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.

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

Would anyone mind if I blocked New York City for anon?

I've got an IP-hopping blocked user who's irritating me. He seems to be jumping around a number of IP addresses - all with the same provider, all in the same geographical area. But new addresses every day.

Would anyone be greatly worried if I just blocked all the CIDR blocks he's coming from, for a reasonable period of time? I think it amounts to a bunch of /17s - fairly big blocks; it's a big provider. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many IPs does it cover? You should ask a checkuser about collateral damage. Enigma ^message 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each /17 takes out 32.000 addresses. So I guess I'd have to block around 100.000 addresses to be effective. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.175.131 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, you're not in one of the blocks I've found. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would be incredibly amused by it, I think that's a lot of collatoral damage. Is the IP's vandalism really that bad? L'Aquatique[talk] 22:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it's just a banned user seeking to continue the "discusson"; I don't know if he's really done any vandalism yet, but this looks vaguely threatening. What I dislike about those blocks is tha the operator seems to make it VERY easy to get new IP addresses, which means that it's exactly the same as a dialup bank, and almost as bad as an anon proxy - more detail on the IP ranges involved at User:Alvestrand/DeFrancis notes. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what i meant was, i would return to what the normal vandals you see the huggle reverting people revert do, the kind of vandalism that gets reverted right after you make it by cluebot because its so ridiculous... its amusing to see the warnings piling up like c*** on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.156.23 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i will stop because i found vandalising spanish wikipedia is more fun then here. i was accused of being molested in my house lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.133.253 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please only use rangeblocks in extreme circumstances, especially ones as far-reaching as the ones you're proposing. I see no reason in this particular case to take such an extreme action. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take your advice and not do anything more about him. Is there a way to watch contributions from all anons from an IP range? --Alvestrand (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use Huggle for this if you created a queue with a regex matching the IP ranges you want. That would give you a live list. Alternatively, playing around with the javascript-enhanced contributions page, or the API (list=usercontribs), would allow you to see past edits from broad ranges, like 123.12* . Hope this helps —SMALL JIM 15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it feasible to semi protect the affected pages for a while? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the proper response for this should have been: 'NEW YORK CITY'? HalfShadow 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or "100,000 addresses!?!" --Kralizec! (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

Ease of editing section break

This is also posted to the Arbcom page. However, this case was handled so badly by the arbcom, that I would like a parallel community re-evaluation. Thank you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

I ask that we reopen the matter now.

In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months.

A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a single bad block, made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[N.B. I used to edit under my real name. I will be censoring it wherever it appears, and would ask that if anyone mentions it that it be immediately deleted]

As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.

Really, I'm upset now. This is just crap we are listening to about how the admin bit makes you a demigod, and it is death to become an ordinary mortal once more. I can't think legalistically about all this. I came here to Wikipedia to write articles, not to deal with moral pygmies. Too right I can't AGF of the AN/I shower. Charles Matthews 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!)

No doubt you do object. I have highlighted quite a number of misleading statements you have made. You're hardly coming across the truthful, conscientious, responsive type. You just pass the buck and excuse yourself, endlessly. "Harsh" is interesting - very interesting indeed; but you will have due process, and a chance to defend yourself. (You indefinitely banned a user by saying "good point" to a load of old rubbish.) And User:Jehochman has it wrong. Prevention of further misuse of admin powers is the idea, rather than punishment. Charles Matthews 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best.

To quote MastCell's response to the last:

“

Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less an sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. MastCell Talk 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an opinion on a block at WP:AN/I? What sort of message are we aiming for here? MastCell Talk 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

”

However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:

"Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this. He's recused. The case isn't about him, at least not to me." - Uninvited Company, 20 December.

"You've missed UC's point, I think. The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles. And, as an aside, I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 [1]. Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.

A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.

Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:

“

At this juncture I wish to remind the Committee it has been my opinion for many months that the Matthew Hoffman case was the worst-handled arbitration I have ever seen, and rather than remedy any of its numerous errors the Committee appears intent upon compounding them. Hollow apologies mean little; I would like to see for starters Charles Matthews withdraw the repeated personal attacks he posted to the case pages. Ideally you ought to be vacating this case because it was requested in a non-emergency situation with no prior attempt at dispute resolution--thus outside your mandate.

Virtually the only other recent case that closed with a prohibition on RFA was the Alkivar case; the off-wiki evidence regarding Alkivar was entirely or almost entirely my own submission and I assembled it from public records. I have been never been under any pledge of confidentiality regarding that material. Until now I have chosen to handle it with discretion because of its sensitive nature; that does not oblige me to remain silent. DurovaCharge! 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

”

Likewise Raymond arrit et al, Filll, and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

I will gladly provide more evidence on request, however, I believe that this thread is already quite long.

Thank you,

User:Shoemaker's Holiday, a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I was not involved in or even aware of the "Matthew Hoffman" case, and I have no opinion about the merits of this appeal (the lengthy and somewhat confusing submission above does not help). However, as a procedural matter, I strongly suggest that this thread be archived without action. For one thing, Shoemaker's Holiday has also submitted the matter to WP:RFAR, which is where it should now be considered, not here. Moreover, WP:AP provides that "remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales." Shoemaker's Holiday has not shown that he has exhausted this venue of appeal before coming here. Finally, there is currently no policy providing for an appeal of Arbitration Committee decisions to the community. This means that any discussion here would probably only lead to fruitless drama. Nonetheless, I wish Shoemaker's Holiday all the best with respect to any personal problems the arbitration may have caused or aggravated. Sometimes, it's best to just let things go. This is only a website, after all. Sandstein 05:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SH has a right to ask the community's input IMHO, I've not read the details but note that a recent RfC made by Charles Matthews is meeting with a very different fate.:) Sticky Parkin 03:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sticky Parkin. The issue here is oversight - who polices ArbCom wehn ArbCom screws up? The ultimate oversight is the community as a whole, and AN provides a location for editors, especially admins who as a rule have been around longer and have demonstrated commitment to the project, a venue for discussing anything of concern. Clearly this is an example of something of concern to us. This is a website afte all - a website that functions only because of the voluntary labor of its editors, and we always need good editors. In fact, there are many essays on the problem of losing good editors. Shoemaker is or at least a valued editor and a good example of the kind of editor we should fight to keep and not hang out to dry, in my opinion. Am I wrong? Let us administrators review the facts and weigh in with ideas and opinions and suggestions. It is nice to think ArbCom has second chances to reverse its own mistakes, but when a real travesty of justice is possible, the community ought to examine the case and weigh in. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this looks to me like venue shopping. It is as good as stated above that the main reason for asking for "community" input is that ArbCom won't change their minds. Anyway, what are we being asked to decide? Even if the block of MatthewHoffman was 100% solid there were other FoF points as well. Sure, people have got away with worse, including me, probably, but this seems to be a simple case of an appeal based on not liking the outcome rather than any policy grounds. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted to a transclusion of Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Appeal of Matthew Hoffman in the interests of preventing forest fires.--Tznkai (talk)

Inappropriate behavior by admin

I found the tone and substance of this edit very disturbing and saddening. It is an unwarranted interference in the normal give and take of editorial discussion, based on a gross misinterpretation of the language used in that discussion. In my many years editing Wikipedia I have not encountered this kind of heavy handed behavior, and it seems to me to be against the principles and ethics we should be following here. It raises for me the question of whether this person has an axe to grind in this particular discussion, and if so, why he is taking advantage of his admin tools to attempt to influence that discussion. Haiduc (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'I also want to commend you on your speedy response. You made that change less than four hours after I threatened to initiate the RfC. Next me we have a disagreement I will know what to do. *COUGH* HalfShadow 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin telling editors making attacks and being uncivil to stop or be blocked? The horror. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 01:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Halfshadow hacked up the point I was trying to make quite nicely. --Tznkai (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't mind saying that was a hell of a lump to cough up. Anyone have a Halls? HalfShadow 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The normal give and take of editing" includes threats? And it's heavy-handed for an admin to tell people to stop threatening? Have I entered the Twilight Wiki-Zone?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Tznkai was right to warn, no administrative intervention needed as long as Haiduc heeds the warning. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that the best Wikipedia administrators can come up with is this kind of immature razzing. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, you are dragging this forum in the dirt. The real threat and only threat was the one made by Tznkai, it was wholly without justification, and its effect can only be to chill discussion, whatever is left of intellectual discussion that is, which is not much. You are all in need of adult supervision here. --Haiduc (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now now. In your many years of Wikipedia, you should've spotted that coming to this board to complain groundlessly because you didn't like a justifiable general warning to stop doing something you shouldn't've been doing in the first place will not be well received. And then people will take the piss out of the complaint, because that's what happens in life. As for "adult supervision", well, admins are not your mummy and will not protect you from the bigger kids. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, if they are worth their salt, would do well to have some rudimentary sense of ethics and evenhandedness. Neither was apparent in this latest hamfisted and gratuitous attack. Better to pay attention to the rampant homophobia that infects the article and the talk page, instead of indulging in schoolyard bully tactics. And no, you are wrong, the admistrators are here precisely to protect bona fide editors from bullies, and it is especially perverse when they themselves become the bullies. But that has always been the fundamental problem with people who seek power and authority, has it not? --Haiduc (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this before Haiduc, do not accuse other editors of homophobia. That accusation is bullying. You are not the victim, you are the perpetrator. Cease and desist.--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd been an admin, you'd already have at least a 24 hour block. Gaming the system to get what you want? No, I don't think so. HalfShadow 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<---(unindent) Haiduc, you and I have previously had this conversation about calling people homophobes because they disagree with you.[2] The fact that you are being held to the same referencing standards as others in the encyclopedia is not homophobic. Given the fact, of which you are well aware,[3] that there are many sockpuppets who have added questionable information about pederasty to many articles, it is entirely reasonable to insist on top-quality sourcing of all information. Please take the rhetoric down several notches. If you feel a content RfC or third opinion would be helpful, please institute it rather than threatening it. I see that Ottava Rima has continued to research and add improved referencing to the article in question, and encourage you to do the same. Risker (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, I know your comment was well-intentioned and in good faith, but I believe you were wrong. Blocks are meant to help resolve disputes, and must not be punitive; bans are punitive, and should be effected only when there is a clear and serious breach of policy or community consensus. Admin's should not threaten blocks or bans unless there are very specific conditions that warrant it. And in this specific case, with respect, I do not think the conditions warrant it. I do not see a personal attack on Haiduc's part, and the "threat" I see is a threat to call for an RfC. Well, we should never block someone for "threatening" to issue a request for comment. That is a normal progression in a dispute resolution process. If the conflict on the talk page in question turns out to be intractable, an RfC is precisely the next thing to do. Now, I have reviewed the section of talk in question and it seems to me that all people involved are indeed as Haiduc puts it involved in the sometimes rough give-and-take when people with diverse views work on an article. The conflict stems over different editors' readings of certain sources, and their explanations for their interpretations of the sources. If the conflict gets so heated that a cooling-down period is called for, then the others participating in this argument should be blocked as well, so that everyone has time to reflect on one another's arguments, and reflect more on the sources. I could see value to a block that might give people time to get actual copies of books and articles, rather than rely on google books, and thus be able to do the more serious research a complex issue may require. These would be blocks that would serve good purposes - not punitive, but clearly meant to encourage people to take positive steps that may help resolve the dispute. That said, I do not think that the conflict has reached this point. Not yet. An RfC may be called for. I do not know anything about this topic, but I do know academia and the world of academic book reviews and I know that while it is legitimate to quote book reviews from major journals, critical book reviews do not make a source (the book reviewed) unreliable and thus unacceptable for Wikipedia. This means that both sides of the argument have reliable sources for clearly significant views and thus both sides' views have merit. There is no call for an admin to take one side over another. I do not see Haiduc being uncivil, certainly nomoreso than anyone else involved in the discussion. I do see a real argument over the use of sources and we cannot pick on one side and say they are being uncivil because they disagree with the other sides. Arguments are by definition about disagreeing, and we should let this argument play out, it may leads to a real improvement in the article. I see no sense in a block right now, I do not see how it would help resolve the conflict. And a ban is utterly unjustified. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, these lines by Otava Rim constitute an attack, or come damn close: "By "queers studies scholars" you mean people with a fixed point of view who look at an issue in a very one sided way that is controversial? Douglass makes it very, very clear that Crompton's study was extremely biased and came under attack for it." First of all, the fact that many disagree with Crompton does not make it an unreliable source; academia is full of controversy and if we rejected sources because many disagreed with the view, this whole encyclopedia woudl be evicerated ... indeed, the whole reason we have an NPOV policy is to ensure that views that have been attacked may be included in this article. Douglass's review certainly makes it very clear that Crompton's view is significant which is the NPOV standard. So I am concerned about Otava Rim's apparent disregard for NPOV. Moreover, the first sentence quoted seems to suggest a categorical rejection of a major movement of adacemic scholarship. The logic is, Crompton is an example of Queer Studies, Queer Studies is bad scholarship; therefore Crompton, and perhaps any work of Queer Studies, should be excluded from the article. Aside from the fact that this would violate NPOV, I do not know what the basis is for deprecating Queer Studies which is a heterogeneous and changing field of study. What exactly is the fixed point of view? What is the controversy? Without any reasonable argument based on reliable sources (Douglass does not dismiss Queer Studies) I have to wonder, maybe Otava Rim just doesn't like queers? Maybe that is not going on, but it sure comes close. If Otava Rim wrote "Jewish Studies" or "African American Studies" I bet others would be a little concerned that OR is violating our civility policy. Look: there are at least two sides to this argument, and if an admin wishes to help resolve it, the admin better look at both sides. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, it's long been clear that the primary dispute on the page is about quality of sources, which sources to select over others, and whether or not the sources used actually say what they are reported to say (as opposed to a synthesis of what they "mean"). That's a pretty run-of-the-mill content dispute. A content RfC or third opinion would be entirely appropriate; in fact, I think it would be a very good idea. It is problematic how difficult it is to obtain independent viewpoints in this subject area; whether it's because many editors steer away from sexually-oriented content, have had negative experiences in working in this area before, or are aware of the fact that there's a phenomenal amount of socking within the topic, I am not sure, but I've had difficulty myself in the past to get uninvolved editors to take a look, too. It is not acceptable, however, to start using pejorative labels like "rampant homophobia" when the issue is content and sourcing. If, however, Haiduc is referring to an intention to issue a user conduct RfC, and doing so on an article talk page, then I think it is reasonable to interpret that as a threat. Risker (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it is an act of disruptive editing to dismiss an entire body of scholarly research as unacceptable, and it is offensive when the group is identified as Queer. Perhaps at this point no one wouold consider me neutral but I would be happy to comment on the conflict and do my best to be even-handed if diverse people thought it might help. But the first thing I would do is to remind people to stick to NPOV which means including views other than our own, including views that are critical of other views - and views that are criticized by others too. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No interpretation required. Haiduc used the term "threatening" to describe his own actions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I can't see how you can block someone when what they are "threatening" is to seek conflict resolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, when Haiduc said he had "threatened" to bring an RfC, he simply meant "indicated that he would," or "suggested that he might," or a thousand other phrases that mean the same thing. I might threaten to paint my house today, by which I don't mean the house is in danger. It's just a turn of phrase. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, he was gloating about having successfully intimidated somebody (as he saw it), and stating his intention to use the same intimidation tactic in the future. The precise wording isn't really the point. looie496 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, the way I read it was, he (or she?) was expressing relief that s/he had fended off a previous personal attack or attempt to bully by declaring an intention to make the conflict more public and seek the views of a wider range of editors. I guess different people can interpret all this subjectively. Maybe we should stick to, you know, policy. An admin should not block someone for making an RfC. And if you shouldn't block someone for making an RfC, a fortiori you shouldn't threaten to block them let alone ban them for indicating their readiness to make an RfC. Let's leave feelings and interpretations aside. You cannot block someone for seeking conflict resolution, period. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the victims who has stared down the barrel of Haiduc's "Everyone who disagrees with me on content issues is a homophobe" gun, I will simply say that Tznkai's interpretation of Haiduc's statement is more consistent with his past (and ongoing) behavior. Tempers have certainly flared on that talk page on both sides, but over the course of the past few months Haiduc has thrown a nearly constant stream of invective, accusations, and personal attacks at his fellow editors. This incident has to be evaluated in light of this ongoing behavior problem. Nandesuka (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given Haiduc a clear message that any attempt to intimidate other users to win a content dispute is unacceptable. That is the issue here. You can read it however you like, but my intended message, and I message I'm sure Haiduc has gotten, is that he stepped way out of line. We can apologize for what he could have, or should have meant or said, or we can accept the obvious conclusion that Haiduc was caught red handed gloating about bullying another user, got trouted for it, and decided to look for support on AN. By the way, when he didn't find it, he decided to whine about further admin abuse by completely outside admins who saw, without a word from me, that Haiduc was gloating about threatening another user.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administers - like editors - can disagree in good faith. In fact, they ought to, it is a sign of a healthy community and one reason why we have lots of administrators (just like we have lots of editors). I do not at all question the good faith of anyone who has commented here. I presented my view, along with my reasoning, and I tried to be thorough about my reasoning in part out of respect to the many administrators with whom I - in good faith, and assuming their good faith - disagree. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>First of all, a thank you to Slrubenstein for reminding us all what Wikipedia is all about - dignified discourse and the pursuit of impartiality. I say "pursuit" of course because no one can claim absolute objectivity, nevertheless we can all strive towards it together.
Yes, Slrubenstein, your continued input and oversight of this discussion at the Nicolo Giraud article would be very welcome. I am at a bit of a disadvantage at the moment, as I am traveling overseas and will not have access to my library for several months, nevertheless we can still accomplish a great deal, and time is on our side.
As far as the comments by the others, let me respond here in brief to each of you. Risker and Tznkai, you are certainly free to express your opinions about my pointing out homophobia when I encounter it, but you are not free to try to muzzle me. I do not recognize your authority to do so, and I find you attempts to do so inappropriate and corrosive of the environment of free speech and elementary fairness in which we operate here. In this particular case, as you can see, I am not the only one to read OR´s deprecation of Queer Studies as a homophobic attack. As such things go, it is about as blatant an attack as can be.
Nandesuka, it is not clear whether, in the long and less than pleasant history of our exchanges, you are the victim or the perpetrator. It may be wise to leave that determination to others.
Looie496, an editor should never be intimidated by the threat to have his work examined by others. However, it may be that he will be forced to reconsider extremist or indefensible statements by being reminded that they are subject to scrutiny by the whole community, not just the handful of supportive editors with whom he may have collaborated. That is all to the good, and is wholly within the bounds of our work here, and can only result in a better article. Being threatened with blocking and banning for calling for public review, however, is an intimidation tactic, and is not appropriate.
Which brings me to my last comment, to Tznkai, whose actions precipitated our gathering here. I can only hope that the airing in this forum of your inappropriate threat has been instructive. As you can see, intelligent people can disagree about such things, and I can only hope that by being clearly shown how others view your actions, you in the future will think twice before acting in that manner, rather than cling to a one sided view that you are right and others are wrong. --Haiduc (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to point out what you think is the truth on homophobia you are welcome to do it...somewhere else. There is a time and a place, and Wikipedia is not the place, and a content dispute is not the time. I have no control over your free speech on the internet or in the real world, but the community at large, of administrators act as an agent has mandated a certain level of respect, decorum, and civility. Using personal attacks on the integrity of others is not within our policy, our norms, or our acceptable practices. I also note that you have casually ignored that the response to your complaint about me includes, and is probably weighted by, rebukes to your behavior. In addition you have still not even attempted to explain this edit I also want to commend you on your speedy response. You made that change less than four hours after I threatened to initiate the RfC. Next me we have a disagreement I will know what to do. While you have every right to use process fairly, you do not have the right to abuse it. Dispute resolution processes (with steps like third opinion and informal mediation which you seem to have skipped right over or ignored when presented) are tools for solving problems, not bludgeons to win a content dispute, or to cow or bully another editor. It is for those purposes you threatened to use RfC, and there is no more reasonable or obvious conclusion based on your behavior in this incident or in aggregate.

So, to summarize: You were threatening to abuse process, many others have noticed it as well, and you are asked to abide by community rules and cease.--Tznkai (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of homophobia on Wikipedia, and some admins do not appear to find it a problem (to the extent that I do not edit some article which I otherwise would). I do believe that the dismissal of queer studies by one editor quoted above to be a homophobic remark - whether it is acceptable to describe someone who makes homophobic remarks as being homophobic is an interesting question. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking an entire line of scholarship as narrowly focused and one sided is not a particularly new, or a particularly homophobic occurrence. From an outside perspective, literature studies can be roughly described as a room full of brilliant scholars who turn into gibbering masses of hate when they look at anyone outside of their cubicle. Replace "queer studies" with "Post modern studies" and see how the sentence reads. Familiar, no? The line of attack is valid, although many will say it is not correct. (I make no declaration of opinion on what I think of queer studies) Is homophobia a problem? Certainly, and a major one. Homophobia, like any other attack creates a hostile editing environment. But using the accusation in a content dispute, especially repeatedly and on shaky ground, makes dealing with genuine homophobia much more difficult. This is too frequently a case of waving the bloody shirt, which the political scholars reading will remember, lost its effectiveness due to its over use as well.

Perhaps a better analogy is to think of sexual harassment. Does sexual harassment happen? Yes, and its a major problem. But accusing someone you work with of sexual harassment is an attack, and one that had better be justified. It certainly shouldn't be used during normal workplace disputes about who has to clean the break room.

tl;dr Homophobia is a problem, but this ain't it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>I am really not willing to pursue this argument with you Tznkai, I have said what needed to be said and as far as I am concerned the matter is closed. But you wanted to know what I meant by my threat to expose Ottava Rima to public scrutiny in future disagreements. I will tell you.
As you should have noticed from my work here for the past four years or more (I have lost count), I am extremely slow to invoke the conflict resolution process. I have great faith in human reason and good will, and I imagine that most disagreements can be resolved by open and honest communication. If I announced my original intention to initiate an RfC it was because I had come to the reluctant realization that reason and discussion had failed in this instance.
Then lo and behold, one of the problematic passages to which I had objected at great length with no effect was suddenly removed by OR. That led me to the conclusion that I had been taken advantage of, that he had imposed his version of the article over my objections because I was alone in expressing those views while he had the backing of several supporters – not because he did not see the value of my arguments. It suggested to me that the editing process had been reduced to the level of a political power play.
Well, I have been played long enough. If you oppose me just to oppose me and only relent when I announce that I will throw the debate open to the community, then next time around I will overcome my reluctance to use the conflict resolution machinery and will call for the oversight of the community much sooner. (As I have done here, to resolve my disagreement with you.) So that was the reasoning behind my actions.
If I may give you a bit of advice, the next time you get the impulse to "trout" someone at Wikipedia, try talking to them first, on their talk page preferably, to get some sense of where that person is coming from. You are not here to "trout" people, Tznkai, you are here to serve other editors, since you have asked for and received the tools and authority to do so. It is a responsibility, not a privilege. Don´t let it go to your head. --Haiduc (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this simpler, then: You've lost this one, Haiduc. Stop wall-of-texting everyone, we're not that easily impressed. Give it a rest, already, 'kay? HalfShadow 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question Tznkai's reasoning behind the claim, "Attacking an entire line of scholarship as narrowly focused and one sided is not a particularly new, or a particularly homophobic occurrence." This seems to me disingenuous. If someone attacked post-structuralism as narrow and one-sided, and I responded "Homophobe!" well, yes, then Tznkai would be right. If someone attackec African-American studies as narrow and one-sided, and I responded "Homophobe!" well, again I think Tsnkai would be justified. But when someone attacks Queer theory as one sided and narrow, yes, I think homophobia is a valid concern. Why? Because every academic discipline is narrow and one-sided. This statement is well-understood and non-controversial in academia and simply parallels the way other professions like law and medicine have become highly specialized. Aside from the fact that the typical engineer has generally little or no training in say comparative literature or social theory, even among engineers there may be great differences between say civil engineering and chemical engineering and aeroneautic engineering. It is precisely because most views are narrow or one sided that we have an NPOV policy, which demands that we include many such narrow or one-sided views. Given that this is how Wikipedia is supposed to operate normally, I find it very easy to believe that someone singles out Queer studies as a view that should not be included in an article a sign or homophobia, especially when the only reason given is an absurdly irrelevant reason. Not only do I think homophobia is a valid concern, I think it is an important concern we administrators should share. Wikipedia's future depends on its ability to provide NPOV articles that are informed by a diverse set of views, and to do this well we need a diverse set of editors. Diverse means that any set of editors has knowledge, expertise, another set lacks - it means we all complement one another. Here we seem to have an editor with expertise in Queer Theory and that very expertise is being used to justify excluding his/her edits? Hasn't anyone read the essays bemoaning Wikipedia's loss of expert editors? This is a serious threat to the project. Bottom line: admins should warn editors making homophobic comments that this is a form of disruptive editing that has no place in the project. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to elaborate for a moment. Within literature experts, and the reams of material they produce, you see them constantly attacking eachother's fields as one sided, narrow, and useless, pointless, biased, or otherwise worthless. Attacking say, Feminist theory as a discipline, does not necessarily make one a sexist any more than attacking multicultural studies as a discipline makes one a racist imperialist, or attacking abnormal psychology as a bunch of pseudoscience makes one a misanthrope. My point is that attacking an entire field or their methodology does not mean you are demeaning the subject of that field (women, LGBTQ?I and whatever initialisms I've forgotten, and people) Now, there are sexists who attack feminist theory, but not all those attacking feminist theory are sexists.

Yes, editors who make genuine homophobic comments are disruptive. It is incredibly disruptive, and creates a hostile editing environment. Genuine, persistent and unrepentant homophobia deserves a one way ticket into community exile. Ditto for racism, antisemitism, sexism, sexual harassment and so on. I'm not at all gun shy about booting these people out the door. At the same time, accusing someone of racism, antisemitism, sexism, sexual harassment and so on needs to be done on solid grounds. Otherwise it is an extreme poisoning of the well, and a vicious attack on the reputation and dignity of another editor. It is far too serious a matter to be used in a content dispute.--Tznkai (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is utterly ridiculous to claim that I have no right to point out how Crompton's "work" is inaccurate even though I have quoted other, reliable sources who are experts in the field who have stated the same exact thing, as even pointed out on the talk page. Its hard to miss-interpret Michael Lynch when he writes: "'Crompton is willing to assume that Kinseyan categories apply retrospectively - he even uses 'modern statistics' to determine the size of the 'gay male minority' in Georgian England!." Crompton misstates many passages about Byron's life. He makes up statistics. He makes it seem as if Byron's life was dominated by sex and ignores the fact that Byron spent most of his time writing poetry. Crompton isn't wrong because he is gay. He is wrong because he isn't a real literary critic and lacks all training necessary to know how to write a credible biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, I have already pointed out on the Nicolo Giraud talk page that you have completely misconstrued all of my arguments. It is troubling that I have to do it twice. My comment to Haiduc was pointing out that he tried to legitimize Crompton's bad critical interpretation and faulty use of evidence by saying that he is part of a larger critical community. I pointed out that he is a bad critic regardless of any kind of attempt at legitimizing him could take place. The fact that you think that a critique on a critical movement could be "homophobic" is extremely troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, I am afraid that it does not matter that you consider Crompton to be a bad critic. Douglass at least agrees that his work is significant, and Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that we include all significant views. Remember, Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth." I get that you do not think that Crompton's views are true or good or justified, but none of these are reasons for excluding them. Saying that Crompton is part of a larger critical community is not an attempt to legitimize, it is a good way of providing context for the given point of view, something we should all be doing to comply with NPOV. Ottava, you clearly have strong feelings about this and I respect that but I urge you to read our WP:NPOV policy because all changes to an article has to comply with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, stop trying to twist my words. You are doing exactly what Haiduc does, which is very troubling. Have I removed Crompton from the article? No. Am I the one that put together the article? Yes. Am I the one that found all of the sources? Yes. The article is neutral, and your critique of it is absurd. You are acting as if I have removed Crompton as a source. That is a directly false statement and a violation of civility. Ottava Rima (talk)

Hi Ottava! I am sorry you think I was twisting your words and appreciate your making this clear so I can explain myself better. It is my impression that in calling Crompton a bad critic, you are also suggesting that his views are fringe. Below you attack Haiduc as pushing a minor view, and here you are associating my defense of Crompton with Haiduc. My only point is that Crompton's view is a notable, significant view and should be presented in the article as such. I thought you were saying it should not be presented in the article as such, and it was only that with which I was taking issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, fringe views are those that are not accepted by the majority. As you can see from the page, the majority says that there is not enough information to determine if there was a sexual relationship going on. To characterize this as being included in a category for "history of pederasty", which is what the whole argument is about, based on one individual whose book has been critiqued by mainstream academics as being misleading, one sided, and containing factual errors, some how legitimizes the inclusion in a controversy category is rather absurd. Crompton's views aren't leaving the page. I never said that they would leave the page. However, they do not justify including Giraud in the category that Haiduc keeps pushing for. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this line by Haiduc absolutely absurd: "Then lo and behold, one of the problematic passages to which I had objected at great length with no effect was suddenly removed by OR." If anyone is willing to look, I reorganized the structure of the paragraphs and added more content. I didn't "remove" anything. I kept in Douglass's quote which states that Crompton's study is flawed. I added in another quote as the final say to say that there is no evidence and that everyone is just speculating. My additions do not do anything to support Haiduc, but actually do far more to prove that Crompton's view is fringe. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banning Haiduc

Added per Moni3 - Propose to topic ban Haiduc from editing the article page of George Gordon Byron and Byron related articles, especially in relation to introducing categories that associate said pages with "pederasty" as currently undefined and without appropriate discussion on the talk page with clear, overwhelming consensus that said category would be an appropriately descriptive of the evidence as provided on the article page. Right now, there is no true definition of pederasty, no inclusion restrictions, and only a tiny minority of critiques even willing to rely on the term "pederasty", let alone apply it to Byron. The persistance towards inclusion in said categories and with said POV has so far led to problems with Verifiability, Consensus, Edit Warring, NPOV, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we are on the subject, can we move to topic ban Haiduc already? He has removed directly quoted material. He has tried to push a minor point of view. He has edit warred. He has misquoted sources along with missattribute them, and he constantly twists what other people say. The fact that people are defending Haiduc (as he defends himself) by claiming "homophobia" for people who are trying to uphold NPOV and Verifiability is very dangerous and destructive to the project as a whole. Furthermore, it is obvious from Haiduc's user page that he has only one purpose on Wikipedia, which is to promote a fringe POV, i.e. support of Pederasty as somehow socially acceptable, whereas most psychologists see it as the equivalent of child abuse and define it in ways completely different than he wishes to portray it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, can you provide edit diffs? That would make it much easier for us to assess your serious accusations. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting here as a content editor and a member of WP:LGBT. However, I don't speak for the entire project, obviously. I stepped in and defended Haiduc when Historical pederastic relationships came up for AfD. I believe it's a worthy article to have, but saw it as poorly written and cited. Haiduc's chosen topic of interest is pederasty, and I have commented to him before that he should surely know what a hot-button topic this is, with or without the homophobia. Such topics should be cited to the hilt, with the blindingly obvious noted clearly in the article. However, despite the fact that Haiduc has taken these suggestions amicably, I have not seen him follow through in the articles. Defining pederasty in terms of the era and as class distinctions remains muddy, and there are too many defensive posts by Haiduc where a plain offering of the source should suffice. I don't know what is going on. I've posted a suspicion that Haiduc either does not have these sources at hand (because I post mine immediately when called into question), or he rather enjoys the froofraw from all the arguing. I would not enjoy it. I don't know how I feel about a topic ban, because as soon as Haiduc is banned from these articles I fear they will be deleted without someone to watch over them. As I said, I believe they are valuable to have, if they are written and cited properly. It is not my particular area of interest, and I feel like I would get sucked into writing them when I have no interest in doing it, just to save them from deletion. But I would be exhausted with the constant reverts and bickering that goes on all these articles' talk pages. But the fact remains: someone needs to write and cite these articles as if they were trying to get an FA. Complete with footnotes, disagreement among historians, whatever has been written about these topcis by scholarly studies. --Moni3 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only topic that I am proposing Haiduc to be banned from are Byron related topics, in particular Giraud. I have been trying to restore citations and notes to the Byron page for a very long time, and this controversy makes it impossible to put together something stable. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. You might want to make it clear that you're requesting a ban on Byron issues only in your statement up there. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative project and will work only if different editors make up for one another's deficiencies. If Haiduc is a single-purpose editor, and the purpose is to push a fringe point of view (and in this specific case we mean a fringe point of view within cultural history or literary criticism, not within the US Congress!!), perhaps a topic ban is justifiable. If however Haiduc is adding verifiable material representing a significant view, then we need to have faith in the Wikipedia process in which different editors help fill in the gaps. Moni3, you make it sound as if Haiduc leaving the project would mean no one would be adding such content. IF such content is as I said verifiable and notable, this is very hard for me to imagine ... of the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia editors, no one else has expertise in these matters? Even if Haiduc remained, I would think other editors may have better access to good libraries, or better research skills, or more time, and could fill in the gaps in Haiduc's contribution. It sounds like this is a good example of where Wikipedia has significant gaps in its own expertise, and we ought to be recruiting more editors who have knowledge in areas that are underrepresnted. Moni3, if you are right it makes me take Haiduc's concerns about homophobia more seriously, for reasons I explained in the above section. Here hoever the only issue is, is he adding unverfiable material expressing fringe points of view within academia? We need specific edit difs to assess this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for Haiduc's actions: this shows Haiduc removing a directly quoted excerpt that points out Crompton's bias in order to instead put in a miscited and missquoted excerpt that makes it seem as if two other people agree 100% that Byron was in a pederistic relationship with Giraud. As pointed out at the bottom of this section, the quote comes from page 23 (not 22 as Haiduc put in twice), and says that these two were equally influenced by Marchand and other biographers, which makes it completely uncertain that Douglass is claiming that they agree with the "pederasty" interpretation. Furthermore, Douglass is saying that they rely on Crompton to create a "much more sombre picture", and sombre probably does not relate to the idea of having sex with a 16 year old boy, let alone classifying said sexual relationship as pederastic. Furthermore, as you can see from the bottom section (the critiques on Crompton and on Eisler), both aren't relying on factual evidence, but are speculating, which further de-legitimizes any claims that Giraud should be put into a controversial category. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, I am traveling and will be away from my office and library for several months. Therefore it is difficult for me to start citing chapter and verse here. However, I will mention that I have a number of problems with OR´s approach. In the exploration of the hoimosexual and pederastic relationships that Byron had with his various boys we should recognize that we cannot give equal weight to very old sources, from periods when homosexuality really was an un-nameable love. Yet OR is dragging in souces close to a hundred years old, like Mayne, and using them as counterweights to more modern and more detailed sources, like Crompton, Eisler and Grosskurth.

The quote that OR is so fond of, that I removed, was removed because it is presented out of context and used to make Douglass sound like he is dismissing Crompton when in reality he is acknowledging him and his influence on subsequent scholars.

I also have a problem with OR´s (and others´) attempt to erase all traces of pederasty from the article. Let´s see... we have a man in an erotic relationship with a teenage boy, Losey and Brewer have specifically invoked the term (not that it is necessary for us for a categorization) and there is even published mention of the rumor that he took the boy to a doctor for an anal fissure (not that anal sex is in any way a prerequisite for such a categorization). But for some reason of his own, OR would like to deny students of pederasty access to all these juicy facts by means of the most elementary categorization scheme. Why?! And why not mention in the article the rumor about the anal fissure, as a rumor of course?

Me promoting pederasty as socially acceptable?! You have to be joshing. I have no public opinion on that topic. It is true that in some places (really, in most places) pederasty is perfectly legal, and in a few it is not. We are talking here about relationships with teenagers above the age of consent, of course. But that is none of my business, and frankly my personal opinions on pederasty have not been the driving force behind my edits. If you had examined my work here you would have seen that I reported the seemingly benign relationships with every bit as much verve as the really pathological ones. If I could promote something here, I would promote lawful AND ethical love relationships. I think you will agree that all too often we discover that what is lawful may not necessarily be ethical, don´t you think?

Most psychologists see it as child abuse?! Have you a survey for that? And exactly which definition of pederasty are you using here? You have repeatedly tried to impose a very narrow and particularly offensive definition, but scholarship does not support that.

Topic ban?! I don´t think anyone should be topic banned, not even you, Ottava, even though your objectivity leaves a lot to be desired.

Moni3 wants me to document my edits better. I improve with time. My edits of three and four and five years ago leave a lot to be desired, as in those days we were not really using references the way we do now. The newer edits are pretty much all documented. I am sure that will continue to improve further. But I have to say to you that this whole "bad references" thing is exactly like the Acorn controversy whipped up by the Republicans to derail Democratic voters. You can be sure that had there been a systematic gaming of the system I would have been out on my ear a long time ago, considering how vehement and driven my oponents have been. As it is, they are reduced to lamenting about my alleged sins, but really all they have been able to drum up have been typos, a sloppy correction to a misleading translation (a correction that has withstood inquiry and that now is incorporated in the article) and . . . what few others I may have forgotten. --Haiduc (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In the exploration of the hoimosexual and pederastic relationships" That the vast majority of critics claim that there is just no evidence to even speculate on the very nature of those relationships!!! The fact that so many critics overwhelmingly say that, and only a few critics who are blatantly pushing a view NOT based on evidence only verifies why Haiduc should be topic banned. He keeps pushing blatant speculation that is constantly pointed out as such as fact. That is not what Wikipedia is. "Most psychologists see it as child abuse?! Have you a survey for that?" I have already put up tons of evidence on the talk page that has pederasty as a sub-category of pedophilia, which is child abuse pure and simple. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer anybody who is still swayed by the "gee, no one knows nuttin" storyline proposed by OR to the review of MacCarthy in the GLR by Lauritsen. He declares the work "the finest Byron biography ever written. Fiona MacCarthy was given full access to the Byron archives of the John Murray publishing house, the largest in the world" which "had previously been opened only to Leslie Marchand in the 1950's (on condition that he not allude to Byron's pederasty)." Ooops! Did I say the P word again? Or was it a notable queer studies scholar writing in one of the most reputable GLBT publications around. And is the Marchand he talks about the same Marchand you were waving around as a counterexample to the pederasty of Byron???

Relax, OR, I may concede your point in the end – it may well be that no one knows exactly what took place between Byron and his boys and his men. The bad news for you is that we don´t have to in order to discuss things here. This is not the Exactopedia. Much biographical information is somewhat vague. Homosexuality is still homosexuality, even if we do not know who was top or who was bottom. Pederasty is still pederasty even if the boy is no longer a little child and the man does not plant his carrot you know where, as you keep on trying to insist here and here and here and here and maybe elsewhere too, but I tire of scrounging through your writings. --Haiduc (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) OK, I am confused here, but is it possible that Compton is a Notable, significant, but minority opinion?--Tznkai (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I write articles dealing with literary topics, I try to include all professors/critics unless there are over 40. Only then do I try to find only the ones with a lot of scholarship behind them. Regardless, hes a professor, so his opinion should be notable enough to have him included, especially when there are three pop biographers without any real training in the field included. It is important to see that a discussion has taken place over Giraud to establish his notability. However, very few were truly critical enough to be included in the actual biography section (seeing as how most tended not to care about Giraud's actual biography). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai raises the only important question here, in my view: is Compton's view a minority view? I do not myself know the answer, but I do know that Douglass identifies his view as significant. It certainly is worth more discussion to see if anyone can establish whether Compton's view is a minority or mainstream or fringe or whatever view. I appreciate Tznkai returning our attention to this question.

But I have to point out that I do not find Ottava Rima's apparent interest in debating whether pederasty is or is not a form of pedophilia - perhaps a question relevant to some psychiatry article - constructive or relevant. In fact, it appears disruptive. To return to the original issue in this thread, all I can say is that if Haiduc has at times been a contentious editor, this is not always the case, and if Ottava Rima has made important contributions to Wikipedia s/he has also engaged in contentious behavior on the talk page of this article. I'd love to see some kind of mediation to resolve the conflict between these two, but I do not think the fault for a lack of progress in improving the article falls entirely to one side.

Ottava Rima accuses Haiduc of having deleted a properly sourced quote, and s/he is right. Haiduc answers that the quote is taken out of context and, as used in the article in question, misrepresents the author of the quote. I have read the source cited and I think Haiduc is right about that. I have made what I thought was a constructive suggestion: According to Ottava Rima, Douglass refers to people who reject Compton's claims that Byron had an erotic relationship with Nicolo Giraud. My suggestion is, instead of pasting in a quotation from Douglass, taken out of context, it would be better to quote and cite those scholars who specifically and directly disagree with Compton's specific claim. I think this would be a better way of complying with NPOV and V, and would make the article better. I still think this is the solution to the edit conflict. Certainly no more invective! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Slrubenstein, your view that I took the quote out of context has not been upheld by anyone else but you and Haiduc. 2. Your claim that my attack on the definition and use of pederasty is disruptive is preposterous since this is all about the inclusion of the term as an appropriate label, especially when Giraud would have been 16, making him too old according to the definition that I have provided, 3. I posted Douglass's excerpt on the talk page. You can generalize and make attacks on my editing, but the proof is there that I did not miss quote or take out of context anything. 4. You can say that I am contentious as much as you want, but being called homophobic repeatedly because I want actual sources used, with a fringe view not portrayed as the dominant view, really undermines your whole claim. I have bent over backwards since day one to save this page. I built the page. I fully cited every single aspect and I am the one that provided his notability. That includes putting in all the views based on their weight, and to be called homophobic because I did not privilege one view from a work that has been challenged for its academic integrity by multiple literary scholars? That is completely uncalled for, and your continued defense of Haiduc and his practice here is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, please focus on the positive forward looking parts of Slrubenstein's comment. Lets just move forward.--Tznkai (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it is impossible for the Byron page improvements to move forward, seeing as how Haiduc has put up these controversies and started edit wars over pederasty on multiple pages and has pushed a fringe view. I have a lot of work waiting until a time that I know Haiduc will not be continuing his edit warring on these pages. As I stated to Haiduc on the talk page, WP:WEIGHT would limit how much is put into an analysis of Crompton, especially seeing as how his view is not the majority, and it would not be discussing Giraud. I told him to create a page on Crompton if he wishes. My concern is only with Byron, and he is making it impossible to fix that page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for a protected article List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines‎

I've been watching and maintaining the article for over a year now, and this user User:TriskelionTarantula always reverts it. I'm requesting for a protected page for the said article, and perhaps block the user for vandalizing the article.

best regards,—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernz1973 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:RPP thats where your request should go Alexnia (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both users have been blocked for 31 hours for editwarring... (not by me) so page protection is not required at this time. Based on the edit comments by one of them... I think the two of them were just doing it for "fun", as one left this amusing comment about his revert: sorry it took so long..i have to take a leak. —— nix eagle 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for deletion as it fails WP:LINKFARM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the large number of anon accounts edit-warring at the article, I have semi-protected it for a few days as well. --El on ka 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano

Discussion of block, which was reversed, and is at RfAr

Resolved

– Block swiftly reversed, arbitration filed against blocking admin

Those of us who have been around a while understand the long, convoluted history between the two users mentioned in the subject. They will also know that Giano has been closely related to the account User:Catherine de Burgh, who would invariably show up and make a silly comment from a supremely hoity-toity faux noble british point of view.

Recently, the Catherine de Baugh account decided to run for ArbCom. It was obvious to any onlooker that this was not a serious campaign for ArbCom.

I am standing as the direct result of so many of you kind dear people begging me on your knees to stand. So I stand here before you, erect and proud, ready to do my duty to Wikipedia, its King and God. What of my multiple edits I here you all asking? My "piece de resistance" is here a page on women's suffrage, a matter close to my heart, as it should be to all our hearts. I implore you all not to nominate for FAC, as I consider writing pages etc. to be completely unnecessary. That is the job of those too lazy and unable to rule. I am not an admin as my family have never indulged in middle-management. As a member of the British ruling class, you can be assured of my patronage doing my duty at all times. When elected I will preserve the sanctity of IRC and the prestige of the Admin class and rigorously enforce complete civility upon the writing editors. God save our King!

(Catherine de Burgh's ArbCom statement.)

Apparently, David Gerard thought this harmless bit of tomfoolery was Giano trying to run a "good-hand" account (if he's calling CdB a good-hand, does that mean he thinks Giano is a bad-hand account?) and blocked CdB indefinitely and Giano for 24 hours.

I asked him if he was going to block User:Bishzilla for being a good-hand account for User:Bishonen, something that was ignored. Apparently the fact that it was fairly well known that CdB was Giano's alternate account, and that it wasn't ACTUALLY running truly for ArbCom didn't matter. Instead, this looks like an attempt to "win" a vendetta.

Even if David Gerard's actions were right (and they are NOT, in any way, shape, or form), he was not the one who should have done it. I'm calling for this to be immediately reversed, and I think Wikipedia should seriously consider if David Gerard's continuing use of the administrator tools is something we really want. SirFozzie (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of us dealing with this without maximum drama and grandstanding? .....OK, I didn't think so, but it was worth asking.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Giano was sockpuppeting, and CU confirms it... Are we suggesting unblocking Giano, and condoning sockpuppetry? Disclaimer: I know very little about all this, other than whenever Giano's name pops up, there is drama. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a legitimate sockpuppet, used for humor purposes. The account has been around for months. You, and clearly David Gerard, indeed know very little about this. Watch this thread; drama coming. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Known socks are generaly accepted although idealy people are very open out them.Geni 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This block strikes me as being like someone blocking their parents on discovering they're not Santa Claus. I was under the impression that Lady Catherine and Giano being one and the same was common knowledge. If someone was concerned that voters might be misled, Lady Catherine's candidate question page was available to ask her to disclose alternative accounts. Had the connection not been declared in response to such a question, there would have been cause for concern, but a block without prior discussion was outrageous. In particular, given their history, David Gerard is a totally inappropriate person to be blocking Giano. WJBscribe (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend unblocking. Experience has shown that blocks of Giano are never sustained. The sooner this one's undone the less trouble it will be. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I would support a community ban of David Gerard at this point. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you are in a minoritory of 1.Geni 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WJBscribe, I've had the honour of quoting you in my unblock rationale. Unbeatable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx6) While I'd like to know David's rationale for this block, right now I'd say it's not a good one at all. I saw the CdB ArbCom entry and shook my head, but didn't see anything to indicate it was anything but someone having a lark. Unless there's some underlying problems here that we don't know about but David does, then there's definitely a problem with the block. As for sockpuppetry, as noted above, other admins are doing similar things; has David turned up evidence that Giano and CdB are working together on certain issues in violation of the sockpuppet guidelines? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

account has under 1000 edits it cannot run.Geni 22:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can, the discussion showing why is at User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_5#Could_you_be_my_knight_in_shining_armour MBisanz ^talk 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla's user page explicitly says she's an alternate account of Bishonen, and has for a long time [4]. Is there a similar diff for the de Burgh account? I don't find the argument that the arbcom candidacy was only in jest to actually resolve the problem. At best, that argument just shifts the issue to WP:POINT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like there's ever been any intent to hide it, though. It's a well known alternate "joke" account. And quite why it needed a checkuser fishing expedition to work it out is beyond me. Black Kite 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone not already know this? I had been aware of this for some time, and I'm sure others have too. As far as I was aware, this "sockpuppet" was only as well concealed as my sockpuppet User:Blatant sockpuppet of WilyD. WilyD 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano & Catherine are the same person?? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't know but this isn't something I've been paying attention to of late.Genisock2 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec X lost count) I've unblocked CdB, per what I interpret as the clear consensus here. Really, anybody could have made a mistake like that, but defending the block at this point is just silly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't block for sockpuppeting, we block for disruptive use of sockpuppets. The fact that everyone knew CdB was Giano's alternate account, and it had never been blocked before or even warned that I'm aware of, suggests that there isn't a history of disruption there. So the question to David Gerard (with no assumptions as to the answer) is this: What was the disruption which was the source of the block? I think David, and anyone who has spent more than a moment around ArbCom or the noticeboards, is aware that blocks of long term (vested) contributors and particularly Giano require a detailed explanation to prevent the maximum dramatic effect. Anyway, before we desysop David, we should hear what he has to say (and what he should have said prior to the block, in some public forum where his reasoning could be examined). Avruch^T 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I brought it up with him on his talk page, he refused to discuss it and stated that if we had any problems we should take it to ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No violation of sockpuppetry at all. Just a long-term editor having a bit of a lark with a fun account. Indef-block was well overblown, and 24 hours for Giano seems like punishment - what for, I've no idea. As for whether David should have blocked or not - can someone elaborate on that point? I'm unfamiliar with the history. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while. Not sure if you were in on the joke, David, but either way, well done. All talk of ousting David should be disregarded- he is the best parody of himself we could ask for. Friday (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well, what was the rationale behind disabling the CdB's ability to edit her own talk page? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the need for joke accounts, and putting joke accounts up for ArbCom is disruptive. That applies to Bishzilla as well. Editors who feel the need for a joke account should label it clearly so there won't be any confusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How slowly would you like them to type up the template? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Does anyone object to marking the user page as an alternate account of Giano II? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Will Beback: I agreed agree that setting up fake arbcom candidacies is a no-go. Bishzilla is very clearly labeled though, and I believe her candidacy was serious. And, re other people, I also never followed Giano closely enough to know the names of any of his sockpuppets. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, geez. So this "good hand account" is reason enough to run a Checkuser? I wonder if the ombudsman would agree? Tex (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, several other CUs were involved with this. Any CU watching care to say who? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count me as the last idiot who didn't previously know exactly whose sock the lady was, but that she was one was blindingly obvious. Now, to round off the fun, have any of the "multiple checkusers" who seriously wasted their time on doing a checkuser on it come forward for their public humiliation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much ado about nothing. Durova^Charge! 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, disagree very much. We've just had a good contributor blocked, his legit sock blocked indef, and possible misuse of CU tools. There's very much ado. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous sock-puppetry is troubling here.--Santa (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to even imagine the grounds for unblocking either account, and failing miserably. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you support a 24 hour block of Raul when the Ceiling cat account came to light? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to know anything about that to have an opinion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you saying these were good blocks? – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great opportunity to clarify our guidelines on "joke accounts," which are usually horribly unfunny anyway... given that these accounts are such a gray area at the moment, though, this was definitely an awful block. krimpet✽ 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at it here. krimpet✽ 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just joke accounts, but all alternate accounts. Has there ever been a truly worthwhile use of undeclared socks by a legitimate user? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think declared sockpuppets for "wacky" purposes are in the same boat. krimpet✽ 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This account, while not "declared" was pretty much an open secret. I've never interacted with Giano, but I knew it was a joke, and that it was him. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how did this account help, in any way, the building of an encyclopedia? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask the same about your userpage, this very page, WP:RFA, etc etc. There is more than an encyclopedia on Wikipedia. There's a community as well, and regulars are allowed to have a little fun, as long as they aren't disrupting anything. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that nobody is running WP:RFA for ArbCom. If this was just a joke that didn't further the purpose of the project, why are folks so upset that it was blocked? If the account was doing no good, then blocking it caused no harm. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, given that the joke has presumably turned a bit sour now, should the candidacy be de-listed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment on this is that this mess shows that joke accounts are funny, but never the way they were intended to be. --Tznkai (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might as well be marked resolved now. I've requested a temporary desysop at RFAR, so discussion should probably move to that forum. Moreschi (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this duplicity, and remember the MFD for CdB's userpage being largely based on lack of mainspace edits by CdB. Fair enough I suppose, but it's a poor project that cannot tolerate a little creative wit from time to time. --Rodhull andemu 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See no violation of WP:SOCK here. Giano and Catherine did not edited the same articles, nor voted together, nor received two positions of trust, etc. I am not sure about usefulness of jocking on the arbcom elections but I was under imperssion that jokes in Wikipedia space are allowed and even welcome (as oppose to the article space). ~~Unless I see any valid argument for blocking Giano, I intend to unblock him in 1 hour~~ Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have not noticed he already unblocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from G's talkpage) Just to say that it wasn't common knowledge to me, most normal users who don't know the dramatis personae on wiki I imagine, and several others I know too. So I could have decided to vote for Giano/CdB, as may others, and I would have been misled into doing so. Giano made it clear he was not going o run this year due to an Arb/jimbo possible veto if he were to get in. I presumed he was telling the truth when he said thhat and didn't have another account going on. Sorry if this seems gormless, funny or naive to the rest of you in the loop but I doubt I was the only one (not that I mind horribly, but it is a bit deceptive to run for arbcom and not make who you are/your other account clear in your statement etc. Boring I know!:) Sticky Parkin 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you would have been aware of it if David Gerard had instead asked questions about the connection or opposed Lady Catherine's candidacy due to it being an alternative account of Giano. Accepting that there might have been an issue with lack of transparency, there were steps short of a block that would have solved that. WJBscribe (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WJB puts it very wisely again. Sticky Parkin: you may not have been aware who exactly it was (I wasn't either), but that it was a joke candidacy was patently obvious. Come on, I can't imagine you (or anybody else, for that matter) could have made such a fool of yourself as to actually seriously vote for her. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it was fairly obvious to anyone who has any experience of Giano's "humor", it may be worth noting that Giano has used his sock to ridicule and insult (albeit in a Giano-esque, tongue-in-cheek way) other, less experienced editors who were trying to be serious. See, for example, [5]. In jokes are funny only if you are in on the joke. While I certainly wouldn't endorse this block, I do think those editors who use these sorts of accounts should be very careful of WP:BITE. Bishzilla a one example of how to do it, CdB is not.

I don't think using a sockpuppet account to run for ArbCom is clever either. On one hand, this process is confusing enough for those not in on the joke without this sort of distraction. On the other, the current ArbCom is beyond satire. Rockpocket 00:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are all forgetting is that to be an Arb Lady C would have had to give her name and adress, it wcould not have happened, As it does happen two arbs and three checkusers and literally 100s of admins have known who she was for months, so the only reason for "multiple checkusers" to pile on this was fishing, to find out my private information and for what purpose. I now strongly advise anyone thinking of giving their names and adresses to Wikipedia to think very carefully. Who has Gerard and his multiple friends passed my name to and why, in fact Gerard himself has known for 2 years - so why, jusr why exactly - multiple checkusers? Giano (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another checkuser asked me about Catherine de Burgh possibly being a sock of a banned user and running for Arbcom. I ran a check and found she was not a sock of the banned user but of Giano. I emailed the checkuser, Jimbo and Newyorkbrad, asking if this was an open secret, and whether anything should be done. I also attempted to contact "Catherine" privately [6] but "she" flipped me off [7]. Thatcher 05:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, you have some explaining to do here. (1) Who was the other checkuser who asked you? (2) Why didn't they do it themselves? (or did they?) (3) What was the basis for the initial "suspicion" that this was a banned user? (never heard anything this nonsensical.) (4) Why didn't you check for the nature of the account, including its open-secret status, before you ran the check? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's up to him or her to say. 2) It never hurts to ask for a second opinion on the reasonableness for a proposed check, if one has doubts or concerns. 3) See #1. Additionally, I previously had had concerns about this accounts Troubles editing, note that Troubles articles are under Arbcom restriction. 4) See [8] and [9]. What more should I have done, and do you propose that I do the same for every account I check? Thatcher 06:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To (3): no, no "see #1" here. You must have had some grounds for that suspicion, you are responsible for your checkusers. (3b) What "Troubles"-related editing? (4) Your attempts at contacting "Catherine" were after you ran the check, I suppose? What I meant was: everybody could see she was a joke account, and at least see what circle of editors she belonged to. If you knew enough about her to notice some "Troubles"-related editing of hers, surely you were also aware what user talk pages she used to frequent? You recognise a true Lady by the company she keeps, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a joke account running for Arbcom to make a point is behavior entirely consistent with the banned user in question. I no longer recall why I checked the account in June other than that the checkuser log notes concerns about Troubles articles. (Do you really expect me to remember the details of the hundreds of checks I have run, especially ones where there was no useful finding?) I do not edit or watch Troubles articles myself, so it is most likely that I was asked by someone else or that I saw a complaint about her on some user talk page that I do watch. Thatcher 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment, so you checked him already back in June, because of something relating to the Troubles, and then you checked him again yesterday when somebody thought he was "possibly being a sock of a banned user and running for Arbcom"? (He wasn't running for Arbcom in June, for sure.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked User:Catherine de Burgh in June, I no longer recall why, but the logged reason is concern over editing of Troubles articles. There were no findings at the time that I recall; there are a number of possible reasons for this which I would prefer not to speculate about. I checked Catherine de Burgh again yesterday. I never checked User:Giano II until yesterday, as a confirming check when I had already discovered Catherine and Giano on the same IPs. Thatcher 07:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In June of 2008, Her Ladyship had been inactive for three months (no edits between 20 March and 4 July). And the only contributions I can find that bring her even remotely in the neighbourhood of the troubles is a humorous exchange with User:Major Bonkers and User:Kittybrewster on a user talk page. Is that enough to get a lady stripped and searched down to her private parts these days? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-Good question. I was looking over the account and noticed the same thing. After reviewing the entire checkuser log around that time, it appears that some edits have been oversighted. I believe that an account or IP made a personal attack that included personal information that has been oversighted. I do not recall for sure, but I think "Catherine" either came to the defense of the attacked party, or was herself attacked, in a manner that made me suspicious. (Recall that the Troubles articles have been plagued by sockpuppets on all sides.) I checked the attacking account, and I also checked Catherine. Catherine's most recent edits were too stale to return any result, which is why I did not discover in June that she was a sock of Giano. But the check was still recorded in the log. (That's one of the problems with the checkuser log; it shows what data was requested but not what data was returned. Similarly, if I ran a check on User:Grawp today, it would return no result, since the edits of that account are much too old; but the log would still show "Thatcher got IPs for Grawp".) And I think this is the last I can comment on this matter. Thatcher 08:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Am I correct that the checkuser who asked about CDB being the sock of a banned user was not David Gerard, who has indicated that he was aware of CDB's identity in 2006? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Out of 1500+ admins, I guess there were only two of us who were not "in" on the open secret. Thatcher 07:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me: I'm well aware that not everybody knew it was Giano and I've said at RFAR that I think the checkuser was understandable (assuming the existence of the sort of evidence you'd normally check on, which I am assuming), because not all checkusers can be expected to be aware of all such open secrets. I keyed in on David Gerard specifically because he has acknowledged that he knew the account's identity in 2006. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it was not David G. who contacted me for an opinion as to whether Catherine warranted a check as a suspected sock of a banned user. Unfortunately neither my fellow checkuser nor I were in on the joke. I sent an email to a few people expressing concern, one of whom was in on the joke but was away from his computer (therefore I blame his girlfriend). Another of whom was David G.; he expressed that he previously knew about the Catherine account and was content to ignore it but that "her" Arbcom candidacy crossed a line. But David can certainly speak for himself in this regard. Thatcher 07:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So as I understand it:

CDB was exhibiting tendencies that made her appear likely to be a banned user,
Two checkusers who weren't aware that CDB was Giano checkusered CDB to determine if she was the banned editor in question,
Finding out that she was instead Giano, they consulted with other trusted users as to how to proceed.

I don't see any problem at all with the above. It's what happened next that I find problematic, but the checkusering looks to me to have been above board. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I planned to vote for a few joke or slightly ironic candidates as well as 'proper' ones as they usually had sort of a point to make too or are funny, and might even stand a chance of getting in, you never know.:) I expect she would have garnered a few votes, and some of them from people who didn't know who it was. She's been here a while and presumably edited a bit. Giano- no-one has passed on your details, just your IP or that you are CdB, which people are saying was known to some anyway. Everyone standing from arbcom I think has considered that they have to give the WMF their details- if not, thhey should, depending who will get to see the names etc. Sticky Parkin 00:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This beggars belief. Even assuming the unlikely event that such a block would stick, why would DG think Giano would be bothered by receiving a 24 hour block? At some stage most humans beings learn from their mistakes, why has DG not learned blocking Giano is daft? There has been more than enough opportunity. Besides this, it's such an insanely stupid miscalculation of power it is almost unbelievable, though as it happens so often it really shouldn't be. It is also preposterous in claimed excuse, as the alternate account was making itself highly visible claiming to be a dead woman ... and everyone who mattered knew it was Giano (or was theoretically capable of being, and likely to be, informed). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next, let's get Little Stupid. Jehochman ^Talk 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support letting any editors have joke accounts to indulge in foolishness, and I'd be perfectly content to see the sock account blocked (and that goes for User:Ceiling Cat, User:Bishzilla, and any others). It is, however, unacceptable to block the main account for something like this, and even blocking the sock account was an obviously controversial action that should have been considered on this page before anything was done. Everyking (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning everyone. So it now appears Thatcher checkuserd Lady C/me in June, when she was not editing, so a total (to my certain knowledge) of 4 checkusers knew in advance. So why last night's antics - sounds to me like someone was pretty desperate to shut me up - perhaps they thought I was about to expose something, or was drawing attention to something. Giano (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, see above. At the time I checked Catherine in June, her most recent edits were too stale so no result was returned, but the check was still logged (the log records what requests were made but not the result). The reason I checked Catherine has to do with an attack account that popped up about that time and some edits that have been oversighted. Thatcher 08:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the requests for arbitration page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano should be kicked off the project. He trolls; he is disruptive; he is unprofessional; he behaves in a manner unbefitting a serious encyclopedic project; he brings the project into disrepute. Begone! 86.156.83.149 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bugger, I missed the drama. I can't believe this, really, since in my experience both David and Giano "get it" at the most fundamental level, it being the reason why we are all supposed to be here. I do hope Giano is not embarking on a flame-out, that would be most regrettable. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of silliness is why it's bad to try to edit and encyclopedia from within IRC. Really looks to me like a bit of egregious axe-grinding. I guess it will be worked out in ArbCom. Nandesuka (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who on earth said anything about IRC? What an odd thing to say. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokes his head in and looks around... oh still showing re-runs, I will look back later* Chillum 13:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This again. Giano is a gigantic untouchable troll who can get away with murder on this project, we all know this, we've all heard his conspiracy theories before about how everyone is trying to "shut him up" or out to get him, or whatever. If we're not going to ban him for his inexcusably poor behavior we certainly have no right to be considering anything against David Gerard. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good time for an uninvolved admin to take this off the transcluded subpage, stick it back on AN and then manually send it to the archives. Giano has been unblocked, and is making the rounds of the talk pages of those involved. There is also a listed RFAR case. There is certainly no pending need for admin action here. Thatcher 03:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax or vanity?

Does anybody know whether Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso is a hoax or a vanity article? Article has no references and the single editor (User:Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso) removed the no-refs-tag at least once. --Túrelio (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax, surprisingly. With an alternative spelling, Lalith Aponsu, he turns up in Stirrat's "Power and Religiosity in a Post-colonial Setting" - in some detail, as well. That aside, the article would need to be completely rewritten to be even faintly encyclopedic, and would probably need more than the one RS. - Bilby (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been axed under A7. I was going to delete this article as a redirect under R1, only...where is it in the speedy menu? All I saw was R2 and R3. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R1 is now listed under G8. Fram (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised it was deleted - from what I can tell it was reduced to one line and then speedied, as the one line didn't assert notability, while I think the original did, (which would normally call for AfD). But given how bad the original one was, I don't think there's much call to question the decision. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Tennis expert

(Sorry if this is the wrong noticeboard, but I always get the impression that the edit warring nb covers 3RR only. Please move this to somewhere more appropriate or direct to me somewhere it's been raised before, as it quite likely has.)

Every few days, User:Tennis expert goes around a whole load of tennis article mass reverting changes based on his personal interpretation of our style guidelines (or rather his belief that they don't apply to him, or to tennis articles, or at all - I'm not quite sure). Attempts to engage him in dialogue, as I made at Talk:Urszula Radwańska, seem to fail; comments placed on his talk page are quite often removed without reply (e.g. [10]). Is this going to be allowed to continue as a piece of harmless fun, or is some action appropriate?--Kotniski (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC) (Notified the user of this thread; also notified User:2008Olympian and User:Ohconfucius who made many of the reverted edits.)[reply]

Tennis expert has severe problems complying with WP:OWN, something I've seen in action at Maria Sharapova in particular. His usual method is to claim "consensus" backs whatever changes he is making and to revert attempts at interaction at his talk page. I know User:The Rambling Man has also had problems of this nature with him. I would describe TE as a problem editor who tenaciously patrols his watchlist to control articles he regards as his own. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply inexcusable. Edit warring is never appropriate, and although 3RR may not have been breached at every article, and the amount of reverts and unexplained edits, has led to a 24 hour block. I'll review the edits and see if any needs to be re-reverted. If this pattern of editing continues post-block... seicer | talk | contribs 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad block. The issue of date linking/formatting is currently disputed at WP:MOSNUM. The editors performing mass automated edits while a dispute is in progress are violating previous ArbCom decisions relating to mass editing during disputes. Further, the editors performing these automated edits rarely, if ever, discuss their edits other than to claim they have the backing of the MoS (which they do not). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, those editors are: (1) the single-purpose account Datedelinker; (2) Lightmouse, who has made thousands of controversial date delinking edits using AWB despite the policy that prohibits AWB from being used to do anything "controversial"; (3) Tony1, who has accused me on various discussion pages of having a mental illness and being a pig; (4) Skywalker, who often engages in blind reverts of everything I do, regardless of the nature of my edits; (5) The Rambling Man on tour (here is an example of his edit warring about date linking, which has continued after Seicer's warning about edit warring - wonder if Seicer will follow through and block a bureaucrat?); (6) Closedmouth, who has done thousands of script-based and AWB edits on date-delinking despite being asked to stop; (7) 2008Olympian, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue; (8) Dabomb87, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue, ignored requests to stop doing so, and edit warred to enforce his date-delinking agenda (e.g., five reverts in three days, five reverts in three days); and, (9) Colonies Chris, who has done thousands of AWB-based edits on this issue. There may be others. Tennis expert (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, I have never explicitly or implicitly claimed ownership of the Maria Sharapova article or any other article. Your allegation, unsupported by the facts, is ridiculous, incivil, and unbecoming of an administrator. Tennis expert (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to leave for a bit, but can anyone take over the MOS reverts that I started from here? Much thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more of them. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer said below, "Tennis Expert has not been the only one edit warring, and although it would be a tad late to block other users over this, if I see it continue on by other editors, you can be guaranteed that more blocks will be given out." Yet, Seicer has literally invited two editors to engage in the very edit warring that Seicer has promised will result in a block. See this post by Seicer on Ohconfuscius's talk page and this post by Seicer on 2008Olympian's talk page. Seicer's general invitation, above, to engage in the type of edit warring that he has promised will result in a block also is strange. I wonder if it is permissible for an administrator to block an editor, such as himself or Tim Vickers, for behavior that the administrator is actively soliciting. Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer has reverted roughly 45 articles that I edited concerning the date delinking issue. Nine of those articles were the victims of his blind reverts, where clearly beneficial and uncontroversial edits were reverted. Seicer has refused to fix these problems; so, I am asking that someone else do it. The articles in question are Margaret Osborne duPont, Jimmy Evert, Lawson Duncan, Fred Hagist, Gigi Fernandez, Pat DuPre, Brian Dunn, Herb Fitzgibbon, and Herbert Flam. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that TE, along with User:Locke Cole have been aggressively fighting application of WP:MOSNUM notably in relation to deprecation of date-autoformatting. I believe that edits of mine which rendered dates in a consistent dmy or mdy format have also been reverted, in blatant contempt of the guideline. I have yet to find occasion to warn him of WP:3RR. This self-proclaimed authority in tennis is edit warring whilst respecting the letter of the policy. Somebody needs to have words with him. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a guideline. It's disputed, as you well know given the warning I left on your talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius's post is completely false. I had been very careful to preserve the correct formats and have corrected them wherever I have found errors. And I had merely been trying to preserve the existing consensus until there is a new consensus to delete existing date links. It is clear that the new consensus does not yet exist. See, for example, denial to use Cleanbot to remove existing date links, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Tennis expert (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block was 3 hours after he stopped editing. Is this block intended to get his attention, i.e. be lifted when he decided to respond? John Reaves 16:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here 24/7, so this was the first chance I could get to respond (since no one else bothered to do anything about this, either). The user was mass reverting dozens of pages, and the cleanup work has yet to begin (I've tackled 50 pages so far), and for that, a short block was in order. If he continues post-block, then this gives ample rationale to give a lengthy block or an indef. seicer | talk | contribs 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No cleanup work is necessary, his reverts were entirely appropriate given the disputed nature of date unlinking (which is now (and has been) being discussed at WT:MOSNUM). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I obviously disagree with Tennis expert's methodology, he does appear to be enforcing the most recent consensus decision; whenever I've interacted with him on tennis articles, it's been against other editors who appear to be set on making widespread changes of their own volition without consensus. So yes, edit warring is not the answer, but against people like this, reason isn't terribly effective for the most part. Considering that Tennis expert does in fact seem to be both passionate and knowledgeable about this topic, and against serial, single-purpose edit warriors like User:Korlzor, then I'd say that Tennis expert seems to be doing exceedingly well keeping his cool reverting the angry complaints on his talk page and staying within 3RR guidelines. It's a shame that the contributors of this thread have been demonizing him. A block also seems highly inappropriate, especially because he was never notified, and has not been given any chance to respond to the accusations against him. I'd strongly encourage whoever blocked him to undo it post-haste. GlassCobra 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I really can't begin to care about something as trivial as date formatting, edit warring is disruptive. Edit warring can be three reverts on a single page, or as in this case, hundreds of reverts on hundreds of pages. He was warned about this several times on his talkpage section. This was a good block in my opinion, indeed I was thinking about doing it myself yesterday. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I have observed and sometimes protested against TE's tactics on editing tennis articles and his refusal to discuss these issues on tennis wikiproject in recent times, I believe that the block was entirely unjust and done in haste. And I guess this is particularly bad due to what this block resulted in. And despite his hostility in engaging in discussions in the past, I believe he should have been given at least some period of time to respond here before action being taken against him. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis Expert has for a long time blocked any progress on tennis articles, by vetoing any change he didn't like by throwing in the "this is against established consensus" argument. Even in discussions where 20 editors had agreed on a change, he would say that one whould wait for a new consensus to form, but that he could not tell when it would form. That was inevitable interpreted by most as his way of saying "things stay as I want until I declare a new consensus" (i.e. ownership). It was in my opinion a very counterproductive behavior. As to the delinking of dates this was just a manifestation of the same thing. I interpreted his actions as a demonstration of how he helt that even a change in the MOS could not overturn his view on "established consensus" in existing articles. Even on a matter where he in September stated that he did not favor naked links of years. Yet he would not delink years—on the contrary. It really strikes me as somewhere between admirable and very odd. In any case, I don't think his approach is the way to proceed, and even though the particular issue of delinking dates are currently debated, the current MOS does read: "Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so." I never heard a reason for putting in naked links to dates in tennis bios from anybody; including Tennis Expert. So, in my opinion, insisting on putting them in again and again with no reason is just disruptive behavior in order to ride a misguided principle. (And to GlassCobra: He has had every chance to discuss, defend himself etc., but he refuses to discuss; he just deletes and proceeds.) --HJensen, talk 23:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Tennis Expert, from what I can infer from his contributions, has engaged in mass reverts over dozens of pages hundreds of times over. Edit warring is quite defined in this case, and fits the bill here. It doesn't matter who is "right" or who is "wrong" -- because I've kept myself out of the loop on the whole MOS linking bit until now, but if any sides refuse to discuss their controversial edits and edit war over a span of dozens of articles -- and simply remove any discussions that may be worth reading such as here, then there is only so much that the community will tolerate. Our patience is not indefinite, and if he refuses to discuss his edits, then he will aptly be blocked.

Given Tennis Expert's latest soapboxing, this comment from a fellow administrator is quite approperiate. Currently, the only ones who are disputing his block are other editors who have engaged in this sort of petty behavior, such as engaging in MFD's on policy pages (a grossly inappropriate method to resolving issues) and edit warring on multiple pages. I shall note that Tennis Expert has not been the only one edit warring, and although it would be a tad late to block other users over this, if I see it continue on by other editors, you can be guaranteed that more blocks will be given out. Take this to the policy talk pages and have the policy overwritten; don't nominate it for deletion; don't edit war over dozens of pages; and don't soapbox. seicer | talk | contribs 00:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you need to unblock and back away until you've actually read the volumes of debate on this issue. The simple fact is this: those insisting on removing date links are not participating in discussions at WT:MOSNUM and attempt to derail such discussions claiming they already have consensus (they do NOT). Tennis Expert has my full support in reverting what amounts to a campaign by a handful of MOSNUM regulars to eradicate date links/formatting against obvious disputes/challenges. Further, how you can block him but not block those who are constantly performing these edits (when it's clear they're disputed) is beyond me. So please, either unblock Tennis Expert or block everyone who is involved, because this uneven handling is damaging your credibility in this matter (especially your "repair work", which goes against everything we've discussed at WT:MOSNUM). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, and pandering comments such as yours don't give further credence towards your stance. Furthermore, all of the administrators who have chimed in this thread and on his talk page have agreed that the block is justified -- not necessarily for the MOSNUM-bit, but for the excessive edit warring over dozens of pages that compounded to hundreds of edits. If you can't see it for that, then I can't give you further assistance. seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is going to sound odd seeing as it was me who reported the matter, but I think the block may have been a well-intentioned mistake (just as the blocks imposed on myself and User:Tony1 two days ago were mistakes). I was expecting an admin just to have a word with the user, to try to make him see reason and engage in dialogue, not to jump straight in with a block. I know others have tried this, but at least we could have seen whether an attempt from an admin, with the implication of a possible block, might not have been successful. After all, we feed vandalizing trolls with warnings and attempts to engage; we ought at last to try the same with established users who do make positive contributions on other occasions. (Not that I'm complaining too much; certainly it was better that some action be taken than none, as has been the case up to now.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pandering? Pandering? Is this your response to a well reasoned request for equality in treatment? Unless WP:BLOCK has changed recently, it suggests you should treat all parties in a dispute equally, and you definitely shouldn't be picking sides and reverting edits which are disputed. Also, it's troubling that you only give credence to the opinions of "other administrators". Maybe you missed it, but this is a wiki ran by (with few exceptions) a community of editors. It's definitely not being ran by you. (← this is pandering, BTW). Did you even bother reading WP:BRD as I suggested on your talk page Seicer? —Locke Cole • t • c 09:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer, the last time I looked, GlassCobra and Arthur Rubin were administrators. Both have said that your block of myself was "wrong" or "highly inappropriate". So, the score is two administrators in favor of your block and two opposed. Correct me if I've miscounted. Tennis expert (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for RMOT (check the home account), Guy, and on and on. I don't dwell on the number... seicer | talk | contribs 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's true. "All" (your word) is not a number. Tennis expert (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer said above, "Take this to the policy talk pages and have the policy overwritten." Obviously, he doesn't understand the issue, which is that there is no policy to eliminate existing date links. Despite there not being a policy to eliminate existing date links, the editors I listed above have employed automated and semi-automated means to implement their misguided conception of the MOS. Seicer also said above, "if any sides refuse to discuss their controversial edits and edit war over a span of dozens of articles -- and simply remove any discussions that may be worth reading such as here, then there is only so much that the community will tolerate. Our patience is not indefinite, and if he refuses to discuss his edits, then he will aptly be blocked." This is the problem that inevitably results when an administrator hastily and rashly blocks without bothering to determine the facts. I have discussed the date delinking issues over-and-over-and-over-and-over, both on the MOS discussion pages and at WP:TENNIS. I also have said why I had no intention of engaging in yet another dialogue about the exact same issues with editors such as The Rambling Man on tour (RMOT), who are routinely hostile and incivil to me. See this. RMOT was aware of my intentions but continued to pointlessly harrass me on my discussion page, which is why his posts were deleted there. See WP:HUSH and WP:UP#CMT. Of course, Seicer wouldn't know about that because he didn't bother to ask. Drive-by, "I can't be bothered by the facts" blocking was his solution. Tennis expert (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have engaged yorself into an active retirement. The diff that should compromise Rambling Man on Tour, actually reflects some of my entries on another page you cannot delete on. So you may want to edit that if you should come out of retirement once again. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HJensen's original post here is probably worse than anything else that has been posted here about myself. It is inaccurate. It is incivil. It is demonizing. It is inflammatory. It creates ill will. It creates an "us versus them" mentality. And it epitomizes the most egregious type of behavior on Wikipedia. I did not block progress on tennis articles. In fact, I did more than anyone else on English-language Wikipedia to improve tennis biographies. My watch list consisted of 450 of those articles. I worked very hard on all of them. Maria Sharapova is used by certain editors as an example of everything I did wrong. But that article is very close to GA status only because of the work I did on it and the vandals I fought. Have a look at Billie Jean King, which I am very proud of. I have spent hundreds of hours on that article. And what exactly as HJensen done? My disagreement with him was about the core principle of consensus. He believed that a handful of people on an obscure discussion page that almost no one looked at could overturn the consensus of thousands of tennis article editors, most of them anonymous IP accounts. He refused to understand or accept that consensus can be created through editing, not just through discussion. He also refused to understand the fact that a more specific consensus concerning a particular subject matter (tennis) can override a more general consensus (MOS). Wikipedia precedent, which I cited to him and others, is clear about this. Instead of discussing these issues productively, he became incivil, gossiped about me, misrepresented my opinions, and said he had "given up" on me. As I have said many times in many places, this is not about whether date linking is a good thing. Rather, the issue is whether there is a true consensus to eliminate existing date links and prohibit the creation of new date links. While date linking is a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things, how consensus is formed and changed is extremely important for the future of Wikipedia. In fact, I doubt there is any issue of more importance. If you look at all the discussions of date linking and all the disputes that have arisen about the behavior of various editors, the fundamental issue is consensus: what is it now? what was it in the past? has it changed recently? may it be changed back? should editors refrain from using automated and semiautomated means to enforce their view of consensus when there is an ongoing controversy? These are tough issues, but that doesn't justify posts like HJensen's. Tennis expert (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which post? Seriously? If it is my assesment above starting with "Tennis Expert has for a long time ", then that is just my input and opinions. Stop throwing the "incivility" claim whenever someone disagrees with you and sees things different than you. I honestly believe you have blocked progress. That is my opinion. Is that incivil to state such an opinion? And yes, I have "given up" on you, because I have failed to understand what you really want. How can that be incivil? I think you are strongly devaluing the term now. Consider for a moment, and this is meant seriously and not sarcastic, that since so many fail to appreciate your stand, then perhaps you are, as a minimum not being sufficiently clear when expressing your views. It is not like we are all being stupid on purpose here. --HJensen, talk 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all opinions need to be aired in public, and certain opinions indeed are incivil when they are aired in public. I have stated my views simply in all kinds of ways, in several different places, and if you still fail to understand them, then, well, draw your own conclusions. Tennis expert (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 1RR restriction

Considering that Locke Cole has been blocked many times for edit warring after coming off an ArbCom 1RR restriction last year, I find his argument that we're the ones with damaged credibility deeply ironic. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which makes 7 reverts in 3 days all the more interesting. 3 reverts in 2 days; 3 reverts in 3 days; 3 reverts 2 days. This should be logged with ArbCom as gross violation over multiple pages. Even if 1RR was not technically violated on one singular article, the spirit of edit warring and reverting over multiple days can result in an extended block. I haven't even begun to dig through his recent contributions, but I'm sure I'd find much more. seicer | talk | contribs 04:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have been clear. That restriction lapsed last year, but he's be blocked for 3RR several times since it lapsed. See [[11]]. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have a good case for edit warring and gaming the system at USS Monitor, where there are seven reverts over three days, timed so that they are not technical violations of 3RR (although 3RR makes it clear that 3RR is not an entitlement and that users can be subject to blocks for non-3RR violations): 22:45, 16 November 2008; 20:01, 16 November 2008; 19:39, 16 November 2008; 17:48, 15 November 2008; 04:37, 14 November 2008; 00:08, 14 November 2008; 11:04, 13 November 2008. The fact that this pattern has emerged over a multitude of pages in a similar fashion to Tennis Expert deserves further consideration for action. While a block at this point may be punitive rather than preventative, a stern warning and a notice that future gaming will result in a block may be in order. seicer | talk | contribs 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely say he's gaming the system: stalks, bullies, intimidates and then stops when warned, moves to another playground and starts all over again. I did warn him 3 days ago about the Monitor, and he stopped. Then, there was the intervening 1 week block (which was unjustifiably shortened to a few hours). He's back now. And judging from recent postings, he's utterly unrepentant. When he eventually does gets benched, he won't be able to say he didn't have it coming. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's truly bizarre to see people acting exactly as I act pretending their actions are above reproach. Folks, Ohconfuscius and Seicer are performing the same mass reverts they'd have me blocked for. When can this insanity stop? —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that their edits are in line with the manual of style guidelines; those of TE (and perhaps yours, though I don't remember seeing any of yours) are in blatant contradiction to it. If you want to change the guidelines then make a reasoned proposal or contribute (as you have been doing, in fact) to the ongoing discussion. The fact that a few people want to change a policy or guideline (particularly when the proposed change is not defined in any coherent way) doesn't make the current version invalid, and provides no excuse for acting against that policy or guideline. --Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that he is doing exactly the same, the two are vice chairmen of the concert party, co-conspirators, aiding and abetting each other. Only difference is that TE has had the good sense to retire. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:CIVIL, Ohconfucius. Your disinformation campaign is tiresome.Kotniski, edit warring is edit warring according to my good friend Seicer, regardless of whether the edits are in accordance with the MOS guidelines. The one exception, of course, covers any edit warring that Seicer himself has solicited, a type of "immunity to prosecution". Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom case with me is how old? And you'll note there were many vocal opponents to the decision the ArbCom reached regarding me. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do tell. Your block log tells another story. seicer | talk | contribs 12:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What story does it tell? Besides that involved admins in a dispute appeared to have no qualms using their admin tools to win a debate? Your problem is that you look at the block log and think you have the entire picture when if you did even the tiniest amount of investigation you would see that most of the blocking admins supported the opposing position I took. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our good friend Seicer was once blocked for edit warring. Pot calling the kettle black? Tennis expert (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased your retirement was so short, Tennis expert. In the future, to avoid further blocks, please refrain from edit warring, either on single articles, or by following people's contributions and edit-warring over multiple articles. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not be aware it takes two to engage in "battle". As I mentioned from the outset, the inequality of the blocks (which is to say, "block", as only one party to the edit war was actually blocked with the other side actually helped by the admin in performing their mass reversions) is a real problem. Should this issue arise again I hope the admin handling it will actually treat editors equally instead of choosing a side. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of current policy is not a blockable offence. Edit warring over dozens of pages hundreds of times is a blockable offence. I noted that some in opposition to the current policy have tried backhanded attempts to circumvent consensus by starting a MFD on the policy page itself (which was speedy kept). Sorry, doesn't work that way. seicer | talk | contribs 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you obviously have no idea what current policy is. And aside from that, the MOS is a guideline, not a policy. Edit warring to enforce current policy, whatever that is, is not a blockable offence, huh? What a strange concept. Where can I find this not-blockable-offense policy? It's not here, which specifically says, "edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt" from WP:3RR. Your current interpretation is very convenient for you, I might add, because it gets you off the hook about blocking the edit warriors with a date delinking agenda. Flip-flopping interpretations are not useful. Here's what you said earlier, "Edit warring is quite defined in this case, and fits the bill here. It doesn't matter who is 'right' or who is 'wrong' ... but if any sides ... edit war over a span of dozens of articles ... then there is only so much that the community will tolerate. Our patience is not indefinite...." Tennis expert (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a few situations in which repeated edits are not considered edit warring: edits to remove WP:BLP violations and copyright violations come to mind. However, editing to enforce most other policies is not exempt. (Sorry, TE, you're almost correct.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's not a policy, it's a guideline (and not even a very well backed guideline as it's the MoS which most editors couldn't possibly keep up with thanks to all the changes that occur across the varying pages it inhabits). 2) With few exceptions (BLP and others as Arthur correctly points out) it is a blockable offense to edit war (whether or not you have the backing of policy or even a guideline). As an administrator you should be aware of these exceptions and rules. Tell me, are you an administrator open to recall? I note your userpage history appears to have been deleted so I can't check to see if you were at any point open to recall. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon being approved as an administrator, my good friend Seicer said, "I will do everything in my vested power to ensure that I uphold the role of an administrator to the highest standard". This makes his recent actions and statements even more disappointing. And it really is unseemly for an administrator to have this at the top of his user page: "Giant dicks are blocked henceforth." Wikipedia deserves better. Tennis expert (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A visit to Seicer's user page can see that "Giant dicks are blocked henceforth" links to WP:GIANTDICK. He's just sore, and anybody reading the rant which is supposed to be his farewell message should be beyond doubt that the poor kid's absolutely lost it, his sense of humour was the first casualty. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TE's statement about HJensen that "[HJensen] also refused to understand the fact that a more specific consensus concerning a particular subject matter (tennis) can override a more general consensus (MOS)." is a perfect example of how TE's views holds up progress on tennis articles. I just got through two rounds of critiques on the 2002 NFL Expansion Draft list, trying to get it to FL status. I was eventually successful (joy!), but one thing that I had to learn is that the larger editing community does not care about Project-specific editing consensus if it conflicts with the MOS. Over at WP:NFL, we had a draft template that included links within the initial bold text of the article name when it first appears in the article text (in clear conflict with the MoS). As in: "The 2002 NFL Draft was the procedure by which..." That format for draft pages was clear, debated Project consensus. I started with that template, yet if I had stuck to it with the tenacity that Tennis Expert is holding on to bare date links in the tennis articles, the article wouldn't have passed the review process. We changed the template to conform with the MoS, which is how it should be done, instead of clinging to the specific-overrules-general rationale, which wouldn't have worked.

Not that there is any consensus within the Project to retain the date links, it is pretty clear that all but one or two editors agree with removing them. Tennis Expert claims that there is consensus because the bare date links are already there. Of course bare date links already exist, that's why we have policies that specifically address them: WP:OVERLINK#Dates, MOS:UNLINKDATES. But if the date links are not to be used from now on (deprecated), then there should be no problem in removing the ones that are already there. But TE keeps saying no consensus to remove existing date links. It just doesn't make sense. Deprecation means that a feature will be phased out. It is a computing term that is intended to keep programmers from having to take the time to go back and remove the feature from all past work; it just won't be used from now on. It doesn't mean, however, that the feature couldn't be removed retroactively, if some programmers wanted to spend the time to do so, it is just that they don't have to do so.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to unlink dates, nor is there even consensus that linking dates or formatting dates is bad. What currently exists at WP:MOSNUM is disputed and was put in to place with the blessing of twelve editors. MANY more than that have come since the change and registered their dislike of the change and this is generally ignored ("we have consensus", "it was decided last month", etc). As if consensus is something that never changes. Please read WP:CON. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and TE keep saying that, but saying it doesn't make it true. The change was made on August 24, 2008, on the basis of this archived discussion. Please take the time to read it and then follow it.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 02:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already indicated at WT:MOSNUM that straw poll involving a dozen editors is pretty much invalidated since at least as many editors have complained about the change since it was "enacted". I again invite you to read WP:CON, specifically the portion noting that consensus can change (and in this case, it has). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you have a link to that new consensus where?--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go look through the archives, the number of people who pop up to complain about this at WT:MOSNUM at least equals the number who supported this at the straw poll. I'm sorry it wasn't wrapped in a box and given a little bow on top. Also note from WP:CON (you really should read this page), "In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages.", I'd hardly call a dozen editors on an obscure subpage of the MoS a "higher standard of participation". The time for forcing your point of view on the rest of us is past, it's time to participate in the RFC and other discussion at WT:MOSNUM. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, once again, where is this link to said consensus? seicer | talk | contribs 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the archives if you don't believe me. But something tells me if I provided twelve links to editors who came since the "poll" (which was itself invalid) you'd just find another reason why you think I'm wrong. In other words, my good faith with you is long since exhausted, you're simply baiting me at this point. Speaking of that: are you ever going to answer my question about whether you're open to recall? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never stated that I am open for recall; in fact, I've voiced critical commentary against the recall process. If I was open to recall, I would have posted my signature here. Thanks for jumping the topic. seicer | talk | contribs 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Go look through the archives," you say twice above, but it is up to you to support your own arguments, as I have done above. But to save you the trouble of doing so, let me agree with you that "if I provided twelve links to editors who came since the [consensus discussion]...you'd just find another reason why you think I'm wrong."

I will grant you that there probably are some editors that have voiced a different opinion since that consensus was reached. And there are others, like yours truly, who have voiced support for the consensus who also did not participate in the original consensus discussion. Neither one of those facts are of any consequence until a new consensus discussion is held. You need to adhere to the consensus as it is until it changes. To quote WP:CON (which you cite so often):

Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

Just wait until the new RfC goes up and voice your opinion there and then, quit trying to change existing consensus by edit warring with those who are just following the above consensus. From what I have read, perhaps with the exception of birth and death years, there is overwhelming support for not linking dates (even from Tennis Expert), and that the reasons behind that are persuasive. I don't even read you as supporting the linking of date years, just that there isn't a consensus to unlink. I don't know why the long discussion I linked to above doesn't work for you or why you denigrate it as a straw poll, it is lengthy and well-discussed. This started as a discussion about Tennis Expert, but as you are one of his most ardent collaborators, you should heed this suggestion as well.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article

Hey guys, could someone help me redirect Brooklyn streets (West Streets) article to the West Streets section of the Brooklyn streets article? I'm trying to streamline the street articles and am at a loss on how to accomplish that. Thanks. Tom Vazquez (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the content of Brooklyn streets (West Streets) is identical to that of the West Streets section of the Brooklyn streets article, you can just replace everything in the former with #REDIRECT Brooklyn streets#West Streets. If this is a wide-ranging or long-term project, you may want to get in touch with the folks over at WP:NYC for assistance and discussion. Please read Help:Merging and moving pages as well, if you haven't already. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, Tom Vazquez (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"List of programs broadcast by" mess

Today I stumbled across List of programs broadcast by TV Land. I found the article to be completely lacking in references and really questioned the encyclopedic value of such an article. I took a look at WP:NOTDIRECTORY and felt that the article was not in compliance with that policy. In particular, "For example, an article on a ... station generally should not list...current schedules, et cetera, although mention of ... historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." I don't see how a listing of every show that has ever played on TV Land constitutes historical significance, much less one referenced by secondary or tertiary sources. In that way, the article also seems to violate WP:OR.

Troubled by this, I decided to put the article up for AfD. Wanting to make sure that it had not been AfD'd before, I checked the talk page (no record of it) and "what links here" to see if there was an existing AfD. There isn't one. But, what I ran across was an immense number of very similar articles. Have a look at Template:Lists of TV programs by country. There's article after article after article on that template that are largely akin to List of programs broadcast by TV Land. More disturbingly, quite a number of them have current schedules listed, for example List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ABC_Family#Primetime_Schedule. This is directly against the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy. I have also noticed a stunning lack of references in most of these articles, and in the few that do usually just one or two references (usually to the TV channel's schedule page or similar).

There's a real problem here. These articles, just by sheer size, are heavily entrenched. Bringing them all to AfD as a group would fail. Yet, as a group they miserably fail our policies.

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information as well. This should go. Maybe a good start would be to make a list of them (are there all in the template or are there others?). Hm, you can tag some of them as prod for start, if nobody removes it, deletion is guaranteed. Otherwise, afd still makes sense with a well-written nomination. --Tone 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is a system whereby articles on a particular topic can be automagically placed in a sorted list. We could call it something catchy like "categories". I expect to make millions from the patent on this idea. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ment something like Special:Prefixindex/List of programs broadcast by, you are too late. Well, at least there are not thousands of those articles. --Tone 23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not a relevant question, but are many of these articles well maintained? Do you have the sense that categorising and then deleting these articles would piss off hundreds of busy Wikipedians? Avruch^T 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should not really matter. Those articles are not supposed to be here, whether people like them or not. --Tone 23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna see a REAL cruft-o-rama??? PBS idents. Not only is it beyond mindbogglingly over-detailed, it a) has friends! (Not the images--I can se where the images might be useful in the individual station articles--but the subcats of logos and idents-lists.) b)They attract flies (most particularly a notorious sockpuppeteer named Jamesinc14 and all his flying monkeys). These logo lists have all been AfD'ed at least once, many more than once--and every time they're closed as Keep. So I share your pain--I would GLADLY do a giant clean-out of these lists (oh--and if you want a list to make your eyes bleed with its pure awfulness and unciteability--List of fictional dogs) but I fear I would be rolling many boulders up many hills, simultaneously. GJC 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who's annoyed at the fact that Wikipedia apparently has zero standards when it comes to fictional material. The problem is that, for every editor who argues for deletion on the basis of policy and guidelines, there's two fanboys whose arguments rarely amount to more than "OMG! Keep! Keep! Keep! Super duper mega IMPORTANT!" and who invariably get their way through strength of numbers. Even though AfD isn't supposed to be a vote. Reyk _YO! 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If these are historical lists going back to the start of the networks, there shouldn't be a problem. If shows are being removed every year, there's a big problem. --NE2 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's what makes it indiscriminate. There should be a mention at the show's article which network aired it but not vice versa. --Tone 23:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this posted to the Administrators' Noticeboard when it is not an administrator issue? Please consider posting to the relevant village pump instead. -81.139.76.64 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a deletion issue, and I'm not going to forum hop. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to delete, just go ahead and try. I wouldnt necessarily recommend it, because all such lists i can recall have been overwhelmingly kept. There are those who think that the creation of works of imagination is among the most important activities of humanity. I don't propose to argue that TV network programming is among the highest levels of creative art, but I can';t see a comprehensive encyclopedia making distinctions like that. We need to expand the thorough approach we take to that subject to more traditional artistic and literary topics as well, rather than reduce it where it does exist. DGG (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, to me, it's not the question of "is it worthwhile for an encyclopedia to cover the topic of television programming in detail?"--I would say yes, of course. To me, the question raised here is: "If we posit that the television shows in question are themselves relevant, and that information re: where they were broadcast would be included in the relevant articles, why would we need a SEPARATE article to list these programs solely on the criterion of which network broadcast them?" And to that, I would say "We don't." Ditto for logos--if the logos are relevant, they should be included in the article for the network to which they belong; if they're not relevant enough for that, then they certainly don't merit a list of their own, let alone an entire article. And for my fictional dogs example, which gives me a headache every time I look at it--if the dog is in a movie, mention the dog in the article for the movie; if it's in a TV show, mention it in the show's article, and so on--and if it's not relevant enough to be mentioned in the corresponding article, it's surely not relevant enough to merit inclusion in such a list. Honestly, this makes me just TWITCH to invoke IAR, but my US RDA of Wikidrama has been dangerously exceeded this week. Anyone gutsier than I will have my applause and my eternal admiration (to say nothing of my backing at the inevitable ArbCom kerfuffle.)GJC 08:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different people navigate in different ways. Some may know the titles of TV shows they want to look up, while others may remember that they saw it on TV Land but not the title. Different dramas for different mamas, eh? --NE2 09:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we have redirects. Still no need to cover every episode and every character in a separate article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm talking about List of programs broadcast by TV Land. --NE2 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about mentioning it at the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Television? While seeing discussions to "save" articles like this makes me doubtful about their objectivity, you may have a sympathetic ear or two. Perhaps the project can start pushing guidelines down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My patience with projects is shot. Not once have I encountered a project that maintained objectivity. I think projects are fine for helping fill out missing areas of the encyclopedia, and fleshing out articles that truly need to be here. But they are terrible at maintaining any sense of equilibrium with regards to the project. We end up with untold number of sections of Wikipedia becoming fan guides with insane levels of (typically in-universe) detail. If you happen to tread with an XfD into an area of the encyclopedia that is maintained by an active, membership heavy project you'd have a happier time trying to eat a chain saw at full throttle. Pass the sauce please, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your bad experiences -- mine have been just about the opposite. I've received fabulous help, most recently from the Pokémon project, which took it on their own to bring to AfD the article I questioned. (And yes, the article was deleted.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it - our ghetto areas are too well entrenched, regardless of what you are told, AFDs are votes when it comes to fiction and you'll just be outnumbered. Just do what the rest of us do - turn a blind eye and drive pass the ghettos to the "nicer" areas of the encyclopedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one am not willing to throw in the towel just yet. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that it would probably be a good idea to change all of these to categories. They're definitely category-worthy. That, however, would have two major problems: 1), the less important, how do you list shows that, as of yet, don't have their own articles? 2), the vitally important: it would have to be done properly. Before deletion, the category would have to be created, and all relevant articles placed in said category. Looking at the mindset of editors in this thread, I get the strong feeling that they'd rather delete these articles before such a transition, but let's be honest, the articles have survived years, and another week or two will make no difference. People (myself included) have put a great deal of time and effort into these lists. Convert them into categories: great. Decimate them completely: not on. That's my stance on the matter, anyhow... _Talk Islander 23:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I attempted to prod List of programs broadcast by TV Land [12]. I almost had hope. It went a day and a half without being challenged. But, the prod got removed [13], and even if I had provided a reason it would not have mattered (see edit summary from the removal).

So now it's AfD? Anyone want to bet an AfD would result in deletion? No? How about 20:1 odds? 100:1? Still no takers? Sigh.

This article is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. It violate policy in a number of ways. So how in heck do we go about getting it and articles like it deleted?????? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bouncehoper

This user has had a long-term abuse of swearing at other members and being uncivil. Look at this recent rant, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABouncehoper&diff=252886571&oldid=252556324. The fact that this user hasn't been penalized for this is surprising, given his history of incivility. Marcus2 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the user of this thread, and suggested that he might want to cut back on those seven words and their various permutations. Hopefully the advice will be taken in the spirit in which it was given.GJC 09:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is total crap, and you both know it. "Long-term abuse"? This guy came at me months after an argument was dead, and while refreshing my memory, I noticed that he is the one who has been more uncivil in any case. It pissed me off that this guy could fly off the handle himself and not be penalized. Hypocrisy.

Also, Gladys, you are not an administrator. So you can "warn" me 'til you're blue in the face, but you really have no reason, nor power to step into this mess that Marcus has created.

Both of you, please leave me, and my page alone. I'm done with this childish bullshit.

PS The thing to do, actually, Marcus, is if you're posting here, you're supposed to alert me. Not someone else. And if you have a problem with me, you're also supposed to seek a third opinion and not instantly whine to ANI.

Bouncehoper (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys j cortez is an admin. See user rights log. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had no way of knowing that, as it's not apparent on her page. I figure she was just some random chick.

Bouncehoper (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's illustrative of a problem right there--do you only have to be respectful to people who could block you? If I was just "some random chick", how would that make perfectly valid advice--not even hostile ranting, just calmly-phrased, helpfully intended advice--any less valid? GJC 08:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Bouncehoper is of the opinion that the concept of collaborative editing, and respect for all fellow editors, does not apply to him. One should not require the threat of punishment to behave in a collegial manner. "Some random chick"? And what would that make me? A non-random chick, since I have a link to my RFA on my page? Or would I still be random, but perhaps not be identified as a "chick" because my username does not sound particularly feminine? Bouncehoper should realise that a significant number of male editors including administrators have "chick-like" names, and assumptions along those lines could well backfire. Risker (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should create a sock User:BabyBird. Bouncehoper, you're out of line, and you are expected to treat everyone on this wiki with respect, male, female, other-gendered or dinosaur.--Tznkai (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop by and comment, as all the other "chick" admins appear to be doing. XD Seriously, thought, anyone can issue warnings. Although admins are the only ones than can actually enforce them, "random" editors are still welcome to warn as appropriate. لenna vecia 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as I told Bouncehoper, any good faith editor can leave a warning (over which an admin may later block if it goes unheeded). This happens all the time with straightforward 3rr, civility and vandalism warnings, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have a hunch here re: what happens now...we'll see if I'm right. GJC 16:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protomen

Resolved

– Moved.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to move The protomen to The Protomen, I get an error message: "You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation". Can somebody either make the move or remove the lower case version as an attempt to get around a salted title? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it for you as a courtesy. While this version looks like it might pass an Afd, I should note that articles on this band have been created many times before (about ten times), and been deleted every time, twice by Afd (here and here). Both of those were in 2006, though, and you've got sources this time, so I'll WP:AGF. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not my article, I just wanted to put it in the proper spot. :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Srkris - Persistent uncivility, wikihounding and disruptive POV edits

User:Srkris has been:

Uncivil in the talk page with a WP:CIVIL warning issued.
Uncivil edit comments
Doing POV Content forking (WP:POVFORK)
Using clear Peacock/Weasel edits
Most recently disruptive edits and ALL of this without leaving any edit comments on the talk page.

Please look into this. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And he continues,

Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)

""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (#56435;) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Wikipedia policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Wikipedia has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Wikipedia by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Wikipedia has been completely within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.

User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Wikipedia, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It continues here. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies.

Also, User:Dab(Dbachmann) recommending his 'newfound' invention, 'cool down' block, is immature and outright silly. I don't know why I should be blocked because User:Dab(Dbachmann) thinks that an edit war with a blatant POV troll with a miserable edit history in Wikipedia, requires also the other editor, with a two-year clean record, to be blocked for 'equality' reasons. I have heard of 'equality', but this is nuts! Maybe he thinks that one user has to be blocked for every troll who is blocked or warned.

User:Srkris is a classic example of someone getting away from all the hue and cry by cleverly posting an 'inactive' status message in his userpage while at the same time being hyper-active and removing ALL warning messages and hiding traces of his bad behavior by occasionally taking breaks from Wikipedia. All necessary information pertaining to his current behavior has been listed very clearly with diffs. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 10:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And he continues, for the fifth consecutive day, to stalk me wherever I go. Also, please note that I understand the difference between edit wars and wikihounding. He continues it here, here again and also here. User:Srkris sneaking under the system of policies and guidelines and continuing to be a previously blocked five times, uncivil, wikihounding POV troll is, simply, just a problem with the system, seriously!! [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This got archived, I am putting it back in here, awaiting a response. Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The blocks of srkris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all from 2006, which is a long time ago. Since there is no nice crisp presentation of the right diffs, I'm tempted to suggest an WP:RFC/U on Srkris. But that would take a lot of time, and it would require that you format the issues in the best way for administrators to digest, which not everyone knows how to do. Srkris's side of the case should be included as well, and most likely the views of User:Dbachmann on the content issues. That sounds like a lot of work. It might be quicker if you would choose one of the articles where you and Srkris have disagreement, and you could open an article WP:RFC. (You'd be getting comments on what should be in the article, rather than making criticisms of Srkris). Let other editors weigh in on that specific article issue. Ask for assistance if you don't know how to do this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring, see WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party needs admin attention and probably semi a while

Some admins will want to watchlist this. Apparently (and I know nearly nothing beyond what I've read in the past 30 minutes) this is the UK equivalent somewhat of the United State's Klu Klux Klan if the Klan were a political party. It appears (all over the news like MAD) their entire or nearly entire membership list was leaked all over the internet. People in the UK can it seems be legally fired, among other things, for membership in the party. Please watchlist this, and probably semi it. Relevant background for quick catching up:

Talk page discussion on article, sections around there.
Wikipedia Review thread - just read it, it's a super-fast overview if you need to see the significance of this event. Some of the links to blogs and UK news sources details just how insane this is quickly growing.

I have no opinion on whether the link should be suppressed from WP, but we don't follow UK law here. If a reliable source reports where to get it, then sure, I guess, but that's something to cover when it comes up. For the people still going WTF? imagine if the KKK's membership rolls were leaked online, and had home addresses, phone numbers, names and professions of 13,500 Americans (including police, politicians, judges, high profile businessmen, etc.). rootology (C)(T) 07:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the article history, there's currently no indication that normal editing processes are unable to deal with this developing issue. I assume that no reliable web source will host the leaked list, and any external links to this list being hosted somewhere on the internet should be editorially removed, on account of unreliability if nothing else. Notable people's membership in the party may be reported in their articles if confirmed by a reliable source. Sandstein 09:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like the French Front National than the Klan, but the membership list is certainly sensitive. I don't think you can be sacked for being a member, but the group has racist connotations so would not exactly help the career of a serving police officer, for example. The BBC is likely a better source than Wikipedia Review, here's the latest from them on the subject: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7736794.stm Guy (Help!) 10:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police officers, and people in various other jobs, are actually contractually banned from membership and would be subject to sacking - see [14]. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "The membership list includes police officers, who are banned from being in the BNP" I believe a Liverpool police officer is the first to siffer recriminations, but that is nothing to do with Wikipedia. I will keep an eye on the article and occasionally check the external link search to see if the members list is showing up on there. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it has been semi-protected since Sept 2007 so no need to worry about that. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I understand it, and to quote from one of these sources, "Any officer found to be a member of the party will face disciplinary action and is likely to be dismissed". So, I don't think it is legally mandated, but I think that most forces would regard it as unacceptable, and rightly so. But it matters not, really. Incidentally, the reaction of one spokesdroid for Teh Gubmint was that any breach of privacy is regrettable, but she is not ashamed of being a member of NuLabour and rather wonders what it is about the BNP that makes its members ashamed of their membership. Tee-hee :-) Guy (Help!) 16:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an open MedCab case here about the issue. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lightning Thundercat

Resolved

– Blocked by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs).

This unabashed sock of User:Sarsaparilla is going around requesting that the articles his other sock accounts created be deleted, proposing that the articles on editors who oppose him be deleted and generally making a nuisance of himself. I request that an admin block the account as a ban-evading sockpuppet and that we let natural process take care of his legacy. the skomorokh 15:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I forgot to add pointyness to the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gwen, I appreciate it. the skomorokh 15:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested unblock has been declined. GlassCobra 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Ionas68224 (talk · contribs)

I have received a request via email stating that this user would like to be unblocked. After discussing this with them, I came to the conclusion that a unblock of any kind would require community consensus. So, they have asked me to post this unblock request for them here to allow the community to discuss. Please note that I would not endorse a unblock at this time. Tiptoety ^talk 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be unblocked.

I have been accused of harassment, vandalism, and trolling. I am guilty of all but the last, which was something that my behavior was either misinterpreted as because of the wording and overall tone that I used when writing, or deliberately named as such because someone did not disagree with my views. The former is understandable, as my edits on WP-related "meta" subjects were quite "trolliish", but not actually "trolling". "Troll" can also be used as a disparaging term for those the accuser disagrees with, or challenges a system which the accuser is loyal to (or which the accuser is a member of). This is a misuse of the term and is often used on Wikipedia.

Moving on from the various definitions and usages of the term "trolling", I apologize for phrasing my criticism of Wikipedia's system and Ryulong in particular in such a mean and personally-attacking way. I had never interacted with Ryulong before, but I posted on an RFC that I heard about at a thread on the forum Wikipedia Review, and the information I based my comment on was in the RFC. I still frown upon Ryulong's actions and behavior (past and present), but the way in which I did it previously exhibited the same behavior that I criticized Ryulong for, and is therefore hypocritical. It was not done in a constructive manner. Whether Ryulong has chosen to accept this apology (and indeed he has not) is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that I am truly apologetic.

The various activities that I have perpetrated with socks, activities that I do not want to go in to the details of, did not help the encyclopedia. One account, ThomasEWilliams (fake name, fake birthdate, any similarities are coincidental), created the "Nikita Molotov" article. This was a hoax article about a nonexistent wrestler, to test the inclusion standards for wrestler articles as compared to other articles. Another article I created under that account was a stub on a fake scientist, which was something to compare with. The results came out that Wikipedia puts less scrutiny on professional wrestlers' biographies, despite the high number of members of the Professional Wrestling Wikiproject. This was something I did to challenge the system, and I would like to keep private the reason I used the fake name. I even spent time looking for lists of common Serbian names. The article is still there today. But the experiment was not right, still. There are other things, and I'm sure many editors know of them, but again I say I don't want to go into that.

I can contribute constructively, and I can improve articles. I am eager to start articles and help build an encyclopedia, while also sharing my thoughts and analyses of aspects and issues relating to the encyclopedia itself. I can't have an opportunity to do so without being first unblocked. I have done some work for the Simple English Wikipedia, just after returning from a ~ year-long ban (see http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jonas_D._Rand), but that includes the extra task of simplification. There are many articles needing improvement, and I can, and I want to, contribute to it. I will try to refrain from bad behavior, being defined in this sense as the behavior that got me blocked. There is almost no chance that I will engage in the behavior again, and I believe has been long enough. Though there is no way to know that I will never engage in any of the actions that got me blocked, I hope that you would take my word for it that I have stopped and won't do it again.

Yours, Jonas Rand User:Ionas68224

Having as long a block log on your "good" account on Simple as you do here, and after reading over this request in detail, I cannot support an unblock. Sorry. MBisanz ^talk 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have supported just based on the amount of effort that went into writing the request, but looking at the history on Simple, it's clear that Jonas continues to have negative interactions on a regular basis. Two or three months of trouble-free editing on Simple would make a difference here, since Wikipedia blocks are not intended to be punitive. looie496 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have supported based on length and detail of request? That is extremely dangerous, as I can tell from experience that overly long unblock requests tend to be more suspect. —kur ykh 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. No. Never. Do not unblock. Jonas has a severe issue with working with others and following the rules of both the English and Simple English Wikipedias. He, for some reason, decided to attack me simply because he read about me on Wikipedia Review while there was an RFC about my blocks. He then proceeded to edit on behalf of banned users and sockpuppet. He does not belong on Wikipedia at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you might know that I am often skeptical of blocks, and prefer to err on the side of charity. But not in this case. For one thing, a comment on Ryulong's talk page, "I will stop the personal attacks and bury the hatchet if you bury yours" is not in my mind a hopeful sign for successful resolution of conflict. I also find the use of sockpuppets (including using one sock to comment at an RfC) really, really, problematic. And the explanations now given for some of the socks are so wholely inadequate that they are inappropriate. I scanned through this users edits and saw some good housekeeping edits, also some perhaps well-intentioned style edits that really were not very helpful and eventually undone, and of course a whole lot of talk. I have not seen much sign of serious research on substantive encyclopedia articles. Whatever this user has added to the project is crushed into tiny pieces and washed away by the almost infinitely vaster pattern of problem editing. So this user likes to play with computers? I recommend playing computer-games. But don'tplay with Wikipedia. No, no unblock. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20 confirmed socks, evaded his block as recently as August 2008.[15] No thanks. Durova^Charge! 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A further comment for the record. Not sure whether to go as far as Ryulong's opinion, but there are other troubling factors here that might merit a longer than usual wait. To name one, Jonas Rand describes a hoax with a professional wrestling biography. What he doesn't mention is that he created the account the day before Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar closed.[16] Alkivar was desysopped for various problems, among them proxying for and abusing the tools on behalf of JB196--one of the site's most destructive banned vandals. JB196's principal activity for nearly two years was to damage Wikipedia's database at the biographies of professional wrestlers. For a glimpse at the scope of the problem, note the 378 entries at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196 and 155 more socks at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196. Developments in the Alkivar case also precipitated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian, which arbitrators began voting to accept two hours before Jonas created his sock account. In the Eyrian case a second administrator was not only desysopped but also sitebanned for disruptive socking. Eyrian used to do fine work for the textile arts project and I wish he hadn't gone down that other path. In light of those circumstances Jonas's description of a quasi-harmless breaching experiment looks very much less than candid. Either he does not realize that this gives the appearance of having encouraged and excused the mistakes of two longstanding contributors as they squandered their hard-earned reputations, or Jonas is bold enough to suppose he can boast of the accomplishment a year later and none of us will be clever enough to notice. Either way, it leaves a very bad impression. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very no thanks, per above comments. Too much disruption from this user, too immature. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per above. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Using socks to evade blocks and bans means a very long timeout. Six months of squeaky-clean behaviour on Simple, and I'd reconsider, but not until then. //roux 09:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, and no. Like anyone else, he can edit without his ego intruding if he wants to. But "Jonas Rand", Ionas, or whatever he calls himself has demonstrated quite clearly that he is not able to work within the societal norms of Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RRbot needs your help

Are you an administrator? Do you have a few minutes to spare for your wiki? Good. Watchlist this page please: User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LukeTheSpook cleanup

Now that User talk:LukeTheSpook has been fully protected and several different admins have declined an unblock, should the page be redirected to the user page and should his archives be deleted? I'm not sure what the protocol is here so I thought I would bring it up. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can just stay as it is. The content of the archives may prove useful some time in the future, and if given a few weeks to calm down, LukeTheSpook may decide to apologise and come back to editing productively with one account. I did remove the annoying kaleidoscope, though. fish&karate 11:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on his talk page, he was free to e-mail me. He did, although I cannot validate his claims moreso than what he provided on his talk page. The evidence he provided was unverifiable. seicer | talk | contribs 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban review for user:Bus stop

Bus stop (talk · contribs) was community sitebanned in 2007. He wrote to me a month ago apologizing for his past conduct and promising to edit appropriately from this point forward. I accepted his apology and wrote to ArbCom October 20, supporting his unblock appeal. Newyorkbrad wrote back the same day asking for details and I sent a follow-up. The Committe hasn't replied again or acted, so since this is the community's ban the simplest way to get this resolved is to raise matters here.

Following is the text of my letter:

He exhibited disruptive and tendentious behavior with regard to Jewish conversions to Christianity, particularly Bob Dylan. Some of the noticeboard threads are a bit hard to find, so the links below are a sampling.

Basically he was also making productive contributions to the visual arts, so we tried to construct a topic ban and mentorship arrangement. Two separate community discussions agreed on a full siteban; I brought him back twice in an effort to construct something less severe. Fred Bauder mentored him for a while, but none of it worked out. And as sometimes happens in these instances, Bus stop developed a very strong dislike toward me--probably because I remained engaged and attempted to work something out, instead of just blocking him and moving on. For several months afterward he was emailing other admins with accusations against me, none of which went anywhere.

Anyhow, it's been a year and I'd be willing to give him another shot. Bear in mind that his pattern before was that when a topic ban was in force, he gamed the margins of the topic ban until its scope had to be expanded.

Some kind of structured return to editing might be preferable to a simple unblock. So if one of our code monkeys would set up the transclusion template for his user talk (code can be nicked from the WP:CSN archives), let's work something out. People can change; I'd give him another chance. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing at his talk page, his unblock defenses are classic "Woe on me, the minority opinion." and similar greatest hits we are all familiar with. Was there something in his apology that accepted that he was fairly singled out for his behavior rather than his POV?--Tznkai (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his recent emails have been appropriate. Those are old threads on his user talk. My standard offer is to support a return after six months if the editor hasn't been socking, promises not to repeat the behavior, and doesn't generate any extraordinary objections. I don't ask for an apology, but he offered a very polite one unprompted. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would he allow you to post the email so the community can see his thinking? I am inclined to agree with the unblock per your recommendations but would like to see exactly what he has said. 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual convention is that editors may post their own outgoing e-mails, but not incoming ones from other users. You have my assurance that his communication for this month has been all I would want or expect, and it's been much longer than a six month interval since I've heard any complaint about him. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, I'm not particularly comfortable with him working on anything dealing with religious or cultural identity of anyone living which is a massive topic. We've got enough hostile editing environment concerns without adding WP:BLP concerns into the mix as well, but maybe I'm being paranoid.--Tznkai (talk)

(e/c) The clincher, for me, would be whether he was willing to actively steer clear of the boundaries of any topic ban, rather than game the system (as reported above). I don't know if that's asking too much. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would a reinstatement of his old topic ban be what you want, with advisement to him to proceed conservatively? Durova^Charge! 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Bus stop as an editor who received many, many last chances. Let's see the equivalent of an unblock discussion with him, in which all can participate, so we can judge his sincerity. There is no longer any protection on his User talk; he should be able to converse there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit worried about this given his prior behavior. However, he hasn't socked or anything else in the time that he has been banned(correct me if I'm wrong). If he is willing to accept a sweeping ban on any topic related to cultural or religious identity of individuals then maybe we should give him another try. Note that the topic ban I am suggesting is larger than that mentioned by Tznkai, I don't want Bus Stop for now dealing with any such issues whether or not the subject is living. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, no he hasn't socked. Can't supply firm assurance of that though. Durova^Charge! 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from Bus stop asking about an unblock on 1 July. I said he would have to seek wider authority, and that I would not intervene, but would give him feedback on his attempt. I have lost track of the countless emails he has sent and the gaps between, waiting for a response, being encouraged, and then finally getting no reply whatsoever, so having to move on to someone else. He has been restrained and polite throughout, and displayed the patience of a saint. The process made me feel frustrated and angry, just watching it. This has involved an arb clerk, two arbs (and I forget who else). I'm sure they're busy people, but if that's the case and, as a result they leave someone in complete limbo, then there's something very wrong with the system. He has been going through this process for five months, when it should have been settled in one at the outside. He's played by the rules, sat it out, not socked (I feel pretty sure of that), and, to be quite honest, I'm surprised he can still have any esteem left for the project, but he does and obviously believes in its value. That was his mistake in the first place - excessive and misplaced zeal ...and being on the losing side of the argument. I found some of his points were valid. However, that is not the issue. He has made strong statements in his emails about voluntary boundaries and a desire not to get embroiled in the same problems or the same subject areas. I strongly support his reinstatement of editing privileges. There is no guarantee what the outcome will be, but that is up to him. Ty 22:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable deferring to Durova's and Tyrenius' gut feeling here. Per JoshuaZ, I'd unblock on the condition that they avoid any topic related to cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. And, more generally, any of the topics that caused so much grief last time.

I'm curious whether we're sure ArbCom has ignored this or sat on it, rather than come up with a definitive yes/no that we just don't know about. But in the end, it doesn't matter too much; community bans can be community overturned. --barneca (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock; 1) The blocking admin requests it (even though she's not an admin any more). I'd defer to her judgment in this case. 2) I never liked the Community sanction noticeboard 3) It's easy to re-block if needed. --Duk 23:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Duk. Bear in mind that there was a subsequent ban discussion at one of the regular admin boards, but the search tool failed to find it. Durova^Charge! 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock; a long time has passed and the user's recent attitude indicates that there is a good chance that the previous problems will not be repeated. Everyking (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support unblock, with the proviso that at the slightest sign of the user returning to his old habits, or breaking the rules surrounding his unblock, he's immediately indef banned again and left there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I was fairly active in trying to get Bus Stop unblocked a good while back, before becoming disillusioned. (see his talk). I hope the intervening period has done him some good. I'd be willing to support an unblock on parole. Bus stop would need to know in no uncertain terms that he's out of last chances though. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain until I see a recent on-wiki statement from Bus stop.--Tznkai (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sticking with my previous comment (conduct a proper unblock discussion on his Talk in which he is willing to answer questions publicly, not just in email), but since I found the link to the community ban discussion on AN mentioned by Durova, here is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive98#Community ban on Bus stop. It's good that he didn't sock, but this is an editor who consumed many thousands of words on the admin noticeboards during his career. Is Bus stop willing to be mentored, and has anyone come forward who is willing to be a mentor? I'm doubtful of arguments like "out of last chances." Where is the evidence of reform that is visible on-wiki? Also, if there is a new restriction, it needs to be fully negotiated, and he should be seen to agree to the restriction on-wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Culture

There is a dispute on the Western Culture article regarding the inclusion of an image depicting a breaking wheel as a lead image in the article. I have brought the matter here as to not start an edit war. Please see the Talk:Western culture page to see what has been said on this matter. Usergreatpower (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the notice on the top of this noticeboard: "These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content." Chedorlaomer (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images displayed on the Main Page

Resolved

The images Image:Triforce.svg, Image:Felix Pedro.jpg and Image:NASA Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle.jpg displayed on the Main Page come from the Wikimedia Commons and are not protected. Please upload them here. Thanks, Korg (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BEANS! FREE BEANS! --NE2 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected these three images on Commons. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Korg (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NE2, I considered the risk to be small. :) By the way, is there a better way to quickly draw the attention of an admin (without using IRC)? Korg (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can run for adminship. Then you just need to alert yourself. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix my bad move?

Hi there,

I unthinkingly moved JAD (Joint Application Development) from 'Joint Application Development', to 'JAD (Joint Application Development)' in the process of making the main page for Jad a disambiguation page. Can someone move it back? Thanks!

Zzthex (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, also cleaned up the redirects (such as JAD). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks so much! Zzthex (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator that does not understand BLP policy

I am worried about Administrator Nightscream that does not understand BLP policy after many discussions and advise from Jimbo Wales even. IP banned for lots of violations now like BLP and socks and using proxy and published password, put blp violations at AIDS denialism and other places about scientists like [17], [18] I moved it in history like WP:BLP says, the stuff was potential libel, the source was very bad and selfpub, the comments also were soapboxing. Administrator Nightscream restored the blp violation, WP:BLP says source burden is on people that add or restore blp violations so Nightscream was doing a blp violation there. Then there was a big long thing about how I am censoring Wikipedia at Nightscream talk my talk, lots of other peoples talk. Nightscream went even to Jimbo Wales talk page and Jimbo Wales totaly said I was right to delete blp violations, totaly said Nightscream was not understanding what censorship means what blp means.

So then here is weeks later and Nightscream goes back to original talk page and adds comment on discussion that is closed, it says do not modify and Nightscream adds a link to original blp violation so it is easy for people to read the potential libel there.

I reverted but I am worried this is bad for Wikipedia it is bad when administrator does not get a basic thing like WP:BLP, when a person says a bad sourced blp violation about some one it can be bad for Wikipedia, the policy says trash, do not wait for discussion and do not keep adding it back and adding linnks to it and saying it is a big free speech thing, that is Nightscream's mis-understanding of policy. I do not have personal problem with Nightscream, they are probably a good editor but do not understand a policy. Jimbo Wales all ready tried can some one pls help Nightscream here bc this is not good. Thx RetroS1mone talk 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If (if) this is libel, why not have it cleared out of the history? That way it cannot be linked anymore. There are many with the oversite ability (well, not that many, but yeah). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is someone saying a scientist is a fraud and falsified documents et cetera, I can't do oversite, why does administrator keep restoring possible blp violations and then linking to it, is my question. RetroS1mone talk 03:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OS. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx I will look at OS, I did not know about it! RetroS1mone talk 04:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, I think you're giving bad advice here. As Jimbo said, this is not a case for oversight -- the allegations in question don't belong in a Wikipedia article but they have been published and are pretty widely known. RetroS1mone is trying to interpret BLP to mean that a claim can't even appear on a talk page unless it is well sourced. But that's absurd: how can any consensus form about the quality of sourcing if it is impossible to mention something on the talk page until sourcing has been established? Jimbo's suggestion was that if something is presented in a particularly inflammatory way, it may be okay for somebody to replace it with an "executive summary" (my term) that states the gist as neutrally as possible. looie496 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing him in the general direction that he would want. They can always deny him there. Hence the whole "if" statement. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This (or much of it, at least) doesn't require administrator intervention. You have raised with Nightscream your concerns about his understanding of BLP, and others partook the related discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Should Nightscream act qua administrator in a fashion to which you object, you might then return here or pursue an RfC or an RfAr, but there is not at the moment anything more that need be done vis-à-vis Nightsream (at least relative to his acting in his capacity as an admin). The issue of the addition of the link to (apparently) problematic material at Talk:AIDS denialism is, should it persist (if Nightstream or another editor, that is, reverts your reversion), probably best addressed at WP:BLPN, although I don't suppose that our discussing the issue (if one exists) here should be all that bad. 68.249.2.140 (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496 I am not trying to interpret BLP, i am reading BLP where it says delete without discussion. "a claim can't even appear on a talk page unless it is well sourced." that is blp policy near wordly. Jimbo said I was right to take the blp problem out, that is exactly what blp says and he also said you can replace with a summary, he did not say you should revert to the violation like Nightscream did or link to the problems like later Nightscream did. RetroS1mone talk 13:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looie, I think you may have misread the text in question. This isn't a discussion of whether book B is a reliable citation for the allegation by author A that scientist S is a fraud. It says "S is a fraud". That's pretty straightforward, as I read BLP. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection page needs to be fixed

Resolved

– Purged. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, i think the protection page needs fixing and i dont know where else to post it, thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks right to me (assuming you mean WP:RFPP). What seems to be the problem? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy all i see on this page is [[ with no other text. Thats the page i get sent to when i click any of the padlock icons on locked wiki pages BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was vandalised like that a few hours ago, but was fixed within a minute (see [19]). If you're still seeing the vandalised version, you may need to purge your cache - see WP:PURGE or just click here. Hope that helps. fish&karate 11:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou the purge worked, sorry for my mistake. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not your mistake at all, just a quirk of how web browsers work. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

block appeal

User:Googlean, recently blocked by me as a bad hand sockpuppet account of User:Avinesh has made a number of appeals, and in my opinion, poorly reasoned requests for a lifting of the block, generally relying on accusations of bad faith. I have elected not to engage anymore. If another admin would please review the appeal and use their own discretion, that would be nice.--Tznkai (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP talk pages unprotected

As of this week I have finished unprotecting all of the IP talk pages that had been semi-protected by former admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (see the original ANI thread on this topic). The only talk pages I did not unprotect were those of still-blocked open proxies and indefinitely blocked IPs. As best I can tell, CSCWEM had protected upwards of a thousand IP talk pages during the 2.5 years he had the `bit, with some of the talk pages having been protected since mid-2006 (often a year or two past when their blocks expired). Other admins who have helped clean this up include Netsnipe, Nlu, Risker, WJBscribe, Xaosflux, and especially Zzuuzz who single handedly did several hundred of them. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

animenfo.com and anidb.info url blacklisting

animenfo.com and anidb.info both have been blacklisted as per suggestion by User:Collectonian stating that they break wikipedia copyright policy. See: [20] Neither site offers any illegal downloads. Supers (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anidb does claim that "any registered user can find useful hashes, video/audio related information, and other types of information on files entered by other users". I don't see anything equivalent on animenfo, so I'm not sure it should be blocked. — PyTom (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

animenfo.com/helpabout.php: AnimeNfo was designed as a database for anime. This database is designed to hold all anime related information such as the anime itself, the characters, the seiyuu and the people behind the anime. . Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax or real?

Could somebody check whether article Wanda Lynne Crouch is real or a made-up story and, if it's real, whether it is appropriate to have such an article with many details eventually violating personality rights. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's real or a hoax, because it's speediable under criteria A7, which I have done. I have also left a note on the creator's page about creating autobiographies. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Geithner

The fun has begun...can a few more admins watchlist it? We've already got a few editors (at least one known around these parts already) who want to use blogs (one Pakistani) as sources. Frank | talk 21:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Basically, I attempted to deal with this group a couple of weeks ago. The whole lot of stub sorting project pages don't mesh well with Wikipedia. The stub sorting project has essentially created their own walled garden where they decide what should and should not be used to categorize short articles. I made a stub category, and the day after I made it (last year) it was put up for deletion because I hadn't proposed it. Last month, when I was going through articles and making new ones that fit into that category, I found it was deleted without any sort of notification made towards me. I'm fairly positive that there are only a handful of administrators out of the ~1000 we have who are active are involved with the stub deletion process.

Either this group needs to be reformed or this group needs to be dissolved. I would like to bring that up for discussion here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found the stub sorting people work hard and do a good job. Editors are encouraged to be bold in creating articles, but I don't see that mandate extending to boldly creating stub types. There is a sound argument for keeping the stub sorting coarse enough that each "type" of stub can be expected to be somewhat populated. SO I don't see the stub sorting project as a problem. Frankly, I'm glad there are some people who want to handle that sort of thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is always good to have folks who don't mind handling such things, the Stub project has set up its own little fiefdom when it comes to anything stub-related, where their word is final. Last I checked, this isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the decision making at the stub sorting process as any different than UCFD, for example, and both have a long enough history that their decisions are somewhat authoritative. Sometimes a little process is beneficial, and this is one of those times.

It appears to me that Ryulong is complaining because he didn't follow the well-established process for creating a new stub type and then his new type got deleted. I think his new categories did fail to meet the accepted guidelines for new stub types, and if that's right then their deletion is hardly a surprise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are encouraged to be bold in whatever they do on Wikipedia. That applies just as much to creating new categories for stubs as to fixing spelling mistakes, creating new articles, proposing new policy or anything else on Wikipedia. Wikiprojects are supposed to concentrate attention on their topics, not to act as final arbiters over them. However when they've set up a sensible process and standards, ignoring those standards may be an overly bold decision. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don' view the stub sorting people on the same terms as a random wikiproject. They are much more like WP:UCFD: an out-of-the-way group that helps keep the wiki organized. And it is not true that editors are meant to be bold in everything they do. The last thing I want to see is the collection of Category:Mathematics stub templates expanded from 17 to 68 because some editor decides that each one needs to be split into 4 new ones. The stub sorting people take care of that sort of thing, and I appreciate their work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what administrator action is requested here? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for discussions which admins may be interested in. Admin actions are usually requested at ANI. —kur ykh 23:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even really understand why we need such elaborate stub categories, other than for the sake of giving people stub work to do. No one, as far as I've ever seen, actually uses the stub categories for anything other than stub sorting. No one is going through improving all stub articles on 1950s basketball players, or even using the stub categories to identify such articles - except for the purpose of doing further stub sorting. Once you get beyond maybe 100 generic stub categories "Sports stubs", "Science stubs", etc. I just don't see how they accomplish anything except giving people busy work to do. Which isn't a very good purpose at all. --Rividian (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not list the deleted categories at WP:DRV? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With categories like Category:Stub-Class rail transport articles, do we need stub categories at all? It seems like an outdated system that's been superseded by assessment templates and categories. --NE2 03:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are long standing guidelines for stubs (they must reasonably apply to around 60 articles); Ryulong created a stub that didn't meet the guidelines so it got deleted, nothing amiss in that. He should have been warned true, but sometimes mistakes are made. It is no more of a "fiefdom" than WP:N and WP:AFD. Icewedge (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaucho theory

Could an admin please take a look at this AfD? I think it is quite ripe for a "delete" early closure, under WP:SNOW/WP:IAR. There is an active off-wiki canvassing attempt to influence this AfD at redit.com[21] (the origin of the "theory" in question) and there has been a veritable SPA flood there. When the SPAs are discounted, there is a pretty strong WP:SNOW "delete" case and in any event this looks like the situation where WP:IAR would call for an early close. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyh, no harm in letting this run for at least another couple of days. I agree that it's unlikely to be closed as anything other than Delete, but a snow delete at this stage might be a little premature. You never know, an actual editor might find something on this meme in a reliable source. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well, for a "theory" that was born two days ago, according to the article itself, it is highly unlikely that a reliable source would materialize. In any event WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:MADEUP would still apply. When you read the discussion at the reddit.com at the above link, you will see that this "theory" is essentially a hoax or a joke, something that was made up in a day and that belongs on encyclopedia drammatica, but not here. No need for the spectacle that this AfD has become. I say this is a case that calls for WP:IAR. Nsk92 (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it run and get enough of an overwhelming consensus – that way we can G4 it next time instead of going through the AfD saga every week until Reddit gets bored. – iridescent 01:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on what I was thinking. Let the AfD close after 5 days with a strong consensus to delete and it can be G4ed on sight until the time comes (if it ever comes) when this joke becomes widely noted as a joke. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly something to that, but I think that based on the !votes so far there already is a pretty overwhelming consensus to delete, once the SPA IP !votes are taken out. With an external canvassing effort, this is the sort of situation that can easily lead to sockpuppetry, people losing their tempers etc. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have trust that the closing admin can recognize sock/meat accounts. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pearling crew 1926.JPG

I had earlier uploaded this image. However, I personally requested its deletion when an administrator kept tagging it repeatedly as if insisting upon its deletion. However, I feel quite convinced that it is perfectly right for this image to be included in Madras Presidency#Trade, Industry and Commerce. Pearl fishing is clearly mentioned in the paragraph on fishing industry in the Presidency. See here:

"The Madras Presidency also had a thriving fishing industry. Shark's fins[122], fish maws[122] and fish curing-operations[123] comprised the main sources of income for fishermen. The southern port of Tuticorin was a centre of conch-fishing[124] but Madras, along with Ceylon, was mainly known for its pearl fisheries.[125] Pearl fisheries were harvested by the Paravas and was a lucrative profession."

The photograph appeared in a National Geographic Magazine issue dated February 1926. The photo is not in public domain as per Template:PD-US but is in public domain in many other countries of the world. I am not sure, however, whether its copyright has been renewed. But I don't feel any harm in including that photograph with a fair-use rationale.

The pearl-fishing photograph is a rare image from British India. The southern part of India was internationally famous for pearl-fishing. In fact, pearl-fishing activities in this part of the world have been portrayed in the fiction Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne. Yeah, I can add a recent image of pearl-fishing but I feel that the methods and implements would have changed a great deal in these eight decades. And if I were to find a replacement for this particular image I would have to add another from the same article which would, obviously, not be in public domain, either. Practically speaking, I don't find anything wrong in adding that image as it is highly unlikely that the February 1926 issue of the National Geographic Magazine is in mass circulation now and the inclusion of the image would not harm the business interests of the National Geographic Society. I've clearly stated these points in the fair-use rationale for the image.

I request administrators to intervene in this regard and help me with the fair-use rationale and the reinstatement of the image. I feel quite convinced that it belongs to the article and that there is no harm in having it there. If you wish to verify the source, then I'm here to provide all the info you need.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a clear understanding of fair use, which the photo by your description would fall under without any doubt. However the non-free image policy is much more restrictive. BJ^Talk 07:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted it. The discussion is still ongoing at IfD. I'd suggest you need to add the following information to the images for deletion page so we can decide whether the image is free or not, and if not free, whether it's fair use. (1) What exactly does the caption in the magazine say? Is there any indication of authorship or claim of copyright? (2) Is there a photograph credit given in the contents section of the magazine or in the article? (3) Is there a claim of copyright stated on the magazine itself? While there are a great many ways in which a picture published in a 1926 edition of National Geographic could be free, I can think of just the two (?) ways for it to be non-free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD might benefit from an early close

Please would an uninvolved, calm, and experienced admin with no particular interest in GLBT issues and no pro or anti bias look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people killed because they were transgender which has become rather messier than one might expect.

The article in question is radically different form the article I proposed initially for deletion, I believe substantially for the better, and its name has changed several times during the AfD.

I have suggested at the (current) foot of the discussion that a procedural early close and the consideration of relisting either immediately or in a couple of days in order to reach a consensus based upon the current state of the article might be a valuable way forward. This might mean ignoring a rule or two, but I think the discussion would benefit from that.

If this route is taken it will require a substantive rationale to explain the "no consensus" decision, however, hence the request for an experienced and calm admin to look at the thing as it stands today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer my services here, but I think more admins should review this and there should be a broad admin consensus on how to handle this particular AfD. Regards So Why 13:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect no different. The one positive thing is that the discussion does not appear to have become hugely heated. It is simply complex to resolve. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the title can not even be agreed upon, an afd will inevitably be hard to reach consensus on because the focus of the article is so nebulous as a result of an often-changed title. I have no problem closing this as no consensus with a very strong recommendation to those interested in it to agree upon a title and improve the article with renewed focus if no one objects. I'll post this on the afd too. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the same lines. The arguments mentioned here are quite correct, !votes from 20 November have no real connection to the state of the article today and with the article constantly changing in huge ways, I do not see any possibility consensus can be reached at the moment. If noone minds, I would offer to write a rationale and close it accordingly. But I'll wait for more comments first. Regards So Why 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*hopefully* the article is now stable in regards to it's purpose (which ironically is pretty much it's original purpose before the fun and games started). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you feel that further time should elapse, might I suggest that this be carried 'nem con' and closed for now as "no consensus"? If someone truly wishes for the article to be deleted they may always renominate it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be fine to go ahead and close now, but avoid teh Latin. لenna vecia 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards