Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Deletion of edit history required

Unresolved

• Thread moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required due to size issues. Please continue conversation there. MBisanz ^talk 12:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin recall process is dead

This section has been moved to: Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

Points system for admin recall

This discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#Points system for admin recall (WP:AN)

So, did we figure out what to do about Calton?

Did we agree to anything here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 or are we going to? It sounded like we were headed towards some kind of serious sanction against Calton, but we never finalized the decision that I could tell. Leaving this hanging will just make the problem worse.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? What "problem" are you claiming? Missing some opportunity to throw your weight around? Not being able to punish someone who didn't stand up and salute you and other self-assuming authority figures just because you demand it? Or maybe it's that by-God some spam pages might be deleted and spammers blocked without being coddled.

So be specific: what ACTUAL "worse problem" are you talking about? Hint: not saluting when someone cries "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!" is not an actual problem, no matter how you spin it. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That response alone illustrates the problem with how you interact with other editors, Calton. It's already been established that Calton will be blocked for retagging denied speedies, and I'd support a civility restriction. - auburnpilot talk 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a substantive reply, not vague handwaving, nose-sniffing, and authoritative threats. Try again. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? Hrm, the constant edit warring with other editors because you think that your judgment is the only one that matters? –xeno (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked for two weeks for incivility. Tan ǀ 39 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

His comments were apparently a somewhat slow response to my removing his rollbacker privilege. I had given them to him early this year based on his experience but cautioned him about my concerns that I'd seen complaints of possible edit warring. I don't know that he ever used the privilege but I was away for a while and when I came back I noted the 0RR restriction - noted in the recently archived thread I referenced above. I told him that I was revoking his rollbacker simply because it was inconsistent with a 0RR restriction and not because of any misconduct. Everything is on his talk page, and there's plenty there if anyone is interested.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• So, my understanding is that Calton's formal restrictions are as follows:

1. 0RR restriction previously imposed (anyone got a link for that?)

2. Indefinite prohibition on edits to any user pages except his own other than reasonable CSD and MFD nominations. Per the above referenced AN thread, archived yesterday.

3. A two week block for incivility per Tan above.

4. We were discussing whether there should be some sort of civility restriction particularly with respect to user talk pages and/or unreasonable tagging of user or usertalk pages with G11.

We need to give him notice of his editing restrictions so we ought to decide what we're going to do here and I'd like some confirmation of the above restrictions.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• You could always try treating him as an adult, that might help. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tagging a user page as WP:CSD#G11 if it is an advertisement, WP:NOT includes "Wikipedia is not a free web host". Obviously a link or two to people's own projects is not advertising, but several user pages are blatant advertisements either created in userspace or moved there from mainspace. And now I suggest you go and talk to user:Geogre about the utter irredeemable stupidity of issuing two-week retaliatory blocks for "incivility" which is, in fact, merely a spirited defence against what looks suspiciously like pushing a grudge. And I mean that, talk to Geogre and if after a considered exchange of views (i.e. where you listen to him) you still feel that blocking Calton would achieve anything other than drama and making us all look like idiots, feel free to sugfgest it again. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The problem lies in that he will "spiritly defend" any of his actions, through edit warring or incivility. I don't doubt that he does identify pages that do need to go - but when someone disagrees with his assessment it would be best if he just walked on. I don't see how Doug could be pushing a grudge, because he's the uninvolved admin who granted him rollback a while back. –xeno (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Guy, if you really believe that it would be possible to have a "considered exchange of views" with Calton over issues such as this, you have a very poor sense of pattern recognition. Giving Calton an umpteenth chance and leaving him unblocked is the thing that causes drama and makes us look like idiots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I said Geogre not Calton. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not that this is going to make much of a difference, but I feel compelled to add my two cents... I haven't had a run in with Calton in over a year, but that run-in, or more correctly his behaviour during that time, is scorched into my memory. Very rarely have I encountered such an abrasive Wikipedian, who enjoyed baiting his "opponents" and in fact blatantly stated that he was doing just that. I obviously have no comment on his recent actions, but perhaps it should be kept in mind that this sort of behaviour has been going on for at least a year (and in terms of full disclosure, I was probably no angel myself, but Calton's uncivil behaviour was honestly quite unlike the vast majority of Wikipedian's I have dealt with). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hear, hear! Grandmasterka 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Calton, please

Calton has made exactly three edits today: [1], [2], [3]. For this he was blocked for two weeks for incivility. Sorry, but I don't think that s even remotely proportionate to the offence, if offence it was (which I'd dispute). There's clearly some bad blood here, the best thing would have been for Doug not to even start this conversation, since Calton had not even edited since 17 August, we have a whole host of dispute resolution processes, but here we have blocked someone who's been with the project for over three years, has thousands of edits, and whose only offence appears, at least to some interpretations, to be a refusal to be sufficiently deferential to an admin. Surely we have some real problems to fix here rather than spanking Calton? Guy (Help!) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, sorry to say this, but I don't think you're a very good judge of civility, given your previous use of profanity and blatantly sexist slurs. Kelly ^hi! 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexist? When? Guy (Help!) 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just remember evidence of you using the terms "twat" or "cunt" towards other editors. Which was it (or was it both)? Do you really want me to go find the diffs? Kelly ^hi! 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it took about 30 seconds of searching. "Cunt"[4] and "Twat".[5] Also "Fuck off".[6] Need more? Kelly ^hi! 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not sexist, it is British English invective. And given that the user in question had just taunted me about the then very recent death of my sister, I think that it was if not appropriate then certainly wholly understandable. Do you have any idea just how vile that particular user's behaviour was? To taunt someone who had recently watched a sibling die in agony is not exactly pleasant, as the subsequent arbitration noted. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The British English thing won't cut it (I've lived there and know perfectly well that you don't call people "cunt" in normal discourse), neither will the "victim card". You've explained one instance that I can sympathize with. How about the others? Is it normal in Britain to tell people to fuck off? (Clue - it's not.) Would you like me to bring some more diffs here? There are dozens, if not hundreds, in your RfC and Arbitration cases. You are no judge of civility, Guy, It's best that you go write some article, if you know how, and leave the judging of civility to civil people. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, that particular user was one of the most vile trolls I have ever come across, and I think most of those who remember him would concur with that judgement. See Bainer's evidence in arbitration. I said nothing to him that I would not have said to his face, always assuming I didn't deck him instead. That does not mean I am proud of it, but neither does it make it "sexist". I will put my hands up to being extremely rude on occasion, though not I think recently, but I do not believe I am prone to gender bias. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't buy the whole "not sexist" thing. In African-American culture, it's acceptable to use the term "nigger" to one's peers. A white editor here is not free to call a black editor a "nigger" just because it may be acceptable somewhere. Similarly, just because you may call your friends "cunt" or "twat" does not mean you should feel free to offend women here by throwing those terms around - they are among the most offensive terms you can use in the presence of a woman, and sensible people are perfectly aware of this - even in Britain. That you feel undeterred by this tells me that you are not a very good judge of civility (and possibly reactionary in regards to women's rights, though that is really irrelevant). Kelly ^hi! 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You have my full permission to consider me sexist, just be aware that I dispute that label and would challenge you to find any credible evidence for it outside of my occasionally ill-judged choice of cuss-words. I'll not link the words in question, but would point out that we discuss them in some detail and don't make any assertion in those articles that their use is considered evidence of sexism. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have, to my knowledge, never been involved with Calton or Doug. I have no grudge, and no prior history with this editor. There was no "bad blood" and the block wasn't simply for his three edits today. A "spanking" would have been the usual 24 hour wristslap (aka "cooldown block"). This one was for two weeks because I will not tolerate his behavior here, and if it occurs again after the block expires, the next block will be for a lot longer. Tan ǀ 39 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't do punishment blocks, we do blocks for prevention. What problem are you preventing by blocking Calton for two weeks? I'm not looking for a fight here, but I think this was not a good idea. And I'd like an answer from Alison to the question above as well, please. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, which question would that be, please? Looks like I'm joining the party late here .... - Alison ^❤ 09:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am preventing him from being incivil to editors on Wikipedia. I'm also done arguing with you; your attitude/record predicts your responses. Tan ǀ 39 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, if the editor with whom he is in apparent dispute had not started this thread then I don't believe he'd have said a thing. Doesn't that inform the issue in any way? Did anyone try discussing this with Calton and trying to broker peace or calm him down or get him to disengage or drop it? And since my attitude/record predicts my response, perhaps you could tell me what my next response will be. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug is not engaged in a dispute with Calton. All of this could have been completely avoided by Calton agreeing not to edit war (and trying not to be so "spiritful" in defense of his actions). –xeno (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A two week block on the basis of those three edits would have been excissive. A 2 week block on the basis of the recent attitude displayed is reasonable. Viridae^Talk 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the block is reasonable in light of the pattern of behaviour displayed over a sustained period of time. The responses he made in the section above were just the straw that broke the [whatever]'s back. naerii 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

/me wanders off to document the all-new WP:BADATTITUDE policy which allows for two-week blocks for surliness. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Er, have to agree with JzG. The comments seem mildly heated, arguably uncivil but not blockworthy. And a two-week block? C'mon. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG, don't waste your time; we already have that policy. It's called WP:CIVIL. Calton has been an uncivil editor for a very long time. He's received plenty of warning and has been the subject of many AN/ANI discussions. The block duration may be a bit long (no real opinion on that) but the block itself was warranted. - auburnpilot talk 22:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the recent edits and the block history, I am fine with a block that escalates from the past level but 2 weeks is too long - one week at most seems like a fair length. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd just like to be clear here, I am not saying that he is a saint or that he did nothing wrong, only that the remedy is disproportionate and - more importantly - very unlikely to produce the desired result (unless, I guess, the desired result is to hound him out). I think the problem here for me is that we don't seem to have learned anything from Giano. I really do not think that civility blocks have any positive effect on long-standing contributors with attitude issues. I'm not saying the issues don't need to be fixed somehow, just that this does not seem to be, from past experience, an effective way of going about it. What Calton needs may be a "critical friend" he can trust, or some firm advice from an arbiotrator in private or something, but right now the comments and the block seem calculated to wound his pride, and since it's his pride which seems to be the cause of the problem I don't see how further wounding it is going to help. Sorry, I'm not saying this especially well as it;s much more nuanced than that, and I'm really not having a go at anyone, I just think that we need to find a better (read: effective) way of dealing wiht this kind of thing. Geogre says it far better than I do, which is why I urge people to read his talk page, comments and archives. The Geogre is wise in the ways of human nature. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Support unblocking. Too much emphasis is placed on 'civility', a highly subjective and over used excuse for blocking. --Duk 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Block shortened

As said above, there was no call for a two-week block; I shortened it to 72 hours. If consensus develops here to unblock earlier than that, that's fine with me too, but I felt action was necessary on the block length. Chick Bowen 00:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you look over the previous incidents involving Calton before you made this decision? Did you consult the blocking admin? Is it really worth wheel-warring to defend Calton? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear--I am not defending Calton; I think his comments today were designed to inflame the situation, and that's unacceptable. My shortening the block does not in the least undo it--it merely puts it into the realm supported by the block reason given by the original blocker. To call this wheel-warring is to misunderstand what wheel-warring is. Chick Bowen 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I have a strong urge to be uncivil myself here. That block change was way, way out of line, Chick. Tan ǀ 39 01:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good change, blocks are not punishment. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A two-week block is more appropriate given Calton's long-term pattern of behavior, but maybe three days will have an effect on him. When the block expires, let's have a clear consensus that future incivility will result in progressively longer blocks. And please, let's not reduce the length of the current block any further. Everyking (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I support this, but it is not going to fix anything without some work in the background. We need to find someone who Calton trusts and is prepared to work with, who can help Calton to curb his aggression. I would really like to hear from anyone who thinks they could fulfil that role. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks was quite disproportionate. 72 hours seems like a reasonable warning shot. Nandesuka (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think he considers himself warned? Right now he's arguing for an even shorter block because admins are "overweening" and "stupid" and because he "did nothing wrong". [7] rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest "shorten to 72 hours" until I saw it had already been done. Blocks are necessary but overly excessive ones do not help the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 06:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A little background

It was commented above that I never should have started this thread. I just want to make sure everyone is clear that all I intended was to ask whether we had actually come to any conclusion in the previous thread that archived yesterday. I had made the last comment there in which were discussing significant sanctions and then no one responded so the discussion passed into the black hole that is the AN archive. I am not totally uninvolved in that my name does show up several times on Calton's talk page and in the discussion earlier this year about his use of {{temporary userpage}}, which was solved by other means (deleting the template among other things). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you have a philosophical dispute over whether spam is userspace is speedily deletable as spam under WP:CSD#G11 then I would suggest taking it to WT:CSD, but it has always been my understanding that blatant advertising meant just that: blatant advertising, wherever it appears. Maybe the consensus view these days is that the community wants to spend five days discussing the deletion of pages where Wikipedia is being used for free webhosting to promote commercial entities, that is quite possible, but I'd say that trying to fix it by stopping one person from so tagging userpages is not the best way of dealing with it. Some examples would be good as part of that debate, most of the G11 tagged userpages I've seen have been ones where I completely agree that it's an advert and needs gone, but of course I am a heartless deletionist and my dislike of spammers is well known. There are certainly other issues, but I don't see how they can easily be rolled into one with this specific point, which is a matter for legitimate disagreement between good-faith users. So: separate it out and see what people think? If you like we could use User:SpeakerBoxLLC (edit | [[Talk:User:SpeakerBoxLLC|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a case study. Calton is not involved there at all. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not about CSD G11, I am not aware of any issues with Calton misusing CSD G11, if you have read the earlier thread, the consensus seemed to be drifting towards allowing Calton to use CSD rather than simply a community limited ban against any userpage editing (aside from his own). He had been most recently blanking pages. Please read the earlier thread. It's on the most recent archive and it's linked above. If it hadn't archived, my position would be a little clearer maybe. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The link again was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 and the mention was of any CSD, the example used there was U2, not G11. The issue is that Calton has shown historically that he just finds another way to do what he wants. After {{temporary userpage}} was eliminated he used the cat, then he was told not to use the cat, I think that was after another AN, and he eventually went away for a while and then came back using PROD, at some point that I wasn't even watching, he got a 0RR restriction, and he most recently has been blanking userpages that he personally believes are either advertising or worse "non-existent" (his shorthand for gone and not coming back) only sometimes they do come back. Read the prior thread and you'll see what I'm talking about. Ryan actually started this thread and I've only revived it since we never settled on the final sanctions (but seemed to settle that there would be sanctions) So I felt we needed to resolve it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's clearer to me now thanks, I can perhaps try to have a discussion offline about this as I think that particular problem is fixable. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So the question remains

Have we settled on what we're going to do? Guy wants to try to address the issue offline, but we seemed to have an agreement at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 to sanction Calton in the ways I've noted above. Additionally, we noted an earlier 0RR sanction but there is no mention of it on his talk page. Do we have a link to the earlier discussion that contained this sanction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug (talk • contribs) 13:01, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

The 0RR restriction was never actually decided on because he simply stopped editing during the AN discussion. Someone needs to determine if there was consensus for 0RR and then formally inform him of it. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is something he has had a tendency to do in each of the prior discussions.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't a party to the 0RR discussion, so I'm not sure what led to it. Can anyone help?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty clear at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 that we were at least prohibiting any edits to userpages (other than his own), with the exception of nominations for CSD or MFD. In other words, no more page blanking. The discussion there certainly seemed to suggest an earlier 0RR had been agreed upon.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But that would stop him from tagging blatant spam in user space. I still think that dialogue is likely to be more effective than symptom-fixing. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to stop the good spamfighting work he does, just the edit warring when someone comes along and decides that a particular bit isn't delete-worthy. –xeno (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I feel like I'm in a completely different forum. In the prior discussion one of the big issues, probably the biggest, was his incessant blanking of userpages with an edit summary of "nonexistent user".--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, shouldn't the outcome be :

1. No edits to other users' userpages other than to tag them for CSD or MfD - this allows him to carry on with his G11 work, but stops the "blanking non-user's page" he's engaged in in the past.
2. If CSD is declined, either by another editor removing the tag or an admin declining speedy, his only recourse is to tag it for MfD - retagging it for CSD would be expressly prohibited (although this wouldn't apply if the tag is removed by the user whose userpage it is).
3. If a report to UAA is declined he can discuss it with the declining admin (subject to the below), to outline his reasons, but relisting it at UAA is expressly prohibited.
4. In any discussions with any user he disagrees with, no matter how much he may feel that his intelligence is being insulted, he adheres strictly to WP:CIVIL and acknowledges that there are mechanisms to find a resolution to the dispute (ie. if there's a disputed CSD tag, MfD will resolve whether the page stays or goes) that don't have to involve hectoring and wiki-lawyering with everyone who disagrees with him.

And...forgive me if I'm wrong...but aren't those basically the rules that apply to everyone anyway? _Gb^T/c 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop making sense right this very minute Gb. You're ruining the drama. I still have half a bowl of popcorn. Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Salt? Or sweet? _Gb^T/c 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Popcorn was never meant to be anything other than salty. Anything else is just unnatural. Keeper ǀ 76 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Support community ban of Calton. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Supporting a community ban without a community ban actually being proposed is prima facie evidence of...oh, forget it. _Gb^T/c 07:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I believe a limited community ban was proposed. That's why I restarted the thread, because we never finished the discussion, at least I didn't think we did.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was being semi-facetious...Kurt didn't make it clear that he was supporting a limited community ban. Anyway, without wishing to repeat myself, 1 - 4 above are the conclusions that I drew out of the previous discussions...

Oh, sorry, I guess I wasn't paying attention. It didn't register that you'd just written that. I agree that those are it and I guess the only thing different from other editors is that these things are expressly stated for Calton and therefore likely won't receive 4 levels of warning before any block, right? Is there something we need to do to notify Calton of this? Lack of notice was mentioned above as a problem with the prior 0RR. Also, is Calton subject to 0RR or not?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is subject to 0RR in respect of tagging pages for spam - that's what 2. above is designed to capture - if it's declined he cannot reinsert the tag. As for notification, well, it's pretty unlikely that he's not reading this thread, but once it disappears off to archive someone can post a link to its (unmoving) archived position on his talk page. _Gb^T/c 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, I just thought the earlier 0RR was across the board. There was question as to whether he'd ever been notified of the 0RR. Above Xenocidic says that we never decided whether there was consensus in that earlier discussion and Calton wasn't formally notified he just stopped editing. So, the question is whether Calton is subject to a general 0RR restriction. It would be helpful if we had a link to the earlier discussion where the 0RR was discussed.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you hand a loaded gun to every spammer and crackpot I ever cross paths with for -- what, exactly? Oh yeah, for being right and not bowing to "I am the Law!" as if it were an actual argument for anything. --Calton | Talk 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

So much distortions and occasional falsehoods to respond to, it's hard to know where to start. First, let me start with my original unblock message, since Xenocidic couldn't be bothered to actually read it before his knee-jerk upholding of the block:

Exactly as I expected: not for vandalism; not for damaging the encyclopedia; not for disruption; not for impairing in any way the actual work of building and/or improving the encyclopedia; not for attempting to hijack the encyclopedia to promote myself, fringe views, businesses, or a opinions; not for promulgating hate; not even, as the boilerplate text above says falsely in this case, making unconstructive contributions. Nope, as punishment -- not as a preventative measure -- for insufficiently sucking up to the wounded pride of the self-assuming authority figures. For not accepting "Because I'm the boss" as an actual rationale for administrator behavior nor thinking that wielding admin buttons in service of petty vendettas is woth overlooking, and for daring to say that vague handwaving and authoritarian threats are not ACTUAL ways of co-operative editing: actual recourse to actual arguments, actual policy, and actual common sense -- as opposed to to those who've mistaken Wikipedia for social-networking site with themselves as leaders wielding power in some virtual club.

As I've said over and over again, though everyone appears to keep ignoring it, I respond to actual arguments, not "I AM THE LAW."

Meanwhile, as for the comments above, let me pick out a few of the real gems:

Sorry; I read as far as 'stupid' and then stopped reading; you'll have better luck if you can manage a request that doesn't include insults

I'd say that actually reading the unblock reason is what a resonsible admin is supposed to do, especially if it's short, but maybe that's just me.

...leaving him unblocked is the thing that causes drama and makes us look like idiots.

Any appearence of idiocy is certainly not of my making. Am I also responsible for cancer, unemployment, and coreopsis?

Very rarely have I encountered such an abrasive Wikipedian, who enjoyed baiting his "opponents" and in fact blatantly stated that he was doing just that.

Mind-reading followed by borderline libel by someone with her own problems, angry that my nomination a year ago of a slew of non-notable biography pages were blown out of the water at AFD. She's certainly not one to talk about being "abrasive".

Hrm, the constant edit warring with other editors because you think that your judgment is the only one that matters?

I asked for actual examples and/or actionable items, and most every word in that statement is, as the saying goes, Not Even Wrong. I mean "Constant"? Hyperbole much?

Certainly a bad-faith mind-reading at worst and pure projection at best. Other than the fact I don't buy "Because I said so" as an actual argument -- choosing, instead, to rely upon actual policy, actual guidelines, actual practice, and actual common sense -- I'm waiting for an actual explanation.

Right now he's arguing for an even shorter block because admins are "overweening" and "stupid" and because he "did nothing wrong".

See, this is why I have such contempt for some admins, when they tell such blatant falsehoods. Distorting words to change their meaning (Hint 1: what does the adjective "stupid" apply to? Use ordinary rules of English syntax. Hint 2: What does the adjective "some" apply to, versus the claimed "all" of you charge?) and poison the well: classy.

The issue is that Calton has shown historically that he just finds another way to do what he wants.

Oh, that's hilarious coming from Doug, who's decided to do an end-run at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion to get around some very Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox policies because he apparently attributes magic powers to the "User" prefix that circumvent general policy and ordinary common sense. And while he's rewriting policy by the back-door, perhaps he should have consulted with those others, like Template:Spamsearch and others who don't think Wikipedia is free webhost for those who might-maybe-someday-sorta return despite all common sense and evidence to the contrary. Hint: [a page] of those oh-so-valuable editors who left now-deleted MySpace-like pages on Wikipedia before buggering off. What percentage have returned or have contributed further to Wikipedia. Go ahead, click around randomly on the "Contributions" links: how many have even ONE edit to their credit?

Doug is not engaged in a dispute with Calton.

Blatantly and obviously untrue. Or do you have some alternate theory as to what's at issue for Doug? See directly above for a small hint.

I don't think anyone wants to stop the good spamfighting work he does...

Doug seems to, as well as Ned Scott, who seems to believe that every time any page, anywhere, gets deleted on Wikipedia, God kills a kitten.

...just the edit warring when someone comes along and decides that a particular bit isn't delete-worthy.

Speaking of hyperbole. Nice use of "when", implying regular occurrence. Hint: I just checked and Kate's tool says I have nearly 26,000 deleted edits -- and that's not from bad articles I created which have been nuked, it's from tagging and bagging bad pages -- so how much edit-warring, exactly, as a percentage of that do you think has happened? If you've been told once, you've been told a million times, don't exaggerate.

But enough for now. If you think I'm being contemptuous, I'm getting a hell of a lot of raw material to work with here. --Calton | Talk 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, Calton, next time someone removes a tag that you've placed (not counting the creator of the page, they're not allowed to remove tags from their own pages) or declines a report you've made, are you willing to move on? If so, I think we can all live happily ever after. –xeno (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, it's good to see that you decided not to be argumentative anymore. Kudos. Keeper ǀ 76 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And I think it's pretty clear that you are not to blank userpages, since that's what caused this whole fuss. CSD, MfD, civilly discuss with the user, or forget it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. on the community culture

Xenocidic was the wrong admin to review the unblock request. How could you not know that, Xeno? On a minor note, Everyking ought to have acknowledged above that he and Calton are ancient, entrenched enemies. Everyking, for the record, I think Calton used to treat you badly when you were the underdog. But you ought nevertheless to have mentioned the old bad blood between you. Your comment obviously flowed out of it. (OMG AGF!) These things may well not have affected the outcome, but you've made yourselves look bad, guys. One of the things that says the most about our community culture is the way we treat blocked users: carefully or carelessly. Oh, and I agree Doug should never have started this thread. OK, everybody sufficiently mad at me now? Between WP:AN and WP:AE, I'm getting amazingly popular. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

User:Sceptre - Abuse of rollback

Earlier this month I removed Sceptre (talk · contribs) rollback rights for misusing them in a content dispute. He asked for them back early a few days ago and I consented to their return. Today I see this bad faith revert [8] pop up in my watch list. Lo and behold, he is reverting a complaint about the misuse of rollback.

So I investigated, based on this history of [9] Scetpre is again using Rollback to fight in content disputes (managing to hit 3RR in this case). I am requesting an uninvolved admin remove rollback rights again, for a significantly longer period of time than my prior 30 day removal. MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree it doesn't look good. Consensus to remove then? I haven't participated much in the rollbacker issue..I wouldn't do it myself as we are often on opposite sides in a few debates so that may cloud my impartiality in cases of borderline judgment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Huggle doesn't use rollback. And the Schmucky revert is because I see him to be a common troll. Besides, rollback can be used for, and I quote, "to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism. This includes edits that are obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject. Banned users may also be rollbacked on sight as their edits are prima facie nonproductive.", emphasis mine. No intervention is needed. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, Huggle will not work without Rollback as you, yourself say at your request for rollback. Also, I would say this reversion was outside the permissible items that can be rollbacked. MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't use rollback when reverting, IIRC; rollback is more of a barrier to restrict just anyone from using it. Besides, I think that falls within the parameters that rollback may be used for (see my quote, I think terms such as "sadly" and "embarrassing" (and maybe even the "Supremes" cleanup), do fall into poorly worded content, and editorial comment, both of which are permissible to rollback), but where the line is drawn is a matter of opinion. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When_not_to_use_Rollback. Those reverts would of been better done using the Undo edit. Also, those edits I would not class as vandalism, but purely original research which need sources. D.M.N. (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the diff, and found no doubt that it shouldn't be used. That's what I'm contesting; the use of editorial comment and poorly worded content makes rollback explicitly allowed. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Using rollback on your own talk page is permissible for any reason, so far as I am aware. Are you saying it is not, for some reason? (Note: This has no bearing on the content dispute use of rollback.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Using rollback and its automatically-generated edit summary says, "The edit that I'm undoing here is so obviously inappropiate as to be (at best) little better than vandalism, and it can be removed without further comment or explanation." The use of rollback on a good-faith talk page edit is considered breathtakingly rude. (Note that I have no comment on the current dispute.) If you don't want someone to comment on your talk page, or you want them to drop an issue, leave them a polite note to that effect, and remove the thread from your talk page with a regular, polite edit summary. Exceptions would be socks evading blocks, vandalism, massive text dumps or copy/pastes of articles, particularly nasty personal attacks, etc. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think rollback is permitted on one's own talk page, per the rollback rules "Using rollback on one's own talk page to remove non-vandalism comments from other users is not considered misuse.". MBisanz ^talk 13:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What I do sometimes is use the rollback tool but use a rollback summary script to set a different summary. You can install this by copying the line importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js'); into your monobook.js. Orderinchaos 08:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Read link 88 to the article history, not link 87 to his talk page, it was the talk page revert that drew my interest. Also, this reversion is interesting, as it reinserts an advert section to an Article for Creation and this reversion in which the IP asks Sceptre to discuss at the talk page, yet Sceptre still reverts. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Easily explained, both of them: AFC is often vandalised with people removing proposed additions all the time - RBI, especially for new accounts; and the Castlevania revert was done because of a kilobyte of text with no edit summary, and the IP kept going back and changing, without a meaningful edit summary. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What part of the edit sum (see talk page and provide a better argument) is not meaningful? And just because a page is often vandalized, is not a good reason to go and use tools to reinsert an advert. MBisanz ^talk 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That was part of the fourth revert. If he gave a meaningful summary on the first, I would not have reverted. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So the fact it took an IP a couple tries to learn something means we disregard him and just revert? Where is the good faith there. MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the good faith to assume that an experienced user knows what he is doing? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have to agree, that content dispute is not a an appropriate use of rollback and neither was it appropriate to give the IP warnings for it. This combined with talk of previous abuse would make it seem like rollback, unfortunately, should be removed. GDonato (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how [10] is not a content dispute over what the artist's genre should be labeled or how Scetpre is not the one vandalizing in this edit. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment or ask me to clarify it :) GDonato (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert-on-sight applies to genre changing without reason, and the Suite Life revert was because the IP was adding unsourced content to an episode page, again revert-on sight. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as neither was a BLP, could you please elaborate on why this was so vital as to require a rollback? MBisanz ^talk 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just re-read the Rollback rules, please show me in them the special exemption for music genres and episode content. MBisanz ^talk 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because, 99%, they are totally non-constructive. Are you seriously splitting hairs, especially seeing as how the Suite Life IP went on to actually vandalise the article? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you just got rollback returned, I will split hairs, good edits should not be reverted and you should know that. MBisanz ^talk 13:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They weren't good edits. I edit music and television articles regularly; I know what edits are non-productive. Adding summaries to unaired episodes, without sources, is non-productive, and actually necessitated a request for mediation when our rules were more lenient. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So... you're admitting this was a dispute over your interpretation of our content rules, odd. MBisanz ^talk 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't an RFM; the RFM was over disambiguation. Nevertheless, the 2005 discussion still stands as proof of non-productivity. And while it is based on my interpretation, it's a well-founded (and well-supported) interpretation built through experience. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, could you comment on this use of rollback? Was this a mistake, or in your opinion was this justified? PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes: it was an IP removing content without an edit summary. If it was say, a few hundred bytes, I would've thought about it, but this was removing a kilobyte. I looked at the edit, and thought that he was removing the plot section entirely without reason, which falls into nonconstructive anyway. The user hadn't edited, so a level 1 warning would've helped them along the right lines. I kept reverting because he kept including reverting to his version, without a legible summary until the fourth (which, by then, I go into auto-rollback). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying it was an acceptable use of rollback, then I disagree. Don't get me wrong, there have been instances where I've misjudged content removal, and either assumed bad faith of an editor, or assumed good faith of a vandal. However, my concern is that you don't seem to be using rollback purely for simple vandalism, and instead are using to revert editors who are perhaps being overly bold. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think this is very inappropriate. D.M.N. (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "see talk and have a better argument" is not legible? I'm assuming, since its text and English, you could read it? Avruch ^T 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this notion that rollback must only be used for vandalism coming from? RBK says any non-productive edit, and has done for months. Avruch, re-read my post; I said "without an legible summary until the fourth". Sceptre ^(talk) 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, where does it say that rollback can be used for what amounts edit warring? RxS (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Previously, it was an unwritten rule. I do it anyway in one situation only: if they've previously been involved in harassing me (from not getting the point on Wikipedia, to "better people have left because it made them unwell" harassment), with no sign of remorse. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacking your user talk is fine, but iirc, we blocked an individual for a message similar to that. MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, Please don't call me names in this discussion. My only involvement was to ask you to not to leave template warning messages in an edit conflict. I don't want to be dragged into it, and don't deserve to be insulted as part of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• I was asked to comment here. Looking over the above, it's clear that Sceptre believes the edits made to be unconstructive. I took a look at them and tend to agree. However, the fact that someone thought it was a useful edit, and was willing to make it several times with this belief, means we should do what we can to nurture this person into understanding what is constructive, rather than simply reverting them because they aren't yet aware of how things work around here. I think Sceptre should slow down just a bit and try to use a custom edit summary wherever possible. If he pledges to do so, I would support his regaining rollback. —Giggy 02:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  The reason that I use the standard Huggle summary because I didn't know how to add a custom summary... I don't think speed's an issue, though; I can review diffs and calculate their net worth accurately very fast. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed

Having been the one to return rollback a few days ago, I have now removed the tool on the grounds that there are various examples listed by editors above indicating that the basic tenant of WP:ROLLBACK, to revert only blatant vandalism has not been followed. Just as it is no big deal to have rollback, so it is no big deal to remove it. Since I am presently not very active on-wiki, any administrator may, of course, override this with good cause. Regards Fritzpoll (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What version of ROLLBACK are you reading? It's much more permissive than what you say it is: it allows people to revert anything non-productive. Please re-instate it, because I do feel that my edits genuinely fit to the current version of rollback (even if rollback was used, which I don't think it was). Sceptre ^(talk) 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your feeling seems to be running counter to at least 3-4 other users at the moment, I am not sure it should be the overriding piece of judgment. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The current version says only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism. This includes edits that are obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject. That doesn't include edits that are in good faith, but perhaps overly bold. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the edits fall under that wording. And I did believe the Super Castlevania edit was vandalism; see above. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In which case removing rollback was the correct decision. PhilKnight (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because I'm more lenient on considering edits rollbackable than you are? I believe that the edits I did revert were rollbackable; there was no doubt in my mind that the edits should be reverted using rollback. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not the only one to have noticed that the first link provided by MBisanz (the rollback on Sceptre's talkpage) used Twinkle, not Huggle or the rollback right as described above. Avruch ^T 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, it was twinkle, and that is what drew my attention to Sceptre's edits, where I discovered the misuse of rollback. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks. Avruch ^T 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Sceptre That so many people are disputing that the edits were obvious vandalism, rather begs the question on whether your interpretation of obvious vandalism is such as to allow you continued use of Rollback. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How many times must I say this? RBK has not restricted use to blatant vandalism for months. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But you labeled them as vandalism. Good faith edits are never vandalism. RxS (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"‎(Reverted edits by 165.139.21.151 to last version by Radeon24 (HG))" doesn't mean "165.139.21.151 has vandalised", it means, "I have reviewed 165's edit and do not believe it to be an overall productive edit to Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No but this [11] does. The recent edit you made to Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. It wasn't vandalism and if you were going to use rollback on a non-vandalism edit you need to explain why it was rolled back. RxS (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you keep on saying it until such time as you want it back; arguing semantics gives the community no basis to agree that you will use it "uncontroversially" (if that is a better phrase). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re LHVU: Use isn't nearly controversial enough to warrant removal if people get rid of the incorrect assumption that rollback must only be used for vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Rx: If I revert someone for the first time, they get {{uw-vandalism1}} (which is a redirect from {{uw-huggle1}}. It explains that an edit was unconstructive, and offers pointers on how to; namely, adding an edit summary and reading the introduction to editing again. If the IP doesn't do what is politely requested of him, or even read the notice, it becomes a bit of an uphill struggle to assume good faith. As an aside, the user has been previously warned against adding inappropriate content (i.e. spam) to similar articles before. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism though. It was original research, hence they should of got the {{uw-nor1}} tag. D.M.N. (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, what are you doing laying a vandalism template on someone who didn't vandalize? Unconstructive edits do not automatically amount to vandalism. And in this case they weren't. RxS (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying I'm calling it vandalism because the template is called vandalism1? It's only called that to complete the set. It doesn't imply that edits are vandalism at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No because the text identifies the edit as vandalism. See my example above. This [12] and this The recent edit you made to Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. It's a huge pet peeve of mine, think of how it looks to a new user. They don't have a super clear idea of how things work here, they make a good faith edit and get called a vandal. We have to bend over backwards to avoid that. You could have gotten the point across without calling somone a vandal. RxS (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to quote KillerChihuahua here: AGF is not a suicide pact. If an editor doesn't listen, there's no point assuming good faith. Though I think the second level should be a bit more lenient. And before anyone calls hypocrisy, I do listen; after my recent removal from not reading RBK properly, I went back and I read it. Just because I have a more liberal interpretation of the rollback guidelines than some people does not mean I misused it. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The first two times you had rollback removed, weren't they for reasons of non-vandalism use? What happened to I'm already limiting the use of rollback and labelling edits as vandalism, deferring iffy cases to over editors [sic]? [13] --Kbdank71 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on iffy. If I doubt that an edit should be rolled back, I skip it. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Posting here for more eyes. I've proposed a change to wording of WP:ROLLBACK. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good wording. Suitable number verbs. bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

SchmuckyTheCat and omission of timestamps in signatures

I've noticed recently, and again in this thread, that SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) has stopped including timestamps in his signed talk page comments. [14] [15] [16] [17] My previous contacts with the user suggest this is intended to be some sort of practical joke that ignores the difficulty it causes for people reading the threads. I'd appreciate other opinions on the matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a tad annoying, but not disruptive. One could always tag with {{undated}} if the absence of time stamp in a particular conversation is causing confusion. — Satori Son 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be done by a bot, except that he has also opted out of automatic signing. The second difficulty is that sections with unsigned comments are not automatically archived. So in the end he's intentionally causing unnecessary work for other people - I'd call that disruptive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree this is distruptive, intentionally or not. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sections will only not automatically archive in cases where mine is the only comment in the section and that is only with particular archive bots. In which case, I do (even retroactively) leave a timestamp. So, not disruptive. I prefer a minimalist sig and I know when it isn't appropriate. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Seeing as I frequently sign Polls and Votes without a timestamp (it looks ugly to me), I would be on the fence about this, that Schmucky knows when to date his comments for archiving purposes is a positive mitigating development. MBisanz ^talk 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Polls are one thing, threaded talk page conversation is another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he's been warned against it in the past too. Though there is no point in blocking him - we must assume good faith, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If I have misjudged community consensus on this matter, I am open to being convinced. Are we saying it is blockable behavior to continue to sign comments with “~~~” instead of “~~~~” after being asked to stop? I don't recall this specific issue having come up for input before. It seems a little harsh. — Satori Son 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No need for a block, we can simply re-enable automatic signing. Not dating any talk page comments at all is at odds with our community norms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no way this is a blockable offense. Is it boorish and immature to not comply? Yes; the "it looks ugly" argument is crap. Some editors are just always going to have to prove a point. Tan ǀ 39 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts about the auto-signing category? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason to use four tildes; it breaks the archiving bots. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, that was addressed above already. the wub "?!" 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be adding a time-stamp to any comments that do not include them if they are on my talk-page. Otherwise... it's not compulsorily to even sign your comments. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly block anyone who refused to sign their talk page comments. The software can't require it - because it's impossible for software to tell which edits need to be signed - but it certainly is compulsory to sign talk page posts, as novices are instructed when they first begin to contribute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, WP:SIGN states, "Since typing four tildes adds the time and date to your resulting signature, this is the preferred option for signing your posts in discussions." If the community is serious about this, it should state "required method" instead of "preferred option". — Satori Son 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to impose absolute rules like that, it's best to give people the freedom to do what a situation requires (sure, we can IAR, but it's better not the make the rules in the first place). Not doing something which is preferred without a good reason is something we can deal with without creating a rule for every situation. I would support opting him back in to the auto-signing and if he opts out again, we can deal with it under edit warring, which there are plenty of rules for. --Tango (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not at all trying to impose new rules. Just saying that if community consensus has changed on this issue, we should update the guideline to reflect that consensus. As I said earlier, I personally don't believe failing to date talk posts is all that disruptive. I'll be moving on to other issues now. — Satori Son 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there really is no end to how childish and bored people can get, is there? I'm going to change my signature to read WWkknniigghhtt9944 and have it link to Diplopia just to see how many people complain. What a waste of time. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl, what are you thinking? "I would certainly block anyone who refused to sign their talk page comments. The software can't require it - because it's impossible for software to tell which edits need to be signed - but it certainly is compulsory to sign talk page posts, as novices are instructed when they first begin to contribute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC) " Where did anyone refuse? This issue seems trivial and certainly no cause for such Draconian statements. Try to remember that this is a volunteer community, not a gulag. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between refusal and ignorance. If a person doesn't sign their comments because they don't know any better, then point them in the right direction. If they don't sign their comments in wilful disregard of the community norm, going so far as to opt-out from automatic signing because you don't want to date your comments, then they shouldn't be allowed to comment. I'd support Carl in any action he takes in this regard. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, I was responding to the comment of J.Smith directly above mine. SchmuckyTheCat does sign his talk posts (without including timestamps) and I have no intention to block him for just for the lack of timestamps. I do think it would be reasonable to re-enroll him in auto-signing , and I note that nobody has argued against it so far. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would, in the absence of any evidence that his refusal to add a date has actually caused any disruption at any point. Neıl ☄

Cough cough :) Neıl ☄ 08:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well (not) said. ;D And IMO, a block for not signing is more than a little fascist. What's next? Blocking anybody using a pseudonym? John Hancock ^{¿can you read it now?}

"Wikipedia western-oriented POV" as reasoning for content removal

User:LokiiT insists that he has given his reasoning for map removal in the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia at the talk page of the image Image:Abkhazia and South Ossetia relations.png.

And there he says this:

Why is it that in the Kosovo map we only show those who recognize kosovo, but in this map here we show who says they won't recognize South Ossetia? Wikipedia western-oriented POV strikes again. Most of those countries should be colored light orange instead of dark orange furthermore. Almost none of those countries have specifically declared that they will not recognize them as independent. LokiiT (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked him to contribute instead of blank. To change what he dislikes which he didn't or to give an exact reason over his removal actions yet he persistently says he gave his reasons on the talk page of the image. I have also explained him that similar image exists for Kosovo unlike what he wrote but haven't received any positive answer from him.

My question here is - can the user remove the content based on the idea that English Wikipedia is some kind of Western World POV presenter? And if not how do we stop this from happening?

P.S. I have hidden the image from the article to stay out of the 3RR breach, I am not interested in breaching any rules even though I consider this to be an odd case of vandalism inspired by wrong image this user has on how Wikipedia works.

--Avala (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a western POV. Though that's no reason to remove the map. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And, if anything, the problem is with the Kosovo map rather than this one. Resolute 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So is it OK to put the map back on?--Avala (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Its informative, as long as somebody makes sure it stays up-to-date. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User signature

Resolved

 – Blocked, unblocked, signature shortened, inappropriate pages deleted. _Gb^T/c 10:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not see a RFC appropriate to discuss a users signature. So here it is. I am looking for a little guidance on User:Andy Bjornovich. You can see his signature on my talk page. I do not see a strict guideline in the WP:Sig page other then over 255 char is truncated by the system. If this is the wrong place for this please point me in the right direction. Thanks all. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks a little excessive to me but I'm biased against fancy and extra long signatures. You can list it on Wikipedia talk:Username policy or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's way too long, to the point that it's disruptive. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names isn't the right place, as it's not the username that's excessive, just the signature. Have you tried simply asking him to tone it down? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I did notify them. You can see their response on my talk page. He deletes everything from his talk page. Essentially he said I was the only person to complain about it. I think his account is 8 days old. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a new editor. On the other hand, he looks like a good faith contributor so far, and he says he isn't deleting things from his Talk page but archiving them to sub-pages. I've sent a polite note with my opinion of the sig. Let's see what happens. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's excessive; but probably just asking nicely from more than one person would do the trick. — Coren ^(talk) 00:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on foreign languages, but it appears that his "signature" is his full name, if that's the case, the sig looks to be okay. His userpage, however, is a different story. Big time WP:NOT goin' on there! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 12:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

...and restored. I'm trying to talk to him about the sig issue, so someone else should drop a follow-up to KoshVorlon's friendly message about userpage content. — Satori Son 12:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No luck. In fact, his response here seems simply WP:POINTy to me. Thoughts from other admins on next steps, if any? — Satori Son 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Account created 8/19 [18] yet seems to be navigating very well. Placed protection templates on his own user page [19]. Does not even act interested in what others are trying to tell him. Shuts them down quickly. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else it seems to violate WP:SIG#Length, which states that "long signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution." Unfortunately, there's little in the policy that actually prevents this. Also, that the software will automatically truncate both plain and raw signatures to 255 characters suggests that this is the maximum allowable number of characters, and indeed, the user seems to be aware of this. You could try asking for comments on the WP:SIG talk page, but it seems that RFC might be the only other recourse. Just as a side note, the user's behaviour seems rather uncivil. He's a tough call; mostly edits his own pages, although has made some apparently constructive edits elsewhere. Interestingly, also appears interested in becoming an admin. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

His response on my Talk page is not encouraging... not least because it's shorter than his sig. RfC? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Might need some additional eyeballs on his page. I have reverted his family tree a total of three times and will not revert further, his response was to revert back and respond with rather pointy messages as well. I have also reverted his protection template as it's deceptive. If you think I'm barking up the wrong tree - let me know and I'll stop.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the family tree and posted a message to his talk page explaining why. _Gb^T/c 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And he deleted it saying you are a vandal. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. I've been called worse... _Gb^T/c 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that did not work User:Andy Bjornovich/Family tree. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of his other subpages are... interesting as well. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I assure you all I am not going to shorten it. If anyone can, do they mind actually semi-protecting and move-protecting my userpage. Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your incivility surrounding the clearly problematic issue of your excessively long signature aside, it has already been explained to you that such protection applies only if the page is being vandalised, which it isn't. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed block

I'll be the first to say it: a short block is in order. This "new" user is continuing to make uncivil and disruptive edits. Numerous editors and admins have left them extremely polite messages asking them to please comply with our community guidelines. In return, there has been defiant and antagonistic conduct, including name calling, edit warring, creating inappropriate pages, and selectively deleting ongoing conversations. I will not block without support from others here, but I don't think a separate RfC is required to effectively deal with this. We should have very little tolerance for this kind of behavior. — Satori Son 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support- His actions and responses show he is not willing to work within the community guidelines or even engage in dialog. His comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhíannon Thomas shows his willingness to defy consensus. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• SUPPORT - I'm involved, of course, however, I support blocking. He is showing incivlity, edit warring, and if I'm not mistaken, he's now socking this ip address. It's sole edit is to his page! I think a nice cup of tea is in order for him.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sig is not negotiable and this user must understand that. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose with a reasonable approach progress has been made over the family tree issue. He's refrained from describing good faith edits as "vandalism" for at least ten contributions. Blocking won't serve any particular purpose, as it would seem to be primarily punitive in nature. Let me continue talking to him to try and work things out. _Gb^T/c 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Without supporting or opposing, I disagree that a block would be punitive. If an editor refuses to change a signature that multiple editors have described as disruptive, then a block is very much preventative. As soon as the disruptive signature is changed, the editor would be unblocked. Quite some time ago (likely over a year ago), I blocked an editor who refused to remove images from his signature, despite multiple editors asking him to do so. The second he removed the images, another admin unblocked. - auburnpilot talk 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Incivility and tendentious edits continue, as does inappropriate use of subpages. User is a curious combination of brand new and very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. On the other hand, I would also support postponing the block to give Gb a chance to work with him. If the user demonstrates that he can remain civil; edit something other than his own user pages; and abide by our policies and consensus, a block may not be needed. If he continues as he's currently behaving though, he clearly needs a block. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If Gb succeeds in convincing them to change their signature, request deletion of the inappropriate user pages, and commit to adopting a collaborative and civil attitude toward contributing here, that would help alleviate some of the serious concerns I have with this user. But if the behavior continues, a block would clearly be preventative in nature. — Satori Son 20:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've actually went ahead and blocked. Looking into the contributions of that user showed little but willful disruption and agressivity, and dismissive comments to attempts to guide them. With luck, Gb could be able to coax better behavior and unblock, but in the meantime I see no reason to let this continue. — Coren ^(talk) 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me, obviously. I was willing to wait, but was not hopeful much would come of doing so. I will also note that discussions on the user's talk page are not affected by the block, and unblocking can occur if significant progress is shown. Indefinite is not permanent. Thanks to Coren for acting decisively. — Satori Son 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I've also AFD'ed one of his contributions that was earlier PROD'ed: Erick Rowsell. seicer | talk | contribs 01:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, nice to see that the above completely ignores the facts that (i) they hadn't edited for an hour and a half, (ii) their recent edits had shown a movement towards "behaving properly", and (iii) not forty minutes before the block was imposed I'd left them a polite message about their userpages for which an answer was still awaited.

I was slowly coaxing better behaviour. The block and the (totally unnecessary) 3RR report have, I suspect, made that now nigh-on impossible. _Gb^T/c 07:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Scratch that, then. Pass me my hat, a plate, and a knife and fork. _Gb^T/c 08:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. Looks like my diet includes a little headwear as well. Sincere thanks for your efforts, and let's hope they are reformed for good! — Satori Son 12:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeay Gb. Epic win! — Coren ^(talk) 12:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Celebrations may have been premature. Recent edits are less than promising, to say the least. — Satori Son 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some problematic edits continue. In particular, please see the following edits from today: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. I've left a warning on his talk page, but propose he be re-blocked following his next disruptive edit. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this does not bode well. His "sense of humor" seems to be constructed in such a way as to attract negative admin attention; I'm definitely blocking indef if he disrupts again. — Coren ^(talk) 01:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy is continuing an edit war. This needs to be stopped.

Resolved

 – Thais blocked 48 hours for trolling and incivility. Move along now.... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this page, there is an extended debate where I was threatened several times by an aggressive editor, Exploding Boy.

The 'conversation' was stopped by Satori Son 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I resisted the urge to respond to last accusations made there against me. For example, someone said I had made threats, which was completely untrue, I have never said anybody was going to suffer negative repercussions for their posted ideas, something which others have done several times. I let it all go. It was over, it was unproductive, I walked away from it.

Now Exploding Boy is continuing his attack.

In an entirely different issue, on the reliability of some internet source, he posted this :

"Thaïs Alexandrina is new here as well, and has been admonished several times to remain civil. Xeriphas' view of the source seems quite correct to me. Please also see WP:SOURCE. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)"

That is only a personal attack. He is carrying on a personal battle, and taking it on to new venues.

The only person to admonish me to remain civil has been Exploding Boy. He only did so after I proved him wrong on a minor point about the difference between a number and a collective noun. He has been on an ongoing attack since then.

How long will he be allowed to continue a personal attack? To how many articles will he be allowed to stalk me? How is he following wikipedia policy by attacking people's personal reputation? What does this have to do with the purposes of an encyclopedia? And how come the administrators of this site allow this kind of behavior? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think he needs to make three reverts before he can be blocked. Or was it 3 reverts? Sorry, it was totally worth it Protonk (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thaïs is right. She totally let it go. She let it go here, and here and here.... Exploding Boy (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you're referring to someone's personal talk page. Someone's personal talk page. How would you even know about those posts unless you were stalking me? ---Can no one stop Exploding Boy from continuing this? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, am I allowed to follow after him everywhere he posts and attack his character? Is that how things are done here? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there grown ups anywhere here? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Did it not occur to you that perhaps I've known Keeper76 a lot longer than you and have his talk page on my watchlist?

So, would someone else like to explain to Thaïs why her behaviour is unacceptable? She seems disinclined to take it from me. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the page loads, I'm going to block her for a day or two. This is unacceptable trolling. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One would have done it oneself, but one didn't want to cause anyone to blow a gasket. Thanks, and can we close this discussion too and move on to more important things? Exploding Boy (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, it's better you didn't. Well done restraining yourself. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In related news (and no, I didn't open the investigation, but I was notified of it). Keeper ǀ 76 15:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well. It has just now been  Confirmed that Thaïs Alexandrina is one of 30 sockpuppets. I know, I'm shocked too. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent RFCs on conduct

When (during the creation of the whole concept of RFC/Us) was RFC/Us intended as a venue for personal feedback on no particular dispute? I think the answer is never.

I'm becoming irritated at the precedent that is being set in allowing self-initiated (and uncertified) RFC/U's to be listed at the main page. The list at this page was meant for genuine disputes that are attempting to follow the dispute resolution process. Looking through that list, I see at least one of those genuine disputes having insufficient third party input to help resolve the dispute (in fact, no third party input at all). I don't object to users wanting third party input, or receiving it, on general conduct not referring to a specific dispute - but listing it at this venue (i.e. the RFC/U main page), I think, is inappropriate and not helpful. The RFC/U page was very clearly intended for other users have concerns over the conduct of a particular user in a specific dispute.

I request there is firmer enforcement of the more important RFC/U guidelines. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when has RFC/U been used for genuine disputes anyway? Zing! Sceptre ^(talk) 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, almost always, though perhaps unfortunately you haven't bothered to participate in them. Of course I've seen some RFCs used primarily for the purpose of attacking the user and it is unfortunate, but even in them, genuine attempts are made to mitigate this; users identify what misconduct needs to be improved, they suggest ways to improve the misconduct and reduce the friction (that might've unnecessarily escalated the dispute to this unproductive form), or give solutions that would otherwise resolve the dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the process' creator has said that RFC/U was more trouble than it's worth, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did hear something about him saying that, but it seems too likely that he's given undue weight to one point. Unfortunately, the few RFCs used for attacking an user attract the most attention/# of responses. To make it a little clearer, if an attack-based RFC ends up with >20 responses or views, the RFC based on genuine concerns in a genuine dispute might have an average of maybe just 2 or 3 responses. With numbers like that, it's easy to come to a conclusion that it's no longer worthwhile pursuing RFCs, particularly like the latter - but that's not the whole picture. RFCs still do their bit in fitting in the dispute resolution process, even if it's only to an extent. It used to give, and still gives problem users a chance to improve or change their conduct (if it's found that they are engaging in problematic conduct of some sort in that dispute). Sometimes those users change immediately, and it's resolved there and then. Most of the time, it acts as a record - the user was warned or given a chance, but has demonstrated that he/she will not or cannot change their conduct to be satisfactory, so forceful measures (like sanctions) are needed to resolve the dispute. And why bother resolving the dispute? To reduce (if not eliminate) the adverse effect it has on other contributors and/or the pedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-initiated RfC/U's have been suggested as a means of gathering feedback on oneself prior to RfA for... well, as long ago as I read the process page for that. I always thought it was a bit silly, but it's been that way for a good while.

As for RfC's in general, I've rarely seen them have useful outcomes, but they do provide an advantage by giving a more restrained forum than Noticeboard pile-ons, which are the other commonly used way of voicing widespread complaints with a user. --erachima talk 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good example of why WP:IAR exists. As long as there exists a place where people might solicit feedback, quibbling over whether it should be an RFC or an editor review or whatever is splitting hairs at its finest. I could definitely see an argument for the initator preferring the RFC formatting over other formats (or vice-versa). Badger Drink (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rereading Ncm's first comment, it occurs to me that his primary complaint seems to be that listing self-initiated RfCs among the others distracts from the ones based on serious problems. This seems like a legitimate concern to me, but I doubt AN is the correct venue for it. Could I suggest that WT:RfC would be a better place for discussing a change to the listing format? (Or if you're feeling bold, you could just make a new "self-iniated" section of the list for those ones and see if anyone complains.) --erachima talk 03:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just it. (1) Using an RFC format on a user subpage is fine, but actual RFC pages are being used against those guidelines. (2) Listing those RFCs that aren't based on disputes or problems of that sort is taking away attention from those RFCs which could benefit more. The first part involves moving and deleting which requires admin tools. The second part can probably only stem from there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is a purely nominal issue, in several senses of that phrase. The second can be addressed by simply sorting the self-initiated listings out from the rest so that they don't distract. No process change necessary but a note on the instructions mentioning to put self-inits under their proper header, and certainly nothing requiring administrative action. --erachima talk 05:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think that self-initiated RFCs should really be dealt with through WP:ER, or, if relevant, WP:COACH. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) RfC, as found under WP:RFC, is set up as part of Dispute Resolution and, as such, has a specific issue or dispute being covered. The requirement for two users certifying that attempts have been made, and failed, to resolve the dispute short of RfC, with user RfCs, is a protection against noise. I have started an RfC, for the purpose of advising me with regard to a specific incident, in my user space. I also did it there because I want to experiment with ways of helping an RfC to more accurately predict consensus (i.e., if we took an RfC result to a larger forum, would the result be likely to be the same). Since the purpose of my RfC is to advise me, it is quite legitimate that I control it, within reason and general guidelines for what I can do in my user space. However, a general RfC, as an advanced part of DR, self-certified, seems inappropriate to me. It should be in user space, in which case the user can pretty much do what he or she wishes with it. I'd agree that these RfCs, under WP:RfC could distract from the more serious dispute resolution generally going on with RfCs, where there are contending parties. A present self-RfC in WP space seems to have co-opted an adversarial one, where "charges" would have been presented, evidence compiled, etc. And, presumably, specific efforts would have been made to resolve a dispute, which would have pretty much required the "plaintiffs" to suggest a remedy or remedies, to negotiate this. I'd suggest that self-RfCs be moved to the user space of the initiator, where any user can use an RfC or RfC-like format to solicit general advice as the user wishes. I'd call this Stage 0 in dispute resolution! -- A user trying to figure out what the community will and will not support, how the community views the editor, etc. It can be quite difficult to distinguish between flack that is expected, if one takes on controversial issues, and flack that is a result of personal failings and errors. If anyone is curious, my own personal RfC is quite narrow at this point, though it will widen once the first questions are answered; it is at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, and the user page contains the questions, discussion of them is open at this point in Talk for that page. There is also my own apparently confusing description of aspects of my self-RfC process at User:Abd/RfC, but it isn't necessary to read that to understand the current specific RfC. --Abd (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Majorly [26]. Note - I've removed Sceptre's RFC from the list in the same way given he is unable to do so currently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin "Ownership" of Article on Centrifugal Force

A lengthy debate has been taking place obout the article "Centrifugal Force", and one particular Admin (Wolfkeeper) has taken an active interest. In the past couple of weeks, FOUR different editors (of which, be it known, I am one) have independently expressed the opinion that this Admin has lost his perspective on the article, and seems to feel an unhealthy sense of "ownership" in suppressing any and all edits that don't meet with his approval. They have suggested/requested that he take a break for awhile, but he doesn't wish to do so. Regardless of whether he really has lost his perspective, the fact that FOUR different editors have complained about it seems to suggest at the very least that he's not viewed by his fellow-editors as behaving in a neutral way towards the article. Naturally we can all have our own opinions, but my question is, in a situation like this, wouldn't it be wise for the Admin to refrain from exercising Administrative functions for this article, such as blocking people who make unfavorable comments about the article on the Talk page? Is it possible to request some "disinterested" administrator to perform the administrative functions (if needed) for the article, at least for awhile, until things cool down?Fugal (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at this, I'll first note that Wolfkeeper is not an administrator, or if so is not on the list. Second, while I haven't read through the entire talk page, it appears that there are several people involved in the discussion who have discussed your edits and the consensus is that they aren't helpful to the article at present. I didn't see where people were suggesting Wolfkeeper step away, either; the other editors seem to be working with him/her reasonably well, at least recently.

Having said that, this is an editing dispute, and I'd suggest you consider dispute resolution as the best approach to getting more discussion going. It doesn't really require administrator attention right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony, that's correct that Wolfkeeper is not an admin, but don't use that sucky admin list. Use this. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Deadlocked debates can sometimes be resolved via requests for comment. Sounds like you'd want {{RFCsci}} here, if you're interested. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Task List

Just so you know, you can leave some jobs lying in my task list if you'd like. Just don't bombard me with them.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 10:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre

Sceptre asked via email if I would close down his user page; this discussion is now moot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've cut his block time down to two months, in accordance with what seems to be rough consensus at ANI and his user talk page. It's what I would usually block for in sockpuppetry cases of this kind. The Frostie Jack RFCU has closed inconclusively, but I don't believe Sceptre is the sockmaster behind all of this (for one thing, I don't think he's smart enough to get away with that one, and a number of things point to someone else).

I appreciate better than most that Sceptre has a truly dreadful record of stalking and harassment, and there is probably a good case to ban him. Nevertheless, his productive contributions have surely earned him one last chance before we kick him out for good. Conditional to this reduced block, I propose that he be prohibited indefinitely from using all automatic reversion tools (rollback, twinkle, huggle, the lot), be loosely mentored by a couple of trusted admins, and that we make it quite clear that one more instance of any kind of disruptive editing will lead to an instant permaban. Moreschi (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of what I am referring to above dates back a long way, probably before some admins today were even active. Sysops can check out the deletedrevs of User:Benon/sceptre. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sceptre 2 is also relevant. Moreschi (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cross posting: I was dismayed that you've decided to block Will for two months. What about your block isn't punitive? What's two months going to do that 12 hours hasn't? Aside from annoying Will--who will be forced to edit under the radar until the block expires--you're preventing him from continuing his constructive article building. Matthew (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Be forced to edit under the radar? More sockpuppetry? I don't think so. This is simply a typical sockpuppetry block: no more, no less. Further, it is also customary to block for disruption (something Sceptre has been doing far too much of recently), and it also customary to give a medium-length "warning block" before the indef, which will be the next block (if there will be one). Moreschi (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Then "typical sockpuppetry blocks" are bad. "We'll block you for two months and let you stew. Then when the block expires you'll be obligated to act like a submissive person and admit you were a bad boy." This block is the pinnacle of stupidity. Matthew (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, "you'll have two much-needed months off to think about your conduct here. When you come back, you'll either act in accordance with policy or be banned". Hardly stupid, I think. Moreschi (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to insult Will, Moreschi. He's not dumb and he knows he did wrong. It does not take two months to figure that out. My previous statement stands. Matthew (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reading the user talk page, I don't think he fully gets it yet. He doesn't understand that he has invested far too much emotional energy into this place: that his attitude towards Kurt, Giano, and Bedford (among others) is unacceptable, that he has persistently abused vandalism-reversion tools, and has caused far more pointless drama that he's worth. Plus, he clearly has still not got rid of the instinct to harass, something that has already caused him problems here several years ago. Moreschi (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool down Matthew and don't abuse other users. Being an advocate is fine but you don't do you or Sceptre any favours by being unpleasant about it. It just makes you look immature. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool, don't worry. Matthew (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The sad thing is, I doubt Sceptre knows or fully understands how/what he has done wrong, and hence mentorship I feel would be helpful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ElizaEXPLOSION got 3 months for socking, other get anywhere from a month to indef, given that Sceptre knew this was wrong and did it anyway, and his past history of misbehavior, this is a proper length of the block. MBisanz ^talk 11:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, although I don't know the exact reasoning behind Sceptre's block, it strikes me as very odd that Sceptre gets this strict treatment (i.e. considering an indef block) whilst users will tiptoe around Betacommand and frown at the suggestion of an indef block... _TalkIslander 13:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand the reasoning behind something, my advice to you would be to not comment on it, lest you appear ignorant of the actual issues. I'd spend 5 minutes reading up the page as well - Sceptre has not been blocked indef. Black Kite 14:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"I'd spend 5 minutes reading up the page as well - Sceptre has not been blocked indef." - it ammuses me that you have the audacity to suggest this and yet failed entirely to read my message properly. I used the word 'considered', i.e. that a number of users are suggesting that he is soon to be indef-blocked, which they are (in case you're wondering, I found that out by taking five minutes to fully read the above discussion ;) ). _TalkIslander 14:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually meant that you could find out the reasons for Sceptre's block by reading up the page - which you can. Black Kite 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference, I believe, lies in what the socks were used for, and the history of the users involved. There's a bit more to this than "so-and-so used a sockpuppet." – Luna Santin (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the end, reviewing this, I see an editor who has been around a while and been productive, was found to have engaged in harassing another editor years ago, the community rightly refused to let him be a sysop because of it, and now has been caught intentionally committing further harassment while trying to hide the evidence. And once caught, refusing to see that what they did was seriously problematic. A long block with a definite ending date seems appropriate. A short block would send the wrong message. The lesson needs to be strong here. So anything short of 2 weeks would be actively counterproductive, while from a month on up seems reasonable. I don't object to the two month block, it is comfortably within the range I consider appropriate. GRBerry 13:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The point of blocking is not to send a message. "Users may be blocked from editing by an administrator to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm." Ok, if you still think Sceptre hasn't learned, that's a perfect reason not to unblock him- you're afraid he'll just start socking it up and all. But we should not be giving cool-down or "lesson" blocks. And to Moreshi, I don't think anyone should be deciding how much a user is "worth". Do I need to pick apart your contribs and decide, "eh, I could do this mysef, we don't really need you here"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You have to think it through a bit more, and not just make a superficial reading of the policy. If Sceptre hasn't learned not to be disruptive, it's likely he'll keep being disruptive. We have an interest in preventing further disruption. Friday (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) Yes, I do currently strongly suspect that Sceptre hasn't learned. After the community refused to let him become an administrator again because of prior harassment (see the deleted revisions of User:Benon/sceptre) he has been caught both harassing and intentionally trying to hide the evidence of it, which is not the behavior of someone who intends to stop the behavior. And somehow he can't muster up an admission that what he did was seriously problematic. So I do pretty much expect this sort of disruptive behavior to recur because this is already a recurrence now, and I especially expect it to recur if the block is lifted soon. If it is lifted soon, we'll reinforce his erroneous belief that what he did wasn't really a big problem. GRBerry 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • @Friday: Explain how I'm reading the policy superficially? Preventing further disruption is a valid reason to sustain a block, but trying to "teach a lesson" is not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • As I understand it, the only reason he wasn't banned before was the promise it would never happen again. It happened again. If your argument is that disruption will continue, you seem to be favoring an indefinite ban; if your argument is that no disruption occurred, or that we shouldn't consider this a serious problem, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Given the two month block seems to be the alternative to an indefinite ban, I'm not sure what you're looking for? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • A block can act as a deterrent against future misbehavior from the blocked editor as well as other editors who know that they may receive a long block for unacceptable behavior. We are not compelled to lift a block simply because there is no immediate threat of misbehavior from the editor and that doesn't make it punitive in nature. In order for blocks to function as deterrents, lengthy blocks are necessary. Otherwise, it's just an empty threat. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

His userpage is not properly tagged for the block and it's protected so only sysops can do it. William Ortiz (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Templated FUR review

This recent TfD discussion has established that the boilerplate {{Historic fur}} fair-use rationale template has been frequently misused and that images tagged with it require a systematic review and cleanup process. In order to implement the recommendations from that TfD, I have replaced the template with a warning message to be transcluded on the affected image pages in its stead. I believe the wording of that message sums up the results of the discussion fairly and delineates a fair process for review.

Unfortunately the admin who closed the TfD has just gone on wiki-vacations; therefore instead of consulting with him I'm bringing this here for notification and review.

A list of images affected is here. Any help at reviewing these will be greatly appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a reply at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nightgun?

Resolved

 – Deleted; stuff like this can also be tagged with {{db-xfd}}. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has an AfD tag on it. The AfD result was delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nightgun yesterday but, article still exists. Was going to tag as a recreation except for this. Did it get revived at DRV or is something wrong somewhere? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was never actually deleted, so I assume PeaceNT simply forgot to follow through with his/her AfD close. I've gone ahead and deleted it. - auburnpilot talk 14:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/RushdimIDlike

Can someone with AWB or some useful tool have a quick run through this guy's contribs from today and strip out the firefox3 spam? Stifle (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked back through the last 100 or so and just did it the old fashioned way. Uphill both ways in the snow and all that... Protonk (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I went to check out his contribs. Here is someone who fairly new to Wikipedia, and yet is doing what (to me) appears to be quite obvious automated actions, creating close to 30 new articles in a matter of minutes. The edits are 12+ per minute, all creating brand new articles. Many of them have partial sentences (Bibi Station, Heiwa Station, etc.), which also seems to support this is some sort of automated tool. I have been unable to get online for a while, so I realize I may be unaware of policy changes. Are things like this allowed, now? Ariel♥Gold 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was fishy at first but my guess is that he's a user on either the Japanese or Chinese wiki. Edit summaries and talk posts look like a non-native speaker and lots of actions indicate experimentation rather than prior mastery. Anyone can install Twinkle or HotCat and anyone can write a script to create articles en masse. Once they do that we might drop by and limit their creation rate or force them to apply for bot permissions, but no arbitrary block exists AFAIK. Protonk (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind. He just reinserted all the previous material. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. They've stopped for now, but I'll check back over the next day or so to see if it picks up again. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance merging histories

I'm not sure it's necessary, but I don't know how to do this, so need some help. The situation seems to be:

• Richard Colvin Reid (British man) was moved to Richard Reid (shoe bomber) back in December 2006. Actually, it looks like it might have been moved back and forth?
• The associated talk page did not get moved.
• So now we have Talk:Richard Colvin Reid (British man), which probably needs to be merged into Talk:Richard Reid (shoe bomber)

Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna' go hist-merge the talk pages now and putting the old content in there. Dunno' what to do about the articles themselves. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There, done. Feel free to reorganize the talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done a history merge of the articles too. If anyone's curious, just look at my logs and edits to see how it's done--it's actually pretty simple. Chick Bowen 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Or list it at WP:SPLICE and one of the seasoned old hands will deal with it. ;) Woody (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Time travel

I need some feedback on whether it would be right/legitimate/appropriate to undo this action of admin Jonathunder. Back in July 2006, Jonathunder participated in a controversial move discussion which he decided to close a few days later. The article was then moved, a result he had called for while participating in the discussion. Nowadays such actions would be strongly frowned upon and reverted, as admins may not close discussions where they are an involved party. But in that time, I recall there was more lenience towards this. Nevertheless, would it be okay to apply our current standards of fairness and aversion to conflict of interest, and have Jonathunder's closure of that 2006 move request reverted? Húsönd 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be better off starting a new requested moves discussion: given the controversy that there was two years ago, there's likely to be more controversy this time. If that is then closed with the decision to move it back again, then no doubt an uninvolved admin can carry that out if needed. --RFBailey (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that decision seems to have been an appropriate result given the standards of the day and throwing it out this much after the fact is uncalled for in my mind. Dragons flight (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Husond is subtly asking us to dredge up every incident in his last two years of editing and banninate him? ;-) Guy (Help!) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Húsönd 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That was two year ago, consensus could easily have changed in that time so any discussion that took place then should be pretty much ignored. Start a new discussion, nothing can be gained from appealing a decision that is no longer relevant. --Tango (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Hi. Could someone update the main page with this information regarding TS Gustav? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should I take these legal threats seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betta_Splendens&oldid=235052595

He'd have a hard time C&D ordering me in Elgin, though as I am in Glenview, but this guy sounds insane. --Betta Splendens (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is he back already? That's just a banned user who hovers over the Peter Roskam article. And your summary of his mental state is almost spot on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should always take legal threats seriously on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.43.3 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I really hope that was intended as making fun of me. Since you are an anon, I think I'll just chalk it up to that. --Betta Splendens (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Wikipedia's stand on these threats could be useful if you have not alreday read it. Also, the IP is being sarcastic. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:3ICE

Just came across his list of tutorials on google, and prefer not to be the one contacting the user as I'm retired and inactive. Hope they didn't changed WP:MYSPACE. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the editor hasn't edited since 17 August, and on 6 Aguust before that... if the pages sit without response, would an MfD be in order? I'm happy to give as long as desired for the user to respond, but... UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

I would be more likely to {{prod}} them instead of going straight to MfD. They shouldn't be controversial deletions. ~ BigrTex 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think prods are allowed for userpages. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He said had created them mainly to test his wikimarkup skills [27] and would delete them as soon as he had a chance to move them to his personal website. I'll check in a few days but I think it's resolved. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Festring DRV

Resolved

 – Peripitus committed the deed. — Coren ^(talk) 04:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please close this DRV before it degenerates further? Disclaimer: I'm the originally closing admin. — Coren ^(talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done by Peripitus. I did some research into that situation earlier, and wish that some of the sources (and energy) in that DRV would be applied to Cold war (general term), a lousy, completely unsourced article. Chick Bowen 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Should that article be resurrected, I'll point the energy that way.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 04:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Milosppf

Milosppf (talk · contribs) has been getting warnings since February about uploading copyrighted images without proper rationales, and yet, he/she continues to do so. Corvus cornix_talk 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From a review of the editors contribs, they edit almost exclusively in Serbian popular/rock music areas. It is possible that their level of English is not sufficient to understand either the policies nor the notices they recieve, so I suggest some good faith toward attempting to achieve an understanding with this editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of acknowledgment or apparent understanding is troublesome. I have blocked them until they acknowledge the problem and assert they will stop posting problematic contents. I understand language might be a barrier, but that simply makes stopping the problem until communication can be attained more important, IMO. — Coren ^(talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for moderator of autoformatting discussions

There has been discussion at the talk page for the Manual of Style dates and numbers section. I am requesting one administrator to help moderate a series of discussion cycles regarding changes to the guidelines for use of the autoformatting mechanism. The administrator needs to be completely unbiased on this subject for the moderation to go successfully. If you have any questions, please ask them here. Thank you for your attention. — OranL (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I've ever dealt with that page, or the MoS in general, but I would be willing to help mediate among the parties if everyone agrees to it. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All that is really needed is a third party to help keep discussion moving and to help determine if a consensus has been reached. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Autoformatting proposal and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Autoformatting proposal/framework to see what I have set up to help facilitate the discussion. — OranL (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help the discussion move forward, but I'd prefer a clear enough consensus be reached that I wouldn't need to determine anything. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what is needed. If you are willing to act as a moderator/mediator for this discussion, please change the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Autoformatting proposal page to indicate that you are acting in this capacity (it currently says that an individual has been requested). — OranL (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for closures at featured sound candidacies

Resolved

 – East hath committed it. — Coren ^(talk) 12:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, featured sounds. Happy news: a neglected corner of the site has become active and productive. Now all it needs is more help closing candidacies. So if you're looking for a pleasant admin task and enjoy music, here's the opportunity.

Background reading:

• Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria
• Wikipedia:FSC#Older_nominations

Candidacies due for closure:

• Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Vivaldi's The Four Seasons
• Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Balkandji - Diavolska shterka
• Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Schubert - Impromptu B-flat

All this absolutely needs is someone to close the discussions as "promoted" or "not promoted"--we have gnomes who'll take care of the rest. All the best, Durova^Charge! 06:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just one request, though: Don't move them to the archive until everything else in the promotion instructions have been done. As Durova says, we can do everything else, but anything archived is presumed to have everything done already =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Hello, there are a few requests here that could do with some eyes. The last admin to take a look was Guy, about a week ago. If a few others could deal with the four new sections made since then it would be appreciated. Cheers —Giggy 06:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is because you want your ED links enabled? Sorry, but I fail to see how that particular site can be considered a reliable source even about itself. Multiple statements sourced from the site is asking for bias and WP:NPOV failure. If, as it is asserted, the site has been the subject of multiple non-trivial accounts in reliable independent sources, then those same sources should be used to write the article. If it turns out that the sources are simply "X happened on ED" then a merge or delete is in order as they are trivial passing mentions. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can you at least look at the article before making a declaration like that? Protonk (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I did. The claim they make is not supported by the content or history of the site. Find a reliable independent source, perhaps? One problem is that the people who run and edit the site are unable to tell the difference between satire and libel. Uncyclopaedia is a satrical encyclopaedia, ED is a web forum for sophomoric nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see an exception to WP:SPS that excludes ED from that policy. I also see that WP:BADSITES has largely been rejected by the community. As such, I can't really see a reason why we wouldn't treat ED like any other organization, company or website out there and allow non-conteroversial claims about their own goals to be sourced to the site. I understand that the site is disruptive, sophomoric, hateful, etc, but our judgment of it shouldn't be made in the spam whitelist. If the community wants to judge that linking to ED is bad then we should ask the community as a whole. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rfcu box and noindex?

Would it be a good idea for this one template at Template:Rfcu box to be non-indexed with {{NOINDX}}? There are an awful lot of false positives (and hits) mixed into the 1560+ pages that contain it. rootology (C)(T) 08:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no problems with that. It's not something that should be indexable via Google (whyyy??) and there have been quite a number of RL names appearing in there, betimes - Alison ^❤ 08:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. There's no need to rub people's noses in it. And now we can NOINDEX User:Jon Awbrey as well, which can only be good. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Epistemic Theory of Miracles

Could someone in charge with half a brain get this idiot off my back please. Peter Damian (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the "idiot" in question and have been trying to nominate that article for deletion. However, the reporter has violated 3RR in removing the AFD tag 4 times and I have reported him for same. I am not taking any further action regarding that page or user today. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You are an idiot for nominating an article on that subject, with an 'in use' tag, for deletion. Go back to garage bands. Peter Damian (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Stifle, you gave an established editor 15 minutes before placing a PROD tag? Somewhat hasty I would have thought and not conducive to an environment of collaborative editing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• And I closed the AfD. Don't nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created; it screams of bad faith. In addition, your rationale -- albeit consisting of only a few words, was weak at best. seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Thank you. Sorry for getting angry, but article creation is stressful in itself and v stressful to see that 'deletion' tag. Simple rule: if the 'in use' tag put on, leave for an hour or two. I can't write an article of that size and complexity in less. The admin in question should have been struck off for his abusive and unhelpful behaviour. Peter Damian (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• And can someone get the fool to put back Adrastus of Cyzicus, and Dion of Naples in the state I left them. The fact a historical figure has only one reference IS AN IMPORTANT FACT IN ITSELF. Now the links are red, editors will try and locate the subjects. I have already established that Varro was the only person to reference them, please replace these, Stifle. Peter Damian (talk)

The article Dion of Naples was a circular redirect to itself, which is why it was deleted. It had no content. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the accidental circular redirect was it was the second time I had done it hence made that mistake. It is extremely stressful working in these conditions, trying to contribute scholarly content, with this abuse and bullying going on. Peter Damian (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't resort to using personal attacks, especially towards other administrators. If you wish to have your pages restored, please take it to deletion review. seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• That was a rather unreasonable assumption, action and accusation by you, Seicer. I would take it to DRV, but I'd rather not generate even more drama. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's not. Piling on his talk page with a succession of notices and PROD's and comments about his article being non-notable, etc. in a matter of minutes is not constructive. seicer | talk | contribs 14:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• May I suggest that Peter Damian uses his userspace to work on articles? {{in use}} is for use when someone is, for example, doing a copyedit through an entire article and wants to avoid edit conflicts. Articles in the mainspace should meet some minimum requirements. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• I have to head away, but if Peter Damian wants to DRV Adrastus of Cyzicus he's welcome. I didn't delete Dion of Naples. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • The tag, Peter, you have in mind is "underconstruction", which I think should allow a grace period of 7 days or so when used in good faith--though it does not specify any particular time. As for the articles, if you think you can make it more than one sentence just write it again. Frankly, I can see why someone might reasonably speedy an article saying only "Adrastus of Cyzicus and Dion of Naples are mathematicians mentioned in the book De gente populi Romani but of whom nothing else is known." At least say how they are mentioned and in what context. DGG (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Somewhat open to gaming, though. The suggestion of some userspace workup is a decent one (I have some under construction in my userspace). Still and all, this does appear to have been quite unnecessarily bad-tempered. Most admins will cheerfully userfy deleted content if asked nicely by someone who is obviously a good-faith contributor. Speedy nuking is really a way of dealing with the three Vs - vandalism, vituperation and vanity - so it would be fair to expect a more measured approach to a historical subject where it is not an obvious case of novel synthesis or reposting. I don't see that here. The amount of cruft in the more scholarly corners of Wikipedia is strictly limited by comparison with, say, footballers who once ran on in a single second-division match. One final thought: the article Peter asked to be userfied is at User:Peter Damian/Adrastus of Cyzicus; even allowing for systemic bias, "Adrastus of Cyzicus and Dion of Naples are mathematicians mentioned in the book De gente populi Romani but of whom nothing else is known" - the entire content of the article - looks very much like it fails any rational test of notability. If we know nothing about them other than their names and that they were once mentioned in a book then, and the cited source says just that, I would suggest they are probably not going to get much of an article out of it. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment Let me try to explain again why a short article on a person mentioned in classical literature is important. We only have a limited amount of information - primary sources in the form of old manuscripts, many of them copies of the original primary sources - on classical times. Sometimes it is useful to know that a person was only mentioned once. Why? If a Wikipedia editor comes across a red link, he or she will try and find information about that person. They will eventually find, as I did, that they were only mentioned by Varro. Perhaps they will leave it. But it might occur to them that other editors will then do the same. Perhaps as a politeness and a help to the project, they will create a short article about this dead-end, as a help to others. This is what I did. Second reason: it took me some time to find out (in an obscure book on Augustine) that there are no other references to these guys. Once I put this in the encyclopedia, it is easily accessed in Google, and then you go to Wikipedia and you find the obscure book on Augustine has been referenced. That is an aid to scholarship on the Internet, and a useful thing. Does everyone now follow that reasoning? Peter Damian (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is why we have lists and redirects. You really really don't want to open the Pandora's box of allowing an article on every single individual who was once mentioned in a book but of whom "nothing else is known". I must have deleted thousands of them. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to request another uninvolved admin to go over Peter Damian's contributions today to consider whether he should be blocked for personal attacks and incivility, despite the numerous warnings he has received from me and others. There is a limit to how much I am willing to accept. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to request this Martian to stop putting that hand sign on my talk page. Likewise, there is a limit on how much I am willing to accept. Peter Damian (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Damian blocked for 31 hs

Enough. I've blocked Peter Damian for 31 hours to stop this now. Stifle: please step away and don't look back. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok... let's see.

1. Peter Damian tries to create articles on encyclopedic topics most of us wouldn't be able to write about.
2. Our administrators, instead of helping him in any way possible, thanking him for his contributions to the project and encouraging him to continue this work, try to delete the articles within hours of being created.
3. Peter Damian gets angry about it, as would I, and insults our administrators, as most likely would I.
4. Peter Damian is blocked for "incivility", content-creation be damned.

Did I get this right ? Is it really so ?
Why shouldn't I unblock Peter Damian right now, begging him to forgive our collective stupidity ? And at the same time, why shouldn't I block Stifle right now for disruptive behaviour (i.e. hampering the work of a knowledgeable article writer improving the encyclopedia with new articles on topics few of us could write about). - Ev (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I get a very strong feeling I should agree with these points. I’m curious as to why I should not actually, please tell. --Van helsing (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the greatest sympathy for peter in his response to what does appear to be harassment, but even or shall i say especially the most learned and philosophic should avoid insulting those who are less so. We will get an increase in the number of academic content creators here when the people who are here now react temperately. The objection would have been the much more effective without the insult. I suggest howevr that a shorter block would be effective enough to put a quick end to the exchange, and propose to shorten it to 12 hours. DGG (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG, I do give great importance to civility. But, is it really that important to be polite at all times, in all circumstances, even in the face of such behaviour as Peter Damian had to endure ? Shouldn't we put more value in the contributions of encyclopedic content than in a few less-than-polite comments ?
I think that Peter Damian was civil enough given how he was being treated. It was not him the one disrupting the process of creating valuable encyclopedic content. He merely reacted in the most human of manners to appalling behaviour.
We will get an increase in the number of academic content creators here when they are not forced to react gracefully to such treatment, but allowed to react as a normal human being would... and when they are supported by us administrators instead of blocked for calling "idiot" someone who clearly deserved it.
There is much greater incivility in deleting someone's work and templating him for not being happy about it, than in calling someone an "idiot" for doing all that.
He should be unblocked right now. - Regards, Ev (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I tend not to regard a single burst of incivility as a blockable offense. The fact that Peter came back over and over and over was a problem. The short block was meant strictly to stop the escalation, and I was quite prepared to unblock him the second he agreed to stop (the AfD, after all, was quickly speedy kept).

Frankly, Peter comes off a little strong as I-Am-An-Academic-Damn-It-I-Know-Better-Go-Away. His dismissive attitude ("go back to garage bands") and his aggressive stand certainly do not show the maturity and demeanor I expect from a fellow academic. Actually, I kinda left academia because of some of those attitudes but that's besides the point now. Also, the cries of "Pull the Funding! Pull the Funding!" that resulted make taking his original attitude in stride all the much harder. Nevertheless, I stand by my original rationale and am still willing to unblock with as little of a "Oops, blew up. Sorry. Won't do it again." Or Peter can simply wait out a day for the dust to fall and resume where he left off. — Coren ^(talk) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a moment to reiterate that blocks are not set in stone to Peter on his talk page since he had blanked the original discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

< - - - - reset tabs
Glad you're still with as, Coren. Yes, he was upset, and quite rightfully so. But wouldn't it have been better to simply ask him to calm down (with normal words, not templates and citing wikiprocesses)... and wait a few minutes -or a couple of hours- for the matter to be sorted out to something as close to his satisfacion as possible ? To offer him help to solve his problem... to work towards keeping a valuable content contributor happy... to make his work creating articles as easy as possible :-)
I see nothing of that sort in his talk page or anywhere else for that matter. Just warning after warning, and people explaining the mechanical inevitability of the deletion process. And then the block, which is inevitably percieved as something rude.

Maybe it's just me, but I do think that especially in the case of good article writers we should go the extra mile. We should try our best to make their Wikipedia experience as easy and frictionless as possible. — Of course Peter Damian could have reacted better, but he was reacting to appalling behaviour towards him. The way to stop him from complaining was to solve his problem, to remove what's bothering him... or at least promise to solve it in the next couple of hours. - Not to apparently punish him (for a block, although preventive in theory, will be percieve as unjust punishment by him, especially after being the victim of all that).

I feel that this is a block for complaining too much -and rather impolitely- for being very badly treated himself. I feel that we're blocking the victim for complaining too much. - Removing the block now could help to keep a good article writer with us... help to mend relations, and perhaps he may continue to improve our encyclopedia with his valuable work.

After all, it goes both ways: it would be good for him to say "sorry" and "not do it again", but we have to do our part too, apologizing to him for not helping him as much as we should in his work for the encyclopedia, and trying "not to do it again" ourselves. - Regards, Ev (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly share that sentiment about extra miles; in my opinion much strife is caused by our collective willingness to overlook bad behavior because of good contribution to mainspace. No matter how valuable an editor is, this is a collaborative endeavor which, well, requires collaboration. Having someone contribute valuable contents is, of course, highly desirable; but it must not come at the cost of destroying the work environment.

Regardless, given the poor reception he seems to have gotten I suppose a flared temper can be forgotten. I'll unblock. — Coren ^(talk) 01:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it very much, Coren. I fully understand -and to a certain extent share- your point about the requisits for collaboration. I should have added a looooong qualification about which cases I think merit going that extra mile (like this one :-). It was for brevity only that I left it as a blanket statement. - Again, thank you for unblocking :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT

It is the problem with the Epistemic theory of miracles that I am concerned about (the other two were merely an aggravation).

The full story. I start this as a NEW article. Check the contribution history here.

I start the article at 11:22. This is on the theory of miracles proposed by St Augustine, later modified by Spinoza, later by Huxley and others and is quite important in the discussion of what distinguishes the natural from the supernatural. The first thing I slap on is an 'in use' tag. I then get to work and as you can see I can work quite fast on an article, by 11:37 it is looking like this. Then at 11:37 the appropriately-named User:Stifle slaps on a 'notability and verifiability' tag here. I.e. exactly 15 minutes after the article is started, he tries to delete it, without so much as discussion or warning. Several things anger me about this. First, it is rude and impertinent to do this while I am actually working on the article (I was looking for appropriate references at the time as it happened). Second, the piece was already referenced to a discussion by Augustine from a piece that is electronically on the net. Stifle could quickly have checked this, had he bothered (or he could have asked me). So I simply removed the template and moved on. I can't work on an article with that thing hanging there. Then Stifle kept replacing the tag, with increasingly rude messages and STOP signs on my talk page. The rest was simply escalation of the same problem.

I remained relatively polite - see here for the first half hour of this nonsense, then I lost it.

So, I'm not coming back without a full apology from Stifle. And I am NOT going to apologise. Slapping a 'removal' ban on an important article merely 15 MINUTES into its creation is unreasonable and rude, and community acceptance of this practice implies a widespread dysfuncion of the project. As said on my talk page, I am carefully preparing a file of many similar incidents to this, where academic editors have been hounded off the project. There have been many more disgraceful incidents than this. It should be on the desk of the Sloan Foundation in a month or two. Enough. Peter Damian (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just in case some clarification will help, the first tag Stifle added was a prod. In a sense, prods are warnings of an intent to delete, but they give you some time to fix the article. The second tag Stifle added (three minutes later) was an AFD. Removing an AFD tag is a different issue, as it only serves to tell editors that the discussion is underway elsewhere. Thus it shouldn't have been removed. That aside, I agree that not only was Stifle mistaken, as the article was clearly notable to anyone with knowledge of the topic, but that the tagging was far too hasty. I think Ev summarized it pretty well: 15 minutes from creation to prod, and 3 minutes from prod to AfD. And no attempt to discuss anything with the editor during that time. - Bilby (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. But the sheer volume of junk that gets created can swamp the good-faith efforts to create valid articles. A small amount of civil discourse (on both sides) would have fixed this. I believe it is fixed now, sp perhaps we should simply encourage both parties to live and learn at this point. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

An apology is all I want. I will apologise back, for sake of the good faith thing. Peter Damian (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

An observation I have is that someone with more patience and less temper than Peter Damian would probably not have blown up here, yes. However, unless someone's crazy or faking, it takes two to escalate a situation like this; Stifle was equally as stubborn and unwilling to compromise as Peter Damian, although less angry it seems. Stifle, just because the rules say you can do something doesn't mean you should. You didn't need to escalate this either.

Also, even if this had happened to a better tempered individual, harm to the encyclopedia is done. Biting well-meaning article contributors is counter-productive, EVEN IF the article really shouldn't exist. A lot of new editors would simply shrink back, run away and never contribute again when subjected to the steamroller of the Wikipedia Deletion Process.

IMO, the attitude of "We don't have the time to be nice to people" that seems to so easily set into the minds of those who patrol new pages, vandalism, etc etc. is highly counterproductive and highly damaging to the project. Furthermore, I often find, taking on this mindset is an early symptom of Defender Of The Wiki Syndrome, which has claimed many and caused a lot of collateral damage on the way. Down that road leads burnout, bitterness, and alienation from the project. Don't do it. You are not essential. Wikipedia will survive quite well without you; it's much bigger than any of us. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes well thank you for sort of acknowledging a bad thing has happened here. But perhaps I am missing something, I asked for an apology, that means saying sorry, the sort of thing Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman eventually gets when the rude SNOBBY ladies wouldn't help her in the boutique. I'm not seeing that right now. Peter Damian (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter, have you tried running this past the "honest mistake" filter? Stifle is only human, and most humans will be more inclined to be helpful if you approach them with at least the appearance of assuming good faith. You will always catch more flies with honey than with vinegar on Wikipedia, just as anywhere else. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if it was an honest mistake, he can say 'sorry, it was an honest mistake'. Not difficult. Peter Damian (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tweak to AOR

I had an idea - does Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall#Proposal_for_changes_to_AOR make the whole AOR process fairer and address both ways it can be rorted then folks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

this is hardly a "tweak" -- you are proposing compulsory recall for all admins. Was that intended as ironic? (I'm not judging the merits)DGG (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it was a bit of an understatement, but I figured it was a balance - compulsory participation but vetting of recalls by bureaucrats. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is to make recall mandatory for admins. Just thought I'd make that crystal clear for anybody reading this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that there should be an admin recall to all current admins. This has been discussed before, I don't remember a consensus. I think that every admin should have to go through recall at this point as we have many admins, and we can cut back by eliminating the admins that don't need to have the extra tools, or should have them taken away, if you know what I'm saying. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be addressed? There is no consensus for this. Corvus cornix_talk 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... are you sure you've thought that through? Stifle (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I raised the idea above because of issues with the AOR WRT Elonka and mindful of how it can be gamed in either direction. My proposal was pretty well nixed by everyone (which is fine). I thought about it some more and it really depends on how folks feel the current system is doing. Pretty clear the majority are against AOR, and I too cannot see its value and how it does anything not already covered by RfC, AN/I or arbcom, so it really depends on whether arbcom feel overworked, and my impression from discussion in the proposal to enlarge or devolve arbcom was that jpgordon indicated this was not the case. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin‎

Request put in to WP:RFPP about 1/2 hour ago, but IP's are going crazy - can someone semi-protect? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. 48 hours from now should cover the weekend for most of the planet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it's been protected for a week. Even better I guess. D.M.N. (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Aram-Naharaim

Please check the history of this article Aram-Naharaim, I think this is a very clear vandalism.« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about what's the vandalism? I only see 4 edits in the last two weeks, and most of us aren't experts in Hebrew Bible scholarship. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please start from this edit and continue, I’m not familiar with the subject, but I see no reason for deleting all listed references, also the 3RR of user User:Kuratowski's Ghost« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What 3RR? Do you know what "3RR" means? The version he reverted to is more stable, the other one is a total mess, so I rv'd your apparently uninformed rv of him. No WP:3RR at all. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You took the words out of my mouth. The other version, introduced here seems to be a mess of WP:NOR and Bible verses. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"more stable"!!!!! The version I’m referring to was stable for 18 days, any you stable version remained stable for only 11 min then reverted with this comment (Undid revision 213306804 by The TriZ (talk) dont remove things without discussing), anyway but what about deleting the references?« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I will reply on your talkpage, since this isn't the appropriate place to resolve it Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

as I said before I’m not familiar with the subject, I was only tracing meaningless changes with some articles so I bring it hear« PuTTY^SchOOL 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Typical Rktect (talk · contribs) OR. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is This what you mean??« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I’m not familiar with the subject« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleteing talk page comments

There was a bunch of controversial edit's referencing the activist blog Daily Kos made to Sarah Palin article. I made a mention of this and my entire post was deleted - I was referring to a question about information that someone removed. I know general talk is not allowed but I need a second opinion regarding the deletion of my talk page post. Here is the edit he deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&oldid=235231715 --Papajohnin (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The post was specifically directed toward article content. The user was told about this notice on WP:AN through his talk page to give a chance to defend his actions--Papajohnin (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have found out that the activist blog Daily Kos website is hotlinking to the Sarah Palin article. Which would explain the previous 2 post up why a request was put in to semi-protect the article. Seems like one user had a wiki account tho. $\sim$  ℗ papajohnin   ^(talk)(?)  23:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kos is a well-respected political blog with Democratic Party leanings. "Activist" seems to be a loaded term, unless you consider the Democratic and Republican Parties as "activist" organizations. Corvus cornix_talk 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the link you wanted. You do use some loaded language, and calling people on Daily Kos "kids" isn't going to win you any points, neither is repeatedly referring to the blog as "activist". Corvus cornix_talk 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your obviously missing the point. This was to address the reason why the article had to get semi-protected(thankfully it has been) and one users concerns over another user(not me) removing a speculative statement from Daily Kos in the article - and shortly thereafter having my reason deleted by a proponent of the blog entries addition to the article. I'll rehash that again: Not the content of the of the blog entry, but the deletion of my rationale for removal of the blog entry. Does that make any sense? =P

Activism is not a "loaded" word, nor is it perjorative, nor was it used as an ad hominem. As you can see from the wiki article I just linked for you. Even the wiki article that you wikilinked for me (Daily Kos) refers to them as netroots activist. I can't possibly imagine someone who is interested a political subject taking offense to being labeled an Activist but If I offended anyone by calling them an Activist I'm truly sorry as it was obviously not my intention to insult. If the page having been locked is any relevance to you I'm sure you would agree with my statement about the said behavior as being considered childish. Hence my reference to them being like "Kids". I don't think I was out of line but maybe you are right, I shouldn't have resulted to calling them "Kos Kids" I just get agitated when people use Wikipedia to peddle propaganda.

Now since you brought up the content I think I should address your statements. The Daily Kos is an extremely slanted political blog with their own version of Wikipedia that they admit is biased. In their forums there are a group of members who take it upon themselves to bring that said information to Wikipedia. In most academic circles it would be considered an outright travesty to do this. I won't address your statement about Daily Kos being considered highly respected as that is one highly debatable position your pushing because I could say the same for any relatively sized Conservative blog and it would be just as valid - but of coarse using either of them for a reference in an encyclopedia for anything other than critical commentary remains against policy. and from what I understand(elaborate if I misread you) your saying that because a blog has a large member base, that it somehow nullifies the fact that the information is biased and should therefore be allowed to Wikipedia? No matter what the source - posting link's and referencing wildly speculative information is considered bad etiquette under any circumstances. $\sim$  ℗ papajohnin   ^(talk)(?)  23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad you couldn't have been this eloquent in the talk page comment that I removed. That comment reads like a rant with no particular point. If you had said, "Daily Kos is encouraging people to insert unsourced material into the article," I would have left it alone. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too - I used a generalized personal attack but you could have atleast left something in the edit box as to why you removed it other than 'editorilzation' - which would be valid if it was on an article but not a talk page. Or leave me something other than what you left me on my talk page. Very well, I will delete my message and start a new section about abuse of that article from and a warning about unsourced speculation on the talk page. Admin's please consider this resolved. $\sim$  ℗ papajohnin   ^(talk)(?)  03:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"extremely slanted" is your personal opinion. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the Daily Kos as a source. Corvus cornix_talk 06:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Resolved

...is two hours overdue - Can an admin more experienced than me take a look at it (since time is of the essence, I don't fancy learning on the job). WilliamH (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. This can be marked as resolved. WilliamH (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Royce Mathew

Hello! I had recently asked about "Royce Mathew" on this page:

[28]

I would have left it as was were it not for the fact that he has written personal attacks once again in the last 24 hours, which is why I am bringing him up once more: [29]; [30]; [31]. In addition, he has vandalised/flagged one of my own personal pages as not "neutral" - it was a test page for an entry on a Featured Article log...: [32]. His previous account, User:Disneysuit has been previously indefitnitely blocked due to going against WP:COI, WP:NLT, WP:VAN, WP:ATP, WP:NEU and WP:NPA, having given out repeated advertisements for his case against Disney and continued personal attacks against those who tried to calmly resolve the issue with him (and giving out legal threats against us]]. He has openly stated that my judgement is impaired and that I probably "collect Walt Disney merchandise, sell it" and/or am otherwise affiliated with Walt Disney. On the contrary, I am not, in fact, I am on my way to graduating from college and am no where ready to receive such a job. I am very shocked and hurt to see such immature behaviour from an adult and want to know how this will be stopped. The previous discussion on him, in which he was indefinitely blocked, can be viewed here: [33].

Thank you for your time. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and warned. Any further incidents of this nature should be reported to WP:AIV, noting that they are ip/socks of an indef blocked editor with previous sanctions, for faster responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. I don't think I'd've been able to go further with all the attacks! For how long approx. will he be blocked? BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

According the block log, 31 hours. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible re-incarnation of Sceptre

Just come across this vandalism to Kmweber (talk · contribs)'s userpage. Looking at the account contributions, the strikes me out immediately as Sceptre (talk · contribs) (due to his past with Kmweber) under a new account. Although it's blocked indefinitely, this may need further looking into. Kmweber's page history recently shows that the Sceptre IP is the only person that has vandalised it. This also makes me think that it is Sceptre under the Petulant little shit (talk · contribs) name. Although Sceptre has "declared" he is retired, it may be worth checking this out, even though the "Petulant little shit" account is blocked indef. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Most likely an imposter. Majorly ^talk 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that both Petulant little shit's and Sceptre's IPs have triggered autoblocks in the same 10 minute period, they probably are not on the same IP, and not the same person. MBisanz ^talk 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just double-checking in case Sceptre had created a new account. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was asked in IRC to check... It is  Unlikely these are related. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, not unless he grew wings and flew 3000 miles since his last edit. Thatcher 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not like Sceptre is the only person who dislikes Kmweber... Mr.Z-man 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the internet connections I use living in California routine resolves to New Jersey when using geolocating packages. So anything is possible. That said, I have no reason to believe Sceptre is active in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Killer Kowalski's death

Legendary wrestler Walter "Killer" Kowalski has died earlier today. I'm having a hard time finding references and sources. Can someone help me? Noble12345 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's sources of his death on the page. Am I missing soemthing? D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this is the best place for your question but have you tried Google News? I found this just now... All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathan Jay Williams

Okay, I asked what to do with a situation where User:Nathan Williams redirected his user page and talk page to User:Nathan Jay Williams. Whoever responded told me to ask them what they wanted (name change, or whatever). Now, it has been 8 days since I asked and he hasn't responded. SO, I believe his pages should at least be moved back to their proper places. Thanks. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 01:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the user page back, and merged the histories of the 2 talk pages at the correct location. Kevin (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Question Mark (?) and the Mysterians

Not of earth-shattering importance, probably, but it comes up as a redirect page, so it should probably be tagged for {{WikiProject Redirect}}. I tried, & couldn't, thanks to a blacklist.... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bongwarrior screwed up again

Resolved

 – Article resorted minus vandalised revision --Chris 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone try their luck at restoring Newcastle Grammar School please? I mistakenly thought it was a new article and deleted it as nonsense, but it was just a vandalized version that I saw (sorry, tired eyes). I'm getting a "database query syntax error" when I try to restore. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't seem to do it either, I'll bug a dev --Chris 09:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That message has been coming up for a few actions today, I think it is a server capacity problem as I was able to restore the last edit only (and delete it again) but it fails when I try to restore the entire article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim has fixed it --Chris 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Range Blocks and Col. Damage

Earlier after dealing a ticket I cited on AN/I a range block of 90.200.0.0/16. Now I understand short term (2 weeks or less) range blocks to deter vandals and the such. However, after having the availability of a list of active range blocks (such is available via the logs, this information is publically available) I have a couple of concerns with long term range blocks:

I would present the following to a candid community, in that;

• Large range blocks with long expiry would deny editors the chance to edit anon, as is our goal to permit.
• Revert, block, ignore works just as well as large range blocks, but without the denial of editing.
• The range blocks are geographically biased (unintentionally) and could threaten geographical representation.

Could we review our range blocks and consider altering them, or unblocking them? Also what are the thoughts of putting some guidelines into our blocking policy? Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image whitelist request

Would someone like to volunteer to whitelist Image:Anus of a model by David Shankbone.jpg,Image:Anus 2.jpg, and (for good measure) Image:Anus m.jpg for use in the article Human anus? Recently the human-related content was moved from the old location Anus to the new one. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)