandalized at a high rate. --Hornlock 09:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also needs vprotect for Obesta too - vandalized a lot. --Hornlock 09:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Both these articles are complete hoaxes, deleted many times before, please stop adding them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

They're not hoaxes at all. --Hornlock 09:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and stop deleting Jocker City, admins - if you doubt that it's genuine use the article's talk page. --Gala50 09:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC

For the 2 users above: please provide checkable sources :) Lectonar 09:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you vprotect the article and discuss it on the talk page instead please rather than deleting it entirely. --Gala50 09:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, I see no need for that; remember: provide sources, and make it into a nice article. Cheers Lectonar 09:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To any admins reading this: Both user accounts (Hornlock and Gala50) above are sock puppets, their only contributions being to this noticeboard page. The entire article Jocker City is a hoax contributed by a vandal, and I think these users are sock puppets of that vandal. — JIP | Talk 21:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked them long ago. :) No worries. --Golbez 21:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Trolling and subtle vandalism at Encyclopaedia Dramatica

Take a look at this diff [[22]] and the history [[23]] and you will see that a number of users from ED and the GNAA have been trolling the article. Administrator intervention and blocking of the offenders requested. Erwin

Indefintely blocked User:Jacknstock, as the account was created for the sole purpose of vandalism. Fawcett5 12:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Bloodsport (film) and commandofans

A group of editors from a message board at "commandofans.com" have recently teamed up to continuously revert a copyright violation at Bloodsport (film). Although I've messaged all of them about this with {{nothanks}} and pointed them to the talk page, which explains the issue, they seem dedicated to pasting re-pasting the copyvio (which is the description from the back of the DVD, also rather unencyclopedic in style) and totally non-responsive to my explanations. (On their message board they have even suggested a "war on wikis" and threatened to mail-bomb me [24]!) They have also introduced copyvio text to Vernon Wells and perhaps other related articles. So, my question is, what is the right way to deal with it? Page protection? My reverts get re-reverted in a matter of minutes, and WP:CP seems wrong because both pages have useful history. — brighterorange (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the reverse of a DVD is probably fair use, being promotional material, but not when used in whole since we must use the minimum necessary. I think it would be ok to edit it down, to meet copyright and NPOV etc. I left a message to that effect on the talk page already. -Splash^talk 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that repeated and persistent reinsertion of copyvio material–particularly after a warning has been issued–would fall under our vandalism policy. The editors involved can be blocked and the article protected, should it become necessary. I would suggest that we can't reprint the promotional text from a DVD under fair use unless we're actually commenting on the promotional blurb itself. Speaking as an editor rather than an admin, I would have to say that we should all be ashamed and embarrassed if we're so desperate for content that we'll accept a trimmed-down box blurb as an article.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A gentle note to -Ril-

Ril is now unblocked, but Jimbo has left him a gentle note to cool it [25] - one hopes this will be sufficient - David Gerard 18:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• snort* Gentle. I like that. --Deathphoenix 21:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What was Ril accused of doing in the first place? All I remember is he had an unusual sig. Everyking 22:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe you'll find all the accusations you're looking for in a certain WP:RfAr. -Splash^talk 22:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know there was an RfAr...can somebody link it, then? Everyking 22:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's here. You'll also find information on his talk page about his constant attempts to insert porn images into Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

So there hasn't actually been a decision, just an injunction? Everyking 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't link it because, as with all current RfArs it is linked directly off the page I did link. -Splash^talk 22:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have gone anyway - in the week after his blocking six socks appeared, but all quiet for a month now. You know, life just isn't the same withour -Ril-...--Doc (?) 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I know... it's better! Dmcdevit·t 23:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

User Gorgonzilla Continually Making Repeated Personal Attacks

I've been subjected to non-stop unprovoked calumny from this guy including on Admin pages. Here is but one example:

"The article is neither out of date or disputed as POV with the exception of one individual who insists on editing it to insert his own personal theories. The same user has also taken to re-routing redirect pages to publicize his own POV theories. If the protect is not quickly replaced then we are going to see a return to 9 or more reverts each day from JimmyCrackedCorn and his sockpuppets. --Gorgonzilla 03:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)" From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=24047358#Ray_Nagin

His problem seems to be his POV based zeal to suppress facts surrounding what Mayor Nagin's responsibilities were during Hurricane Katrina under the State of Louisiana's Evacuation Plan. Please have an admin type talk to him about his non-stop personal attacks. Thanks. --JimmyCrackedCorn 04:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That isn't a personal attack. this is though, so I suggest you read WP:NPA. I've left an admin type talk on your talk page just to make sure the message got across. --fvw* 04:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

He's being deliberately obtuse. I've attempted to give him a clue. See his Talk page, please.

Since Jimmy brought up his own revert warring, perhaps an admin would like to take a look at all the sockpuppets he keeps using, and at his baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against others.--chris.lawson 04:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this a sockpuppet of his? I'm not all that familiar with the people in the conflict, but my instincts point to yes. They've been wrong before though. --fvw* 05:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My gut says no. No edit summaries, no accusations of sockpuppetry, no revert-warring. The M.O. isn't remotely similar, although the subject matter is. Worth keeping an eye on for now, though.--chris.lawson 11:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --fvw* 14:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This looks pretty suspicious, though.--chris.lawson 23:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If he is not a sock of LJS it is kinda strange that he is the only other person to introduce a stealth article into the 'First responder' redirect page LJS version history

The not very subtle objective here is to redefine first responder to absolve federal officials from blame in the Katrina matter. That is why he created the page on Mayor Nabin and the Katrina School Buses Controversy - a controversy only he sees.

This is not merely POV it is an attempt to bend wikipedia into a propaganda platform. If you look at the work of his other sockpuppets you will find similar schemes under way on [ANWR oil reserves] and [Ronnie Earle]. Its the same MO, ridiculous claims from extreme partisan organizations are introduced as unbiased fact. Anyone who objects to them is accused of bias, sockpuppetry etc. The astroturfing of the VFD on nagin buses is yet another example. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fox News

Finally, I have been regularly accused of being a sock of Aquilon by this individual. I don't know where Acquilon is but anyone who looks at our IP addresses will quickly see that most of my posts come from one IP address (my house) and unless by some strange chance he lives close his IP address is entirely different. --Gorgonzilla 19:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rainbowwarrior1977

Redwolf24 has indefinitely blocked this user. Somehow I can see this one standing. In the meantime, I've blocked two of his socks as well: PaulKlenk and TheDeletator. He's coming in from Level3 dialups in Orlando, so I expect we'll see him again and again and again - David Gerard 16:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Larsoner and sockpuppets

Per the page-top provision that "any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted" (which I freely admit I wrote myself), I have removed most of this item, as well as all of the other two larsoner sockdrawer threads on this page, plus removed a couple of derogatory remarks against, uh, all these users by David Gerard. Here is the information extracted from all the threads:

A neo-Nazi. Jayjg and I have blocked Larsoner and his socks: Okcaw BottomLine, Provost, Asdfasdfasdfasdf, Mainpage519 and DannyZz. Ameritech dynamic DSL addresses from Chicago, if you spot this sort of activity again - David Gerard 16:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw you using the multiple names to "support" yourself. Go away. - David Gerard 23:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For more information about this editor, see User:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I hereby insert a short summary of the messages posted by Larsoner, Larsoner2, Larsoner3, Larsoner5, Larsoner6, Larsoner7, Larsoner8, Larsoner9: they all deny that Larsoner has used any sockpuppets, and claim that there is no way of proving sockpuppetry anyway.

Any further messages from any Larsoner should be inserted in this thread, but if they fail to add anything substantive or are rude, they will be promptly deleted. Please remove any Larsoner threads started elsewhere on sight. Multiple and repetitious threads should not be created for one subject. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked his IP addresses for 24 hours, so he can get some rest from creating new sockpuppets. Not that there's any evidence that he's ever created any sockpuppets, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

209.91.172.131

I have just blocked Special:Contributions/209.91.172.131 for 24 hours. This person has made legal threats regarding use of a name or material at the Help Desk before, and has been warned. They have just (completed) a vandalism spree e.g [26] regarding the same issue. Given the message in that diff, we might need to offer them the chance to take a break in future, too. They do, however, appear to change IP address so I don't know if the block will stick. -Splash^talk 17:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, her again. Yeah, I'd say go for it. Maybe limit the blocks to twelve hours though, it doesn't look like she's sticking around on a single IP that long anyway. --fvw* 17:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

She needs to go to the Foundation or something, but I can barely decipher the request she's making, to be honest, but it seems that in making it, she's adding her name(s?) to our archives! I thought about a shorter block, but this particular IP has never edited Wiki before, so there shouldn't be any collateral damage. -Splash^talk 17:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't know that, you can only tell that that IP hasn't edited wikipedia without logging in before. Sometimes I wish we just published IPs along with usernames. --fvw* 17:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, good point. I'll go reblock to 12 hours. -Splash^talk 17:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never had any intention of using that Romulan woman's name anywhere on Wikipedia, and now I have even less so. Why does she keep telling people not to do something that they wouldn't do anyway? It seems that she was the one who first used her name on Wikipedia, to be able to claim Wikipedia had user her name without permission. This makes her a troll. — JIP | Talk 20:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe she refers to Alt.romath. She still has absolutely no legal ground. ~~ N (t/c) 22:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9

I was recently blocked by the administrator Lucky 6.9. The reasons he stated was that I violated the 3RR rule. He also said I had a history of questionable edits. I believe he was mistaken, and I emailed him twice about these happening and have got no response. I then looked at his user profile. He said he was going on vacation and I think he may be gone for a long time. I was wondering if someone else could unblock me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJMyers2 (talk • contribs) 16:55 ET, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming this isn't the account he blocked. It would really help if we knew which one WAS blocked. --Golbez 22:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be the only recent block by Lucky 6.9 that mentions both 3RR and questionable edits [27]. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Flower album

Shouldn't this be on commons or something?Geni 23:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is really the page for this, but I can't tell you what page is better. :-/ None-the-less--the problem with this and everything else descending from Wikipedia:List of images is that currently someone has to download the image to their local system and reupload it to commons and then retype the text from the original image. Most people don't really want to spend time doing that, although some do gradually make their way over there. Elf | Talk 23:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

User:KennyWILLY and User:WILLOBIE

• KennyWILLY (talk • contribs • block • block log)
• WILLOBIE (talk • contribs • block • block log)

I might be paranoid or something, but these two accounts were recently registered and neither of them have made an edit yet. So I am thinking of blocking them for being a suspected sock of our "friend" WILLY on WHEELS. Is my feeling warranted? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, absolutely not. They could be Willy, but it's more likely they're not. If they actually are Willy and start vandalizing, Curps's bot will get them. ~~ N (t/c) 23:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we still have the "new accounts can't move until they've been around for a bit" rule? If so, I'd block if they don't edit within a week, and leave a message on the talk page explaining the fear and asking them to just drop you an e-mail if they're not Willy. Snowspinner 00:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, no page moves while in the most recent 1% of accounts. Which with the rate of growth of Wikipedia amounts to about 4 days. Dragons flight 00:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts II

There's an edit war breaking out here. There's s been over 70 edits wihtin the past hour. Most of the people are coming in through anons. Toffile 23:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Forsworth

Forsworth (talk · contribs) Registered today and has since been making rapid edits to the Sandbox which consist of replacing the word 'cool' with 'wow' and then vice-versa. There are many of these a minute. I blocked him for 15 minutes to try to work out why he's doing this. Does seem to be a strange thing to do. David | Talk 23:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Just give him progressively longer blocks, this clearly falls in the disruption category. --fvw* 00:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds more like "Wow, does this thing really work?" to me. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder

I've blocked User:Njyoder for 48 hours because of this edit: [28]. Snowspinner 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. --fvw* 00:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Dudtz userpage

An admin want to rollback this page to get the phone number out of the history left by this anon 152.163.100.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). ∞Who?¿? 00:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, rollbacking does NOT remove it from the history. Thats just the one click thing... Redwolf24 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 01:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the respective edit from the edit history of that page. -- Francs2000 File:Uk flag large.png 01:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Not important, merely a privacy issue. ∞Who?¿? 01:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Francesco Crispi and the Swedish editors

Three editors who have apparently been banned on Swedish Wikipedia over an issue of Albanian nationalism have taken to arguing with each other over the last 24 hours on my talk page. Quite why they chose me I don't know but I'm in the middle of a big project at work at the moment and need to focus my energy there, not here. From what I can tell it boils down to whether Francesco Crispi is Albanian or not. Each is warning of an impending edit war if the other two aren't banned sometime soon. The three editors in question are L'Houngan (talk · contribs), Albanau (talk · contribs) and Probert (talk · contribs). I have left messages for them asking them not to involve me and to come here if they require admin assistance. -- Francs2000 File:Uk flag large.png 01:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:L'Houngan & User:Albanau

Users L'Houngan and Albanau have been engaged in recent edit wars, e.g. Francesco Crispi. User:L'Houngan, who is identical with sv:Användare:L'Houngan, is widely considered to be a sock puppet of User:Albanau, also known as sv:Användare:Albanau, who BTW is banned indefinitely on Swedish Wikipedia, see his sv:RfC. On September 28, 2005 at 01.50 PM (local time) sv:Användare:L'Houngan was blocked for 1 day by sv:Användare:Grillo, see sv:Block log and his sv:RfC. L'Houngan, who is an extreme Albanian nationalist, has been a real nuisance on Swedish Wikipedia, and he is now agitating on English Wikipedia! Probert 01:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Ed_Poor

seems to be slipping off the deep end, doesn't seem to have many constructive eidts, mostly a POV warrior, who seems quite determined to save wikipedia from "evolutionists", I doubt much will come of this, I mean he's the guy who usually makes most of the administrative descions around here, so it's not like he'll warn himself off..--64.12.116.5 03:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What has he done specifically that you're complaining about? Everyking 03:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, for one thing, he keeps copy/pasting things directly out of the whashington times, then making them into their own articles, when people VfD them, he declares the vote invalid, and un-deletes them, on the ground that he's being persecuted by evolutionists..

..so pretty much.. most of this--64.12.116.5 03:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, once Ed got the clear message that he was above the rules a few weeks back, this was bound to happen. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

64.12.116.5, that last link of yours lists 5000 items per page. It will crash or freeze some users' computers. I hope you will not mind my taking the liberty of reducing it to 100.—encephalon 08:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed doesn't appear to have undeleted anything[29] of relivance. He is so heavily outnumbered that even a highly skilled edit warriour (and Ed poor itn't) would have significant difficulty in wining through. If he starts abusing his admin powers we might start to worry. There is nothing in the rules against admins have a point of view. We would be in serious trouble if there was.Geni 18:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, obviously, you're using a shared IP, but your accusations would have more value if you provided specific examples, and your talk page didn't look like this. Physician, heal thyself.--Scimitar ^parley 21:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, my talk page looks like that because AOL routes 50 or 60 thousand people through the same subnet at the same time, and rotates them from server to server at complete random..
  • And you don't register a user name because why, exactly? That's a pretty trivial solution. You don't have to provide any personal information, and you'll be taken vastly more seriously. MCB 18:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oh good, now instead of an AOL anon, I'm a one post user... *crickets* ..now I'm waiting for someone to call me a sockpuppet--Biochemist 1 02:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying, is if he was an anon editor instead of an admin, he'd probably have a 24 hour block by now, so there is somewhat of a double standard--152.163.100.5 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User:24.54.208.177

24.54.208.177 (talk · contribs)
I've managed this badly. Open to the floor: Is this disruption? Also changes to guidelines and contribtutions to DoYouDo AfD.
brenneman^(t)(c) 04:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed that "preserve information" nonsense from the page history of anonymous matching since it's an admitted attempt to circumvent the AfD. And yes, for what it's worth, I consider that disruption. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

after edit conflictI personally would consider that first diff highly disruptive, and I have blocked that IP for 48 hours, while we work out what to do. I will accept another admin unblocking (or shortening) if they disagree with me on this, however.

And the anon is wrong of course, we can simply delete the relevant revision from the page history — no developer needed. I wonder what the GFDL issues are, but I suspect they don't matter since the whole content was removed by the same editor who made it with no intervening contributions by any other user. The following and preceding articles are in no way derived from it. -Splash^talk 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I was on RC patrol the day the anon created doyoudo. Literally saw it being created. It was immediately apparent to me that he was likely a very experienced user, and had some familiarity with WP policies. The article was pretty NPOV, the language balanced, the text wikied, the sources cited—he was careful to put in references to independent sources (eg. the patent, some magazine reports etc). None of the usual hallmarks of crude spamming. I debated whether to AfD, but decided not to because it met guidelines—and I've seen business articles with far less clear AfD. Of course, since Aaron's AfD we've seen what else he has been up to: he's placed links and bits of text about this company and the concept all over the place, even when they were quite inappropriate or only peripherally related. And the relevations on AfD and elsewhere have been quite disquieting: he was even making article edits and AfD comments driven by personal financial considerations. I agree with Splash and khaosworks on that diff, and the block. Good call in my book.—encephalon 09:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the anon's shenanigans on the AFD page have been extremely frustrating. In either case, Encephalon, if you definitely think that the article should be deleted, can you vote on the AFD page? At 6 Keep:9 Delete right now, the case for consensus is not as clear as I'd like it to be before the debate is closed once and for all. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I call for the question. It's been on there beyond seven days, and with the tally at 10-7 (counting both the nominator and the article's principal author), rough consensus to delete has clearly not been achieved. 205.217.105.2 15:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I continue to be quite taken aback at the actions of 205.217.105.2 (talk · contribs) AKA 24.54.208.177 (talk · contribs). He edited the AfD page after the above disruptive actions, ostensibly to wikify a comment. In doing so he also removed a post—the one where he'd admitted that his editing and creating articles and voting on AfD were driven by commercial self-interest. This removal was done under the edit summary "wfy". There were no other contributors making edits at that time to that AfD, so it seems unlikely that some sort of edit glitch related to another user's editing caused removal of the comment, as is known to occur on occasion. The "admission" was posted one hour prior to its removal, and in the meantime User:24.54.208.177 continued to work on the AfD, making 5 separate edits without any problems. I try very, very hard to always assume good faith, and I'm willing to take it on faith that this was some sort of mistake. I hope User:24.54.208.177 will replace the deleted text.—encephalon 07:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

He (as in 205.217.105.2 (talk · contribs · block log) has also inserted the DoyouDo information into the history at User:Tparker393/DoYouDo (edit | [[Talk:User:Tparker393/DoYouDo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which leads me to believe that Tparker393 is another sock. --07:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, khaosworks, thank you for that. However, he seems to have denied it on the AfD, claiming that they are different users who "have been working in close concert." I would like to believe that is the truth. Incidentally Calton, bless him, has gone ahead and replaced 24.54.208.177's deleted comments admitting to the use of Wikipedia for personal commercial gain.—encephalon 07:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush vandalism

George W. Bush has lately been vandalised a lot by newly registered users. I have blocked one of them for 24 hours. I suspect they are sock puppets of a known vandal. — JIP | Talk 07:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• George W. Bush is a common vandal target for people who dislike him. Whether they're sockpuppets is hard if not impossible to tell. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush is an article I've edited quite a lot. My recollection is that the article was vandalized all the time, but that the watchlist fairies did such an excellent job of reverting the vandalism that we could just edit through all the crap. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Photosynthesis Vandal

This vandal has attacked Wayne Rooney, George W. Bush and Tony Blair all saying that they are capable of photosynthesis. Complete nonsense. --Blackrunner 08:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• He has done the same to Jordan Capri. Incidentally, Jordan Capri's AfD is coming close to ending, but because of its size and my own involvement in the debate (I voted keep) I don't want to close it myself. — JIP | Talk 09:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The vandal was at it again on Nadine Coyle and other articles. Repeatedly adding nonsense saying that person is capable of photosynthesis. As bad as the Female Cyclist Vandal and Willy on Wheels. See block log for current usernames of this vandal. --HotQuantum1000 11:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, easy to spot, easy to block. A real Dodo... Lupo 11:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Advice on use of user space sought

Please take a look at the various subpages of User:Manfred_Riebe. Riebe has been banned on the de: Wikipedia on April 4, 2005 and is using his "user space" here to present German-language forks of articles in the German Wikipedia (e.g. User:Manfred_Riebe/Theodor_Ickler vs. de:Theodor Ickler) he does not agree with, essentially publishing his own little encyclopedia in German here. Other pages are attack pages on the German Wikipedia (e.g. User:Manfred Riebe/SPERRVERFAHREN), or outright propaganda (User:Manfred_Riebe/OSTERMARSCH 2005). The user has very few edits in our article space—I found only one on Karin Stoiber, plus a few on Talk:German spelling reform of 1996. Obviously, he's not interested in participating here in the English Wikipedia but is just abusing our hospitality. I feel that this contradicts both Wikipedia:User_page and that Wikipedia is not a free web space provider. Mr. Riebe is free to publish his rants on his own web site, but they're inappropriate here. The Italian Wikipedia apparently had banned him, too, and deleted all his German pages: see it:Discussioni_utente:Manfred_Riebe and it:Discussioni Wikipedia:Politiche di blocco degli utenti#it.wiki - terra di asilo politico?. Comments, anyone? Lupo 16:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I say delete the lot and warn him if he continues he'll be blocked; but it is probably best to get a few opinions here first in such cases, as you've wisely done. --fvw* 16:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have WP:MD... Lupo 16:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of different language WPs, so he's got lots to choose from even if we kick him out here. Ideally there'd be an agreement whereby he could put this stuff back on de:. Otherwise I guess put it to a deletion vote. Everyking 16:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

There has been a dispute over whether the article should report both sets of names used by the two countries which claim the islands, or only the British names. Duncharris, who was involved in the dispute, rolled back to go to his preferred version, then protected on that version, but continued editing the protected page. Jonathunder 16:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously he shouldn't do that. As an aside it looks like the dispute is not over whether to report the Argentine name but whether to give it equal time, or something close to that, alongside the English name (obviously failing to report it altogether would be unacceptable). Everyking 16:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The version rolled back to and protected on deletes the other set of names entirely. How to report both sets is something being discussed, and could be edited if the page were not inappropriately protected. It wasn't even listed on protected pages. Jonathunder 16:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it does say: "Argentina is the only country to still maintain a claim over the islands, which they call Islas Malvinas and other territories, in the South Atlantic currently under British dominion." Everyking 16:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is wrong that the article claims to being protected against vandalism. Duncharris' post protection edit, while strictly not by the books, doesn't affect the dispute, was minor and including spelling centre correctly. I think he shouldn't have reverted just before protecting but if it is unprotected right now I would guess further warring may break out, and maybe it should be frozen till tomorrow (it doesn't matter to whicvh version, but do change the template. BTW the whole Spanish speaking world and not just Argentina calls them the Malvinas, SqueakBox 16:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeez. As someone completely uninvolved in the dispute (and having no particular opinion on the matter) I find it pretty unsettling that an administrator would use their access to lock others out of an article and push their own opinion on something as petty as a naming dispute. Isn't it time for Wikipedia to demonstrate that admins who blatantly abuse their privileges don't get to stay admins? --FOo 16:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

De-sysopping him over one incident is insane, but yes, we should desysop admins who repeatedly blatantly abuse their privileges. The arbitration committee has done this in the past, to my knowledge. Anyway, what was Duncharris thinking? He should know better. :( Anyway, I think we should just let him know that we don't approve of this behaviour, and remind him that admin powers are intended to be used to uphold what the community wants. They are not editorial privileges. Also, edit wars are silly. I've never reverted more then once in my entire wikipedia career. --Phroziac^(talk) 17:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, he has edited the page in the immediate past prior to the current dispute so he's obviously been involved in the page. I don't know enough about the dispute to know whether he's been involved or not in what could substantially be called a content dispute, but he obviously thinks whatever is going on is vandalism or he wouldn't have used the vprotect tag. I'd say protecting the page and then editing it is fairly irregular from what I've seen so far (which is a cursory look), but let's let him defend himself here before we pillory him. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As a participant of that dispute, I can safely say that the protection was unnecessary and somebody should investigate the matter. Oddly enough, I agree with Duncharris' views on this matter but I think that reverting-protecting-editing is something that goes against Wiki-spirit and maybe desysoping him is too extreme but a very stern warning is surely warranted. The sad part is that by doing this he makes the argument he was defending weaker, not stronger. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

He didn't make any argument: unlike the other participants in this content dispute, he has not commented on the article's talk page at all. He did imply, by his use of rollback and by the page protection caption, that the edits he opposed were vandalism. This is something I very much object to, as I have never vandalised Wikipedia. Ever. Jonathunder 18:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Having started the problem by inluding the Argentine names, I am suprised how aggressivly such a name issue is handled in the English Wikipedia. I only wanted to do the same as in the German Wikipedia: To give both side (the British and the Argentine) the same amount of space because both have a valid claim on these islands. Besides of that I find it quite silly to dispute on a couple of rocks in the Southern Atlantic and go to war for that. --ALE! 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This page was unprotected by Duncharris 5 minutes ago. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

To claim Argentina and the UK both have an equally valid claim to the islands is very POV, wrong (the UK are the actual rulers) and should be dealt with at Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 19:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is really not my business to defend the Argentine point of view, but only so much: Look at a world map. To which country are these islands closer? And if you read Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands I think there are enough arguments as valid for the Argentine claim as there are for the British claim. Current rule does not make the point. With the same argument all of Africa would be still under European rule. --ALE! 20:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Guys, this discussion exceeds the WP:ANI purview. I am sure that our admins will gladly see this discussion move to the proper place: Talk:Falkland Islands or Talk:Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I admit that I acted hastily and did not explain my actions properly. I should have used the two versions tag not the vandalism one. However, those changes went against what the established consensus has been on that page to use the English, with the Spanish mentioned quite soon afterwards. The addition of the name Puerto Argentino which was a name applied by the Argentines to the capital in 1982, and has no basis for its use (unlike the name Las Malvinas which has a proper origin in the French Iles Malouines, Puerto Argentino has its origins in Argentine nationalism). He may not have realised this and so the "vandalism" was unintentional rather than deliberate. I unprotected it a few hours afterwards after I returned. As for the other language Wikipedias, they can and do have NPOV problems too. Dunc|☺ 20:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Love Virus

I have just blocked 62.111.220.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 'love Virus' redirecting. Strange, since I hadn't noted this type of vandalism from an IP. I've blocked him indefinitely for now, but as a new admin, I'd like some advice as to whether this should be a timed block and for how long. If there's a protocol here - I'm happy to have by block altered. --Doc (?) 22:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

We don't normaly block IPs for more than say a month.Geni 22:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but as it turns out it's an open proxy (the proxy tester entry in the contribs is a dead giveaway), so I've reblocked as a {{BlockedProxy}}. --fvw* 22:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 included several "enforcements". One was a ban on user:Herschelkrustofsky inserting "material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article". Recently, that editor repeatedly added material into a non-LaRouche article (American System (economics)) supporting a theory which is apparently unique to LaRouche. (The American System is integral to LaRouche's political theory). When I asked him on his talk page to provide a non-LaRouche source, he called the request vandalism. He hasn't provided any such source on the article talk page either. See [30], [31], Talk:American System (economics), and User talk:Herschelkrustofsky/threats and insults.

In related incidents, the same editor pushed the LaRouche POV in this edit [32]. And an IP identified by the ArbCom as belonging to the same editor made this edit to a LaRouche-related article, [33], which inserted "unsubstantiated derogatory claims" into the article. So the occurence above is not isolated.

I believe that this editor is returning to the behavior which led to the two previous arbitrations, and I think that the ban enforcement called for by the ArbCom should be implemented. Namely, he should be blocked for up to a week, and the ban reset. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 23:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that as Willmcw was executing his second revert on that article today, I was completing my response to his allegations, which may be seen at Talk:American System (economics). I would ask that you take a moment to read my response.

Willmcw appears to allege that this edit was made by myself. This allegation is false. If I understand his argument, he may be insinuating that this edit originated from a computer at my workplace, where there are approximately 100 young people, many of whom use Wikipedia. After the last ArbCom ruling, where I was found to be using sockpuppets for the simple reason that I and many others were using the same IP address, I have discontinued using that address. The poor grammar of the edit Willmcw wishes to attribute to me is certainly not my style.

I also maintain that Willmcw is carrying out a campaign of harassment, with the intention not of improving the article(s) in question, but of making my participation as an editor sufficiently unpleasant that I will will leave the project. Please note that there have been numerous complaints by other editors against Willmcw for carrying out similar activity, complaints which have fueled a debate about the practice of "WikiStalking," and a request for action by Rangerdude that is presently under consideration by the ArbCom. --HK 23:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement of the Arbitration remedies which have been enacted concerning Herschelkrustofsky is not Wikistalking. It is doing your job. Fred Bauder 23:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. Hearing no other objection, I will place a one week block on this editor, and reset the special editing bans. -Willmcw 05:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Given that there appears to be some debate at the American System article as to whether HK has inserted LaRouche material, and given that Willmcw has a lengthy history of animosity with HK dating back to and including the Arbcom case that is being cited as a basis for the ban but also including numerous other disputes, it would probably be better for this case, and any related blocking penalty, to be reviewed by a more neutral administrator than Willmcw. I state this without taking a position on the merits (or lack thereof) in this case regarding whether the LaRouche block was violated. If it is deemed that the block was violated, however, this judgment should be made in a transparent manner by a party who is NOT simultaneously involved in historical and current ongoing disputes with the editor being accused of violating the Arbcom block. Rangerdude 05:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to bring actions to the attention of the community in order for review. As with most all problem editors, the attention of the community is beneficial. This editor has been a serious, long-term problem for Wikipedia and involved in two previous arbitrations. Note that the ArbCom's decision repeatedly says that it may be enforced by "any administrator", not "any uninvolved editor". Enforcements are reviewable by the community. If another administrator feels that User:Herschelkrustofsky is neither edit warring nor pushing the LaRouche POV then they might say so and clear or alter the enforcement. That's the way everything on Wikipedia works. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Your initial post seeking community input was on 9/29 at 23:06 and HK responded about half an hour later. You announced your decision to impose a ban on HK on 9/30 at 05:06, or exactly six hours after the original post. In doing so you cited your rationale as being that you heard "no further objection." A mere six hours is not time for sufficient community consideration of anything on wikipedia, and even if it were a more neutral and mature administrator would recuse himself from ban decisions in a case where he was a long term dispute participant. In the very least the responsible thing to do would be (1) allow time for a greater cross-section of wikipedians to review your request and (2) should you still desire a ban upon the expiration of that time, seek out a neutral third party to do it so as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. It's a simple matter of etiquette and transparency to do these two things, whether you technically have the power to impose a ban unilaterally or not. Rangerdude 06:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been over 24 hours and no one has stepped forward to claim HK's innocence (except HK himself). Cheers, -Willmcw 02:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Remedies

Sockpuppet abuse

1) Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely. This includes the accounts User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden. Nor is Herschelkrustofsky to edit anonymously.

Passed 7-0.

All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely. Fred Bauder 23:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

POV parole

4) Herschelkrustofsky is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way.

Passed 6-1.

Ban on editing LaRouche-related articles

5) Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect.

Passed 7-0.

Administrators may use their discretion Fred Bauder 23:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Suspected new User:Wik aka Gzornenplatz aka NoPuzzleStranger sockpuppet

Rivarez is strongly suspected by myself and others of being a sockpuppet/recreated account of the 3-times banned troll above. Rivarez appeared soon after Jimbo hard-banned NoPuzzleStranger, displaying a strange familiarity with Wikipedia processes and procedures, and a strangely familiar focus on similar central European history, politics and biography articles as NoPuzzleStranger & co, particularly Party of the Left. Rivarez has gone on to engage in behaviour identical in tone and nature to NoPuzzleStranger & co, on identical articles, including Empire of Atlantium and Sealand. Within the past 3 days Rivarez has been banned for 24 hours, twice, for abusing the 3RR when edit-warring against multiple editors and ignoring both consensus and invitations to contribute to ongoing discussions at Sealand. In perpetrating this particular edit war Rivarez has used trolling techniques perfected by NoPuzzleStranger & co, including the use of misleading and abusive edit summaries, discussions-by-edit-summary, and ignoring and deleting talk page requests. I therefore request that Wikipedia's admins place this disruptive editor under close observation until such time as his behaviour is appropriately modified, or his identity is confirmed sufficient that he banned (yet again).--Gene_poole 05:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. My understanding is that with disruptive users who have an Arbcom history, you can request a legitimate IP check from a Checkuser. Try David Gerard.—encephalon 07:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

CheckUser is horribly slow at times - querying for IPs for a username is a pretty heavy-duty query, so the system happily times it out if it's taking too long, and this can go on for hours at heavy load times. That said, CheckUser isn't magical pixie dust - NoPuzzleStranger didn't edit from any of the ranges Wik/Gz did, and neither is Rivarez ... but was apparent by his obnoxious behaviour. (And that his name was an anagram of User:Gzornenplatz, which I didn't spot either.) The guy is fiercely dedicated to Wikipedia ... if only he wasn't such a dick about it, and in such a way that it's obvious it's him. Next he'll find Cantus' latest sockpuppet to edit-war with, you watch - David Gerard 13:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah, that's the problem, isn't it? It's not just the good guys who're "dedicated" to WP.—encephalon 06:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If there was any kind of logic at work here whatsoever, we'd let him edit and simply penalize him for things such as edit warring while not attempting to inhibit his many good contributions. But alas. The ruling was issued in May 2004 and we still haven't fixed it. Surely having him edit under one account, with plenty of people warily watching him and a certain sense of accountability that comes with being an accepted member of the community, is better than this. Everyking 17:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that penalizing for bad contributions takes the time of administrators and other editors. Dealing with trolling or revert warring takes time and effort, and may scare off new contributors. If lots of people have to 'warily watch' an editor, then that editor probably isn't suited to work here in the first place.

If he wants to be an 'accepted member of the community', it's easy: he can start a new account, make positive contributions, and not revisit the bad habits that led to the original bans. ArbCom bans aren't real; anybody can get a clean slate and a new username. The only reason that these editors are banned repeatedly as socks is because they repeat the behaviour that got their original accounts banned. If the new accounts were well-behaved, they wouldn't end up being discussed here on AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I bet they would, if someone figured it out anyway. There are more clues to a person's identity than just revert warring over certain topics. And I have little doubt that in such a case the person would be banned even if they had a spotless record under that account. Everyking 03:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

In practice, they wouldn't. Remember Lir coming on and pointing at NoPuzzleStranger and shouting "WIK! WIK!" and no-one caring? Because he wasn't being a dick at the time - David Gerard 12:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ray Nagin and School Bus Controversy

Can anyone help me find this article - it's essential that I find it? Post the link if you can! --Hornwood 07:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm... can you spell Google? -- Chris 73 Talk 07:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 08:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The exact article on the school bus controversy I can't find either. --Sarthen1108 08:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Try Ray Nagin (??)- but next time the 'Help desk' (WP:HD) is for questions like this. --Doc (?) 08:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You are most likely looking for Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy. However, please be aware that because both of you are new accounts, your votes on the deletion discussion won't count.

Also, Doc is right; this page is not the appropriate place to ask this type of question. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 08:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

For those of you wondering what this is about, those were JimmyCrackedCorn sockpuppets, I think he's trying to make the point that people want to read his Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy POV-fork. --fvw* 08:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If this is true, then all he will be successful in is generating more votes to delete on AfD. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 08:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they are sockpuppets of whoever JimmyCrackedCorn is. People are genuinely studying the Mayor Nagin and Evacuation By School Buses Controversy, so it's a valid reason not to generate more votes to delete. --Treehorn 08:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's counterproductive - as this discussion made me find the afd - and vote 'delete' --Doc (?) 09:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The article should be kept - and not deleted, it's totally different to Ray Nagin anyway - just like the Iraq war is divided into many issues. --Longmans Run 09:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OK - this discussion should happen (and is happening) at afd - no more here please. --Doc (?) 09:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Has anybody blocked these socks? Sarthen1108 (talk · contribs), Hornwood (talk · contribs), Treehorn (talk · contribs), Longmans Run (talk · contribs) -- I'd do it myself, but have been involved in the dispute over Ray Nagin so I'd rather leave the task to someone else if it hasn't been done already. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rather stark IMHO and I took the opportunity to vote for deletion. Wyss 16:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppets

These NPOV dispute sock puppets are starting to appear faster than I can block them. Is there a more efficient solution to this, or do I just have to keep blocking them? — JIP | Talk 10:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, POV-pusher sockpuppets are increasingly numerous lately. I'm afraid it's block block block all the way, though if someone has a good idea I'd love to hear it. --fvw* 10:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbcomm? Guettarda 11:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems there are a LOT of people astroturfing the NPOV tag on various articles. Here's a list of the most NPOV/Controversial3/Disputed/TotallyDisputed articles, just for reference:

• Nadine Coyle
• Evangeline Lilly
• Girls Aloud
• Tony Blair
• Kelly Clarkson
• Obesity
• Manchester

Hope this helps. --Crodziuk 11:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If they don't put a remedyable objection on the talk page, the NPOV tag is removable. Who are some of the usernames in question? - David Gerard 13:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ehm, that would be Crodziuk the sockpuppet himself. --fvw* 13:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

One of the JimmyCrackedCorn/Ray Nagin socks has been active on the Girls Aloud page. He also added a totallydisputed tag to Pussycat Dolls. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

IMHO anyone adding an NPOV or Disputed tag on Girls Aloud, Pussycat Dolls or Darkwing Duck can be blocked indefinitely on sight, especially if they don't have any contributions prior to that day. — JIP | Talk 18:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A new user who I suspect to a sockpuppet, has added a Totally Disputed tag to Taryn Manning. How do we stop them? --Astwell1986 14:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Imposter using my name on es.wiki

Someone today created an imposter account on es.wiki. He is evidently posting messages in the User Discussion and possibly vandalism.

Imposter page on es.wiki

Please help me block that account. I actually want that user name for myself, if at all possible. It is my actual name.

Aren't I popular!?

paul klenk ^talk 17:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

An admin from es.wiki, "FAR", is helping me. Right now I think the situation is okay. But I do want that user name for myself -- I intended to actually create it today. If someone can help with that, it would be most appreciated. paul klenk ^talk 17:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't anything admins from en can help you with. You may want to contact a dev or someone like Angela, but really, this sounds like an issue to be handled on es, and only es. --Golbez 17:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

may not be deliberate. There is a geni on the german wikipedia who isn't me.Geni 19:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You could always register "Paul klenk", "PaulKlenk", or the like... or wait for the far-off days of single-login across projects when All This Will Be Resolved ;-) Shimgray | talk | 21:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It was deliberate as the es impersonator claimed to be the en Paul Klenk, come from NY etc, and with some of the worst Spanish I have ever seen, SqueakBox 21:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt it -- I think there was a sock registered as User:PaulKlenk that was banned. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User:PaulKlenk (no space) was a sock of Rainbowwarrior1977 - David Gerard 21:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"love virus" vandal

Well, the "love virus" vandal just struck, under the name Wikipresident (talk · contribs). Thanks to BrokenSegue (talk · contribs) for helping to clean up this mess. --Ixfd64 19:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Bloody MARMOT again. I've blocked the IP for three months. Here's to the devs for putting code into Mediawiki just for identifying the real IP of NTL users!

He'll keep coming in through open proxies, of course. So Cool Cat's user page can be a sort of open proxy detector, every time MARMOT swings by to vandalise it ;-) - David Gerard 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked proxy

I just wanted to ask if someone could check this for me. At User:Karl Meier's observation (see the bottom of User talk:Splash) I have blocked User:64.34.173.133 indefinitely as an open/anonymous proxy. However, SORBS said they hadn't come across the address, but ARIN.net certainly returns some odd results if it's an ordinary address. If I messed up, maybe someone could show me a way of determining these things? -Splash^talk 22:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I tested it manually. It is running an open proxy on port 80. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

While this method doesn't always work, but if you google that ip you'll find it's in the proxy lists [34]. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ehrlich

The user Erlich is Donald Alford (AKA DotSix) who has been injoined by the Arb Committee from editing any page except the evidence page for his Arb Hearing [35] and his own user pages. Please block him until the Arb action is completed. Thank you. --Nate Ladd 22:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The user name you give has zero contributions. Did you mispell? -Splash^talk 23:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. It is User:Ehrlich. --Nate Ladd 23:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll confirm Nate's suspicions. I thought I gave someone a heads-up about this a few days ago, but I've been really busy this week and it's entirely possible I meant to, and then forgot about it.--chris.lawson 00:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

On reviewing the evidence that was orignally offered at Talk:Atheism (and has since been added to the Dot6 RfArb) and on studying the contribs history for User:Ehrlich and User:Adrigo (whom I have previously blocked) I see that they edit in a manner so similar as to be indistinguishable from one another. They use edit summaries that are practically identical in some cases, and even created the same userspace subpage as each other. Adrigo=Dot6 is not to edit outside of their userpages and Arbitration for the duration of the case, but shows no sign of respecting that injunction. I have therefore blocked User:Ehrlich indefinitely, and that block can be lifted if appropriate once the Arbtitrators have deliberated. If he had confined his edits to the prescribed areas, there would be no need for a block at all, but as it is he should return to using other accounts or his original .6 IP to edit those spaces. -Splash^talk 15:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Now using 172.195.13.100 (talk · contribs).--chris.lawson 20:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation of Ed Poor by bot

I copied this here from WP:AIAV. -Splash^talk 03:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A bot is impersonating me and "moved" a hundred articles to 'deletion' titles. I don't have time to go and undo all this tonight. It's 11:30 P.M. in New York. See below, to get started. Thanks! Uncle Ed 03:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

1. 03:24, October 1, 2005, Ed Poor blocked #40350 (expires 03:24, October 2, 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Uncle Ed's major work 'bot". The reason given for Uncle Ed's major work 'bot's block is: "impersonating me, moving articles to strange titles".)
2. 03:24, October 1, 2005, Ed Poor blocked Uncle_Ed's_major_work_'bot (infinite) (contribs) (unblock) (impersonating me, moving articles to strange titles)

By way of observation, it is named after Uncle G's major work 'bot. -Splash^talk 03:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy, this should be fun. Is it just a matter of rolling back? · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of the earliest thing are made-up VfDs moved to made-up AfDs (the casing is all wrong, for example), so those are just deletions I think. Perhaps a bug in the bot when it was created. The later stuff (tonight) is reverting moves from the move log, yes. -Splash^talk 03:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe we've gotten 'em. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, looks like we got them all. Annoying that it moved some genuine AfDs to VfDs too, but I think I nobbled the never-existent redirects for those, too. -Splash^talk 04:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, and it moved some real articles to AFD, as well as a user's user and talk pages. Nasty bit of work. Time for a beer! Here's a toast to you · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

...and you <clinks beer glass> -Splash^talk 04:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

...and the others, too, of course. -Splash^talk 04:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

For reference: Uncle_Ed's_major_work_'bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Curps: was this below your bot's move-rate limit, or did you disable the bot? -Splash^talk 04:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

See the move log, it was done at a quite slow rate, slower than Uncle G's bot in fact. However I do have some ideas for detecting this sort of thing in the future, although it's hard to detect it in a way that there would be enough confidence for the bot to perform a block automatically without manual intervention. -- Curps 19:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow. It took me a while to understand what was going on here. So a vandal created an account, User:Uncle Ed's major work 'bot, and operated a bot under that name? Holy crap. I imagine someone with a mind to do it can create an innocent looking account and run a bot with it that made subtle changes to articles (like making changes to dates and factoids and such) that no one would immediately notice as suspicious. Is that possible? Imagine the damage if this was set loose on articles that are not heavily watched (or understood), eg. technical articles. Is this as scary as I think it is, or can it somehow be detected? Is there a way you can tell an account is a bot, if the creator has not specified on the User or talk page that it is (or in the Account name)?—encephalon 05:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that's right. Whether it was in fact a bot or a human is hard to tell; the account's creator just duplicated the userpages of User:Uncle G's major work 'bot which does the exact opposite of this 'bot (it moves VfDs to AfDs). Willy on Wheels appears only to have used an automated approach recently for example, but stacking up tabs in Firefox can make it look bot-like. Normally, the only way you can tell if an account is a bot is if it has been flagged as such in software (like admins are) — this is done after a request process and a Steward's intervention and can be checked in Special:Listusers. So if someone does run a bot without a flag, you can't tell unless the action rate is above what a human could achieve. A number of people (e.g. User:Uncle G and User:Who) run legitimate bots that are not bot-flagged yet, which muddies the waters. Normally, vandalbots are spotted by RC patrol because they edit so quickly and badly and can be blocked on sight (as can out-of-control normal bots). But if someone made a slow, sneaky vandalbot it could be a worrying while before anyone noticed what was going on, which is scary. In fact, I'm surprised this hasn't been done yet. WP:BEANS. -Splash^talk 14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey Splash, whatsup. Thanks for this. As it happens there's a discussion on the RFA Talk page right now about old vandals, and so I've been enlightened, so to speak, that these things have actually been done. It seems to me that the main reason serial vandals aren't usually subtle is that damage is not really their goal. It's what they use to get attention—they want everyone to see their handiwork. We'd be in a spot more trouble if they didn't.—encephalon 14:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Willy on Wheels publicly stated on Slashdot at one point that xe used multiple tabs in a tabbed web browser. I can confirm, from personal experience, that using multiple tabs can be mistaken for using a 'bot. At the beginning of 2005, long before I learned how to write 'bots, my use of a tabbed web browser was mistaken for the use of a 'bot at Wiktionary. Given the pattern of edits here, which is not regular enough for automation, it is unlikely that a 'bot was involved, and likely that the vandal was simply using a tabbed web browser. Uncle G 18:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• If approval was never asked at Wikipedia talk:Bots, or it's not listed on Wikipedia:Bots, it's almost definitely not kosher. ~~ N (t/c) 15:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! <slaps himself in the head> A few days ago I saw this bot account registered in the new users log, and I went to check it out. The user page looked legit, and on a cursory glance at the bot/user's log, it looked legit as well. I meant to ask Uncle Ed about this, but it slipped my mind. </ends slapping himself in head> Is everything cleaned up now? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Same here! This was the most confusing impersonation in a while, and the second time where I noticed something peculiar with a user name where I didn't take action...the last time was with User:Four Wheels...Anyway, I think everything is cleaned up now. By the way, is there a way to query the list of usernames? The other day I found an account which had the string "WILLY" in it (all in caps), but I can't seem to find it anymore. --HappyCamper 14:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

61.17.248.30

61.17.248.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Rapidly puts in a single link on many, many pages. I've reverted all the edits before 8, but that was like 20 reverts, and my fingers are tired :).. The ones before 8 were mostly bad links, but now appear to be valid links... maybe its just a confused person? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

malicious editing by group of MB posters and then bragging about it.

The people doing the malicious editing of Wikepedia are bragging and laughing about it here:

http://www.robkamphausen.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/598282/page/0/fpart/1/vc/1

They've been guilty of massing on other (usually comic book related) sites before and trying to create as much mayhem as possible and working around getting banned as well to cause further mischief.

The owner of the boards coincidentally enough works for DC comics.

I don't know if you can use this info or not but at least you have a heads up on what areas of Wikepedia they're targeting or have targeted.

It appears to being delt with on a local level (these days it takes quite a dedicated or large group even to show up against the background level of vandalism).Geni 14:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Winnermario

Could someone have a word with Winnermario (talk · contribs)? He's in danger of self combusting. Although in many respects he's a decent editor, he seems unable to cope with disagreements (as his Talk page hints at; the real problem lies scattered across article Talk pages. His User page contains the line: "I promise to try and contain myself over lashing out at people on this website", which suggests that he knows that he has a problem, though he clearly hasn't mastered it yet). He's one of a growing class of editors who treat edits they don't like as "vandalism" (see, for example, [36]), and is descending into more and more hysterical childish abuse (see, for example, [37]. He's also started deleting other people's comments from Talk pages [38]. I originally tried to reason with him and to calm him down, but he's reached the stage where he has tantrums at the mere sight of my name, so if another admin could step in and have a quite, calming word I'd be grateful (and it might defuse what could otherwise become an even more unpleasant situation). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure a word would make much difference now, especially since Annittas has been fanning the flames on Winnermario's talk page. I'd cautioned Annittas previously, only to be brushed off. Still, perhaps someone with a light touch should try (I concede here that wouldn't be me...) FeloniousMonk 16:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Although no-one's responded to the above, I thought that I'd add another plea of the same kind (I'm editing popular-music articles, which seem to attract this sort of editor): BGC (talk · contribs) is mass reverting my attempts to tidy albums-articles, calling the removal of excessive Wikilinking (multiple links to the same year in successive lines, linking to seasons and months) and the conversion of hyphens to dashes "vandalous". Again, I started by trying to explain the MoS, etc., but he's just become more and more belligerent. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing BGC's edit history, I left a mild caution. We'll see if it takes. FeloniousMonk 16:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I may be naive, but I think an easy-going approach to these kinds of issues would work fine. Unlike factual issues, it really makes no difference if you work to gradually ease opposition instead of simply implementing a change outright. Now, I guess maybe Mel will say he is easy-going about it, but he sure gets a lot of tempers flared about this kind of thing, so it might be useful for him to reconsider his approach. Everyking 04:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there are thousands of pop-music articles that are in need of attention — both in terms of Wikipedia style and in terms of content. Each of them seems to be "owned" by one or more devoted fans, who defend them vigorously from any outside change. I'm not altogether sure what an easy-going approach would be, but I'm pretty sure that it would mean that ordinary house-keeping edits of the sorts I'm trying to engage in would take up all my time, and that it would be years before the work was done.

Incidentally, my first encounter with BGC was when I found him blanking User:PetSounds. He ignored my requests for explanation, simply deleting them from his Talk page. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that PetSounds had been BGC's previous account, and that he'd behaved badly with it, generating ill-will (apparently using his odd notion of vandalism even then [39]), and felt that he needed a fresh start. Unfortunately he immediately began acting in the same belligerent way with the new account, so it didn't really get him anywhere. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if we're going to start pointing fingers and labelling people "belligerent", perhaps you need to look at your SELF before throwing baseless accusations. YOU removed my album pics because you "didn't like it", not because it broke policy because that hasn't been established at all. Secondly, after reinserting them, you removed them again, instead of waiting out the decision into the infobox deletion query like a proper Wikipedian is supposed to. And this subjective, indeed belligerent, steamrolling behaviour comes from an admin - someone who is supposed to set an example?? Wow... I have never locked horns with anyone here, except for the obstinate ones who are averse to collaboration, as you clearly are. And from the various remarks I've read about your way of working, I can see I am far from the only one who feels you are WAY over-exerting your preferences because of your admin position. BGC 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be flippant, but I like the word "vandalous". Couldn't find it in the OED, though! I agree that Anittas is stirring up Winnermario. In fact, he's been searching for editors who have ever had a disagreement with Mel, so that they can get together and do something about it! I thought of having a friendly word with Anittas a while ago, although I'm not an admin, but he got quite upset when I reverted some of his grammatical errors back to Mel's version, and seemed to think that Mel had put me up to it. He also got upset when I (twice) reverted a very childish personal attack that he made against Mel [40] on his user page. I felt that any intervention from me would only make him feel more "ganged up against". Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Ann; how are you? :) --Anittas 23:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to note that there is a discussion taking place at vandalism over whether or not repeated reverts that are contrary to the manual of style constitute vandalism. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

202.147.97.0/24

I blocked this range for three months for unbelievable amounts of crap coming through it, particularly massive sockpuppet trolling on Australian-related articles. However, I've received reports of collateral damage, so I've unblocked it. The person affected is a student from Hong Kong staying in Melbourne, and says: "This is what I see when I try to edit an article. Am in a short stay apartments place in Melbourne, until Christmas. I share my apartments with other students but they have never use Wikipedia and have not been blocked." I'll be keeping an eye on this range in any case, in case the malefactors return to it - David Gerard 12:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Refractory malefactors... no shortage here. I'll watch as well. FeloniousMonk 16:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Key point is sockish trolling on Australian politics-related articles, particularly student politics. Hopefully that was just one idjit using the range in question - David Gerard 11:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Large scale AfD unlisting

Lacking a better place to put this, I thought I would note that I've just speedied about two dozen AfDs and removed the tags from their articles because their sole grounds for deletion were notability. I was relatively lax in this - articles where it seemed clear that notability was being used as a stand-in for verifiability were left - including cases where the verifiability seemed to rest on a single not-highly-ranked webpage, since ephemeral verification is not acceptable. I intend to take a pair of second passes at today's AfD nominations, one to kill things that should have been speedied, and one to kill things that are based on nominations according to policies that are unofficial - deletion policies of wikiprojects (i.e. WP:MUSIC) for example. My guess is that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the AfDs for the day should be removed, either for being slam-dunks that didn't need a vote or for being things that don't actually meet any deletion policy, and the only consensus for their deletion exists among the AfD regulars, not the Wikipedia community at large. Snowspinner 21:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No offence, but the purpose of AfD is to allow members to decide what is notable and what is not notable. It is not up to one member to decide this - even if they are an admin. I realise that you may be trying to cut down the amount of articles, but delisting because the sole reason for listing is due to notability is not the right thing to do. The process allows for debate, and after one or two AfDs where it is decided that the article is notable then it should be kept. On this note, if an article does get removed and you strongly disagree, the article should be taken through articles for undeletion. I strongly disagree with your delistings. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Initial discussion

This was entirely inappropriate. On what grounds do you get to be the sole arbiter of what is or is not a valid AfD listing? This is unaccetpable behavior, and if it is repeated, should lead to your being desysopped. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles that are being nominated for reasons that do not coincide with any listed deletion policy clog up AfD and contribute to its uselessness. I encourage other admins who see things that are not covered under deletion policy to remove them as well. Snowspinner 22:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Failure to allege notability is, by policy voted upon by consensus, a valid CSD reason for people. By extension, discussion of the failure of the article to establish notability for other things other than people makes that a valid reason. Any unilateral deletion of AfDs, especially those which have had several votes, is bad faith. What's wrong with just letting the vote continue and let an admin who isn't interested in keeping all of the crap make a decision on proper closure based on the voting process? Or are you afraid that some of the crap might get deleted? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually. I am afraid that the AfD regulars (Who show a tendency to ignore deletion policy) will railroad a vote, and that swamped admins will close on votes alone instead of looking to see if a consensus for this kind of deletion exists broadly instead of among the AfD regulars. And failure to establish notability was, I think, a move to block obvious vanity articles and articles with no real content - not articles on minor subjects. Snowspinner 22:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

While it is certainly a de facto standard on which many AFDs are judged. Notability has never really been defined and not really part of the deletion policy. What the deletion policy does include is an article which "is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)", but WP:NOT doesn't really delve into notability either (though it does point out we are not "indiscriminate" in producing this encyclopedia). The top of Wikipedia:Notability says "There is no Wikipedia policy on notability...". Some, like Snowspinner, believe that the lack of explicit reference to notability in deletion policy make it an invalid justification for an AFD. Dragons flight 22:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit more subtle in my criticism. I think notability is one of four things - vanity, a dicdef/permastub, unverifiable, or something I don't know about so want to delete. In the first three cases, we have better means for deletion. In the fourth, we shouldn't delete. I point out also that the very first thing Wikipedia is not is paper - that is, in need of deletion for reasons having to do with space. The overall deletion criteria - the one that should be bent as needed - is that the article harms Wikipedia, as vanity, dicdef/permastubs, and unverifiability do. Snowspinner 22:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This was entirely inappropriate, de-sysoppable behavior that's a pain in the ass. At the very least the AfDs should remain as record. I entirely concur with Zoe, and think that your belief that this should continue is a bad sign. --Blackcap | talk 22:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Further, where in policy does it say that you can arbitrarily speedily delete articles in the project namespace? Nowhere. This is not grounded anywhere in WP policy, and was a call based solely on your own opinion. --Blackcap | talk 22:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That was me being bold. If people would prefer removing them from the AfD listing and closing them as speedy keep, I can do that when next I patrol AfD. Snowspinner 22:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have confused "being bold" with "someone died and made you God". I, personally, would prefer you don't dick around with process based one your own whims. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Being bold has limits. You were in direct violation of policy. You can't speedy keep an article that has a number of delete votes unless you're Jimbo, who here is God. --Blackcap | talk 22:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that the full title of what is frequently called WP:BOLD is Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. So from the very first line, I cannot reconcile that document with Snowspinner's actions at all. Furthermore, the second section says "don't be reckless" (there are other things you shouldn't be round here, too). Since Snowspinner thought necessary to post something as mundane as an AfD 'closure' here, he must surely have wondered if he had been reckless. I trust he will take this thread as telling him he was. On re-reading WP:BOLD (something we should all do more often), I am reminded that it is primarily an editorial, not an administrative, guideline. As the final section of the page exhorts, Snowspinner should familiarise himself with the relevent Wikipedia policies and guidelines for speedy deletion of AfD subpages before he continues in that vein. Once he has done so, perhaps he could post here a link to where this practise received the green light, for it is emphatically not in either WP:BOLD or any other document that I am familiar with. -Splash^talk 01:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD is way broken, yeah, but skimming through the day's nominations with a personal, non-policy notion of what belongs and what doesn't is unhelpful and replete with opportunities for mistakes. Please don't do that anymore? Wyss 00:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner mentions that some deletions are "slam dunks". Yes, they are. We just went through a faintly tortuous process of trying to accelerate "slam dunks", but they largely fell short of fuzzy-consensus. In the case of some established editors, they refused to support a single such proposal and, despite these proposals significant support in the community at large, we continue to be unable to "slam dunk" most AfDs (Snowspinner is part of "we"). However, looking through Snowspinner's log, I see only very few instances where he speedied articles to deletion, and then only because they met CSDs rather than that they were "slam dunk" deletes. Even in those cases, he was so casual as to delete the AfD too, rather than taking the, say, 5 seconds it takes to tag an AfD debate properly. -Splash^talk 01:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

On a broader point, IMO one of the reasons that standards on RfA are ever rising is that people know that, when an admin behaves in a manner such as this, they can smugly sit behind their adminship safe in the knowledge that it is extraordinarily unlikely they will be properly disciplined for it. The community has little effective recourse to admonish a power-drunk admin in a way they can be expected to promptly listen to. Action such as this merely reinforces that perception, particularly when it is clear that the admin in question shows little sign of accepting any of the criticism. -Splash^talk 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Previous similar action

Something like this has been tried before; see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/March 2005 Part One#How to make VFD of manageable size, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Deletion criterion boxes, and the mailing list discussion of the topic. It didn't take. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed not, though neither has nomination against deletion policy taken. Much of my interest in this was seeing how many AfDs are unnecessary - either because they're against policy, or because they could have been speedied. The answer is actually a lot. Snowspinner 22:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

And even before that: see Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies, its talk page, Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll, and mailing list discussion. It didn't take that time either. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Conversion to speedy delete

On a similar topic - if an article on AfD clearly meets CSD criteria, is it okay to Speedy it immediately instead of waiting for AfD voting to close?--inks^T 22:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I did this as well to AfD, so I'd say yes. Snowspinner 22:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If it clearly meets CSD criteria, then it should be okay to speedy it immediately. I'd be surprised if that's not what many admins are already doing, especially since articles that don't meet the CSD are too-often speedied. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But you keep the AfD as a record and it doesn't apply to speedy keeps. --Blackcap | talk 22:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of AfDs being kept is so people can review the debate. In the case of the speedy, the reason for deletion has nothing to do with the debate, and so keeping the AfD is pure instruction creep. Snowspinner 22:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If an article is kept, then the AfD is preserved as a record in case it's listed again. The only time one can speedy keep an article is when it's a bad faith/vandal nomination. You were speedy keeping articles. That's completely different than speedy deleting. --Blackcap | talk 23:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

About 7% of AFDs are closed as speedy delete, based on my recent survey. Dragons flight 22:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

In how many cases were the AfD subpages of articles that were speedily kept, speedily deleted? -Splash^talk 01:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The computer script can only read pages that were not deleted, so if someone deleted the AFD, I would not be able to count that at all. In my sample 7% of the properly closed AFDs listed speedy deletion as the result and about 0.2% listed speedy keep as the result. Dragons flight 02:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Back to general discussion

I applaud your boldness, Snowspinner. AfD is getting out of hand. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how it's "getting out of hand"? If that were the case, then surely there would be considerably more listings on VfU? But that doesn't seem to be the case. And considering the number of articles and editors which are increasing on Wikipedia, the number of articles listed on AfD is not increasing to keep up with the numbers of articles and editors. Nobody is preventing anybody from voting on AfD to keep articles they think don't lack notability, or for any other purpose. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted to spend more time on AfD, then you'd certainly see a lot more "Keep" votes from me there. As it happens, I'd rather kill myself than spend lots of time on AfD, so applauding Snowspinner's action is the next most effective thing I can do. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of how out-of-hand AfD is, Snowspinner does not have the authority to single-handedly strike down AfDs due to his own beliefs. He, like everyone else but Jimbo, gets one vote. That's it. He exceeded his bounds. If he wants some kind of speedy keep system, fine, let him make a proposal. But this is not acceptable. --Blackcap | talk 23:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This is faintly ridiculous. I imagine you live somewhere that, if those with power were to turn force on those debating an issue in an effort to silence them, you would decry that action, even if you disagreed with the debaters. You would tell the Those With Power to face down the discussions with better arguments of their own. You would tell them to respect everyone's opinions, not simply to discard them as trash. Apply the same philosophy here — deleting a debate is identical to telling the participant to "shut up, because I say so". If you think many more articles should be kept then stop bemoaning the fact, and call by AfD. If you can't be bothered to edit like the rest of us, then don't be surprised when we don't hear what you wish you were saying. But don't simply tell us to shut up. It's rude. -Splash^talk 01:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. --Blackcap | talk 03:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he expected his actions to go unreversed. I know I didn't. I applauded him for making a radical statement about what's wrong with AfD. But I misjudged what community's reaction would be. Snowspinner's action didn't have the effect I (and I'm sure he) hoped. It just pissed a lot of people off. It did more harm than good, so I withdraw my "applause". Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus creates policy

A thought -- It's claimed above that AfD voters "ignore deletion policy". It's always been my interpretation that (outside of "core" policy such as NPOV) Wikipedia policy is supposed to reflect the consensus of editors, rather than dictate what we are all supposed to believe. Therefore, if deletion policy fails to describe what editors actually choose to keep or delete, then this would indicate that deletion policy is inaccurate and needs to be amended to reflect what editors actually support.

Put another way, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages are not statutes, but rather attempts to describe the consensus of editors. (Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy: the fact that, once upon a time, a majority of editors voted for a policy does not prove that it remains binding today if the consensus today is otherwise.) So, if there exists a consensus of editors in favor of policy "x", and "x" is not in violation of core policy (e.g. NPOV), then "x" already is Wikipedia policy; even if it hasn't yet been written up as a policy page.

It's also claimed above that there exists a group of "AfD regulars" whose views differ substantially from those of editors as a whole. If this were the case, then AfD votes would not be indicative of policy consensus on deletion. But is that really the case? Didn't someone do some actual science about this a few weeks ago -- counting up AfD votes of various people -- and find that people who participate more often on AfD don't have a substantially different tendency (in terms of whether they vote "keep" or "delete") than people who don't participate often? I seem to remember something along those lines.

In the cases of most policies, it would be difficult to adjudge whether a policy statement written in the past was out of sync with the consensus of editors today. However, in the case of deletion votes, there is no such difficulty. Insofar as an AfD vote reflects a consensus to delete based on "non-notability", there does exist Wikipedia policy to delete on this basis, at least in some cases -- since policy equals consensus. Therefore, rather than railing against deletions that are out of accord with the current policy statement, the correct thing to do is to amend the statement so that it reflects what policy (i.e. consensus) really is. --FOo 00:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is reminding me a little of when GordonWatts was telling everybody who opposed his RFA that because the RFA page said "policy is to make trustworthy people administrators", and he's trustworthy, they're not allowed to oppose him. The point of AFD is not to blindly carry out the deletion policy - it's to discuss whether an article should be deleted. That's why AFD is there in the first place. It's not just to discuss cases on the borderline of the deletion policy either, because there are some things the deletion policy hasn't thought of. AFD is supposed to create flexibility and to enable new consensus to be formed. Snowspinner was 100% out of line, and deleting the AFD pages was even more inappropriate. I hate to say this, but it looks like adminship has really gone to his head this time. ~~ N (t/c) 00:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Foo; couldn't have said it better myself. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

PS, about "AFD regulars": While the existence of this phenomenon is regrettable, you've got to consider the cause. Not a single experienced Wikipedian exists who doesn't know what AFD is. So why do so few participate? They don't want to. Whatever the reason for this, they know that by not participating they give up their voice in the debate. What's wrong with that? That's how consensus works - you are free to not say anything, and we are free to not take into account an opinion that we can't read your mind to get. (Now, if the AFD atmosphere actually is poisonous and repulsive - and I don't find it such - that should be fixed, but it does not make AFD decisions invalid.) ~~ N (t/c) 00:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur so completely that I am at a loss for words. With all of this. It goes right to the core of my black anarchist heart. --Blackcap | talk 00:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

On AfD regulars and irregulars

I think FOo might be referring to something I had deleted in a fit of pique. I had done some basic analysis on school VfDs to see if there was be a different outcome if the "hardcore" voters stayed away. I could similar analysis again for all AfD's if any thought it useful.
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Fubar may be referring to this: Wikipedia:AFD 100 days. As to the issue of different camps. I did observe in this analysis that the more one votes, the more likely one is to vote delete, but the difference is only a few % between the hyper regulars (those voting several times a day) and the semi-regulars (those voting a couple times a week). There is however a noticable difference between regular voters and infrequent voters. (see: Wikipedia:AFD_100_days#Condensed_voting_patterns) People voting at least once every five days said delete 73% of the time, whereas those showing up less regularly (i.e. most voters) cast a delete vote only 56% of the time. Dragons flight 00:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be it! Thanks. So it depends on what one means by "AfD regulars". It would be interesting to see the shape of the "tail" of those below 20 votes in the 100-day period, though. Is the decline in the delete/keep ratio smooth? I would expect that there are a lot of people who vote only once and vote to keep -- because they're the single author of an article that's been nominated for deletion, whose only encounter with AfD is when "their" article got nominated.

I suspect that there are many people whose first encounter with AfD is when an article they've worked on is nominated for deletion. Most of them will vote only on that very nomination, and vote to keep. But -- these folks need to be able to get themselves up to speed to respond to a nomination meaningfully. If they read the deletion policy page and don't see "non-notability" as a criterion, they won't understand what's going on when people vote "delete, non-notable". That's why, if non-notability is a criterion for deletion (in consensus policy), we need to make sure that it's written up as such (in the description of policy). --FOo 00:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked:

Category	Voters	Votes	Delete	Keep
Voted 20 to 49 times	276	8837	68.3%	31.7%
Voted 10 to 19 times	369	5020	66.0%	34.0%
Voted 5 to 9 times	591	3855	61.1%	38.9%
Voted 2 to 4 times	1476	3787	54.8%	45.2%
Voted once	3878	3878	40.2%	59.8%

The drop off seems to have both a gradual element to it and a sharp jump for those only voting once. Dragons flight 01:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! This is great information. I think it's really interesting that the group of people who predictably vote to keep are the ones who only vote once. Moreover, this is a rather large group of people! This fits (but doesn't prove) my hypothesis that many of these are people who are brought to AfD only by the nomination of their own work for deletion. --FOo 02:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Does consensus really create policy?

Like FOo said. It's the same category error GordonWatts made when, having failed miserably to get ANY real support for his adminship (what, 29-4 against, counting his vote for himself?) tried to browbeat Jimbo Wales into giving him the adminship by claiming policy demanded it and he must obey policy. Most of the rules that govern and regulate this place were not handed down on stone tablets for the Wikirabbis to debate the meaning, they evolved through discussion, usage, and experimentation. The users have created policy and are subject to them to the extent that they choose to be. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you wanted to argue that "consensus creates policy" and hence non-notability is a deletion criterion, you would have to demonstrate that there is a demonstrated consensus that notability is a deletion criterion. I don't think you'll manage that. There is no such consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Barrister Tony, look up de facto when you get the chance. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. There is absolutely no consensus on AfD, de facto or otherwise, about notability. It's one of the most contentious claims on AfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, policy is that anything AFD voters say to delete gets deleted. Regardless of what other criteria it fits. ~~ N (t/c) 00:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

With some minor exceptions, yes. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FOo. I think a lot of AfDs have gotten me thinking about the process though - even ones that are obvious deletes I think maybe should be userfied more. Often, I think that it is rather harsh to see it get deleted, especially when its in good faith. Also, I would like to point out that the difference in % between regulars (like myself) and non-regulars is obvious - generally non-regulars only vote to keep certain articles, often when petitioned to by someone else. Also, the high % delete thing is really too relative to judge a person on, as often people just vote delete on everything and there are a lot more bad ones (many obvious spam) then good ones. There are some regulars like Kappa who are rather, um, extreme inclusionists that go mainly to VfD to vote keep. Its just a different thought process between those who go to VfD to delete bad articles (like me) and those who go to VfD to save the potentially good ones (like Kappa) - that's why its important that it be a discussion so people can be convinced of an articles worth/uselessness. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Not to scapegoat, but this is exactly the problem. Somewhere along the line, people began using the judgment of "usefulness" and, particularly, "worthyness." It sounds like we're picking people to put on the rescue boat - is this article worthy of being saved. And there's no reason to do that. The onus isn't on articles to prove their worthiness. It's on people to show why an article harms the project - to show why it's so bad that we'd be better off just removing it instead of fixing it or letting it stand with a stub tag or a cleanup tag. That so many people have lost sight of that is appalling to me. Snowspinner 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought that the "sum total of human knowledge" kind of came with a burden of worthyness? Are we putting together something "great" of something "all-inclusive"? Because we sure can't do both. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner, this isn't the place to rehash deletionist/inclusionist debates. Bringing that up is a distraction from the issue here, which is one of a group of consensus discussions .... and an administrator who chose to seize veto power over those discussions and shut them down. Administrators aren't supposed to hold veto power over the consensus of Wikipedia editors, and aren't supposed to shut down discussions because they don't approve of the consensus that is forming. --FOo 02:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at CSD A7, and the voting and debate that went with it. I noticed considerable support for it. I noticed that it has been widely used and largely successful in its goal. I see that sometimes it malfunctions, but that to err is human and that to fix is easy. I see non-notability as such a popular deletion criterion that, in extremis, we delete it on sight. -Splash^talk 01:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

A7 has worked out well, no doubt. But because non-notability has become a popular deletion criterion (outside of A7) and admins accept it when closing AFDs, that doesn't make it official policy does it? As accepted of a practice it might be? Rx StrangeLove 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would dispute that A7 is working well, as it seems to be just about the most abused CSD criterion. Department head at Cambridge University? No notability there. Creator of the DeCSS haiku and security expert for EFF? Nothing special about that. Someone writes an article about a private boat, clearly that's a non-notable biography and so can be speedied. These kinds of things get caught looking in the speedy category and saved or sent to AFD if I see them, but I can't help but wonder what things have been deleted under A7 by others. Dragons flight 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I totally disagree....I was just trying to separate A7 non-notability from general non-notability. A7 is abused for sure, I see it everyday, but it's abused less than Patent nonsense but more than say, attack pages. Rx StrangeLove 03:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's my suggestion that being accepted would make it "official policy" -- as official as it gets here, outside of core policies decreed by the folks who own the servers (i.e. Jimbo and the Board).

There isn't anything else but decree or consensus that can make something "official" here. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, so the act of holding a vote doesn't itself create policy; we use voting to ascertain whether a consensus exists; and the consensus determines policy.

Policy emerges by being what people are willing to follow and to defend. We write policy proposals to see if we can gather consensus around new ideas. We make sure that existing consensus gets written up as guidelines so that newcomers and the perplexed can have a chance to understand the rules that other editors are going by. We hold votes to make sure that what we think is consensus actually is consensus. (That last bit is why Tony Sidaway is mostly-right above: a demonstration of consensus is needed. A proposal and vote would be one such demonstration. The facts of what is presently accepted on AfD are a different such demonstration.)

So if everyone (for some value of "everyone" -- consensus doesn't mean unanimity) takes a given AfD vote as binding, then that makes it policy. (Likewise, if everyone thinks that admins shouldn't delete discussions, then that makes that policy, too.) --FOo 02:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why I asked, official policy comes from a process that attempts to form a consensus via discussion over a period of time (the recent CSD updates for example), and not because somethings been an accepted practice for some amount of time. At least that's how I understand it...I guess I'd be worried if official policy can be created without some community discussion that works toward a consensus before that policy is accepted. Rx StrangeLove 03:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

I believe Snowspinner was acting with what he thought was Wikipedia's in best interest, and I applaud him for being bold. So I'd ask him to now help "undo" the parts that have proven to require discussion. Leave the speedies speedied, replace their AfD pages, and put the speedy-kept-nn-is-not-an-option pages back on AfD. I'd let them run for five days from now, as well.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe Uncle G has done all cleanup necessary now. Snowspinner 02:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)