Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive175

User Abtract requesting RTV, posting here for wider discussion

On his userpage, Abtract posted this: [1] which seems a clear indication that he wishes to exercise his right to vanish. It should be noted that, in WP:RTV it states that "Sometimes the community will not extend the courtesy: for example, if the user is not actually leaving, or if the user is not in good standing." So I am posting this here to see if the community wishes to extend this right to Abtract. He certainly seems to genuinely wish to leave, the question remains if the community wishes to extend to him that right. I remain 100% neutral on the issue, and am only posting this here to see what the community decides. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem in letting him go *poof*! Should he return in some form we can deal with that later. JodyB _talk 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind deleting his pages, with the explicit note that if we ever catch him under a new identity, he forfeits any future right to vanish. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Since he's not in good standing at this point and is serving out a block for gaming the system, I think the best thing to do would be to wait until he's finished the block and come back to the wiki. That'll make sure he actually wants to vanish, and not just that he's upset about being caught and blocked. If he still wants the RTV after that, I'd give it to him, although I would certainly inform Collectonian about him vanishing in case this issue comes up under a different identity. I find it interesting that him taking on a new identity was one of the first things that three different editors thought about. Dayewalker (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dayewalker on waiting for the block to expire. Blanking Abtract's Talk would be OK, but deleting it would not, in my view. Regular editors would no longer be able to view part of the evidence about past disputes, including at least one arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Let the block expire and then let him vanish. JodyB _talk 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if its relevant, but if he does decide to leave after his block, it might be prudent to also kill his secondary (though currently unused) account User:Abstract. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely leave the block to expire, then confirm and allow the vanishing. I suspect we'll see this editor back, however (considering this comment the ArbCom case didn't have much of an effect on the editor's viewpoints), and suggest that a note be made on the ArbCom page that while the editor may not be active, if he/she appears in future, the restrictions there should be applied. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite the ArbCom and block history Abtract has done some good editing, usually on dab pages, and per AGF I think we cannot say he is in bad standing. I see no harm in permitting him RTV since, if he does not truly disappear, he will quickly make himself known and we can indef block and undelete and template his account pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I know we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, but if he uses his right to vanish and returns to harass the other user under a different name, he should forfeit any good faith he's accrued. If he vanishes and removes himself from wikipedia, the Arbcom case should no longer be applicable. I support his right to vanish (after his block), but returning to skirt a previous ruling should result in a quick block. Dayewalker (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If he vanishes then the ArbCom is in abeyance, not inapplicable. If he returns then the ArbCom is simply reactivated in conjunction with any other sanctions or other actions considered necessary. Per his own commentary, he has suggested he may return in some future where he will link any new account to this one; at that time the ArbCom again reactivates... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LHvU, if he returns publicly, the ArbCom would still be in effect. However, if he were to return without admitting his previous identity and continue the pattern of behavior that has led to his multiple blocks, wouldn't he forfeit the protection of the ArbCom ruling? Dayewalker (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends - if the harassment is basically no different to what the Committee found, and concerning the same users, then we can approach the Committee to amend the case to include another account. Alternatively, we as the community can impose sanctions that are enforcible by individual admins. We can take whatever steps necessary to deal with the problem at the time. If that's clarified, I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes it's true that WP:RTV does say that sometimes the community will not allow a user to vanish due to certain circumstances, but I personally believe that if an editor wants to leave the project, then I say why stop them? It's clear Abtract has been taking a good amount of stress lately with the ArbCom case and all, and it appears he's really frustrated of Wikipedia. If he returns under a new name in circumvention of this courtesy and by extention the ArbCom ruling, then we can deal with it easily. For now, though, I endorse letting him go peacefully. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Article on Homophobia rendering strangely

Resolved

The article on Homophobia has a section that is rendering strangely in Google chrome and Firefox. I am unable to figure out if this is an issue with content or with how the HTML is being generated. There are four "edit section" links all in one place on the page. Near the heading "Fear of being identified as gay (social homophobia)."

I am unable to upload a screenshot that I took of this rendering because I have not made enough edits. Hopefully my description is enough to go on.

Does anyone have an idea of what is causing this?

--Pushups (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A not-uncommon quirk of our CSS: the [edit] links are being "pushed down" to the next available space by the infobox and the pictures along the right. IIRC, this annoyed the French Wikipedia enough for them to move the [edit]s to a different place - something that has been tried here but always reverted. You may find that changing the size of your browser window helps (bigger or smaller). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you Redvers, and John Nevard for the timely answers. It's too bad nothing can be done about this yet. Someone can feel free to stick a resolved checkmark on this :).

--Pushups (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is caused by images (often, but not always, why there is pushing) try using something like {{imagestack}} or similar... that often can fix it. This probably is not an admin issue, you might want to ask on the Village Pump next time, since this is a "how to edit/layout/fix technical problem" sort of issue. Best wishes, hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, see Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links and I would probably put this on the help desk next times, usually they are the most knowledgable on content matters. Regards. Woody (talk)

Requesting commment on a new template

Because of planned licensing changes across Foundation projects,I have created Template:Incompatible_GFDL_Version with which to warn uploaders about images that are currently under a GFDL version which does not permit later versions.

It would be appreciated if any interested admins, would leave feedback, and amend the template in line with current/planned policy of which I may be unaware.

It is also appreciated, that an equivilant template to use on the relevant image page would also be appreciated.

I am also requesting Dual-licence to CC-BY-SA on images/media, in respect of some of the 1.2 only images, whilst recommending the uploader's update to 1.3.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:WHOIS

Resolved

Something odd has happened to the page WP:WHOIS which only this morning was a useful explanation of "Whois" with links to services like Arin. Now it is a redirect to WP:Vandalism, and its page history shows no edit after June 2006. JohnCD (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know what happened, but I (think) I fixed it by adding the section (Tracing IP addresses) to the link in the redirect. —Travis^talk 16:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an improvement, but (unless I'm dreaming) the vanished page had an explanation of how WHOIS worked and examples of the output you could expect and what it meant. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn’t even know about the whois shortcut until reading your post, so I don’t think I’ve ever seen the page. Since there doesn’t seem to be anything useful in the page history, unless someone else has a better explanation, this the best I can do. —Travis^talk 16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just thought of this: Are you sure you’re not confusing this with WHOIS? —Travis^talk 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Thanks. (Hangs head in shame.) Sorry for the trouble. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, no trouble - that redirect needed fixing, anyway. —Travis^talk 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Block needed? or just...something else?

A few weeks ago I first encountered the edits of Simulation12. If you take a peek at the user contributions, you'll see little of value, but I was trying desperately to AGF--in part because the user claimed to be "twelve years old" and "in elementary school". So I tried, patience decreasing hourly, to steer little "Riley Lizzie", as she claimed her name to be, in the right direction. However, her bad edits caught up with her and she was blocked by an uninvolved admin. Well, today, another user who'd been working with Simulation12 dropped some good advice onto her talk page [2]. Still AGFing, I added my own bit of advice as well. Here's the reply I got:[3] Note the sudden change in age--is she six? is she twelve? Am I the Queen of Schenectady? But wait--there's more! ElButler also noticed that "Riley"s YouTube page claims that she's NINETEEN. It goes without saying that my own PERSONAL good faith with this user has now dipped below the x-axis, but that's neither here nor there. We have a user whose edits are much less-than-optimal despite patient explanations, warnings, and a block--who ALSO now turns out to have less-than-perfect regard for little things like FACTS. Do we let this user continue to annoy the REAL editors, or do we take a slightly BOLDer step? I can do nothing, since I'm "involved", but I'd rather nip this in the bud. I will say this: Simulation12 is NOT a net benefit to the project, and while I'm a firm believer in miracles, I don't see it happening--not now, not soon, not ever. Any qualms about BITEing a newbie are, in this case, misplaced.Gladys J Cortez 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been looking at this editor's contributions before I saw this, and I'll leave a final warning on their talk page. By the way, a look at User talk:Elbutler and User talk:Simulation12 shows an incredible amount of effort on the parts of Gladys and Elbutler. By the way, Gladys, you had email. --barneca (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've banned Simulation12 from the talk pages of Gladys and Elbutler. I've also given her a final warning for any disruptive editing. If disruption continues, I'll block indef. If this user is really 6, I'll eat my hat, but I can't prove it so won't block for trolling quite yet. If this user really is 6, well this is an encyclopedia, not a playground, and a swift block will probably be the best for all involved. --barneca (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen.— Ѕandahl ♥ 00:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Verily I say unto thee: w00t. Thanks, Barneca!!! Gladys J Cortez 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone lied on the internet? That's something new! I don't know why editors hold people to such different standards based on age. We have some teenage editors who are admins and higher ups and some of our idiotic vandals are more than old enough to know better. It's just a matter of "are you willing to listen to others, are you interested in paying attention, do you care to follow the suggestions/rules?" Note that if someone does block, we should consider whether or not to delete the user subpages (just copies of articles listed for AFD in an attempt to "save" them). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:km to mi

 Done

Template:km to mi is protected against editing, but does not have a separate, editable documentation page, like most protected templates. I request that such a separate page be established, as it is for Template:mi to km (which is not protected, you might want to protect it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgrosser (talk • contribs) 06:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the suggested changes. —EncMstr (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Crichton

CNN reports that the author Michael Crichton has died. The WP article on him is getting a little out of hand. Edit conflicts, people editing mention of his death into places it doesn't belong.... Can somebody PLEASE do something? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a few days; the level of traffic combined with the rate of IP vandalism is a problem, and it will calm down in a few days, I think. In the meantime, we can direct IP editors and others to the talk page... MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Depressing that the community's first post-mortem thought is "well, now we can add a fair use image". — CharlotteWebb 13:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:DJ Max Series

Please delete. It meets the requirements and has been tagged for over 7 days. I also don't think Category:Templates for speedy deletion is being populated correctly because it is always empty. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be redirected to Template:DJ Max series? --NE2 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No reason to be. It was just created, and nothing links to it. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No reason not to be. Given the lack of a standard for capitalizing template names, the names could easily be confused. --NE2 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But since it was just created, and nothing links to it currently, wouldn't it be assumed that noone would use this version since they did not even know it existed? And it would be getting rid of another unneeded template. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone might know the name but forgot what's capitalized. Redirecting gets rid of an "unneeded template". --NE2 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. {{Infobox book}} redirects to {{Infobox Book}} and {{Infobox Character}} redirects to {{Infobox character}}. I am not aware of any widely enforced naming convention for templates (other than stubs). If only the namespace was case-insensitive half of the confusion would be solved. Failing that, use redirects. — CharlotteWebb 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD help please

Resolved

 – AfD closed, nomination withdrawn. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't look to closing an AfD early but would appreciate if someone would consider doing so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango. It's a rescue that has been completely rewritten and I'm hoping to get the DYK in but the clock is ticking and I think they frown on DYK's being at AFD.

The nom has withdrawn but despite addressing concerns raised - and asking all who have weighed in to revisit - there isn't clear keep consensus nor, from my experience is there by any means a delete or merge consensus. If agreed then maybe this could close so the DYK could go forward. All consideration and time appreciated. -- Banjeboi 13:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning: it is a bit longish but not terribly so. -- Banjeboi 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed. The default for articles on Wikipedia is that they exist unless it can be shown that they shouldn't. (AfD minus withdrawl of nomination) plus (no consensus in debate minus rewrite of article) equals closure of AfD as keep. Ordinary editing allows people to solve the merge and redirect points as they see fit. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections 2008 - Request for Questions to the Candidates

Nominations for the December 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections will be accepted from 10 November to 24 November, and voting is scheduled to run from 1 December to 15 December. In an effort to give all candidates the chance to answer general questions about themselves and their candidacy, we are currently soliciting input from the community. Any editor who wishes to submit questions for all the candidates should do so by visiting Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Questions/General and following the instructions. On 17 November, the list of questions will be posted to each candidate's questions page, where they will provide answers (Subsequent nominees will have their question pages created with the same list). Questions to specific candidates may be posted at that time, as well. Please discuss at the election talk page if you have any questions about the question process. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wheel warring when an administrator reverses another administrator's AWB decision?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Everyone intensely loves each other. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

{{resolved}}no remaining conflict among involved admins Slrubenstein | Talk 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC) - while it's true, I' like to discuss Tennis expert's actions. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC) WP:WHEEL defines "wheel war" as follows: "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions...." Max asserts that WP:WHEEL does not apply when an administrator reverses another administrator's decision to remove an editor's WP:AWB access. Is this assertion correct? The factual background is that Mart removed Lightmouse's WP:AWB access on October 22, 2008 and again on October 25, 2008. Max reversed that decision on November 2, 2008. When asked whether his reversal was a "wheel war", Max said, "Nonsense. Read WP:WHEEL to find out why. I'll just add that AWB usage is not covered by WP policies and there's nothing that can prevent me from making a special version that will ignore all checkpages in the world." Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for Max to have reverted me if he sees that line of action as sensible :) Martinp23 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversing an action once is not a wheelwar. It needs a third change in order for it to become one. If Martin had reverted MaxSem's change, it would have been the start of an edit war. Wheel war more refers to logged actions, such as deleting/undeleting. But I suppose it could also apply to "admin-only" areas, like the AWB access page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But WP:WHEEL does not say that a wheel war exists only when the second revert happens. In fact, the "needs two reverts" requirement was deleted from the policy 19 months ago. Tennis expert (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It does: Repeatedly implies that the action needs to be done more than once. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)What they are trying to say, I believe, is that it says "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it". MaxSem's revert was not repeating anything, and thus not a violation of the current wording of WHEEL. --barneca (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin said he doesn't care though, so the question now is purely academic. If the person being reverted is fine with the revert, there's nothing actionable. Mr.Z-man 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But this important policy needs to be clear. Is it permissible for administrator #3 (Max) to revert administrator #1 (Mart) in the same way that administrator #2 (Jj137) reverted administrator #1? That's what happened here. Mart removed Lightmouse's WP:AWB access. Jj137 reverted him. Mart reverted Jj137. Max then reverted Mart. Sounds like a wheel war to me. Tennis expert (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be clear, but - with respect - it seems that it is clear to everyone except Tennis Expert. Repeat does mean "twice." If "twice" was removed before it could only have been for style, to avoid redundancy. You know, repetition. Saying the same thing twice. "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." This can only mean one of two things: Admin x does something. Admin y reverts it. Admin x does it again - this is the repetition. I think this is the crux, and Tennis expert, if you feel the Wheel War policy would be clearer if we added this well, I would be behind you 100%: Administrators can disagree with one another. And, as with most editorial disagreements (like the BRD cycle) the first way we express disagreement is by reverting. Some editors seem to have gotten really nervous about reverts as if this hurts someone's feelings. But we are all acting in good faith, we are working on a wikipedia where no one owns anything so we all take it for granted that virtually anything we do will be changed or undone by someone else. That is like at Wikipedia and there is no point in taking any of it personally. Let me put it another way: admins have certain powers which means there is always a risk a power may be abused - and not always through malice, it could be carelessness or just a decision made too hastily. Another editor reverting is the simplest check on that power. In this case the system worked perfectly - Mart has no problem with what happened - so I see no reason to belabor the case. If anything let's put a link to this case in the Wheel War article as one example of things working out well. Mart had three options: agree with Max, disagree with Max and begin a discussion with him, or disagree with Max and revert him. Only the third constitutes a wheel war. Tennis expert, if you do not think this is clear in the policy, what do you propose we add? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) If reverting once is not a wheel war, then why was the "needs two reverts" language deleted from WP:WHEEL 19 months ago? (2) As for the exact situation I'm talking about, Mart clearly stated his disagreement with the reversion of his removal of Lightmouse's WP:AWB access. How is it possible to interpret Mart's reversion of Jj137's reversion of Mart in any other way? Despite this explicit statement of disagreement, Max then reverted Mart, i.e., reinstated Jj137's reversion of Mart. That seems like a wheel war to me, regardless of anything else. And wheel warring is disruptive even if the administrator being reverted says after-the-fact that he doesn't disagree with it. In the situation we're talking about, Mart explicitly disagreed with reversion #1 (see this thread) but now says that reversion #3 was OK, presumably now saying that his own reversion #2 was in error. Tennis expert (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is any wheel-warring, it was Mart's reversion of Jj137's reversion. But Jj137 does not seem to be taking it too rough, so I still do not see a problem. As I said, repetitively, but I guess I need to repeat again, I believe that "needs two reverts" was deleted because it is bad style. If you are proposing to restore it, for what it is worth, I would back you. Frankly, I have no problem revising the Wheel War policy so that it follows our 3RR policy for editors, with the crucial difference of imposing a 1RR for administrators in administrative actions. If we had a 1RR, technically none of the admins here would have violated it. I think the policy has two purposes: to allow admins to balance out one another's mistakes without leading to an escalation of conflict. I think admins should have a 1RR rather than a 3RR because there should be fewer disagreements about administrative actions than writing great encyclopedia articles. I think 1RR does it. I think the current language is adequate but if you think it needs clarification please pursue it at the policy talk page. None of the admins involved here are in conflict. What is your purpose: to stir up conflict, or to improve the policy? If the former, well, please don't. If the latter, I respectfully (and encouragingly) suggest that your purpose would be better served on the policy talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My purpose is to find out what the policy is. It's as simple as that, and I'd recommend that you assume my good faith. We have one administrator saying that WP:WHEEL does not apply at all to WP:AWB. Then, we have a chain of administrators reverting each other. We also have the reverted administrator vehemently disagreeing with the first reversion but agreeing with the third reversion, which in effect says that his initial disagreement was erroneous. Finally, we have WP:WHEEL, which some say applies only beginning with the second reversion but which no longer has the language that explicitly supports this interpretation. So, we have a mess in several respects that I would like resolved. Tennis expert (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But the situation with the AWB is currently stable, right? That is what I inferred from what you wrote, if I misunderstood you I apologize. If the situation is stable I see no need to discussion at the AN. If you think the policy is unclear I can only repeat - and yes, I am assuming good faith and I wish you would too because this is good constructive advice - take it to the policy talk page. That is the place to discuss ambiguities in the policy. Right now there seems to be no conflicts among the administrators you mentioned. I think that is nice. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll just try to quickly explain my reversion: it was a mistake. I saw the two names at the Check page and added them to the approval page (they had 500 mainspace edits) without noticing that Lightmouse had been removed a few days before. I admit, I made a silly mistake, and I was definitely not trying to start a wheel war. Sorry for the confusion.   jj137 (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my own view is that Wikipedia asks everyone to be bold and it is inevitable that people will do things they regret and sometimes clash with others. What is most important is not any of our policies (all of which are superceded by "be bold") but rather our ability to correct our own mistakes or the mistakes of others in a quick and collegial fashion. I see WHEEL as a safeguard for those incidents, which should be rare, when admins are tempted into a silly escalation against one another. In this case, it seems like none of the admins involved did that; none acted in bad faith, no one was mlicious, doesn't look like anyone holds a grudge ... I really think this is how Wikipedia should work at its best. There was a problem, others caught it, some confusion which is natural, and it is all water under the bridge. If it always worked this way we wouldn't even need policies! I really admire the thoughtfulness and good faith displayed by the various admins here. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cough, cough, so I'm finally awake. And now let's take a look at the situation:

1. Due to concerns of some users, including Tennis expert, that delinking dates alone violates AWB's policy "Avoid making insignificant minor edits", Lightmouse's approval was revoked by Martin.
2. Tennis expert actually objected against delinking at all, and had revert-warred against users enforcing MOS:DATE across articles in his area of interest, whether such edits were automaticor not.
3. Lightmouse later applied again through usual means (WT:AWB/CP), was approved by someone, then removed again by Martin when he noticed this. Nothing terrible here, reapproving admin was obviously unaware of situation.
4. A discussion started on WT:AWB about whether delinking dates is inconsequential. After much debate, a straw poll took place, and it ended with 2/3 support for allowance for such edits (though, obviously, users performing them should enable AWB's general fixes and typo fixes to have a chance to fix more things in one edit).
5. After discussion faded, Lightmouse asked for reinstatement.
6. I, uninvolved in this conflict and not having a strong opinion about both date linking and the inconsequentiality of date delinking using AWB, reviewed the discussion and declared that will approve him next day, if there will be no compelling objections.
7. The only user who objected was Tennis expert, whose objections were against date delinking in genera.
8. I approved Lightmouse and left a remark about Tennis expert's wikilawyering (so slap me).
9. Tennis expert started this thread, at the same time he took a 100% measure to win the match - adjust WP:WHEEL to suit his needs (can someone revert him plz if they feel he is climbing the Reichstag?) At the same time, TE does not forget to revert-war by returning date links in direct violation of MOS:DATE#Linking of dates such as [4].

Now ask yourselves: whether undoing someone's actions after discussing the matter and achieving consensus is wheel-waring, or it's TE who's wikilawyering and disrupting the project to get things done his preferred way? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst we are in debriefing mode, let me state how things looked to me. I do janitorial edits on many articles and therefore I encounter lots of people with a variety of views relating to dates, units of measurement, the MOS etc. Some editors decide that they don't want date delinking to take place and simply revert such edits. I don't like it but I try not to take it too seriously. I had not heard of Martin before so his action appeared out of the blue. I didn't take his action too seriously because I assumed that he was genuinely unaware that delinking is acceptable. Metaphorically, I shrugged my shoulders, access had been turned off so I simply asked for it to be turned on again. In a failure of wp:agf, I was accused of being 'cunning' by requesting access on the request access page. I didn't take that accusation too seriously either because it is false and I am comfortable with my own actions. I frequently ignore mistaken beliefs and don't defend myself as often as I should, but since the matter is now been raised to this important page, I decided to say something. As far as I can see, this episode is just the way of the wiki and I am content with how it turned out. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not assuming good faith then. I expect that waters were slightly clouded by the rather diverse (by the multiple locations that it took place in) discussion. That a discussion was had and a consensus formed is good enough for me :) Martinp23 19:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Many of our policies are written in ways that encourage wikilawyering, and Tennis has gotten stuck on some wording in the WHEEL policy that s/he sees as leverage for continued discussion. TO ANY OF YOU who oppose wikilawyering and encourage administrators to sort these things out themselves, I suggest you go to the WHEEL policy and propose changes to promote administrator flexibility and discourage wikilawyering. You guys can knowck Tennis all you want but be honest, it is not like you can build and ArbCom case against him. I am suggesting that instead of harping on the past we focus on the future: how would we wish this kind of stuff to be handled in the future, and how might some policies be reworded or revised to make this future more likely? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case? What? Who said anything about that? Who's harping on the past? This all took place very recently and is still actionable. We can only look at the recent past. We can't issue sanctions in real-time or predict the future, so the past is all we have to go on. Wikilawyering is bad, unilaterally changing policy to help win an argument is a serious problem. (what the purpose of that argument is has yet to be explained, I'm starting to think its beyond simple clarification of the policy) How should it be handled in the future? Exactly like it was before this thread was started. No harm was done, so no action needs to be taken. Mr.Z-man 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no intent on my part to make any of my WP:WHEEL clarifications and improvements retroactive, and it's ridiculous to assert otherwise. This thread was resolved. I accepted that resolution and also accepted the suggestion of Slrubenstein to attempt to clarify and improve the wheel policy. See WP:BOLD. My attempt to do so was promptly reverted, without explanation. That's where the wheel policy stands now. Tennis expert (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New users and the assumption of good faith

Rather than a sock of an existing editor, or a returning banned editor ripe for a checkuser request, it may sometimes be that a new user who "somehow" has a good knowledge of Wikipedia processes is simply... not an idiot, and is able to read the instruction manual before using the tool. Discuss. Steve ^{T • C} 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not impossible, but it's far from the most-common explanation. Those guidelines/policies/essays/doodads trip up even long-term, experienced editors--and the old tried-and-true BBS ethos of "lurk and learn" went out of style with flannel shirts and distortion pedals. It's Web 2.0, mah peeps! Jump in! Make all the mistakes you want--manuals are for girlymen! (pauses, reins in bias slightly).

Having spewed that, however: it really matters more what the user's doing. If it's a new, strangely-clueful user who's adding content and minimizing drama, then yeah, I'd AGF. But nobody starts their WP career with a perfectly-formatted, policy-quoting, reasonably-cogent noticeboard post full of alphabet soup. Nobody. To me, that's like a duck-test all its very own. YMMV, of course.Gladys J Cortez 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This guy's first edit was pretty damn suspicious, I'd say. He found his way to a contentious subject and jumped right in. Remembered to sign his post, too. Then there's this guy who near-as-admits to being a sockpuppet, and surely this is a prime example of POV-pushing from a new editor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep a serious eye on that SheffieldSteel. Anyone who shows such skill with piping and signing from the off must be some kind of returning supersockfarm master. Steve ^{T • C} 23:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand that, I'm just disappointed by how many times I see a reply that includes a phrase to the effect of "Odd, he's somehow familiar with our processes, despite having only been here a week. Break out the checkuser!" Often it's in a thread concerning that user's wrongdoing, and sometimes it's not. But either way, it's an immediate suspicion dropped into the thread, one with the potential to unfairly prejudice other participants against the editor. I won't begin to assume what's in the minds of those doing it, but it is a little patronising to assume that even a complete novice can't work out in a matter of minutes how to properly cite something, or find a relevant guideline. This may not be the best example, but while my first ever edit was considered vandalism, it followed the prevailing citation format of the article perfectly. Two minutes beforehand I didn't have the foggiest idea what to do. And within four days of joining I was throwing What Wikipedia is not and other guidelines at people like an experienced editor. Not because I'm some kind of genius, but because it isn't rocket science. I would have been seriously pissed off if someone had implied I was a returning banned user because of it. Until proven otherwise, good faith extends even to those you believe don't deserve it. Steve ^{T • C} 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That last line should probably be permanently engraved somewhere in the MediaWiki interface, if you ask me. (However, and nearly as important, "until proven otherwise" shouldn't mean "AGF until the user becomes a 'crat and deletes the entire intarwebz.")Gladys J Cortez 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone just randomly starts a discussion about a new user simply because they seem familiar with policies and procedures, that's a problem. But when its in a discussion about actually disruptive actions, especially those in areas of the project that tend to attract sockpuppets, its a perfectly valid thing to mention, because probably 99 times out of 100, someone who jumps in to controversial areas and starts disrupting and arguing like someone who's been here for months, really isn't a new user. Its like ignoring the guy with a vest made of explosives because "maybe he's just a little chilly." Mr.Z-man 05:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There are distinct differences in editing patterns between users who have merely R'd the FM well before editing, and those who are clearly sockpuppets. Generally, if the first post is a well crafted edit to an article, with proper Wikimarkup, I'd take that as the former. If the first post is to ANI stating "Hey, I am new here, but it looks like when you blocked this obscure troll for violating this policy while editing this backwater page that no-one but him edits, and here are 27 policy pages and 35 diffs that show that you have abused your admin powers!" Then it is just a sock of the user we just blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Troubling user page

Resolved

 – Deleted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Sahra8. There appears to be a conversation about off-wiki matters (specifically, studying for algebra) taking place here, which is sketchy as per WP:UP, but I would not be inclined to take action.

However, all the edits in the conversation are made by the account... which suggests to me that this account has multiple users, who are sharing it for the purposes of some sort of inconvenient chat form.

Thoughts? Just look the other way? I have not yet contacted the user, because if nobody thinks this is anything to worry about, I'd rather not bother him/her/them. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

They seem to be using their user space to run a tutoring service! --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Already taken to MfD. The user was indef blocked for childish vandalism on Obama a few minutes back anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The account is part of the ring that was around Work club (talk · contribs) and subject to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Work club, so I've deleted the page under that decision. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger Request

Could someone merge The Fallout Trust with The Corrections (band) - they are the same entity under different names. Primary article should be at The Corrections (band). Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please post a request over at WP:PM, or follow the steps here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ban me now

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Net negative to the project. Can't you all see that the drama plays into the hands of this person? You honestly think they can cite this as an example of how bad Wikipedia is when their own attitude to the project shows them to be [*]? I think not. We're here to write an encyclopedia and that aim is achieved by working in a collegial atmoshphere with good intentions - this editor, obviously, is incapable of doing that on a scale involving positive interaction between contributors. If they were they would not ask to be banned. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite my recent remark on Jimbo's page which clearly identifies me as a ban-evading sockpuppet, I have not been banned yet. I demand action Americanlinguist (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to fill out the "Request for ban" form in triplicate and mail it to the Arbitration Committee, after which they'll get back to you following a three-month-long secret discussion and two meetings in the admin IRC channel. —Slowking Man (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a do-it-yourself site. Please use WikiBreak Enforcer to block yourself for an appropriate period.-gadfium 08:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't hesitate. But in this case, I can't be bothered to do anything. Feel free to just leave, though: personally, I wouldn't hang about in a place where I wasn't wanted; but if you get your kicks from doing so, then that's fine too. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This user (I know who it is from personal communication, and CU results correlate it, other CUs can contact me for the saved data) wants this sock to be blocked in order to make a WP:POINT. But since this particular sock is making good contributions, and this is in no way analogous to situations where we have "remarkably unwelcome" users making edits purely to further a stalking/harassment agenda. I see no reason to accomodate them. If they veer into out and out disruption, then sure. But of course, at that point they will have wrecked their "See, you ban good contributing users just because they happen to be socks of (putatively unjustly) banned users" claim they are trying to develop, by no longer being a good, contributing user. In which case the ban is justified on merits. So I think maybe we've turned the double bind they were trying for around on them. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, we get a (very fleeting and) cheap thrill out of seeing you thwarted once again. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Chicken! All right we'll call it a draw --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute—while I fully support letting him edit, because his work is fantastic, he was banned by Jimbo, and if he is not banned now that means the community is overriding Jimbo's ban. Am I correct in interpreting the situation this way? Everyking (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a good interpretation is that the disruptive persona is still banned, and should be blocked on sight if that persona reappears. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks like an accurate statement of events. --NE2 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this product or service. (i.e. that's my read too... it's the persona that's banned, defacto) ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Will we be updating policy to note that we only ban personas, not people? Furthermore, I am not clear how exactly this is a different persona. It seems clear that the community is not willing to uphold Jimbo's ban of an excellent contributor, which was imposed solely for comments on another website (for which the user in question quickly apologized). Let's acknowledge that directly. Everyking (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you want to argue this here, or on WR? I seem to be getting grief in both places, it seems. Any admin that WANTS to block this userid... can. Policy allows, but does not require, that any particular userid get blocked.

HOWVEVER: Any admin with a smidgeon of sense, now that they know WHY this userid was created, ought to not do that block or it plays right into Peter Damian's hands.

That doesn't mean a change in policy, or an overriding of Jimbo or anything of the sort. It has always defacto been the case that if you edit in a way that doesn't cause problems you may well get away with socking. Our policies are pragmatic. So far, leaving this userid unblocked has meant less disruption, and more positive contributions, than blocking (although the balance is starting to shift a bit).

Now, if you want to propose that the person behind this particular userid and others is no longer banned, go ahead and do that. Be explicit. At that point, I'll speak out against lifting the ban. But what you're doing now smacks of wikilawyering. Don't do that. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the proposal of explicitely contradicting Jimbo is rejected because only one WP:POINT is allowed per ANI thread. {{humour bottom|obligatory humour tag, because you only need one humor-impaired editor to ruin your joke}} --Enric Naval (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It only takes one admin to block for block evasion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct. However as I say, it is my belief that doing so in this case causes more disruption (by an ever slimming margin, it seems, given how this thread is growing) than not. Hence, I decline to do so, and I recommend others do as well. You had it right the first time. ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that; this appears to be an attempt to cause zOMGDRAMAZ!!! more than anything else. (Of course, it may be an attempt at reverse psychology instead...) It might be worth pointing out to Jimbo who this is and have him do the deed... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lar, yes, I was only saying, if his behaviour spins into the untowards again, it will take but one admin to block the account for block evasion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He came to my talk page, thinking I was a patsy. I ain't. Bright he may be as regards academic stuff, a poker-player he is not, and no savvy Admin should dream of blocking him. Whereas he may be clued to Aristotle, he is in Macchiavellian terms, an amateur; and I won't say why, but it should be obvious to anyone in possession of a fully-functioning brain. --Rodhullandemu 00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that our above discussions have been rendered somewhat moot, because User:Ryan Postlethwaite has now blocked the Americanlinguist account. For at least the next week, we won't have to worry about that account contributing any more high quality encyclopedic work. Everyking (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of weird, after a discussion here reaches the conclusion not to block him, Ryan takes it upon himself to do so anyway and doesn't even post a notice. That's not collaborative decision making we can believe in. Haukur (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no virtue in consistency... Poltair (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have blocked him (owing to the kind of thoughts talked about above) but block evasion isn't allowed and I don't think consensus is needed to block for it. If a blocked editor comes back quietly, makes only helpful edits and nobody who sees what's going on wants to say anything, that's more than ok. However, to taunt and game over having done this is in itself a clumsy disruption and I'm not startled someone blocked him over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it feels like some people are giving him a tad too much credit. It wasn't exactly an elegant plan. Sneak back into Wikipedia, do some good edits, and then complain about how the horrible admins blocked his account when he ran around saying "Block me! Block me!". :) Seriously, if someone revealed that at a conference, I suspect I'd just laugh. I can't see him doing any real damage with that approach. On the other hand, the idea that WP won't block the socks of banned editors if they threaten to complain publicly doesn't seem particularly appealing - although I doubt that would do any real harm, it is somewhat less attractive than the good laugh provided by the alternative. It may also be worth keeping in mind that Ryan's block wasn't an indef, but a short block for trolling - he can come back in a week and return to good, constructive editing. - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryan tweaked the block. It's now a 1-week block for "trolling". I suspect that this is all academic and that the account has now been abandoned. It's kind of weird to think that somewhere out there, a disgruntled but industrious editor may be beavering away with a new account, quietly working to destroy Wikipedia from within by, uh... adding accurate and well-sourced material. How do we convince other banned users that this is the perfect way to get their revenge? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The guy's banned. He's here to disrupt now. He added a few sources then started to troll to get his account blocked. I merely blocked him to stop that. If there's a real concern with the block, I suggest you appeal to Jimbo to take away his ban. The only reason why he wasn't blocked sooner was because that would be playing right into his hands and feeding his trolling further. No need to start suggesting that he wasn't blocked because no admin thought he should be and they were going against the ban - they simply didn't want him to get the upper hand. If this was uncovered by CU and his account hadn't trolled, he's a been blocked right away. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He didn't just "add a few sources", he wrote the article scalar implicature (for a laugh, look at this revision—someone tagged it as nonsense because they didn't understand the concept). Does it bother you that this editor might not create more content like that due to his ban? Everyking (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

On the balance, and over a long period of time, any topic worth writing about well and notable enough to include in Wikipedia will eventually be written about by someone else. At Wikipedia, we value our contributors, but nothing anyone does is indespensable. If you are going to create content and be disruptive; well someone else will come along some day and create the content anyways and not be disruptive. I will take my chances with the good person who has no intent of making a point or who has no alterior motive beyond merely adding good content over guys like this. Endorse the block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But we both know he is going to, because he's going to create more accounts and do this again! If he could do the content side without the trolling, attacks and general poor behaviour, then nobody would have a clue who he was, so he could simply continue without any suspicion. If he decides the only way to go is to do a bit of content and then troll his heart out then I've got to say no thanks - he can gladly stay blocked on all accounts. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But just above you stated: "If this was uncovered by CU and his account hadn't trolled, he's a been blocked right away." Isn't that a contradiction? Everyking (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the deal: If he edits from this moment forward under a new account, ONLY makes positive contributions, avoids his old stomping grounds, never does vandalism from this or any other account, and never makes statements like the above where he begs to be blocked, there will never be a reason to CU him, and so no CU will ever catch him. Any blocked or banned user could do this easily, and we would never be the wiser, so long as, as a person they never again caused another problem. Hey, perhaps some have, and that's cool too. The difference is, as soon as you do anything to draw attention to the fact that you are a blocked user, whether its engaging in the same problems that got you blocked, or droping a note at ANI saying "I am so-and-so, you can block me now", well, that's when the CU will be run and we will catch all socks... The moral is, if you as a person never again does anything wrong under any more accounts, then nothing will cause anyone to check up, and you will never be blocked... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of that. Just by editing philosophical articles and displaying a certain style and personality he could be detected without ever doing anything harmful. There have been cases like this in the past where banned users were detected and banned again even though all their work on their new account was constructive. Everyking (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. I thought WP:ELEPHANT might address "the elephant in the room"; however, what seems to be of overriding importance is the well-being of the encyclopedia. So far, we've got at least one usable article out of this, except have somewhat stymied AmericanLinguist's unsubtly advertised attempts at causing great damage to it. I tend to take the course of least damage here, which in this case is to prevent AL turning the situation to his advantage, however unlikely that advantage is to accrue. That, to me, implies not blocking (except for the trolling, about which I am ambivalent) in breach of the ban. Some discretion is given, and in cases like this, may be advisable. If Jimbo wants to block him, he can, and if genuine, this recent post would seem to indicate that may not happen. --Rodhullandemu 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To Lar If what you say is true, then perhaps we should revisit the blocking of users that were done solely on the basis of suspicion of them being socks of banned users. A specific example would be User:Miss Ann Thropie, banned by User:Jayjg who performed his own checkuser to make his determination that the user was User:Malber with no prior discussion. User:Miss Ann Thropie had all useful edits prior to the ban. The only edit that appears to have precipitated the ban was the user's vote for support on the Wikipedia Review deletion review [5] which Jayjg eventually reverted [6]. Chuthya (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I object to Pedro's archiving of the section. This is an ongoing discussion involving a matter that has some broader ramifications. Everyking (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Especially in the light of recent developments on Jimbo's talk page, and in respect of which I am waiting for him to get back to me, or there. --Rodhullandemu 21:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and revert it then. I'm not fussed. I've read the WR stuff and this is pure and simple disruption by a [*] who thinks academia equates to inteligence. Feel free to open it back up if you want more pointless discussion. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, I think the personal epithets are uncalled for. Refactor please? alanyst ^/talk/ 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No. This user/editor whatever is a [*]. They may be an academic. But they are still a [*]. I've read the WR comments and this person may be intelligent, able, and academic, yet even WR editors have tried to disuade him from this reckless method. His stated intention is to bring about the end of Wikipedia by ensuring donors will not contribute funds. His rationale is vindictive and contrary to everything Wikipedia is based on - honesty and good faith. I will not retract or refactor my comments in light of the expressed opinions on another website. And if you think other websites have no bearing on Wikipedia speak to User:Bedford frankly. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As our antagonist points out, we have rules & guidelines which sometimes stand in direct conflict with the larger goal of the project. He has decided to game our rules for his amusement, this sort of scenario is exactly why we have WP:IAR. Zero_tolerance enforcement is just as stupid in cyberspace as it is in the real world. The only way to win is not to play. (and until further developments actually happen, this section should stay archived - we've wasted enough time here. ) --Versageek 21:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RPA, I've replaced the epithets with [*]. The blocked/banned user (nor any other user) should not be subjected to name-calling, though civil discussion of the user's behavior is perfectly fine. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Per common sense I've asked Alanyst to remove his refactoring of my comments - the word now replaced by an asterix was "fool". Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What a foolish thing for Alanyst to do. Badger Drink (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, we're refactoring the word "fool" now? Alanyst, you've got a Sisyphean task ahead of you if you plan to refactor someone's comments every time you see something as harmless as "fool". Seems like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to me. Anyway, I'll assume Pedro is wise enough to realize that the correct response to silly behavior that has no actual import is to walk away and ignore it. An edit of mine was called "stupid" today; I ignored it and survived.--barneca (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I'm not on a crusade to singlehandedly stop all name-calling on WP or anything. It's just that insulting banned users on a very public page like this seemed to me counterproductive. I'm stepping away from this now, since my action here appears to have failed to improve the situation. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all move on from this. If anyone wishes to reopen the thread do so. I can't see it will help, but that's just my opinion. Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Q regarding welcoming new users

Hi all. I thought I'd ask here because I don't know where else to ask, but is there something wrong with This? \ / (⁂) 08:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No crime, but it floods Recent Changes and imposes an unnecessary server load, so I've asked them to stop. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think new accounts should be welcomed until they've tried to make a meaningful edit. Welcomes like this, while meant to be helpful, are wasteful in more ways than one. Moreover, most new accounts never get used and edits by users with redlinked talk pages are more likely to be vandalism, which is a handy way to look for them. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe if they have a really cool user-name they can be welcomed (or just usurped at a later date). Overall I agree with the link color argument. If there's nothing particularly relevant to say, it is unproductive and in fact detrimental to make it appear that something particularly relevant has been said. This also applies to the {{talkheader}} family of tags. — CharlotteWebb 13:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of welcoming newly registered users without edits or with out checking the username policy example.— Ѕandahl ♥ 19:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason why the idea of a welcome bot has been defeated so many times. It just isn't useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A minor technicality - but if you're going use welcome templates, please subst: them. eg: {{subst:welcomeg}}. --Versageek 03:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is useful to welcome newly registered users even if they have not edited. If many do not edit, and were not welcomed, perhaps it is all a bit overwhelming to them, and a welcome which directs them to policies and tools might be what is needed to get them editing productively. As for the color displayed, it is easy for a vandal to put in any random text on his talk page and user page to "unred" them. We do not wait until a would-be driver has gotten out on the highway attempting to drive a car before we provide driver training. I think a welcome bot would be highly useful and appropriate. Edison (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't welcome new editors. I got a random email in Ukranian just because I had visited that Wikipedia and it automatically created the global login account, and someone decided to welcome me with an email. --NE2 04:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops - that should read "new users who haven't edited". --NE2 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to pose a scenario similar to NE2's. I could imagine it actually scaring some users away if, five minutes after they register, they get a "You have new messages" bar... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see too many new high school age editors creating an "article" about themselves, probably completely in good faith, and it getting promptly (and quite appropriately) deleted minutes later as a CSD A7. A Welcome message which encouraged them to create a user page, and which pointed them toward the usual information about what makes for an appropriate article, would head off their creating an article and getting slapped down thus. Any organization I have ever joined had an informative packet or in modern times an informative email. A Welcome message serves that function. The register a user name, and we leave them in the dark as to what to do next. Their first communication is likely to be a warning or a deletion notice. Edison (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Iranian football clubs in Asian tournaments

Can someone have a look at why this was nominated to be deleted in September but still contains the deletion debate sticker like it was vote to be deleted but never deleted? —Borgarde^talk 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was supposed to have been deleted, but there were several page moves that resulted in a split history... The original article(as a redirect) was deleted, but the resulting final end of all of the last-minute moves was missed. I went ahead and deleted it, as it was clear from the AFD that it was supposed to have been deleted... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Will the ugly banner go away?

Will the ugly banner go away if I donate? If so, how much? Jehochman ^Talk 05:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the goal is $6 million, and it currently says they have about $1.9 million, so about $4.1 million ought to do it. (Or you can turn it off using the "Suppress display of the the fundraiser site notice" gadget in Preferences). Mr.Z-man 06:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering adding the following text to the watchlist notice: would there be any objections to this (particularly from the foundation)?

Registered users may permanently remove the annual Foundation fundraiser notice by enabling "Suppress display of the the fundraiser site notice." in the Gadgets tab of their Preferences.

Please post below. I will not post this if a Foundation rep objects. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I normally oppose watchlist notices which are simply informational, I think this one is necessary - the original notice is possibly the most full-on and intrusive site notice I've ever seen and many people will want to know how to get rid of it. Orderinchaos 06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Z-man! I think we should probably not post disabling instructions to the watchlist notices unless we get explicit approval from the Foundation. They provide us these fantastic resources so we should be sensitive to their needs for funding. Jehochman ^Talk 06:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and we provide them our fantastic resources. It's like going to the blood bank and being asked constantly for money while you donate blood. --NE2 13:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We must not go to the same blood banks... happens to me all the time. :) ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Hersfold (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• FYI - I tried to "Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice" and found that I had apparently tried to change my password... Is OFFICE vandalising the preferences/gadgets page, and if so how long should I block them? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Tell me what you changed your password to, and I'll answer that question for you. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No, its just a stupid quirk in Firefox that automatically fills in the "old password" field, so when you submit the form, it thinks you want to change your password to an empty string. Clear the "old password" field before saving preferences. Mr.Z-man 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... I don't remember the add being this annoying in the past... whoever designed it should be shot.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The ad for the first 24 hours or so last year was much worse. That got improved with user complaints. Maybe this one will too. Dragons flight (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I was about to note what Dragons flight did. The previous year's banner was just horrific for the first day or so. Hurt the eyes it was so bad, srsly. This one is just unnecessarily HUGE. Normally, I would not recommend or support such a watchlist notice as proposed here, but this banner is just ridiculous. And I also agree with other comments being made. It should be good enough that we work here for free... we shouldn't have to pay to work here. لennavecia 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally I don't like ditto remarks, but I agree with Jennavecia. It looks awful, the ad should be posted on articles, since most of the donations should come from the users who read, we shouldn't be paying to work here. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Badger Drink (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a watchlist notice about a notice would be silliness in the extreme. You can collapse the banner or you can hide it completely in your preferences. That's enough. Though perhaps a discussion at Meta is needed about showing the banner to logged in users at all.... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've been assured that those in charge of running the fundraiser are paying attention to the discussion happening at Meta. If you have comments / concerns / etc. about the fundraiser, please bring them up at meta:Talk:Fundraising 2008/design drafts. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: We should have a watchlist notice about how to remove it. Plenty of users and admins are complaining about it - enough so that they should not have to find out how to remove it by taking the time to look here or at WP:VP - there should be an easily accessible unified place with instructions on how to remove it - preferably directly beneath the notice itself. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus on this either way, so I've gone ahead an added the notice. If someone feels really strongly about it, they're welcome to remove the notice from MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Any registered user will see the banner anyway when logged out, so it's not removing too much of an audience from the fundraiser. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Hersfold (talk · contribs) for this action. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have posted some selected comments here. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I've proposed an alternative on this page. Take a look and add your support if you would prefer it. Pretzels^Talk! 18:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that User:Cacycle reverted the addition of the gadget and has requested a discussion at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals for consensus before adding it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project. Donate Now >>"

Is there a way to have an option to make it so that this big notice does not show up on all of the screens? Cirt (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been set up this time so that even clicking hide only makes it a smaller banner. Doesn't hide mean hide? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just found out, it can be turned off in Special:Preferences - Gadgets - there should really be a notice about that somewhere. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Cbrown1023 for this ([7]). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) More thanks. Meanwhile I guess this means I'll never see another fundraising banner? I kind of like seeing them when they launch. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You should still see it before logging in.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but other than here at this page, where are users informed about instructions that this is how they can disable this notice, if they so desire? Cirt (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project.22_omnipresent_banner.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but for those that don't know about WP:AN or WP:VP, there should be instructions on how to remove it in a more prominent place - perhaps in small font directly below the notice itself? That would be the best way. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there should be an easy-to-see way to shut it off. Moreover, hide means hide (sorry for saying that again though). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

See #Will the ugly banner go away?. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, true, 'nuf said then. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/centralnotice/wikipedia/en/centralnotice.js?182"></script>

Just block scripts (and anything other than images, hello?) from "upload.wikimedia.org". If your browser can be set to reject certain js, this is more efficient than running it and then hiding the result. It is also more reliable than assuming the WMF doesn't need money desperately enough to adjust, randomize, or remove the CSS so that your "gadgets" no longer hide it. — CharlotteWebb 14:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice theory, but the gadget was created with their blessing. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've been assured that those in charge of running the fundraiser are paying attention to the discussion happening at Meta. If you have comments / concerns / etc. about the fundraiser, please bring them up at meta:Talk:Fundraising 2008/design drafts. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: See above thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Will_the_ugly_banner_go_away.3F. We should have a watchlist notice informing users about how to remove this if they so desire. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: For logged-in users, you can always add div#siteNotice { display: none; } to Special:Mypage/monobook.css (or whatever your skin is). I personally see no harm in hiding it for logged-in users if they so desire. The very reason I hid it was because it takes up space for something I already know about. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Who's disabled the gadget? Why? Gwinva (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignore me: seems to be back. Don't know why that went weird. Gwinva (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer: [8] Gwinva (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Several violations of restrictions by G2bambino

There are several violations of restrictions that G2bambino (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) agreed to [here] and [here]. They occur on the Canada page, which definitely qualifies as a "Commonwealth monarchy". In addition to the clear violations, there continues a pattern of low-level incivility and evasive flouting of wikipedia conventions previously documented here and here.

1 RR Violations

See [page history] for summary

Canada#Etymology

1. 1RR: 02:39, 6 November 2008,04:00, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino;
2. revert 1 07:24, 6 November 2008 by Soulscanner;; initiated Talk:Canada#Etymology_restored_to_consensus_version talk
3. 2RR 13:46, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino;
4. revert 2 22:00, 6 November 2008 by Soulscanner; 22:08, 6 November 2008 by DoubleBlue
5. 3RR 22:18, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino

Includes two removals of Jacques Cartier picture and two additions of tag that questions the validity of Canada being legal name. Edit wars like this can be averted by discussing edits on Talk page before making substantial changes to the article.

Canada#History

1. 1RR Added subsections 04:40, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino
2. revert: removed subsections 07:36, 6 November 2008 by Soulscanner; initiated Talk:Canada#Subsections_in_History_Section by Soulscanner;
3. 2RR Series of edits ending 19:28, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino
4. revert 22:16, 6 November 2008 by Soulscanner ;
5. revert 00:48, 7 November 2008 by Soulscanner;

G2 tags his edit summaries as "copy edits" in history section when they are in fact often accompanied by changes in the meaning of sentences, the removal of information, the addition of tags, or the removal and replacement of posted images. Restoring these one by one is tedious. Examples are illustrated in reverts 4 and 5 above (see also Talk:Canada#Subsections_in_History_Section for discussion); changing names of "First Nations" to "Aboriginal peoples", for example, is problematic (revert 4). Removing whole referenced passages on the Royal Proclamation and Quebec Act is also problematic (revert 5). These should be discussed on talk page first. Best to restrict classification of "copy edit" to obvious typos and check on talk page first for other changes. Strict civility guidelines call for discussing such changes first. The 1 RR restrictions were applied precisely to avoid this kind of "bulldozer" approach to editing.

PS: I'll point out that revert pertains how the British Monarch treated French Canadians in 1763; it relates directly to the topic of Monarchy in Canada. --soulscanner (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page violations

• Civility violations and threats against me for documenting these instances (Talk:Canada#Subsections_in_History_Section):

I caution you to be careful with lauching baseless accusations, lest you find yourself in trouble because of them.

• Discussion of non-content items:

If you objected, all you had to do was remove the link, instead of undoing all my work. Please don't edit like that again.

These threats and digressions only escalate disputes. They also go against the strict civility restrictions G2 agreed to. The problem here is making substantial edits on a stable page without seeking consensus first, not with other editors documenting these instances.

Positive contributions acknowledged

G2 has initiated a positive dialog Talk:Canada#Version_1 on editing that led to improving the Canada#Government_and_politics section after initially being blocked for a similar violation as here. It shows that he is capable of working constructively with other editors such as myself if he understands that the place to initiate substantial edits in articles is the talk page, and understands clearly the precise behaviour that antagonizes other editors. Everyone here should understand that the intention here is not to "get" anyone, but to help editors contribute productively to wikipedia.

Requested actions

1. 1 block for all violations, in line with escalating block provisions described [here]
2. recommendation that editor show good faith and voluntarily take 1 month brake, in line with good faith shown by User:Roux
3. adding following behaviors to restricted list for Canada and related Commonwealth/monarchy pages:

1. Low level incivility and evasive editing described above; specifically, , restrictions on a) making substantial content edits without first discussion them, b) disguising them with edit summary claims of "copyediting"; c) burying such changes with a flood of legitimate edits. I think these are clear enough to enforce.
2. All edits on Canada page be subject to 1RR restriction (I think that's more of a clarification as opposed to a new restriction).
3. G2 be required to explicitly acknowledge the consensus with regards to (a) subsections on Canada#History and (b) Canada#Etymology with regards to Canada's official name by gaining consensus on the discussion page before making any edits in these sections. G2 is an experienced editor at the Canada page and knows that these are standard approaches on FA-Class articles that all the other good-faith editors follow.

--soulscanner (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The 1RR restriction is: "1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed." I took this to mean all edits concerning the monarchy but I can see that one might interpret "Commonwealth monarchies" as being countries in the Commonwealth. I think that the reason for the specific area of restriction was because of G2bambino's POV slant edits in regards to the monarchy's role. It would be appreciated if those who developed and supported the restriction clarified the intention there. At the same time, however, I think that 1RR (WP:BRD, in other words) is a good policy to follow at almost all times and discussion of major edits to a feature article is a good thing.

I would suggest that more specific descriptions and explanations be in the edit summaries and should it be too lengthy, a explanation on the talk page and summary that mentions "see talk" is advisable. Often even better to seek approval beforehand.

Discussing editors instead of content on article talk page is not helpful but I would've found it difficult myself to restrain from responding to accusations of "Low-grade vandalism and incivility". Still, G2bambino is aware that he has "Strict civility restrictions" and is to stick solely to content on article talk pages. He should have sought assistance on this matter rather than respond himself.

I am very pleased with the improvement on the Canada article in the last week and am proud of the work of the editors and those who participated in the talk leading up to it. G2bambino and soulscanner have been vital in its improvement. I do not seek, at this time, G2bambino's break from editing Canada.

I have no recommendation on a block. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically listed are Etymology and History sections of the Canada page. The key edits in the etymology section pertain to Dominion of Canada being (or not being) Canada's real name, which is a monarchist/non monarchist debate that has long vexed the discussion page. The history section contains a number of edits that could be interpreted as introducing language more favorable to monarchist POV. For example, item 5 shows that G2 deleted the fact that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 denied the Canadiens from holding public office. Another edit inserted that Cartier sailed not for France, but for the King of France. There is no doubt that these pertain directly to the British monarchy and monarchy in general; there is no reasonabable way to say that they do not. There are probably many other such edits, but no editor is going to have time to check all the "copyedits".

That is why changes like this need to be justified, and not passed off as "copyediting". Edits like this are very difficult for uninvolved administrators to intervene in because they are partially related to content. In my view, the restrictions were placed here precisely so that this sort of POV on monarchy related topics does not filter into G2's edits. The intention, in my view, is to encourage G2 to consider the possible POV's he may be introducing before making such edits. They are broadly interpreted because of G2's propensity for evasiveness in his edits, and because one cannot always anticipate where this bias may manifest.

Also, the edits have not improved the page: his participation in the discussion has improved the page, which we all acknoledge. I think that he has shown that he will only adhere to such editing practices and civil discourse if restrictions are enforced (witness his civil attitude when he returned after the block). Failure to enforce a block when restrictions have clearly been violated will be seen as a sign that he can continue with these practices. --soulscanner (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good points. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardly good points; they're all inaccurate. Soulscanner needs to check the present text as well as the edit histories again. It would probably do everyone a world of good if he didn't claim 1RR and "low grade incivility" with every single edit I make. As I said at Talk:Canada, if he has a problem with something I've done, he should raise it specifically, rather than revert and then comment on me, as he has been doing. --G2bambino (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a last-chance approach here, just so everyone knows. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly having looked at Soulscanner's edits, they are worse than G2bambino's. G2bambino's edits were largely the result of Being Bold, and Soulscanner should not have attempted to initiate an edit war by fully reverting good faith edits. Instead s/he should have carefully edited out the specific changes s/he disagreed with, leaving the uncontested edits in place. The contested edits could then have been discussed on the talk page. Based on Soulscanner's edits, to me this looks like it was a calculated attempt to bait G2bambino into violating the terms of his/her probation.

I'll also note, in case anyone is interested, that I have no personal stake in this. This isn't even my home wiki, and I rarely bother editing here (mostly because of all the juvenile behaviour). Gopher65_talk 03:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia promoting adsense ad-laden tools?

While the tool for "Revision history statistics" provides a lot of info, it brings us to a page with very prominent Google adsense ads. Why is Wikipedia promoting such an adsense-supported tool? Has there been any discussion on using this tool? Any consensus on allowing Adsense supported tools? --Ragib (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I am referring to this tool, which one can find at the top of Recent changes article history page. --Ragib (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the open-source nature of Wikipedia, derivates of Wikipedia may be used for any purpose, including comercial ones. Wikimedia does not control the "downstream" use of its products. Basically, Wikipedia itself is non-comercial, but it is also liscenced in such a way that, as long as it is properly attributed, people could use its information in a commercial manner. This is a private tool created by a private person unaffiliated with Wikimedia; as such Wikimedia probably doesn't have any control over how they host their tool... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think his objection was the link to the tool at the top of the page history. BJ^Talk 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We can't control or dictate whether the site should or shouldn't have ads, but when someone takes advantage of the free traffic from RC page to their site by dumping a lot of adsense ads, linking to that tool becomes questionable. --Ragib (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The ad banner is very new on the site... probably the fairly prominent linking on en-wp generates quite a bit traffic. One could approach the owner of the site, de:Benutzer:Aka, and suggest moving it to toolserver. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Histlegend, which is where this discussion should continue, really. fish&karate 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Need semi-protection of User talk:216.165.58.103 for duration of block

Resolved

 – Risker took care of it Enigma ^message 05:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I believe lengthening of block would be warranted based on the vile edits this user is making (changing warnings to vulgar messages). Also, WP:RfPP could use some attention. Thank you, Enigma ^message 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the block be changed to a hard block, please? See the history of that talk. Enigma ^message 05:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:XavierFox42 User's block should probably be indefinite and the page should be protected. Enigma ^message 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Resolved

 – Blocked a few, declined a few

And those reported are continuing to vandalize. Admin assistance required. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 11:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Pedro :  Chat  12:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk page

soulscanner (talk · contribs) has been making what appear to be minor, but repeated, personal attacks against myself at Talk:Canada, most notably with these specific discussions: Talk:Canada#Request for Comment on G2bambino (talk) and Talk:Canada#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino; as well as various other accusations and invalid claims. He has then been taking the same to other users' talkpages (User talk:Roux#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino, User talk:DoubleBlue#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino, User talk:DJ Clayworth#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino, User talk:GoodDay#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino), and here to push for a block against me. Could an administrator please have a word with soulscanner about this behaviour and perhaps remove the personalised commentary from the talk page? --G2bambino (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[Perhaps relevant to this matter is a 3RR report made against soulscanner here.] --G2bambino (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been bickering with Soulscanner for a very long time G2bambino and moreover, you've filed 3rr complaints over edits which weren't 3rr before. From what I could see of Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:soulscanner, I can't quite make out 3rr there either. Lastly, I find your block log and ongoing edit warring/bickering worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

They may not have been 3RR but they're still edit-warring. New 3RR here. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Soulscanner has already decided to stop editing there until this blows over. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner's been bickering with a number of people for a very long time; I'm certainly no anomoly in that matter. And my 3RR/edit warring is a past event; not really pertinent here. I have been editing Canada in order to improve the article and address concerns raised by soulscanner; in return, he reverts even the most innocuous copyedits and then searches for some kind of ill motive in every edit I've made. That is not only edit warring, but also creates a poisonous environment; I get the feeling that there's an overall attempt to deny me of my ability to edit. I would prefer it if he would make himself clear in discussions and focus on the content, rather than on me. --G2bambino (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. One editor's "improvement" can be another's chavel. Slow down, use the article talk page more. Always cite reliable sources. Be open about your edit summaries, don't mark an edit as minor and call it "copyediting" when it's a meaningful content change. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, indeed it does. But, by improvements I meant punctuation corrections, wording flow improvement, citation cleanup, etc., which is exactly what your example above was; I certainly don't see any changes to the content, and others didn't either. Soulscanner undoing such work and then making accusations of bad faith behind it is definitely not productive editing. --G2bambino (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Then again, instead of trying to help you understand how to make things go more smoothly, I could block you both for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't particularly appreciate that kind of approach; I have tried to be most accomodating to soulscanner, keeping his expressed concerns in mind when editing and very rarely reverteing him at the article. Of course I will henceforth try to be more detailed in my edit summaries, and will continue with the discussions already initated at talk. May I, or someone else, remove the offending sections from there now? --G2bambino (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think you should change anything in that core article until other editors have had time to lend their input. Moreover, you might want to think on not talking so much about another editor's behavious but rather, sticking steadfastly to comments about edit content and the citations supporting it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd rather not invest my time in these personal matters, but what is the alternative when one is being slandered in various locations by the same user? Also, perhaps I wasn't clear about which sections I was talking about: not those in the article itself, rather those at the talk page where I have been singled out and personal accusations have been made against me. --G2bambino (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Blow it off. Chill. Have a cup of tea. Sing Kumbayah (or maybe Anarchy in the UK). Burrow into some warm and cozy reliable souces. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Mmmm... I would automatically agree with you up to a point; a couple of comments here and there could be brushed off. But a widespread campaign seems something different; certainly not in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I will, however, try to expand my patience. Thanks for your help. --G2bambino (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, knock it off. These posts are completely un-called for. You have been warned time and time again about personal attacks yourself, and simply because a user is attempting to resolve issues that you are creating does not mean they are "attacking" you. I recently commented at the AN3 report, and feel that administrative action needs to be taken. You are continually edit warring, stalking users whom you disagree with, and pushing a very clear agenda. You are currently under some pretty strict editing restrictions and I still have yet to see your behavior change. After dealing with this issue for well over a month, I am beginning to see you as the problem here. Please, give it a rest. Tiptoety ^talk 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that take on these matters; there has been neither stalking, edit warring, nor agenda pushing, unless you have some evidence to the contrary that I'm unaware of. It also doesn't seem to be too much to ask that a user stop turning every edit I make into a personal critique on my motive and character. I certainly hope it will come to a rest from here on, so that we can get on with the actual issue of content. --G2bambino (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are comments you dislike on your talk page, remove them with a civil edit summary saying "Sorry, I am not interested at this time" or some such. You, personally, stand very little chance of persuading the admin community of your status as a victim, given your substantial past history of problematic behaviour. The process of rescuing yoru reputaiton will not be quick, but that is the kind of thing that will likely work in a way that running to Mommy will not. Harsh reality, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what bearing my past actions have as an excuse for another user's present behaviour. --G2bambino (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It has a bearing on how mcuh sympathy you're going to get here, after your long-running disputes and numerous complaints about other users. So try doing as I suggest - politely remove stuff you don't want to talk about, and see how that goes. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's fine, then, as I wasn't searching for sympathy. All I desired was to have the same civility rules that apply to me apply to everyone else. I was under the impression that there was a sacrosanct rule against removing others' comments from article talk pages; hence I asked if it was okay to do so in this case. But, I have already done as you suggest, and removed the offending material anyway. Thanks for the guidance, though. --G2bambino (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please add Pp-dispute to WP:MOSNUM?

Resolved

 – Done. _Gb^T/c 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin add the {{Pp-dispute}} template to WP:MOSNUM? I made the request of the protecting admin but got no response. This would help move the consensus building process in regards to whether we entirely stop linking years forward. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. What's with the red colour in the editing box? _Gb^T/c 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Red tinting of edit box on fully protected pages for the red tinting. It's to make sure admins don't overlook the fact they are editing fully protected pages. - auburnpilot talk 20:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Aaah. Marvellous. _Gb^T/c 20:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A reminder

Special:UnwatchedPages is still very large. Hard to count, since offset above 1000 does not seem to work. A while back we had a problem with date pages which seems to have been fixed by people watching their birthday, can we each please pick a few tens of pages form this list? Most of them are low traffic, it's unlikely to add much to our overhead, but it might help as a backstop to RC patrollers. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful if those of us who aren't admins could find out what pages need watching. I realize that opening Special:UnwatchedPages to all would just give vandals a handy list of targets, but there's no reason why the whole onus of easy stuff like this should be on sysops. Deor (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Special Unwatched pages would be high on my list of tools that could be devolved to users like rollback. I don't understand why people keep trying to push "view deleted", "block" or "delete" to non-admins while smaller, sometimes more useful tools, don't get spun out first. Protonk (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because those tools aren't as prominent in peoples minds? I agree that allowing non-admins to use this would be a good thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know this existed. I'd like access... I don't suppose there's a second tier of button-giving possible? That is, users in good standing who were not admins could be given the button on request, but no other buttons. Technically feasible? Desireable? IronDuke 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Any established users are welcome to drop me a note asking for 10, 20 or however many unwatched pages they have and I'll give them a list of pages to watch. In fact, maybe someone could create a category similar to the deleted pages category. John Reaves 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It would require community consensus and filing a bug report and all that. In the meantime, wasn't your last run for admin about a year ago? Why not run again? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What would be the chances of actually getting the full list to show, rather than only the first 1000 items? We're not even up to "A" yet! (I grabbed a couple of items, but that's one heck of a backlog!)Gladys J Cortez 07:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Could access to this page not be packaged with rollback permission? They seem to be similar in terms of broad function and level of trust required. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I automatically watch every page I edit, I was going to go through and slap a WP:music template on every album, and other appropirate templates but it is after midnight here. I hadn't known about the page before...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can always watch pages without editing them. That would be more helpful than further polluting a namespace which is surely already over 90% banners and less than 10% "talk". We should seriously consider asking for a third "banner-space" in which the territorial pissings of each individual wikiproject can be monitored, leaving talk pages to serve their intended purpose. — CharlotteWebb 14:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I find "polluting" and "territorial pissings" offensive. I regularly use the associated categories of WikiProject categories to use Related Changes to watch article changes. They also serve to show editors which project may be consulted for assistance. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? As far as I can tell, the "recentchanges" (for a category containing only talk pages) only shows edits to the talk pages, making it impossible to track article edits with this feature! [9] — CharlotteWebb 05:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what I meant was I have the recentchanges to project cats bookmarked and I add to my watchlist the articles that show up. I can see that I didn't say that as clearly as possible and am not sure I've done much better now. It would be nice if one could view the article changes at the same time as the talk changes actually. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more useful to use these as hidden categories within the actual article (and delete talk pages which contain no discussion). Or like I said... a third namespace for annexation/assessment notices, etc. Or maybe an software extension to store meta-data associated with each page in a separate table, I don't know, but the current system isn't exactly sliced bread. — CharlotteWebb 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening it up has been discussed in the past. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The list is useless. For those who are so eager to view its current state, go crazy! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

prop 8

Resolved

 – Seems to have stopped, report to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI if it continues. SoWhy 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it a hard topic for some people but I've been trying to improve it and some people have responded by taking out there anger on me.

you might want to ban them. --Mrmcuker (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Looks like you're pushing a POV and other people are maintaining neutrality at the article. Please correct me if I'm wrong? [ roux ] [x] 08:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also see that you have broken our three-revert rule on that article. So umm... Not really seeing what your need for admin involvement is? [ roux ] [x] 08:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ya, I gave you a friendly warning, to leave it alone, and you ignored it 3 times here, here, and here. I also said your edit to The Sheriff of Nottingham in classic stories was not a reliable source, and you ignored that also CTJF83Talk 08:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this user needs a small vacation in order to have the time to find a clue? [ roux ] [x] 08:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get an admin to block the user CTJF83Talk 08:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed all of the recent edits to the article, it does appear that Mrmcuker is attempting to insert non-neutral wording in support of his POV. However those NPOV edits were also reverted as "vandalism" in violation of the official policy on vandalism (WP:VAND#NOT). However, assuming both of the editors take heed of the 3RR warnings I issued ([10], [11]), I do not believe any additional admin action is necessary at this time. --Kralizec! (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mrmcuker, you should stop trying to push a particular point of view. You have broken the three-revert rule. I'm an admin but I did not take action because I have edited controversial parts of this article myself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he seems to have stopped it (for now). I suggest reporting to WP:AN3 if he reverts again or at WP:ANI if he continues pushing POV without discussion. Regards SoWhy 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of blatant hoaxes

Resolved

 – Just one more red link. _Gb^T/c 20:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the current position on this? See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fruit_don't_talk - patently bollocks about a made up band. Personally I'd like to remove my vote and speedy the bugger under G3 on the basis that it's patent misinformation, but the nominator says that we don't speedy hoaxes...WP:CSD doesn't shed much light on it - anyone got any views? _Gb^T/c 20:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G3 includes blatant hoaxes and misinformation. The nominator's wrong, you're right - speedy it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It can be speedied. For those who are rule sticklers, you could 1) remove the dubious claims unsupported by any sources, and then 2) delete the article for having no assertion of significance. This would be allowed under the letter of the law. However, since we're allowed to use common sense, we don't require that editors jump through such silly hoops. Friday (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And the link turns red. Thank you for the clarification. _Gb^T/c 20:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If my nomination was wrong, someone needs to rewrite WP:HOAX to clarify the claim that "we genereally don't speedy delete hoaxes". the skomorokh 05:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change to reflect the apparent convention; review welcome. the skomorokh 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't edit Southern Song

Resolved

I was trying to change the Southern Song redirect to [[12]]. However, I got a message saying that the title was blacklisted and could not be changed. Is this there for a reason? rcduggan (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion 2

Resolved

 – D'oh! --Rodhullandemu 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved speedy close this as Keep? Even though I've commented in favour, and apologies if this looks in anyway bad form, consensus is blatantly evident and we're just wasting time and potentially going to get into pointless drama. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  16:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pthbtbt! Rodhullandemu beat me to it and I got an e/c trying to close it.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Pedro :  Chat  16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A Simple Question

First off, I am not advocating for anything, pushing for anything, or trying to start an argument/push a POV. I say this due to a couple articles I watch/re-occuring arguments I and others keep on seeing. I am also asking this not about any specific article, but a variety of articles across Wikipedia.

Now on to my question: My question is about people of Mixed Race. I've noticed throughout the project, editors have been pushing the mixed race card on a lot on people who identify as one race or another. While a variety of very respectable reliable sources report the person as one race (the same race that the person self identifies as) and not as mixed race, these same editors come in and change that to mixed race or push that mixed race be placed in the same sentence as the race the person identifies as. What I would like to know is if a person has multiple races in their background and does have a chance to identify as mixed race, yet chooses to identify as one of those races, should Wikipedia stick to the race the person chose and not try to push any labels/races on them that they do not label themselves? Would it be a NPOV issue to not include the label mixed race? Also, would it be a BLP violation to push the label of mixed race on a person who does not primarily identify as mixed race? Thanks for taking the time to read this and respond. Brothejr (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the Admin noticeboard, for cases where admin action is required. You should bring this to the Reference Desk. Everyme 21:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I did look there before but this is a policy question, not a general help question. If there is some specific policy place to ask it, then I'll remove this and add it there. Brothejr (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Reference desk wouldn't make any sense; perhaps Everyme meant WP:Help desk, but this (I think) is more an attempt to start a discussion than to ask a simple question. I don't actually see anything terrible about asking here, but if you want to do it by the book, you could try WP:VPP. --barneca (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea I was just wanting to start a discussion, but do you suggest I move this other there and then close this or just leave it open? Brothejr (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant Help Desk, sorry. Everyme 21:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Technically, this should go to the village pump, but I'll answer it here. I assume the main background to this is Obama, whom one would usually call mixed-race, but self-identifies as black. I guess we go with self-identification. "Race" is usually viewed these days as a social construct, and I guess if someone's mixed race but views themselves culturally as black well, then, we should just call them black (perhaps with an additional note on their parentage, and guided by reliable sources as well, of course). Although under this social construct view, as Obama was largely raised by his white grandparents, I really would call him mixed-race - but shrug. Ultimately it doesn't matter much anyway. Moreschi (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  Well... he just called himself a "mutt"... Everyme 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The principle of self-identification is the only reasonable one. Race is a nebulous idea; it is defined only by the context of place and time, and the ultimate context is the personal one. If a person uses a term to describe themselves, use it as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep! Race is considered a question of self-identification by the United States Census[13]. A respondent may choose one or more races that he/she identifies with. For the US government, you are whatever you say you are, basically. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• There are few simple questions about race, and no one size fits all way to categorize race or ethnicity. Some involve legal distinctions (Native American), some nationality (Japanese), some religion or lineage (Jewish), some external perception (white), etc. Self-identification is not sufficient. We should not accept without proof or some formal evidence, for example, a person's calling themselves Native American. There are far too many impostors, pretenders, wishful thinkers, etc., plus the definition of that race is very unclear. If a person who would by most people's definitions be a minority wishes to deny his minority status (e.g. a person with two Jewish parents refusing to consider himself Jewish) we should for BLP and other purposes not try to "out" them or force the societal mores down their throat. So the bottom line I think is that it's a case-by-case thing, with certain principles we can pick up and perhaps generalize. In the Obama case, he self-identifies regularly as AA, the definition is reasonable given the current thinking about race in America, and most reliable sources call him AA. If you took any of those three out of the equation then we should seriously reconsider calling him AA. But with those three aligned, it would be unreasonable not to accept this identification. In thinking about it we should not forget: (1) that race is largely a social construct, even though it touches on issues of physiology and circumstances of heritage / birth; (2) that definitions of race change, vary from one place (or group) to another; (3) that there are issues of both self and external identification; (4) that nearly all people are of mixed race if one goes by genetics, and that races have changed over time - we all come from Africa at some point; and (5) the criteria for being in one ethnic class may be different than those for being in another. (above edit by User:Wikidemon )

excellent summary by Wikidemon just above for cases like this -- but perhaps when things are not controversial, 2 of the 3 are enough if there's no contradiction? If someone self identifies and RSs accept it, it should be enough for us. And for earlier historical people there's no alternative but accepting consensus of RSs alone as the standard. DGG (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Statistical and numerical vandalism

Here's a big problem. What, if anything, can be done to prevent statistical and numerical data being vandalised by IP users? Having spent a good while today cleaning up after Special:Contributions/190.77.46.202 and Special:Contributions/190.77.43.70 - obviously the same person; do please take a moment to have a good close eye-opening look at what this person is doing to us - I have become aware that the most basic information (population figures and so on) that the encyclopedia carries can easily be made garbage. Ergo, our reputation follows it. We become a joke "encyclopedia". And these things are the easiest to vandalise, and the hardest to detect. If an IP or anyone else changes data, and then a short time later someone makes another edit, who is to notice on their watchlist what has happened? This is not in the same category as writing that "x is gay" or "i like pie". This is much more difficult. Here are some sample diffs from the IP's I've cleaned up after that were not fixed until today: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Of course the first step is - if possible without too much collateral damage - an IP block to take this particular funster (who has not a single decent contribution from either address) out of the equation. He/she is currently sitting out a punitive block (yes, they exist, as slaps on the wrist) [20]: This should become permanent. But the central question for us to consider is how we can protect our most elementary factual content from random tomfoolery that could render us, in terms of how we are perceived, utterly unreliable. For example, could infoboxes be permanently semi protected? I'm appealing for thoughts here. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that this guy has previously edited as 190.77.34.12 (talk · contribs) as well—the IPs seem stable over a period of a month or more. I've been keeping an eye on him sporadically for a while. At first I thought he might be making good-faith attempts to update population information, even though he wasn't providing sources for his figures and was, in effect, contradicting the sources cited in the articles. But when he started doing stuff like switching the positions of New York and Düsseldorf in a sourced list, I knew he was just your basic number vandal. I've watchlisted some of his favorite articles related to Venezuelan places to try to keep on top of the changes in IPs, but I don't really know what else can be done unless the range he operates from is small enough for a block. Deor (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to forbid unsourced numerical changes by IPs ? Kpjas (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's largely what I do in practice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For a very long time I've always reverted those on sight unless there was a fix of an utterly glaring mistake . Gwen Gale (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• This is a big problem; it's subtle and not only hard to detect, but also hard to determine whether a change is justified, and Gwen Gale's approach is correct per WP:V. Bring on "approved revisions", I say, and I am trying as time permits, to see how it's working on de:wp. Meanwhile, a separate protection capability for infoboxes would be useful, but technically tricky because it would require a major restructuring of the database if my understanding is correct. Same argument applies to particular sections within articles; wouldn't it be wonderful to say "OK, this part is well-sourced, well-written, and complete, so let's freeze it until some overriding reason to change it comes along". Having upset Brion, I'll now shut up for the evening. Regards. --Rodhullandemu 01:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps antivandal tools should be extended to recognize numerical changes in edits just as they recognize bad words. That would make finding suspect edits a lot easier and from there, we can take all sorts of actions. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea if possible. Right now, I do what Gwen Gale etc to, revert on sight unless I'm convinced there is a good reason for a change. dougweller (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've lost track of the number of times I've typed in "rv unsourced numerical alteration" to an edit summary. Personally I revert on sight unless either the edit is obviously correct at a glance, or there's an edit summary providing a plausible rationale - in which case I try to check the source. But if there is any way an automated tool could help dealing with this - even just flagging suspicious changes for human inspection - I'd welcome it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Warped Tour 2004 - I'm having technical problems

Hi, all. I'm an administrator trying to work out what to do about a situation.

User:Rwiggum nominated a number of pages for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2004 (2nd nomination). I trust that he did so in good faith. I closed the debate as 'keep', since I saw no clear consensus to delete the pages.

Rwiggum has since redirected all those pages to List of Warped Tour lineups by year. I believe that he did this in defiance of the AfD consensus, or more precisely, lack of consensus to get rid of those individual articles. He has additionally been editing that page, and perhaps he has done this to merge some of the information that was lost by the redirects. I have no reason to doubt that his subsequent editing was done with the intention of improving the article, and improving the encyclopedia.

You might also benefit from reading my user talk page here: User talk:Richardcavell.

Now, I am trying to examine what he has done, but my poor old computer can't handle the diffs. On my Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook running Firefox with 1 Gig RAM, it takes upwards of 60 seconds for my computer to layout each diff page. It thrashes my virtual memory and sends my CPU usage up to 96%. If I then so much as try to scroll down, it goes into another thrash session. So I find myself basically unable to examine these diffs. It seems to work okay with Safari but for unimportant reasons I have to use Firefox on my puter.

I feel that as the AfD closer I have some obligation toward this dispute, but I'm technically unable to examine what is going on. Can any kind admins look into this for me? - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• wow. That totally crushes FF on my comptuter, too. Safari runs fine. I can see the diffs, but I don't really know what he's doing. I assume that he's merging content because he doesn't seem to have touched the main article before the AfD, but he doesn't use edit summaries, so I don't know exactly. His edits seem to be adding tables and rearranging them (to top off not knowing much about tables, I know squat about music). I'm not sure I can be much help--except to tell you that your computer isn't at fault vis a vis the diffs. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and incivility by and ip

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24h by Elonka

74.234.45.208 (talk · contribs) - removed sourced good quality content, including the inter-wiki links and categories on Poughkeepsie (city), New York [21]. S/he was speedily reverted by JForget [22] - following a warning, the ip proceeded to edit war [23] [24] - attacking editors rather than responding calmly on the article's talk page. In a bout of rage, he responded to the editors that reverted him in a derogatory manner [25][26][27]. Despite continues warnings, the editor proceeded to attack me [28][29][30]. An admin refused to block at ANI on the grounds that perhaps his original edits **may not be** vandalism, but that still does not excuse the insulting comments and gross violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:ATTACK --Flewis^(talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The editor was recently blocked for 24 hours - [31]. Would this be considered an appropriate length of time for excessive harassment and vandalism of this nature? --Flewis^(talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia blocks are preventative, not punitive. Also, since IPs may be used by multiple individuals, we tend to just use short blocks on anonymous editors. If the problems continue once the block expires, a longer block will be instituted. --Elonka 00:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

“An admin refused to block at ANI [...]” - Could you provide a link please? :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant WP:AIV.[32] --Elonka 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. :) Well, with all due respect, such edits ([33], [34]) are nothing but blatant vandalism in my opinion. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - a number of people tried to engage them on their talk page - with some success - but they continued the baiting. Never mind. Black Kite 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Flewis baited right back. HalfShadow 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. I hadn't noticed that. Trouts all round, I think. Black Kite 00:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just letting out a little sarcasm once in a while :) - I'm not sure if you could even consider that borderline WP:DNIV, but then again, if he was WP:RBI'd earlier, none of this would have occurred --Flewis^(talk) 00:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to take a bit too much enjoyment when someone gets blocked. I find that somewhat worrying. HalfShadow 00:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this discussion before, and I'd hate to accuse you of hypocrisy [35] --Flewis^(talk) 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but this guy was at least willing to listen. We might even get an editor out of him if we play our cards right. There's a difference between a random who's just here to piss in the pool and someone who could eventually help. HalfShadow 00:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of an editor you would get out of someone who resorts to insulting other users. Not to mention a lack of maturity [36] and an overzealous desire to remove content. If "Wikipedia God 96" wishes to contribute I suggest that he request immediate adoption and rehash his knowledge of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:VAND and WP:USERNAME --Flewis^(talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• My rationale for declining the AIV report is here; I can only go by the diffs provided, and in my opinion these were not "blatant vandalism" for the reasons noted, and as such the personal attacks - while not condoned - may be seen as expressions of frustration. However, whatever conclusions that a more detailed review here might bring is completely appropriate. It is what the place is for... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Proxies

Hey. I just received this message at my talk page. Could somebody explain how I can check something like that? :) Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually ask User:Zzuuzz or User:Spellcast. I'm pretty sure they have tools that are capable of finding open ports. I also have a tool, but it is really old and crappy. In this case, it was still able to find two open ports, so I blocked it for 3 years. Just to clear up any possible doubts, I logged out and replaced the IP's talk page with {{blockedproxy}}. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, what ports did you find open? I just finished an nmap scan and didn't find any. For future reference, you can do a quick check by searching to see if it's listed at WP:OPD. For a slower one, you can post a request at WP:OP. --GraemeL ^(talk) 02:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

3128 is definitely open (I used it to post a blockedproxy notice on its talk page), and my program also reported that port 80 was "likely open". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

With this spammer it is true, so you may want to hardblock for six months anyway (any longer is not normally necessary). If you are not sure how to check if an IP is an open proxy, please list them at WP:OP or on the talk page an admin who knows how to confirm them. Please note that port scanning, having ports open or being listed at WP:OPD does not provide any confirmation in this respect. Just about the only way to properly confirm an open proxy is to make an edit with it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually use my tool to find possible open ports. Then I configure Firefox to connect via proxy, and try to view webpages. If I can see pages, I block with Safari or Chrome and then add the blocked proxy notice to the proxy's talk page with Firefox via the proxy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I usually do as well. Interestingly, port 3128 is definitely closed for me, though I don't doubt it's open for you. Some firewall magic going on somewhere. --GraemeL ^(talk) 03:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The spammer uses a bot to quickly switch IPs and make fast successive edits, so I skip portscans and simply block on sight. A Google search of suspected IPs should show them on proxy sites. A six month hardblock should be adequate. Spellcast (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please block User:Æåm Fætsøn

I want to block myself for 24 hours because I am leaving Wikipedia and I don't want to cause any more trouble here that I have inadvertently caused. And please do not edit my user page or talk page when blocking. Thanks. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't do self-blocks. There's a tool, I think. I'm more curious why your talk page was deleted. I'll ask. It seems out of policy in my view. If you want to leave, there's the right to vanish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the talkpage seemed a reasonable request, as he had also been systematically working through all his user subpages and tagging them for deletion as well (check his deleted contribs: Æåm Fætsøn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)). However, I have no objection if someone wishes to restore the page. --Elonka 06:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue. I just want to make sure this is actually a right to vanish situation and not "please empty my talk page and I'll be free and clear in a little while when memories fade." A 24-hour block is not anywhere near the right to vanish. Maybe I'm just being a jerk about this, since it's not like he was ever blocked or anything serious. By the way, there's nothing stopping you from just creating a new login and starting over that way. We'd probably never find out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is the tool you need, with directions: Wikibreak Enforcer [roux » x] 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of citation by an IP user 125.54.251.167 (125.54.251.185)

I have to report an anonymous user whose referenced edits did not correspond to the original source. I have detected seven cases of his abusing citations which can be divided into two types.

1. By altering deliberately the original source in favor of her/his purpose, her/his referenced edits are different from the contents of the original source. [37], [38](upper one), [39] [40](the lowerst one)

2. By adding reference, this user intended to support his faulty information, which is in fact not existent in the original source material at all. [41](lower one)

Basically, this user strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits by her/himself, so that the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have had to keep constantly an eye on the user, correcting her/his wrong edits. Despite my three times warning allowing plenty time (ca. 6 weeks) of self-correction, this user made no sincere reaction but just tried to cloud the main issue. S/he can not even realize the seriousness of her/his wrongdoing.

Considering her/his attempt to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning [42], [43], [44], [45] , this user should be blocked indefinitely from working on this article Goguryeo language in order to prevent her/his further possible distortions of the original source materials for the wrong purpose. Above all, her/his abuse of citations not only degrades the authority of Wikipedia, but also affects badly to the academic reputation of the author of the original source material. So this user should be blocked for her/his fabrication from editing Wikipedia. Jagello (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only interaction you have had with this editor, other than edit-warring, is this. Right or wrong, the editor appears to know a lot about the subject, so it would make sense for you to make some attempt to discuss the problem. This topic is far too obscure for any admin to be able to figure out who is right, and in terms of pure behavior, yours is as bad as the editor you are complaining about, so there is really no grounds for helping you at this point. If you can show that you have made a good faith effort to discuss the problem—on the talk page of the article, for example—instead of immediately moving to a "Final Warning", then the situation might be different. looie496 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of deciding Right or wrong. Those who makes such a plausible falsehood by distorting and fabricating citations should rather be blocked immediately without any warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagello (talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:ZenCopain

I blocked User:ZenCopain 24 hours for disruption after he reverted List of United States Presidents by time in office with the edit summary I can do this all week. This seems like a clear case to me but since I've been involved with the article I felt that I should post the block here for review. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the block. We don't need people announcing intentions to disrupt. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As a minor, should some of that information on his User page be removed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving talk page discussion

Resolved

Does anyone know how to archive discussions on one's talk page? My talk page is getting quite full so I just wanted to know...

Thanks for your help in advance.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Go here: Wikipedia:Archiving_talk_pages. I use the 'permanent link' method myself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You can also add the {{archiveme}} template, and someone else will be along in short order to help.  :) --Elonka 16:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Vincenzo Manno

Resolved

 – And the link turns blue..._Gb^T/c 11:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The deleted text has just been released under the terms of GFDL by OTRS (ticket 2008110810019494) please check if the deleted text is the same as this and, if matches, undelete it, thanks--Vituzzu (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is the same, so I've undeleted it and restored it back to the version prior to the copyvio issue being raised. _Gb^T/c 11:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-un-deleted it, making sure to mention in the log that the text is now properly GFDL and the OTRS ticket number; it had been deleted again as copyvio (presumably because the redeleting admin hadn't seen this conversation and no mention of the release was in the log or on the talk page). — Coren ^(talk) 15:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite

The User:Deucalionite account is listed in Categories: Compromised accounts | Banned Wikipedia users | Wikipedia sockpuppeteers, but the account still is active. -- Suntag ☼ 16:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the user himself has put his userpage into these categories. This edit put the user into Category:Banned Wikipedia users, this edit into Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers, and this edit put the user in Category:Compromised accounts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:ARBMAC, he is limited to using one account and was blocked for 1 month per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deucalionite. According to this page, a checkuser was done and came out inconclusive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird, isn't it? Deucalionite (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unable to edit Classical Rock.

if you search "Classical Rock", it is redirected to "Classic Rock", which isn't the same thing - a closer definition would be Symphonic Rock. I tried to change the redirect to redirect to symphonic rock and got this message:

"The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you."

Although I'm not trying to create a page in it's place.

Thanks ^_^ Chris (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it would be better to redirect to Crossover_(music)#Classical_crossover, at least in the interim. I've gone ahead and done that. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as though the incoming wlinks to "Classical rock" are referring to classical crossover. Want to change those too? Deor (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I forgot to check that. Feel free to change it again if you want. I have no strong feelings on the matter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not conversant enough with the distinctions involved to try to change anything, or I would have done it myself. Deor (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:PromoProductions Block

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here... HalfShadow 21:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

When can I have my account back? I promise I won't try to push my POV User:PromoProductions 71.57.155.159 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bidgee2 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP bloke whose question was rv'ed. Given this attitude, I suspect that the answer to your question is 'Never'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC) (updated 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

Which is to say, the worries about sockpuppetry will need to be thoroughly dealt with first. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's even the overriding issue. We tend not to unblock people who do things like this. Black Kite 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye, User:PromoProductions. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No way, per Black Kite, et al, not to mention it's a user name violation. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Incivility at Barack Obama

Need help putting a stop to some racist incivility. Thanks in advance. Modocc (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Being discussed at Incidents and seems settled now. However, I wish you wouldn't call it "racist" incivility. The argument could be classified as such but that wouldn't be assuming good faith. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(striked that per AGF), as I understand. I almost took the time to refactor that earlier, but the accusations of racism were flying and AGF went completely out-the-window even as I did my best to stay clear of it. I mentioned it, not in best form though cause I was hurried, only to make sure administrators knew why I was here. Thanks for the Calvary. :-) --Modocc (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:CreepyUncleHarry

I did an unwarned block on this user based on this edit to his user page. It's the user's only edit. This is an area in which I recognize I have less patience than usual, so I wanted to let others chime in. Anyone who wishes to unblock should feel free. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

good block. Presumably meant as a stupid joke, but they must have known it would be totally unacceptable here or anywhere. DGG (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections to this; even if it was an established account a block would be in order. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block; zero tolerance for anyone who believes that such comments can be excused as "humour". LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

HairyHannah (talk · contribs)

The above user has been engaged in disruptive editing of the Janelle Pierzina and Will Kirby articles. Said user has returned from a one month ban from WP, and is continuing where xhe has left off. At least 4 reverts of each of the above have been recorded this morning, taking over from suspected sockpuppet 71.200.54.6 (talk · contribs), who made 10 reverts earlier today. HairyHannah was served with a WP:3RR warning, but deleted said warning from talk page, and continued to edit disruptively. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, Ricky81682. Hopefully, sanity will be restored. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Aiv reports

Resolved

Could an administrator with some spare time on their hands check out Aiv [46]? There are 2 reports which require admin attention. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 12:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Underlying IP already blocked on the first one (he logged out to continue the WP:POINTiness); second one is a content dispute at heart and is nothing to do with AIV. All cleared. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:CreepyUncleHarry

I did an unwarned block on this user based on this edit to his user page. It's the user's only edit. This is an area in which I recognize I have less patience than usual, so I wanted to let others chime in. Anyone who wishes to unblock should feel free. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

good block. Presumably meant as a stupid joke, but they must have known it would be totally unacceptable here or anywhere. DGG (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections to this; even if it was an established account a block would be in order. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block; zero tolerance for anyone who believes that such comments can be excused as "humour". LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

HairyHannah (talk · contribs)

The above user has been engaged in disruptive editing of the Janelle Pierzina and Will Kirby articles. Said user has returned from a one month ban from WP, and is continuing where xhe has left off. At least 4 reverts of each of the above have been recorded this morning, taking over from suspected sockpuppet 71.200.54.6 (talk · contribs), who made 10 reverts earlier today. HairyHannah was served with a WP:3RR warning, but deleted said warning from talk page, and continued to edit disruptively. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, Ricky81682. Hopefully, sanity will be restored. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Aiv reports

Resolved

Could an administrator with some spare time on their hands check out Aiv [47]? There are 2 reports which require admin attention. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 12:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Underlying IP already blocked on the first one (he logged out to continue the WP:POINTiness); second one is a content dispute at heart and is nothing to do with AIV. All cleared. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Thereturned

I'm not sure how to take the contributions of User:Thereturned. Apparently, we blocked this user under a different name at some point, and now they want to "clear their name" by registering this new screen name, and have posted three times to my user talk page to this effect, as well as putting a message on their own userpage to the same effect. I smell a potential sockpuppet of a banned user, but I am hesitant to take any action about it because I have no clue who's socking or the rest of the backstory, or what the deal is otherwise. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on who it was and why they were blocked. If their time limit is up, then we should probably AGF--but let the user know that people will be keeping a sharp eye for a bit. I'd be much happier if the editor used their original name, though; it's all well and good to make a break with the past and come back under a new name, but that's sort of made pointless when the person is saying "I used to be a jerk here!" [ roux ] [x] 01:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See, considering that three of their four posts have been directed at me, I'm wondering if it's a sock of User:Johnjoecavanagh, who targeted me with nonsense posts for a long time, and who was community-banned for off-wiki harrassment. So that's why I see this as this a little more than just some wackadoodle. I wonder if it's this banned user coming back for more. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough evidence for a CU? I think harassment is a good reason to say "No, you can't ever edit here again." Something like vandalism, maybe not; depends if they can prove themselves. [ roux ] [x] 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time I was banned, I was told to contact Schumin about getting back in. It is unfair, the man has no social skills, he just keeps reverting me. If a guy behaved like that in a bar he'd be punched, to say the least Thereturned (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What was the name of the account that you were banned as, plus who told you yo contact Schumin? Theresa Knott | token threats 15:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember. I was corresponding with user:Bozothescary before I left. Thereturned (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Johnjoecavanagh, aka User:Orrelon, aka several IP addresses. A full accounting of the exchange between BtS and this user (operating under several IP addresses) is at User talk:BozoTheScary/Johnjoecavanagh. I don't think we want this editor back. Horologium (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wow... and I somehow doubt that s/he couldn't remember their old username. [roux » x] 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am coming back humbly seeking a reconciliation. As I have been trying for 18 months. Is enough not enough? Thereturned (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous issues include a lot of serious harassment of editors, with little indication in that discussion page pointed out above that there's a recognition as to why this is a bad thing. Your comment above - "It is unfair, the man has no social skills... If a guy behaved like that in a bar he'd be punched" suggests that the lesson hasn't been learned. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Screw this. Thereturned isn't interested in building an encyclopedia, he's interested, after 18+ months, in continuing a dispute with Schuminweb, as evidenced by every single one of his edits with this account. I just don't see the point of dragging this out. This person will never change, so I'm blocking this account indef. If he wishes to prove me wrong, he can create an account, stay 100% completely away from editors he's had disputes with in the past, stay on the straight and narrow, and we'll never know he's here. If he isn't interested in doing that, then he will remain unwelcome forever. --barneca (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101 and his socks

The problems with the Disney Vandal, aka User:Bambifan101, are continuing to be a daily issue, in which he pops in with a new IP, does a mix of "okay" and vandalistic edits to multiple Disney related articles, and talk pages. I report to AI/V as block evasion, and he's blocked, to return again. He is also vandalizing multiple other language Wikipedia's, including Simple English, Welsh, and Russian, Albanian, that I know of, and probably others, both under his IPs and his named socks. Attempts to have get help from Meta Wikipedia have pretty much been laughed off with the response that the individual Wikis have to handle him since I'm ignorant of the nuances of range blocks and made my request too broad. Frankly, having to deal with him pretty much daily is not something I want to keep having to do and despite what they say, our current method of dealing with him is just not working, much to his amusement[48]. (and yes, before anyone says it, my response was probably a little less than civil, but I'm tired of this brat showing us just how useless blocking really is)

At least 39 IPs socks and 30 named socks have been identified as him (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101). He primarily edits from Bell South IPs from Mobile, Alabama. Per a suggestion at RPP, I filed an abuse report to get it handled at his ISP, but its sitting unanswered for weeks while he continues his annoyances.[49] Range blocks have had very limited success, if any at all, due to concerns about collateral damage limiting the ranges to the ones he uses the least rather than those he uses the most. In his laughing at us message above, he claims he's been here even longer than I have been tracking, so he probably has even more that have gone unnoticed.

Some of the earlier reports/discussions: at AN/I, first SSP, second SSP, checkusers. This is getting pretty ridiculous, and at this point its obvious he is continuing to do it because he can, and just because he likes annoying us (and likely specifically me since I'm the main one who spots him and deals with him). He also has made it clear that he finds our current efforts extremely amusing. What else can be done at this point to actually shut this kid down here? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply interested in the responses to this, due to issues with a similar recurring sock. [ roux ] [x] 02:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to spill the beans here, but he actually went on a somewhat productive streak on the Simple English Wikipedia – that is, no discernable easy copyvios, but riddled with typos and complex language (this implies he wrote it himself, as copyvios wouldn't have typos, unless he intentionally did it to throw them off). The admins there assumed good faith until one of the users pointed out that the Touchpath (talk · contribs) account had admitted here (on the talk page, specificaly) that he was the Disney vandal, and at that point Majorly blocked him for it, and AFAIK he hasn't been back since. Are you saying that he's doing this crap on a daily basis? If we're going all Freudian here, I have no idea what turns him on or off, or what. Based on your mainspace reverts, he's striking a pretty large group of articles, and has desisted from his rather idiotic efforts to keep reverting the same articles over and over again. It was this slight change of modus operandi that threw the SEW admins off, as well. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The latest contributions was at simple:Special:Contributions/Touchpath. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He says he is still editing Simple, though not sure under which named socks and/or IPs (and he may not have hit for awhile, since lately he's been hitting some of the foreign language ones the hardest because he goes mostly unnoticed there). And yes, he is hitting here on an almost daily basis (and every now and then, he hits 2-3 times in a single day). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, he is also now hitting id.wikipedia.org[50] under one of his named socks that is blocked here *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is any different from the rest of WP:LTA. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is, can he actually be stopped? We know his ISP, so can't he be stopped there? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Without having any idea how we can stop this short of blocking the ISP, I wholeheartedly support Collectonian and this report. This editor has perfected the esoteric mix of "good edits" mixed with vandalism, and I'm convinced it's a game to them. Tan | 39 16:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And apparently he's bored this weekend...second named sock today has already popped up. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. This sucks. My guess is that ISP is way too huge to care about this (but that may be wrong). What did the people at abuse reports say about giving bell south a call? Protonk (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been a response to the abuse report since I filed it weeks ago. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I just saw Wikipedia:Abuse reports/68.220.x.x and 70.146.x.x and 65.0.x.x digging around over there. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• The question is; how many productive anon edits are coming from 65.0.160.0/19, 68.220.160.0/19, and 70.146.240.0/20? I know that's 20,000 IP addresses, but I looked at a random /24 from each of those ranges, and almost without exception, every recent edit from that source was from our friend. My inclination would be to put a time-limited anonblock on those ranges, and monitor what (if any) collateral damage is caused. Black Kite 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• How did you do that, BTW? I've seen people announce that now and again and I'd be curious to see how you did it. Seems like a cool trick. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Have a look in gadgets in your preferences. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I can't change anything in my gadgets without getting the "your password is 1 character" error that people reported about with the WMF banner gadget change. But I do see the CIDR contribution range thing there. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Aaaand fixed. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a tool available from User:Franamax as well. It's a little more flexible in terms of what it looks for, but it's slower and doesn't go as far back in time. I find both techniques have their uses.—Kww(talk) 18:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• The other question (now that I can check ranges), is how many of his IP's are outside those blocks? do we know how many named accounts are out there that aren't accounted for in the abuse report (what I'm checking now). Do we know how many other blocks are apportioned to bell south there? Protonk (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

At one time, admin Alison said she had blocked some sleeper socks while doing some rangeblocks, but she never said what those specific ones are. Otherwise, we have the 32 named one in the cat above known of for sure. Most of his IPs are in those three ranges, with a few outliers (possibly when he's editing from school). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally I am hesitant to support range blocks as large as this one would be ... but after having blocked a dozen or more Bambifan socks over the past month, I am convinced that a range block is the only thing that will stop this persistent vandal. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

)undent( I concur... The rangeblocks, if they really ARE only this guy, should be instituted ASAP. It would go a long way towards shutting him down, and it appears that despite their size, these would not result in much collateral damage... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. Make sure I didn't mess this up. I concur with Black Kite that there is some, though not large, collateral damage from these blocks. I also concur that long term semi-vandalism (of the sort that won't get caught by RCP) is a danger to the project and a drain on contributors. As such, I think that blocking the three ranges above: 68.220.160.0/19, 65.0.160.0/19, and 70.146.240.0/20 is appropriate. I've blocked those ranges for one month. My suggestion to Collectonian is that you take this time to compile a complete and human-readable abuse report and email bell-south in atlanta. We can let them know that we are trying to deal with the problem but that the current situation (possibly blocking many of their customers without explanation or notice) is not the preferable solution. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Good, let's see how it goes. I'd just point out that there appears to be a couple of odd IPs outside that range, but one I've just noticed is User:70.146.212.195 which is another Bellsouth but outside the range that was blocked. If he re-appears from that end of the range though, we can re-consider. I'm just hoping that BellSouth allocates blocks (like the ones blocked) to geographical areas and that they stay static, though, because their entire allocation is massive and effectively unblockable. Black Kite 02:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and crossing my fingers and toes! I sent an initial report to Bellsouth's abuse reporting email on Saturday, but thus far have had no response.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Gif images

In the article Belton House, which is an FA, I moved several images to the left because of a problem with formatting on wider screens. Upon saving, most of the images in the article (all those that were gifs) deteriorated badly in quality, breaking into squares. I checked them at their source (Wikipedia not Commons), and found they were broken up there too.

I have tried to simulate the problem by uploading a couple of gifs of my own and moving them around in a similar way, and although they are not as bad, one image is also very pixellated at anything other than full resolution. They are at the top of my home page.

Can someone possibly restore these images, or have I wrecked them forever? Amandajm (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG WTF What have you done!??!?!?!

I don't know what's happened there, but it can't be anything you've done - moving images shouldn't break them. It's probably another problem with the image server (we lost loads of images not long ago) that will sort itself in a while. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 12:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does seem odd. Once the page loads fully, everything is fine (might consider removing some of the images to lower the page load time), but prior to that, there is a lot of artifacting/other stuff. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Compression artefacts. Not your fault. It's the combination of the dithering and compression done when the image was scanned, and the scaling applied in article, that's causing this problem. Try changing the first image's width to 256 or 512 pixels to get rid of the squariness. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone upload a photograph as a gif anyway? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

further; ...because what some folk may be unaware of is that 'gif' isn't a very suitable file format for a photograph - it's really better suited for icon.s and materials which use a smaller no. of colours than your average photo.. 'jpg' is probably the best way to save a photo - the way it saves the image is fundamentally different, and you'll get much better results :-) Tell your friends too, because unfortunately this mistake isn't entirely uncommon :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've converted the first two to jpgs. There are a lot more that need doing though.To do it I opened the files in GIMP. blurred slightly, added a bit of noise then saved as jpg to try and get rid of the regular grid pattern of unnatural looking pixels that saving it as a gif caused. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

GIF thumbnailing has been (hopefully temporarily) disabled due to some overloading of the image servers, suspected to have been caused by large GIF animations. This means that, instead of thumbnails, our image servers are now serving GIFs at full size and letting the browser scale them down. Most browsers don't do a very good job of this, hence the pixelation. It also tends to make the images load very slowly. While I hope that the scaling issues can be fixed soon, I also second Privatemusings' recommendation to convert such images to some (almost any, really) other format. About the only thing GIF is good for these days is inline animation, and, now that we have half-decent support for inline Theora videos, even that niche is shrinking. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Indexed PNG is often the best substitute for GIF. For photos JPG is best, but for drawings or diagrams, PNG often gives crisper results. looie496 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So why were they completely fine until Amanda moved them this morning? Giano (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, when the server creates a thumbnail, it caches it. You may have seen this yourself: if you add a large image to an article, it is often slow to render the first time you view it, but fast afterwards. Presumably moving the image invalidated the existing thumbnail. looie496 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So what happens now, are the mages wrecked for ever, because they still look pretty horrible on my screen? I deleted the originals off my computer ages ago. More to the point why can't I at least edit any more? I wish people would just leave things alone and stop interfering, who moved the images so they can't be edited?Giano (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

They can still be edited. Try it again and let us know if you still have problems. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The full-resolution images have not changed. At this point there are two possible approaches: either (1) get serving-side scaling for gifs turned on again, or (2) download the full-size images, reformat them (preferably as jpegs), and replace the originals with the modified versions. Since this problem is likely to crop up repeatedly in the future, the only really viable solution is (1). looie496 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does "get serving-side scaling for gifs turned on again", where is the switch and who turned it off in the first place? Giano (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Read Ilmari Karonen post again as he explians that it was turned off because of overloading of the image server. Hopefully it will be turned back on again but in the meantime converting the gifs to jpgs will solve the problem.Theresa Knott | token threats 13:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Now just look at this Image:HdeR.gif some fool who does not know what he is doing, is going through Hannah de Rothschild tonight moving images to commoons and they are all going squared. I upload these images for a reason I do not want them deleted!Giano (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Now some complete ignoramus has stuck an about to be deleted tag on them, and made them impossible to edit so one can't remonstrate, what the hell is going on here? I upoad images to suit a particular page, in this case an FA, not for some fuckwit to upload to commons so they cant be displayed properly. Giano (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It get's worse, how dare they say they are going to delete this page Image:MentmoreGandhall.gif when having moved it to commons they are incapable of dsplaying it? How many of othetr of the images I've upoaded has their stupidity ruined? Giano (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The page they want to delete is about to go to shit anyhow. It only looks okay to you because there is a cached thumbnail at the size you are viewing it at. But that won't stay in the cache forever, and as soon as it expires, the Wikipedia image will look just as shit as the Commons image. "I don't want the cache purged" is a pretty crap reason not to move an image to Commons; I tell you what, I'll just purge the image for you now, so you don't have anything to complain about.... Hesperian 00:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, whoever it was who did that, they obviously thought they were helping. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And they certainly weren't causing any harm.Commons is exactly where they should be seeing as they are public domian and don't contain any text. Moving them to commons isn't causing the display problems. That's caused by the combination of an inappropriate gif format coupled with the thumbnailing being turned off. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

118.137.x.x vandal back again

Well, this user's back at it again. Like with this report and this one, this user is back to the same tricks again (vandalizing articles about Japanese animation companies to make it look like they're owned by American companies). Despite a block to the 118.137.x.x range, this user is getting around it. This time, they're on a different IP range:

• 61.247.11.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.247.11.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Further information can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/118.137.20.170. Is there a way to get this new range this person is working from blocked? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some strange vandals out there; very odd fetishs they do have. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:61.247.11.0/24, which blocks the 61.247.11.0 - 61.247.11.255 range for a month. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now he's back as 125.161.63.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 08:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 61.247.11.0/24 for 1 month. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Failcyclopedia.com

Resolved

 – Article speedy-deleted under A7

The article Failcyclopedia.com was just recently created by User:Carbide20. I sent the article to AfD based on lack of notability, but when I went to google the website I found that google had removed the site from its listings, presumably because of complaints of child pornography! I went back and removed all direct links to the site and made a comment on the AfD. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to let the AfD run its course, or if this article needs to be deleted ASAP because of the child porn allegations, so I'm posting here for decisive action to be taken one way or another by an administrator. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the site. It's a wiki with a bunch of copyvio material on it, but having browsed all ~80 images that have been uploaded to it, I saw no indication of child pornography (and only a small amount of regular pornography). I don't see any reason to treat this differently from any other non-notable website. Dragons flight (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to search for the child porn too. (That sounds a bit wrong, but... anyway...) I can't see any, but remember that Carbide20 and his mate probably have oversight privileges... they can probably remove it and have it deleted from the edit history. The entire content of the 'pedia is thoroughly objectionable, and some of it could be illegal in Australia (where we have laws against racial vilification). I think that the article is destined to fail on the basis of notability, regardless of the child-porn allegations. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was just speedied under criteria G7, but thanks for your input. Themfromspace (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an Encyclopedia Dramatica wannabe, but not as notable. Deletion on non-notability basis seems proper. It does concern me that Google apparently de-indexes sites based on mere accusations of child porn, even when they may be unfounded; can anybody get their enemies' sites deleted that way? If the McCain campaign reported Obama's site as "child porn", would Google de-index it first and ask questions later? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Abtract (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the site in google's listings. I think the removal was temporary. May I suggest we remove this section (I'm not sure anyone wants to have their site name near a "child pornography" accusation)? -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The site has only had content for about 3 days, so I'm not surprised if Google has only just indexed it. As to the child porn allegations, we don't have enough information. I've emailed the IWF but haven't had a reply. Given the content of failcyclopedia, I would not be at all surprised if they had child porn. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Eberle

I deleted this bio as a obvious WP:BLP violation, as attacky as it could be with the sources include PRwatch, bio been like that for almost three years (early 2006). Just commenting here as I'm mostly inactive in this project now, and the deletion could be contorversal from some. Thanks Secret ^account 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, PRWatch doesn't look like a great reliable source, and the other sources are all to an animal advocacy group website... BLP issues galore... yeah, probably a good deletion there. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Freshacconci revert warring at Citizens for a Canadian Republic and mislabeling his reverts

I added legitimate and sourced information, explaining that the views of a prominent member of that group's executive committee belonged in the article, and User:Freshacconci censored me by reverting me twice. [51] He is at 2RR and so am I. I was about to revert him again but decided to come here instead. This kind of censorship and bullying from a self-proclaimed republican like him needs to stop. He also needs to be reminded to properly label his reverts. He doesn't even bother discussing bother reverting. If you look at the articles history he reverts seconds after I post the information. He reverts me one last time, informing me on my talk page that he will revert to try to lure me into 3RR [52] and then says I should discuss. This user should read WP:OWN.

All my edits had summaries. I asked this editor to take this to the talk page rather than edit warring, as seen here. He eventually did, but still reverted my edits once more. In any case, the discussion is now on the talk page. freshacconci talktalk 00:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, after reverting me again [53]. This is not civil behaviour. He is clearly trying to WP:OWN the article and have his way. Laval (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore his summaries were evasive and not labeled as reverts. If anything he should be blocked for his behaviour. Again, he reverts seconds after I made my edits and then tells me I should discuss, after he has reverted me. I am not going to be able to work productively with this user because I am adamant on including this information because it is valid and belongs there and I am sure he will keep reverting me in the days and weeks to come. Laval (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He is clearly trying to WP:OWN the article and have his way. Laval (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore his summaries were evasive and not labeled as reverts. If anything he should be blocked for his behaviour. Again, he reverts seconds after I made my edits and then tells me I should discuss, after he has reverted me. I am not going to be able to work productively with this user because I am adamant on including this information because it is valid and belongs there and I am sure he will keep reverting me in the days and weeks to come. Laval (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And as I can see, he he has bothered responding to me on the talk page of the article. For this user, the matter is not open to discussion. He just doesn't want the information there because he doesn't like it. Amazing. Laval (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article-in-question is currently under AfD. This edit war may turn out to be pointless. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true! freshacconci talktalk 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the user in question. He reverts me mere seconds after I make my edit. That's lame. Laval (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If admins don't sanction this user I am going to revert him one last time because he cannot be allowed to get away with this. He cannot force users to discuss after he reverts and then tempts me to revert him. Laval (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I've said what I had to say on the talk page. Both Laval and I crossed the line with edit warring. For that I apologize. I consider this matter over. freshacconci talktalk

Thats very convenient since he has used up his 3RR and has his version active right now. Laval (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He also accused me of making a "bad faith edit" [54] when it was entirely in good faith. He didn't assume good faith at all from the beginning. Laval (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just don't revert each other anymore. Let's hope that article doesn't get locked. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have a better idea. HalfShadow 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Laval, why the need for second section below? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have reviewed Laval's contributions and agree that they are problematic. Most of what Laval writes, reads as personal opinion and is euther unsourced or sourced to primary sources, see the section "non-American union" added here: [55], sourced from YouTube videos and activist websites with no intervening filter of reliable independent analysis. I can quite understand why many of these changes are being reverted or significantly revised. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts‎

Resolved

 – No admin action needed, WQA thread is the place for this, so closing the AN thread to prevent discussion bifurcation. --barneca (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion about User:Silly_rabbit on that page. The dispute does not seem to be resolved (going on for quite a while). Although silly rabbit is a respected editor, someone has accused him of incivility. Could an admin please participate in the discussion and take the most appropriate action against silly rabbit (if any) (User:LowKey accused User:Silly_rabbit)? Silly rabbit was blocked by an admin (prior to the dispute) for WP:3RR (incivility in edit summaries (see the history of Fidel Castro)) and has continued this abuse (according to User:LowKey the problem is now more 'incivility').

Thanks for your help.

Topology Expert (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really starting to feel a bit baited by this whole affair. Lowkey got all worked up over a stupid edit summary, perhaps ill-advised, but certainly not as incivil as all of this seems to make it seem. My earlier block was because of an accidental WP:3RR violation because of a single-purpose account who was pushing some POV into the Fidel Castro article. I gave the blocking admin a piece of my mind over the affair, and came within epsilon of retiring because of it. Now this Lowkey business is totally without any merit, and I have no idea why Topology Expert is lobbying to have me censured over it. But if the community has it in for me, then I can make it easy for everyone and retire, since I was considering this course of action anyway. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I definitely was not 'lobbying to have silly rabbit censured' over the dispute. I was in this dispute 'for silly rabbit' until LowKey tried to convince me to be 'against him'. The evidence was convincing (to someone who does not know anything about flood geology (I still don't understand what the name means!)) so I went 'neutral'. I only bought it up here 'on behalf' of user LowKey (and this in now way meant that I supported him).

It would certainly be a great loss to Wikipedia if silly rabbit retired since he is definitely a valuable contributor. Now as far as I understand, LowKey bought up the issue over just one edit summary. The only reason why I 'supported' LowKey was because I did not understand the dispute fully (if at all). Now I do, and I think that LowKey was wrong to bring up a dispute over just one edit summary and could have handled it in a less 'public' manner. Hopefully this dispute will be closed and we can get back to normal editing (I now understand the fidel castro issue properly and I was wrong to make that summary).

Topology Expert (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert,

1. Your summary of Silly rabbit's block history/rationale is inaccurate. It was a 3RR block, recinded 1 hour later by the blocking admin.
2. The discussion at Wikiquette alerts (God, what a stupid name; can't we do better?) seems to have been going on, not for quite a while, but for a little less than a day.
3. An admin, User:dave souza, has already commented on the thread there.
4. This certainly seems to be a mountain out of a molehill.
5. Above, Silly rabbit calls his edit summary "ill-advised", which is certainly enough for me; it was fairly minor, wasn't directed at anyone in particular, no one has presented any diffs to show it is a pattern, etc, etc.

Since you've asked an admin to chime in at WP:WQA, and one already has, and since no admin is going to take action against Silly rabbit for one isolated gruff edit summary, there's no reason to keep this WP:AN thread open. For those who wish to chime in, the WP:WQA thread is a better place, but I'd consider it closed, myself. --barneca (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sure SR is aware by now that someone was miffed by the comment, but I don't see that they intentionally attacked a specific editor, nor do I see a pattern of problematic comments here. If this isn't an ongoing problem, I should think that moving on in a spirit of cooperation is the best way to go. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Something's cookin'

Check this out!

The title reads Creating the Bosniak/Croat/Albanian/Montenegran/Macedonian/Hungarian/Turkish Lobbyist group which will oppose the SerboGreek aggression on Wikipedia

Lobbyist group? This thing started by User:Bosniak Atheist, and openly supported by User:GriffinSB and User:Cradel is quite... well, how do I put it... racist, anti-Greek, anti-Serb, anti-Wikipedia. I mean, seriously, lobbyist group?! What is this, an encyclopedia or a place to spread political, ethnic and who knows what other interests!

I urge the Wikipedia administrators to take some action to contain this. I know that you will make the right decision and hope that we build Wikipedia on good faith, not.. lobbyist groups. Thank you, --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for political agendas. This BCAMMHT thingy, doesn't look good. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.. but what can be done? --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:Bosniak Atheist posted this on his user page: "Please sign in here if you want to join the Bosniak Wikipedia Lobby group" --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

His own page essentially states he's a single-purpose account. That's a blockable offense. HalfShadow 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "lobby" thing from the user page, and left him a long note/warning on the user's talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bože pravde and ARBMAC

Ok, very convenient. I would like to request the community to scrupulously examine the behavior of Bože pravde (talk · contribs) against the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia (take some random diffs). The editor has long been aware of the sanctions: [56]. Colchicum (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have spent many hours discussing things on the Talk:Kosovo page, but no matter what consensus is reached, Albanian editors on Wikipedia keep changing the many articles to their own anti-Serb, anti-Greek bias. This is done especially by User:Cradel, who is part of the Lobbyist group listed above. I do revert his edits from time to time, as well as edits by users who write nothing on any Kosovo-related talk pages. If people read the Talk:Kosovo page, they will see that I do give my reasoning and that it is supported by other editors on Wikipedia. However, there is an endless number of single-purpose user accounts, biased editors and those who tell me and other editors to "accept the facts", while they really want us to accept their interpretation of the facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If the administrators still feel that I was wrong in my approach, I will accept it and apologize. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not a newbie, however. Could you please explain how a move from Brezovica, Kosovo to Brezovica, Serbia [57] or change from Kosovo to Kosovo, Serbia [58][59], make Wikipedia more neutral? It is a fact that Brezovica is in Kosovo, regardless of whether Kosovo is independent. Whether Brezovica and Kosovo are in Serbia is a matter of POV. And such are most of your contributions, as far as I see. Colchicum (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is actually a good advice to read Talk:Kosovo. Somebody needs to step into the mess, as the article is (in theory) under probation. Colchicum (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And this is edit-warring against the established consensus. Not a single line from you on the talk page. Colchicum (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted this was put to AN. I'd be very happy if some more users could monitor the article Kosovo and the talkpage. Sometimes it needs some neutral involvement. It has already been put to arbcom's probation but nobody enforces it. --Tone 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Images linking to pages

While we've always had the ability to link to somewhere other than the image description page (using various hacks), it's now possible to do so using standard image syntax. For example: [[Image:Foo.png|20px|link=Main Page]]

Has there been discussion about when doing so would be appropriate and when it would not be? I imagine we would always want non-free content to link to the image description page, but what about other images (icons, logos, etc.)? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My quick take on this is that if an image looks like an object (like a button labeled "instructions"), it could have different destination than the image page. In such cases the expectation is that the object should do something when clicked. If the expectation is that you would want to know about the image, or see a larger version, it should not. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My quick take on this is that you should only do it with PD images or images not requiring attribution. Otherwise we risk being in breach of the licenses. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to object to the creation of freer-than-free public domain alternatives to any already free GFDL icon art we might currently use—honestly, who could say no to more free stuff (both in quantity and degree of freeness)…? On the other hand I just noticed when I click on the upper-left logo, I'm taken to Main Page, not to the description of Image:Wiki.png, an image which is far from free… — CharlotteWebb 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Current possibilities

There is currently a request to enable the image links at a few Wikimedia project related templates. They are Template:Wikibooks, Template:Wikinews, Template:Wikiquote, Template:Wikisource, Template:Wikispecies, and Template:Wiktionary. Thoughts on these ones specifically? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I already did that on {{Commons}} a couple of days ago, no screams of horror so far. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD problem

Resolved

 – AfD closed as delete

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this AfD for the International Gaming Tour? It's the target of a rather persistent IP sock (case detailed here). I see three possibilities: 1) Do nothing. The closing admin probably would see through the BS, but in the meantime, we have a mess of a page and it might unduly influence any naive !voters. 2) Protect the page. Probably the most obvious choice; is it worth not letting other IPs have a say? and 3) Close it early as an obvious delete (this pretty much meets CSD A7), and be done with it altogether. Thanks for any opinions. Tan | 39 16:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

After some digging...the article creator was ZeroFanMission (talk · contribs)...who just so happened to have signed this AfD (closed last year) as Xgmx (talk · contribs). If one looks at User talk:Xgmx, there's an awful lot of block notices, including an autoblock notice for 4.245.73.33 (talk · contribs) -- remarkably similar to 4.245.74.168 (talk · contribs), 4.244.3.216 (talk · contribs), 4.245.21.242 (talk · contribs), & 4.245.73.195 (talk · contribs), the IPs that keep showing up to "save" International Gaming Tour. Time to hand out some blocks... — Scientizzle 16:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you didn't do all that without first clicking the sock report I linked to above. Blocking will do nothing, IMO. Tan | 39 16:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I did miss your 2nd link, but all this took ~1 minute to find, so I don't feel that bad. As for the AfD, it's closed. — Scientizzle 16:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Option 3 it is. Thanks Scientizzle. Tan | 39 16:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia edit war

Right now, User:7876 ann arbor street (likely a Conservapedia editor based on the link on his userpage) and User:JoshuaZ are continuing to revert to a rewording of the article's mention of RationalWiki, inserting a claim that Dr. Peter Lipson, the founder of RationalWiki, and those who founded the site with him personally orchestrate vandalism of Conservapedia, using this LA Times source as evidence. (See these diffs [60] [61], in the second, JoshuaZ also discreetly removes the article's internal link to the RationalWiki article without mentioning this in the edit summary). Here is the quote from the article that he is using to support this claim:

" After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And – by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism."

As the article does not elaborate on any specific admission or include any quotes by Lipson that he personally orchestrates vandalism of Conservapedia, nor does it include any from the other editors who founded the site with him (or even mention them by name), this statement in the LA Times article seems much too vague and unverifiable to be included in the article and presented as fact. This seems like a violation of WP:BLP on the part of a Conservapedia editor who is attempting to insert an anti-RationalWiki bias into the article. I would like help in resolving this.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is at AN. It is a pure content dispute. If it had to go anywhere it should be WP:ANI or WP:BLPN if anywhere at all. I've explained my actions in detail at the relevant talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that ParisianBlade appears to have violated 3RR, too. looie496 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I have. I've made exactly three reversions today, and I made one reversion of the same content yesterday.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I'm only counting three reversions. In any event, Tznkai protected the page so no need to block anyone. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Its an edit war! Page protected for 3 days, other admins are invited to override if and only if they want to help sort it out.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To me this issue deserves being discussed on the admin noticeboard as potentially libelous content is being inserted into the article. The LA Times source is also libelous in my opinion as it does not contain a quote by Lipson or tell when and where he made the quote that he personally organizes vandalism of Conservapedia but simply makes a generic statement. WP:BLP comes to mind.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on the quote says that he personally organizes vandalism and there's no reason you would think so from reading either the LA Times article or the Wikipedia article. And I already tried to explain to you, neither of those is a reason to be at WP:AN. The proper places for such concerns would be WP:BLPN or WP:ANI. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RationalWiki seems to be Conservapedia's Wikipedia Review, complete with an apparent BADSITES policy on Conservapedia that suppresses links to it. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote specifically says "From there (RationalWiki) they (Lipson and several other editors) monitor Conservapedia, and by their own admission, engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." It does indeed state that Lipson admits to personally vandaliing Conservapedia yet cannot provide any quote by him in which he has (and I've yet to find one on a Google search). If you think this should be moved to WP:ANI, feel free to do it.--ParisianBlade (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Parisian, please discuss this on the relevant talk page and stop cluttering up AN. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there is a serious "outing" issue regarding the "people who want to destroy us" quote. The young lady to whom this is attributed in Stephanie Simon's report has been editing Conservapedia for two years and holds the rank of bureaucrat, so I'm certain she realizes that her username can be easily determined from the edit history of the Irish dancing article of which Ms. Simon credits her as the author.

I much more concerned about the username of the other user. At first I supposed the address was probably that of the headquarters of one of these feuding organizations, but instead I found that it clearly belongs to a suburban residence in Dexter, Michigan. According to Google Maps (the second-best web site ever...) it is a unique address, requiring no "disambiguation" as us Wikipedians would say, see [62]).

Now I don't know or care who lives there and I can only speak for myself, but hear me out: My assumption of good faith is heavily outweighed by my assumption that nobody in this post-modern, post-Ted Kaczynski, post-Tommy Tutone world is foolish enough to post their own home address (much less register it as a username) on this or any other internet site, thus I am almost certain it is that of an unsuspecting victim.

For this reason alone I propose an indefinite block and an involuntary renaming for the above-mentioned user. Feel free to courtesy-blank this thread if and when this is done. — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree 100% with username block, possibly with a renaming to follow, if that would help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, according to the user, Milo Radulovich lived there 55 years ago, but he obviously doesn't live there now, and I doubt it's vacant. I can't tell exactly which house it is from the satellite photo but most of them have cars parked nearby… — CharlotteWebb 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How can I get the attention of sockpuppet category creators?

I'm looking for a simple way to get the attention of people who create sockpuppet categories. I want to ask/remind them to include {{Sockpuppet category}} when creating these pages, because doing so will keep the category from showing up on reports such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Any advice? - Stepheng3 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Try posting to WT:RFCU and WT:SSP. MBisanz ^talk 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done this. Thanks! - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Be Black Hole Sun and his socks...

First of all, I suggest before discussing, if you haven't already read this thread, then you should now. I am starting this because I do not feel that whether or not BBHS gets a second chance or not should be at the discretion of one sysop. I think it should be a general consensus, because of the differing opinions on this case. This will likely satisfy more people. I'll start with my personal opinion:

• Keep Blocked - I think he really deserves one last chance. People can always change, and we should always assume good faith. It's not like it is impossible to reblock him if he turns out to be a complete liar just looking to harass more and more people. And, if he wanted to harass more people, why wouldn't he be doing it from his talk page, where he is now allowed to edit? I think he has changed. However, I do think he should issue personal apologies to everyone he has harrassed. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, per the below votes, maybe he isn't to be trusted just yet. _David^WS _(contribs) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep block Permanent ban - socking around scant hours before asking to be unblocked? No good. I would support the restrictions posted on his talk page, except that we can't (yet) trust that he won't create more socks. I suggest running a CU to root out the entire sock farm, and if he can spend three months without creating another one, he can come back with six months of severe restrictions. [roux » x] 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Per my comments below, this was a second-chance account, and he blew it. [roux » x] 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked The standard procedure, which has been used successfully before, is that the user who has been blocked for any issue has to convincingly show he will not commit the offense again. This guy has to prove that they really intend to stop socking. If this user refrains from creating any more sockpuppet accounts for say, a month or so, I would be willing to revisit the issue. But this is to close in time to his most recent socking. So in summation: if he refrains from creating any more accounts OR from using anonymous IP addresses to avoid the current block for 1 month or so, I would support an unblock, but its too soon now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, but I am going to once again go back to WP:AGF. I know he has in the past been dishonest and made socks (yes, even just a little while before the unblock request, but I'll discuss that later if you'd like), why wait one month? I would, at most, wait a week. My reasoning is that (at least to my knowledge) he has never before submit an unblock request, acting honest, and then come back and violate policy again. If so, then my argument for not waiting is void. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My answer to the idea of AGF here, so soon after multiple socking abuses, is that I am not so much green as I am cabbage-looking. We don't have to assume good faith when it's been proven that there isn't much to be assumed. The ideal is good, and kudos to you for doing it, but it's like not arresting someone who promises they won't break into your house again and PS here's the radio they took five minutes ago... [roux » x] 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And my response: that's an okay analogy but, again, Wikipedia is different. Now, what about if we unblock him, keep him to a 1RR handcuff, AND prevent account creation from any IP he has ever used, just in case he's being dishonest. Maybe we should wait a while, but still, I really think he is truly sorry. Anyway, we'll see, I guess. I think it should be discussed by multiple sysops. I'm now sort of leaning towards Very Weak Unblock, not Unblock, as I see both sides. _David^WS _(contribs) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at this edit from one of Be Black Hole Sun's weekend sockpuppets.[63]. I think the edit summary speaks volumes here. "give up". This is a user with an attitude that is belligerent... who has no respect for Wikipedia policy at alll... and their non-sincerity in promising to be good has long since stopped fooling anyone around here. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that edit summary makes me lose faith in, well, his good faith. If he had done that today (I'll look) then I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY change my opinion to keep blocked. However, if he has not, you might say that that was enough time to change. However, he needs to understand "discuss to gain a consensus". Yeah, I'm really thinking more negatively now... _David^WS _(contribs) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep blocked unless the editor is willing to commit to a strict 1RR handcuff and agree to a topic ban of 1 full year on all music related articles. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked PERMA BAN (As per below, I didn't know that BBHS was his last chance account) - I spent so much time hunting down this guys socks. Honestly, if I was in trouble too, then I'd apologise. Would you? He's taunted me, attacked me, and generally made my life difficult as I blocked every single one of his socks. He was socking just one hour before requesting his first unblock. No way. If anyone unblocks him after he's done something like that then I will be having words with that admin. He's had so many second chances. He knows that socking is wrong, yet, he still does it. Many, many, many times over. He needs to stay blocked for good. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - if only he didn't sock an hour before requesting unblock - I might think differently. iMatthew 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Would support unblocking if he accepted some voluntary restrictions and also took on a mentor. I should also point out that until earlier this morning, he was locked from editing his own talk page, so he had no other way to contact someone and ask about unblocking except by creating another account. –xeno (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Other than Special:Emailuser, unblock-en-l and arbcom-l, of course. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, but I don't think the user was familiar with those processes. –xeno (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that he has created dozens of accounts and used IPs to evade his block and not once did he attempt any sort of contact with any of the numerous administrators who have blocked him in the past to try and plea his case for re-instatement. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh? –xeno (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of that "attempt" this morning, he still had hundreds of opportunities to attempt to contact an admin regarding unblocking. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep blocked This guy was yesterday creating socks at a rate almost too quick to keep up with; only by watching Special:LogNew/users was there a hope of monitoring the situation and reacting effectively. Today's contrition may be genuine, or it may not, but my preference would be to leave substantial time to elapse with zero socking before this editor should be considered to have reformed. --Rodhullandemu 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - Socking less than 12 hours ago? I don't think so; I can't believe we're even discussing this. AGF isn't a suicide pact. Mr.Z-man 22:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - A 1-year ban should be considered. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep blocked and I would support a one year ban. This user has shown no reason for the community to accept him or her back. Enigma ^message 01:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Time frame for unblocking

Since it appears it's snowing, do some of the people who want him to remain blocked want to set out a time frame and also perhaps offer BBHS some advice on how he can re-earn your trust? It does appear he wants to reform and return to building the encyclopedia in a hopefully collegial fashion. –xeno (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose the following, adapted from Libs' statement:

• 1 month block; talkpage unblocked and may use talkpage for proposing changes to articles
• After 1 month, if no socks have been created in that time as confirmed by CheckUser (he has freely admitted which IPs are his, and I'm guessing can give permission for a CU to be run on himself), unblocked with a soft topic-ban on music related articles; must propose changes to mentors and implement only if approved. To last for three months.
• Held to strict 1RR on all articles for three months after unblock, broadly construed.
• After three months, all restrictions lifted, but held to 2RR for three months, broadly construed.
• Any socking results in an immediate and permanent ban.
• Is required to take on two mentors and abide by their advice for six months following unblock.

Thoughts? [roux » x] 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Masters deserve 1-year bans. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I can AGF, but I say:

• 3 month block
• If sock-free then he can edit with a hard-topic ban on music articles to last for a full 6 months. If no incidents he can move down to a soft topic ban for another 6 months.
• Held to a strict 1RR for 3 months following re-instatement followed by a 2RR for 3 more months if first 3 months are incident free.
• Any socking/breaking these rules=permanent ban from Wikipedia.

He has earned the ball and chain. Must work hard to have it removed. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) If this is to be passed, I would prefer it if he was also placed on a seriously strong civility parole, to the extent that if he says anything that can be construde as rude, then he would also be permanently banned for that. He's been blocked for aggressive editing (i.e. "Shouting" in edit summaries etc.) and I think this should be reflected in the community sanctions. Also, I think a 1 month straight block is too short; he's probably fuming, so he'd probably want to take out his anger at certain people (probably myself included), so I would recommend keeping him blocked for longer as a preventative measure. (Re above: 3 months would be okay) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, for all my advancing years and physical decrepitude, I can see where BBHS is coming from. He has shown himself to be a competent author, taking articles to both GA & FA. In some senses, he reminds me of me at his age (and I can only pitch in general terms what that might be), that is, competent but impatient. Certainly, some block for him to get over his behavioural issues and realise that he is in a cooperative environment might be beneficial both for the project (which must take priority) and himself. Three months at his age is a long time, and likely to be seen as punitive rather than rehabilitatitve. One month might be enough here, I feel, as long as it's a very, very clean month, especially with respect to civility. He should learn to count to ten. One step out of line should, in the current circumstances, be the final straw. --Rodhullandemu 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When I was 15 it was the peak of the disco craze and the Bee Gees were on every AM radio station... but I still knew how to calm my own anger issues at that time. I can agree to a compromise of a 6 week complete ban... followed by all my earlier proposed restrictions. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How about we keep him blocked and see what he does? We tell him the smartest thing to do is wait and request an unblock without socking. He can make up his mind as to when. If he wants to play and request unblock within a day, I'm not unblocking him (and I doubt anyone else will). He should be smart enough to realize when he wants to request an unblock. I'd say a few months and nobody should be playing the "he's too young to be mature enough to handle waiting." If he can't wait to be given the permission to edit freely, he doesn't deserve it; if he's too immature (doesn't matter about his age, we have plenty of adults who are ridiculously immature) then he doesn't deserve the privilege of editing here. If he's remotely serious about wanting to help, he can use the talk page and {{helpme}} requests to prove he is willing to be useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, it was a tough decision for me to indef block BBHS. I've worked with him on a number of things, mostly at WP:FLC, and I've seen what good he can do; however, when I saw he was violating WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK after being given a second chance on en:WP, I felt that there was no other option and put my personal feelings aside.

If the community feel that he should be unblocked then I am happy to go along with that, although considering he has a history of such behaviour (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wellwater Conspiracy, no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for Gaius nepos, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wellwater Conspiracy) and that this is his second chance account, and then went and committed the same offenses (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Be Black Hole Sun and Block log of User:Be Black Hole Sun), if it were up to me alone I wouldn't unblock. Despite his good contributions, it is my feeling that they are outweighed by his bad contributions.

If he is unblocked, I think some of Roux's and some of Wiki libs' suggestions should be implemented:

• 3 month block, starting today - time served does not count because the reasons for blocking continued
• talkpage unblocked and may use talkpage for proposing changes to articles
• After 3 months, if no socks have been created in that time as confirmed by CheckUser (he has freely admitted which IPs are his, and I'm guessing can give permission for a CU to be run on himself), unblocked with a soft topic-ban on music related articles; must propose changes to mentors and implement only if approved. To last for three months.
• Must only edit using the User:Be Black Hole Sun username. No IP edits, no sock edits.
• Held to a strict 1RR for 3 months following re-instatement followed by a 2RR for 3 more months if first 3 months are incident free.
• Any violations of WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK (the original blocking reasons) will result in a permanent WP ban, with absolutely NO MORE CHANCES

I've seen editors blocked for longer than a month for doing less that what BBHS has done, so if it is decided to reduce the indef block, a three month block sounds better to me. But, whatever block is decided should start from today. From the day I blocked him through to today, he has continued to edit under IPs and socks. In fact, he was socking prolifically over the weekend and continued his MO of incivility, reverting, edit warring and vandalism. Time served should therefore not be included into any new block of a period of time.

During the blocking period, he must not create a single sock account or edit using an IP. A block is a block. After being unblocked, he must edit under his account only, and mustn't make any edits with an IP or sock account so that his edits are visible and be watched. I think the idea of 1RR is good, considering how many times he's done it, and how many times he's been blocked for it. I also think that a soft topic ban would be better than a hard topic ban, considering that's where his good edits are focussed. His good edits are good when he keeps a cool head, it's just that the problems arise when that level-headedness is lost. Mentorship is also a good idea, I would strongly recommend him seeking mentorship, and possibly Editor review.

That's my 2c on the matter, at the moment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea this was a second-chance account. I retract all of my previous suggestions in their entirety; permaban. [roux » x] 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't exactly know either. I'd heard of the Wellwater conspiracy accounts but, wow, I had no idea there were that many accounts involved. I agree with roux. Someone who agreed to stop socking a few months ago, and then went on a giant sock rampage just recently, should be banned. Sure, he can contribute positively, but for someone who has such a blatant disregard for our policies, he should be permabanned. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, he lied here. He's been around long enough to know our core policies. He has received warnings for incivility, vandalism, sockpuppeting, 3RR, and he has also received welcome templates on his talk. Naturally through the learning curve, everyone learns of our policies. There is no chance that he went through his Wiki career and did not learn anything. In my view, he's simply playing ignorant to appear in a better light. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't notice that one. Admins, please give this charming fellow a permanent invitation to the world. [roux » x] 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see that either. He obviously knew the policies at that point. Wow, that is really annoying. I'm thinking along the lines of BANHAMMERING him, now. _David^WS _(contribs) 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

BBHS has agreed to take a 1-3 month break from wiki (no socking) and we'll revisit this at that time. People can change. –xeno (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. _David^WS _(contribs) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He was given a second chance; presumably that second chance included a strict 'don't you dare sock' clause? He deserves at least a year off, if not a permanent ban. [roux » x] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. –xeno (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Freshacconci still tracking my edits and edit warring, this time at Charles Roach

See [64]. He is still leveling false bad faith accusations at me and reverting my edits. Please tell this user to stop harassing me and stop deleting my info without bothering to discuss. He has already reached 3RR on one article and is posed to do the same here. A pattern is emerging here. He is literally trolling blatantly now. Laval (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not permitted to edit articles that I choose? I am editing clear violations of WP:BLP which is a serious issue. I am not edit warring and did not revert anything. I removed information that was also removed at a different article by a different editor. I do not appreciate these uncivil accusations on Laval's part. I am making good faith edits to a number of related articles. That's all. Please judge for yourselves. freshacconci talktalk 05:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor is really getting tiresome. He clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines and uses them like a stick to beat me with. He makes all sorts of accusations, accusing me of bad faith and then at the same time telling me I should assume good faith in him! He edit wars without discussion, claims that there is no consensus when discussion hasn't been engaged, and continues reverting while at the same time accusing me of being the problem! Laval (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How does the above user justify reverting another editor mere seconds after an edit has been made? Laval (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea: both of you go edit other pages and avoid one another. Easy fix to the problem. Having said that, Laval, your edit to Charles Roach was in fact problematic under WP:BLP; the same information was quite rightly removed for a similar reason from the Citizens for a Canadian Republic article here. I'm going to suggest to Freshacconci not to mess with your edits, but to discuss them on the talk page; in return, I suggest that you avoid adding information that isn't properly sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad to abide by all of this. I do expect an apology for being referred to as a troll and claims about my "fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines", since I've been proved correct here. But I won't hold my breath. As for the Citizens for a Canadian Republic article, I've mentioned on the AFD discussion that I've found a great deal of sources that I wlould like to add when I have time, some time tomorrow. Other than that, I have no intention of dealing with Laval in any capacity after this. Life's too short for this nonsense. freshacconci talktalk 05:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I will never apologize to you. Your behaviour is rude and condescending and you revert edits seconds after a person makes them. Your behaviour clearly reveals trolling habits. Notice how nobody disagrees with at least that part of my argument against you since you obviously stalked me from article to article. Laval (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

One would assume that when the member of the executive committee makes a statement about another member of the same executive committee of the same organization, that this information would be legitimate. I disagree with this interpretion of the guideline. In certain cases such as this, blogs should be valid. Laval (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See [65] - the fact that a member of the executive committee would make such statements about another member of the same organization in my opinion should be allowed, otherwise the whole truth is not being made available to the public. Laval (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Truth isn't the issue. Verifiability is. You have a random blog by "J.J." and you are taking a whole lot out of that. Agree with Tony, this isn't sourced remotely well. Get some actual press about the dispute or otherwise drop it. It's giving way too undue weight to McCullough's view. If you want to continue this, go to Talk:Charles Roach. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

'kay, for general information, I've asked both editors to saty away from one another; I've informed User:Laval that blogs are not valid sources for BLPs (and if that's not good enough, he's going to have to take it up by trying to change the BLP policy or the reliable sources guidelines, really), and if this sniping continues, I'm going to start being a cranky fox, and cranky foxes with block buttons are not your friends. =P Hopefully, this defuses the situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3) Freshacconci has acted quite correctly per BLP and should not be advised to "steer clear". He should be encouraged to keep up his vigilance. Any negative comment about his action is totally out of order. Ty 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ty. I admit I get a bit hot under the collar at times (and did admit to the first bit of edit warring mentioned above), but this has gotten out of hand. I know this is out of your area of interest (I mean, Canadian politics!) But if you could have a gander at the AFD discussion at Citizens for a Canadian Republic and see if I'm being out of line here or not with some of the issues (including WP:V and WP:BLP). freshacconci talktalk 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked that if he sees an issue that he brings it up with a neutral party, such as myself, to try and bring the war down to a manageable level. Quite appropriate, I'd suggest. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Ty 05:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've left a note for Laval pointing out that if he wants to avoid trouble he should use reliabel independent sources rather than blogs, activist websites and YouTube videos. The major problem here is that what Laval writes looks very much like his own analysis, and any editor is likely to revert this kind of thing: [66], and edits that quote blogs as calling article subjects "dumb" are unlikely to be accepted as sources either. I think Laval should steer clear of any articles related to CCR unless he can show that he can edit in a neutral manner compliant with policies; in my view he has violated WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV with some of his recent edits, and I don't think that's a good sign. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I was surprised to see Freshacconci's name here as I am familiar with his history as a good editor. It is problematic when an editor like him addresses unacceptable content and is then attacked. I hope Tony Fox's suggestions will act as a buffer. Ty 01:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone wants something to do

Wikipedia:Database reports is essentially a better, actually updating version of the special pages list. There are also several reports that the special pages list doesn't include.

• Broken redirects - Most of these need to be deleted
• Cross-namespace redirects - Many of these need to be RfD'd
• Empty categories - Most of these need to be deleted as C1
• Indefinitely fully-protected articles - Mostly for informative purposes, perhaps the older ones should be evaluated for unprotection
• Indefinitely-blocked IPs - Most of these need to be unblocked
• Polluted categories - Need to remove user pages from mainspace categories (and, occasionally, vice versa)
• Self-categorized categories - Need to remove categories from themselves
• Uncategorized categories - Need to categorize
• User categories - Mostly just a list for me to make it easier to find categories to bring to UCFD, but if you can find another purpose, go for it

--VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

time and date

Is there any particular reason why the title of this article appears to start with a non-capital letter? I tried moving the article to Time and date move then back to Time and date but even the page, once moved, appeared to not have a capital letter, and when moved back. --{{User:Belinrahs/sig}}{{time}} (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it has {{lowercase}} on the top, which makes the article title display without capital letters. The title appears in the database with the first letter capitalised. I've deleted the "Time and date move" redirect. Graham87 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comments about blocking policy

An interesting RfC is ongoing about the actions of admin Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), who overturned a block of one of his allies, Mathsci (talk · contribs), without consulting with the blocking admin, Charles Matthews (talk · contribs). Specific questions being covered:

• Should an admin be required to consult with the blocking admin, before overturning a block?
• Is it acceptable for an admin to use tools in support of an editor, if that editor is one of the admin's regular allies in other editing disputes?

Comments and opinions are welcome at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII. --Elonka 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that these editors are "allies" is an issue being discussed in the RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm pretty familiar with the case, I think the word is appropriate, and I'm happy to provide dozens of diffs if there is a question on this point. --Elonka 17:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was the word you used in your comment in the RfC and that view may be endorsed by other editors in the future. However, I thought it would be helpful for people not familiar with the issues to note that this is presently one of several viewpoints under discussion, not an uncontroversial "fact" accepted by all parties. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not neutrally worded and should be amended, please. Verbal chat 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Elonka's view (claiming that Mathsci and Slrubenstein are allies) hasn't yet been endorsed by any other editor, and has been in fact denied by one of the parties[67].--Ramdrake (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Blah reading the RFC, the problem looks like it was just a misunderstanding (those are the opinions with the most supporting them). There is already a bit in the admin policy about making sure to put any extra info in the block reason. —— nixeagle 17:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That bit of policy was added after this situation occurred because we realized that the documentation was not as clueful as it could be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we can put that in as a requirement, since it may not be possible to contact the blocking editor. It's a good idea to do so, of course, but if the blocking Admin doesn't reply, that shouldn't be a reason to unblock. As for using Admin tools, so long as they are used correctly, there's no problem is there? And if they are used incorrectly, that's the problem, the incorrect use. 'Allies' doesn't have to come into it. dougweller (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Doug, please discuss it at the RfC, not at AN? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. In an earlier version of this RfC, Charles explicitly stated that "As I mentioned above, the block itself will be looked at under policy by the ArbCom, and this RfC is absolutely not about the conduct of User:Mathsci. I will take very badly any attempt to divert this conduct RfC to that matter." I confirmed privately by email with Charles 2 days ago that this still applied, with particular reference to Elonka. However, Elonka's contribution to the RfC seems to be exactly of that nature. Although I don't really feel I can make any comment on allies, whatever that means, I think I could make a very clear statement about enemies. Mathsci (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the RfC and I am not familiar with the involved editors there. I do think that Elonka should be cautioned not to leave such biased invitations to discussions in the future. (Is she an involved party in the RfC?) WP:CANVASS#Campaigning seems pretty clear on this. Cross-posting a biased announcement to high-traffic locations (including here and the Village Pump: [68]) is not a good way to get impartial participation from neutral editors, nor is it likely to aid in calming and resolving any disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist and Race Hatred edits at Schutzstaffel

The article on the SS is currently under attack by someone using anon ip edits to insert obvious Holocaust Denial edits into the article, i.e. adding the word "alledged" in front of every statement about the SS. While that alone can be dealt with, we also have have a very clearly racial motivated edit summary where the user claimed they were "reverting Zionist edits" [69]. A protection of SS might be in order and without a doubt a block on the ips making these edits. We are dealing with a race hate spouting vandal, pure and simple. -OberRanks (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd for a day. There are only 3 or 4 IP's so far, but I suspect more are in the woods. If this is not enough to break the series, we need to reconsider. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism need cleaning up

Resolved

 – Page was moved back, redirect deleted as CSD G3

• Funguy06 has moved The X Factor (UK) to The FIX Factor (UK). Can an administrator revert the move, and block the account? Please note the move was made eight hours ago. D.M.N. (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:FrankLloydGallery

FrankLloydGallery appears to be representing Frank Lloyd Galler of Santa Monica, California within Wikipedia. However, it is not clear that User:FrankLloydGallery has permission to be Frank Lloyd Galler's representative in Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 10:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:69.1.44.28

This anon, presumably a sock puppet of someone, has taken to posting incessant criticisms on my talk page without saying what he is complaining about. While I could block him myself, I would be grateful if another admin could do it for me so it doesn't look like I'm just shutting him up. Thanks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Left them a note for now, will keep an eye on it in the meantime. Block(s) forthcoming if they don't calm down a notch. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was perusing through DJ Clayworth's talk page and noticed a disgruntled user (Ford1206) with a history of disruptive editing and harassment. The IP's behavior fits this pattern, so I ran a check.  Confirmed; blocked Ford1206 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RFPP problem

Resolved

 – Thanks Collectonian. I shouldn't Wiki before my morning coffee... Tan | 39 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone more savvy than I take a look at WP:RFPP - the very last active report for LaVan Davis is not being caught by the bot although it has been resolved. In the edit screen, there is a large block of text here that seems to be definitions for all the RFPP icons... very strange. Take a look-see, help out if you can; I don't know how to fix it short of deleting that whole block of text, which is probably the solution - but just want to make sure. Tan | 39 15:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Should now be fixed. Looks like JForget accidentally did a subst instead of a regular call to the RFPP template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Advise

Could someone please refer to my request posted on the below talk page on Oct. 6, 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Delaware_North_Companies

I would like to get it resolved as I think all issues have been resolved.

Cwhit3134 (talk)

• I've just had a look at Delaware North Companies, and it still reads like an advertisement, and it needs to be wikified. I'm not sure any of this falls under the jurisdiction of AN, though. KurtRaschke (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino - violating restriction

Resolved

 – Roux has left Wikipedia due to harassment by G2bambino. G2bambino blocked for 3 weeks as a result of that, and other conduct issues.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Violating his civility restriction here, by stating that I feel I own the page. Restrictions are noted here, specifically:

"Required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator."

Given that he has already been blocked once for violating his restrictions, and was the subject of another report here within the past few days, I would ask that an administrator take a look. Several administrators have told him in no uncertain terms that he should mind his p's and q's, and one even said directly: "That means that you would be very unwise to push the envelope, or even attempt to find out where its boundaries are by experiment." [roux » x] 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being uncivil, you need to grow a thicker skin Roux. If there's more to the story, then excuse me for being dense, but the statement you are linking to above is hardly worth a second read, let alone a block for incivility. My suggestion? Avoid contact and remove G2bambino's talk page from your watchlist. - auburnpilot talk 06:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a little more history to this AuburnPilot. While I agree with you assessment, neither party will leave one another alone. This is close to the 8th thread regarding this issue. I am really not sure how to deal with it anymore. If a totally uninvolved admin (thanks for volunteering AuburnPilot! :-) ) would like to look into the situation and offer some insight, I would really appreciate it! Tiptoety ^talk 06:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already blocked the editor for violating the agreement the two of them came to. Part of that agreement was not to assume bad faith about the other. Saying that roux was owning the article/template/whatever was a bit of a stretch and does not help matters. I have blocked G2bambino for 24 hours. Anyone may undo this block if they feel it is not appropriate, however I think it is appropriate given the restrictions the two of them agreed to. (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive174#Both_editors_accepted —— nixeagle 06:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also commented further at User_talk:G2bambino#Assumption_of_bad_faith and Template talk:British Royal Family#Width 2. Auburn, sorry for bashing in like this, but you posted after I made my choice and posted to these other two pages. —— nixeagle 06:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty sound to me. Tiptoety ^talk 06:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realize this situation had gone so far. I was asked to look into it a few weeks ago (twice actually), but never had the time... Block seems reasonable enough. - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A little harsh, if I may say so... The reason the two parties won't leave each other alone is because they can't. They edit all the same articles...hence my confusion as to why they can't just get along! ;) I'd have them both indefinitely blocked if I weren't so fond of them both! :) --Cameron* 15:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cameron, I'm fond of you too--but as you know I have left all of those articles due to G2's behaviour. I just hadn't removed that one from my watchlist. [roux » x] 18:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux possibly violating restrictions

I raised this matter to Nixeagle while on my assumption of bad faith block. After discussing it with him, I'd like to present the matter here. I'm not pressing for action, but others may feel differently. Mostly, I just wanted it on the public record:

I did not initially pursue this because I tend to ignore minor insults. However, now knowing from my own recent experience just how strict the AGF restrictions upon Roux and myself are, I took a different look at the matter between he and I. This led me to see that Roux appears to have violated his AGF and CIVIL restrictions on Template talk:British Royal Family when making the following comments:

• [70] "I'm not getting into an argument with you. Mayalld explained, as did I, what the consensus on this page is. It is against changes. Bye," and,
• [71] "You know precisely what you were told and where... no change is required to this template. Period. Your attempts to override that... are beside the point; the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You have already been told this, and quite specifically, by Mayalld. I suggest you re-read his comments."

Further, he posted the following on my talk page while I was under block:

• [72] "Oh for crying out loud... Your continued insistence on doing that has gone way beyond difference of opinion into attack territory, and I won't stand for it any more. Stop... I will not be coming back here again. Bye."

There is an evident tone of sarcastic derision in Roux's words, violating his WP:CIVIL restrictions. There is also veiled accusation of my willfully ignoring a consensus in order to get what I want, as well as more direct accusations of my making attacks, violating his WP:AGF restrictions. As I said, whether or not this warrants further action, I do not know; I just felt it was worth consideration. --G2bambino (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop selectively quoting me. I've asked you before. There was no sarcasm or derision, so please stop projecting that onto me. I've asked you that before, too. There was no veiled accusation of anything; you were doing precisely what you had been expressly told not to do by Mayalld. Nixeagle made it clear that he--as the person enforcing restrictions--felt my statements were made in good faith, and I can absolutely guarantee that had he felt that I had violated the restrictions I have voluntarily agreed to he would have blocked me without a second thought. Please stop this. [roux » x] 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I respected Nixeagle taking the time to discuss the matter with me in a rational manner, though I did disagree with him, and still feel he didn't understand the details well enough; he hasn't yet weighed in again, so I don't know. Perhaps his opinion is actually the most common one; that won't be known unless more opinion is sought, however. And I am as entitled to seek that further opinion as you were to post your accusations above. --G2bambino (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, as we have already discussed indepth I'm afraid there is not much I can do further to continue discussion with you on this particular topic. You already know my position (see User talk:G2bambino around the bottom for others interested).

For other administrators, the major hubhub and where G2bambino got most of his quotes is from Template_talk:British_Royal_Family#Width_2. It helps to read the whole story in context. The sections above "Width 2" are also of interest as that is where the consensus formed against modifying the template or formed against roux's proposal... I guess it depends on how you look at it. The crux of the matter, and why these two got into each other's hair is their differing views on what that consensus meant.

To G2bambino, one further note, I suggest you follow my advice at Template_talk:British_Royal_Family#Width_2 and specifically ask the rest of the folks on that template talk what the original consensus meant. —— nixeagle 03:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, nixeagle. Can you please confirm for me whether or not I was correct when I said "Nixeagle made it clear that he--as the person enforcing restrictions--felt my statements were made in good faith, and I can absolutely guarantee that had he felt that I had violated the restrictions I have voluntarily agreed to he would have blocked me without a second thought" ? Thanks. [roux » x] 03:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux, first off I believe your restrictions means that anyone can block you for violating them, which is why G2 is asking here for someone to double check my reasoning. This is fine. You are correct in your belief that I would and will block you should I believe you violated those restrictions, with G2 or with others. I'm really hoping that for both of you these restrictions will force you to think twice and after they expire.. they might just teach you a thing or two.

As far as the situation at hand, you are not entirely blameless, when citing the existing consensus you could have linked him to the section above, and explained to him that you felt the discussion on your proposal about "no changes are needed", "leave it as it is" meant no changes whatsoever, including changes to the width of the template (quotes may not be exact see here at the bottom). Now, will a second administrator please evaluate G2bambino's assertion? —— nixeagle 04:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gah I hate double posting like this, but roux I need to point out that your use of language like this: Oh for crying out loud... is not productive. Its bordering very close to what I consider meets your civility restrictions. To be honest the majority of your post has no meaning to it other then to say that you won't be posting to his talk page anymore... which really does not need to be announced (I think you said elsewhere you were not touching the template). I've never really considered sarcasm to be a civility issue, however roux if you keep using the tone you used in that message... I will be blocking you.

Again so it does not get lost, I would appreciate it if a second administrator looks at the situation, note that roux's comment came after I blocked G2bambino, the context for that comment can be found here. —— nixeagle 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine how "oh for crying out loud" is enough to draw a block, even for someone on a civility restriction. Are you familiar with the history in the last year of civility blocks? I'd strongly advise against even considering or lightly foreshadowing a block on the basis of comments like that. Avruch ^T 05:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement, though you should read the rest of the comment. —— nixeagle 05:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo what Avruch said above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I'll take it that you have reviewed the issue and you found as I did there was no reason to block. I will retract any threat to block on sarcastic comments. However the two of you (roux, G2bambino) need to make efforts to get along with each other. —— nixeagle 16:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for having a look at the matter. In terms of civility: yes, this was rather minor compared to what Roux has previously demonstrated (perhaps signs of improvement?); however, the restrictions seemed to be very tight on me for civility, and I expected they would be equally as binding on him. Further, I still feel AGF was breached in the veiled accusation of ill motive at the template talk, and the blatant accusaion of attacking at my talk. At least I'm now aware of the tightness of my bounds, and I will interperet Roux's future words towards me accordingly. --G2bambino (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For the last time. There was no 'veiled accusation', so stop saying it. There was no 'blanket accusation', so stop saying it. Just stop. Please just stop. [roux » x] 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons I've outlined above, I disagree. --G2bambino (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You can disagree as much as you like, and you will still be wrong. I know what I said, but more importantly I know exactly what I meant and thought. I will make this very, very blunt: These are the last accusations I will hear from you. You will stop, as of this moment, accusing me of things that not only have I not done, but that I have told you time and time again that I have not done, and outside neutral parties have told you I have not done. Is that perfectly crystal clear? [roux » x] 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt in the least that you believe what you say. But, I cannot stop doing what I never started, and I am not restricted in expressing my opinions, which is all I have done here; it seems no one agrees with all of them, but, so be it. That said, it's my opinion that you're stepping very close to your civility boundaries. Please take it from someone who now knows: be careful. --G2bambino (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you win. Goodbye. [roux » x] 03:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Win? We disagree is all. I certainly wasn't going to pursue the matter any further after my earlier comments to the other contributors. --G2bambino (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering G2b is on the same AGF restrictions as Roux, how is it that his blatant disregard for AGF, wherein he is baiting and incessantly poking Roux, is going unchecked? This behavior is inappropriate and has apparently run a good editor from the project. لennavecia 03:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Amazing that this was allowed to go to the point that it did, and now Wikipedia will suffer as a result. - FlyingToaster 03:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Baiting? I didn't ask him to weigh in here, and I didn't do anything that he didn't. The only difference, as I see it, is more people agreed with him than me. Am I misunderstanding the definition of "baiting"? Further, it would appear he was also perterbed about what was going on in a thread involving him at AN/I. I rather think he turned this (and the other matter) into more than it was, and I certainly don't believe he should leave over it. --G2bambino (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

1/ It would be expected that he would reply to accusations, despite the fact that

2/ you didn't notify him of this thread, and

3/ his accusations have a leg to stand on. لennavecia 05:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny him his right to respond to anything. Also, he made it clear some time ago that I was to never post at his talk page; that makes it very difficult for me to notify him of anything. And it does seem that the majority opinion is that his suspicions had more grounds than mine; I don't know how that relates to apparent "baiting," though.

I've looked at the above quick exchange between Roux and I again. When I said: "for the reasons I've outlined above, I disagree," I meant that I didn't share his belief that there had been no bad faith accusation made. I hesitate to guess, but I wonder if he interpreted it as meaning I disagreed with his demand that I stop making supposed accusations. I did explain that I wasn't going to pursue the matter any further than what I felt to be my final comments at 17:22, 12 November, but it may have unfortunately been too late to dispel what Roux had already come to believe. --G2bambino (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admins signing blocks or not signing them

I note that some admins sign the blocks they place, but others block anonymously (of course the identity of the blocking admin can be found in history). The blocked user can normally place an unblock request on his talk page, unless the blocking admin protected the talk page and cannot post on the blocking admin's page. What are the pros and cons of signing a block? Edison (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only posts or templates (of any kind) I don't sign are uname blocks. I'm not speaking for anyone but myself though. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case one will get a "your username or IP has been blocked by so-and-so" message if they try to make another edit, which will contain the pre-filled code for the (goofy and unnecessarily complex) unblock template, so anything on the user's talk page would be almost entirely redundant. If they never try to make another edit (as would be the case with throwaway vandal accounts) the point is moot. If you mean that people are leaving unsigned "you have been blocked" comments on talk pages, but if so I agree that this would as a general practice be poor form, but onlookers would be the only ones confused by it. Habitually not signing these may cause someone to forget to sign more important comments elsewhere, however. — CharlotteWebb 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't even leave a message (for vandalism blocks) unless it is indef, and that's only so the page will get deleted eventually. John Reaves 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I always leave a message. It ups my edit count. Especially the user talkpage count. Makes me look like a nice caring sysop. Heh heh heh heh. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only ones I tend not to sign are schoolblocks and ublocks, where a talkpage message gets left anyway. Black Kite 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving a message is a good way to game subsequent unblock requests when one is unsure the block reason will stand up. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Signing all communications and postings, especially blocks, seems like a good-faith gesture. Are the main reasons for not signing that it is too much trouble, and that the admin fears retribution from the user who is blocked, but thinks the blocked user is too dumb to figure out who blocked them? Why not just use the standard template which includes a signature? IIt was noted above that the blocked user gets a message stating who blocked him if he tries to edit, so I suppose it is redundant. Edison (talk)

Edison, I guess I should answer these questions, since you've posted along these lines on my talk page. "too much trouble...?" No. "...the admin fears retribution from the user who is blocked...?" No. *...thinks the blocked user is too dumb to figure out who blocked them?" No. Rather, too lazy, bored, heedless, wholly unstirred by the notion of building an encyclopedia and looking for the cheap and so-easy thrill of (hopefully) kick-starting the gnashing of teeth. As I told you earlier, I sign all of my posts and templates save for uname block templates, which give lengthy help as to what the blocked user might do next hence, with the message which comes if the uname-blocked user tries to edit, yes, it would be redundant. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the blocked editor, the blocking admin, or someone else as "too lazy, bored, heedless, wholly unstirred by the notion of building an encyclopedia and looking for the cheap and so-easy thrill of (hopefully) kick-starting the gnashing of teeth?" Edison (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Edison, since you thought I might be talking about a blocking admin, I can't think of anything further to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your response was quite vague, so I asked for clarification. Edison (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this what new users normally do?

Pkl777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Vandalise a page on November 7th.
• Blank an IP's talkpage, which was full of warnings.
• Ask another user "how to become an administrator"
• Blank their own talkpage.

Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't particularly unusual. If the user doesn't start contributing constructively, they will probably find themself blocked. Feel free to explain how things work to them, and remember that it is considered polite to notify people when discussing them on a noticeboard. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Little or no hope, but I see no need to block. Yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Assistance removing orphaned image

There is an orphaned sexually-explicit (NSFW) image that needs to be removed, however when I attempted to mark it {{subst:orfud}}, I was unable to do so, and instead got the message (NSFW)Unathorized. Administrator assistance in getting this orphaned image deleted would be sincerely appreciated. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, not here. You'll need to start the deletion discussion there. The previous deletion discussion can be found here. - auburnpilot talk 18:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, {{orfud}} is only for fair-use images. Orphaned images can stay if they're freely licensed. Powers ^T 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Long list of proxies

Resolved

 – Spellcast (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

All of these are confirmed open proxies.

• 222.255.29.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.76.17.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 221.130.191.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.36.219.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.58.193.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.172.155.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 221.130.177.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.119.90.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 189.60.75.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 200.55.208.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.61.217.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.3.224.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.165.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.111.124.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 200.67.85.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.114.123.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 221.0.113.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 200.242.106.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 222.255.29.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

They were spamming links to anontalk, and I temporarily blocked each until they slowed down enough for me to run a check.

Anyone want to help? Block for at least a year, preferably 3 years, since that is how long an IP lease lasts (I'm pretty sure), and don't forget to hardblock (uncheck "block anonymous users only") J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

...And nevermind. They're all done. (my god, Spellcast. What the hell have you been drinking? ;-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen that spammer use an IP that wasn't an open proxy, so feel free to block any future IPs on sight without checking first. Spellcast (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible spam

Resolved

 – ... for now. MER-C 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that user 147.188.36.31 has on 12 Nov 2008 added links to various downloadable spreadsheets on some 10 Wikipedia pages. This does not appear at first glance to be a commercial site, so I'm not sure if this is someone trying to be helpful or if it is disguised spam. Could someone with more experience than me take a look please. Murray Langton (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The very act of adding links to the same site to many articles is a big red flag. Reverted and warned. MER-C 11:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tracking data, in case we see these guys again. MER-C 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.stevenhale.co.uk

• stevenhale.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com .

Religion in Albania

Resolved

Anon blocked. --Tone 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, hope this is the right place. An IP, User talk:85.164.147.155, is repeatedly erasing most of Religion in Albania and being reverted continuously. The person is already listed for vandalism. Could someone please block the user or protect the page or something???? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the best way to handle edit-warring to spam links?

Specific situation: a brand new account (user:Vhhkprhi) edits consciousness to insert a link to a blog post. I revert the edit, asking for justification on the talk page. The editor in question reverts back, without any edit summary. The question is, what is my next step? Note please that I'm a pretty experienced editor at this point and don't need to hear anything banal. I'm not going to re-revert because I've made a personal decision never to edit-war under any circumstances. Still, the editor is clearly in the wrong and there ought to be some sort of effective action I can take. But what? I expect that shortly somebody else will come along and re-revert, but it doesn't seem right to have to rely on others in situations like this. If this were a unique situation I wouldn't bother to bring it up here, but it comes up pretty frequently and I would like to develop a standardized way of dealing with it. I haven't yet figured out one that is effective and efficient. Let me emphasize that I'm on AN rather than ANI because my concern is more to find a recipe than to deal with the specific situation. looie496 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam is a type of vandalism, you might be best to try some of the spam warnings if the blog is spammy or if it is just someone's personal blog being added to the external links section. More information at WP:SPAM —— nixeagle 03:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can communicate with the user, but what can I do to get rid of the bad edit without edit-warring? If I go to wp:aiv, it will be refused. I could obviously take it up to 3RR, which the editor will hit before me, but I don't want to take that approach. looie496 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.thepsychologicalchannel.com

• thepsychologicalchannel.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Nothing too serious here yet. The standardized approach is revert and warn (typically {{uw-spam1}}/{{uw-spam2}}) then escalate as appropriate. Don't tell them to go to the talk page, that won't happen. There's no need to give four warnings, you're just wasting your time. Edit warring with spammers... been there and done that. MER-C 05:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible spam

Resolved

 – ... for now. MER-C 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that user 147.188.36.31 has on 12 Nov 2008 added links to various downloadable spreadsheets on some 10 Wikipedia pages. This does not appear at first glance to be a commercial site, so I'm not sure if this is someone trying to be helpful or if it is disguised spam. Could someone with more experience than me take a look please. Murray Langton (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The very act of adding links to the same site to many articles is a big red flag. Reverted and warned. MER-C 11:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tracking data, in case we see these guys again. MER-C 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.stevenhale.co.uk

• stevenhale.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com .

Religion in Albania

Resolved

Anon blocked. --Tone 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, hope this is the right place. An IP, User talk:85.164.147.155, is repeatedly erasing most of Religion in Albania and being reverted continuously. The person is already listed for vandalism. Could someone please block the user or protect the page or something???? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the best way to handle edit-warring to spam links?

Specific situation: a brand new account (user:Vhhkprhi) edits consciousness to insert a link to a blog post. I revert the edit, asking for justification on the talk page. The editor in question reverts back, without any edit summary. The question is, what is my next step? Note please that I'm a pretty experienced editor at this point and don't need to hear anything banal. I'm not going to re-revert because I've made a personal decision never to edit-war under any circumstances. Still, the editor is clearly in the wrong and there ought to be some sort of effective action I can take. But what? I expect that shortly somebody else will come along and re-revert, but it doesn't seem right to have to rely on others in situations like this. If this were a unique situation I wouldn't bother to bring it up here, but it comes up pretty frequently and I would like to develop a standardized way of dealing with it. I haven't yet figured out one that is effective and efficient. Let me emphasize that I'm on AN rather than ANI because my concern is more to find a recipe than to deal with the specific situation. looie496 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam is a type of vandalism, you might be best to try some of the spam warnings if the blog is spammy or if it is just someone's personal blog being added to the external links section. More information at WP:SPAM —— nixeagle 03:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can communicate with the user, but what can I do to get rid of the bad edit without edit-warring? If I go to wp:aiv, it will be refused. I could obviously take it up to 3RR, which the editor will hit before me, but I don't want to take that approach. looie496 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.thepsychologicalchannel.com

• thepsychologicalchannel.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Nothing too serious here yet. The standardized approach is revert and warn (typically {{uw-spam1}}/{{uw-spam2}}) then escalate as appropriate. Don't tell them to go to the talk page, that won't happen. There's no need to give four warnings, you're just wasting your time. Edit warring with spammers... been there and done that. MER-C 05:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

More questionable behavior from WT:MOSNUM

I previously noted here some issues I saw at WT:MOSNUM regarding the issues of date autoformatting, specifically that while the main editors there believe they have consensus to change the MOSNUM to disallow it (among other details), they seem to refuse to discuss further with those that are against that change nor seem willing to go to an RFC or other central process for making sure they have consensus, giving the page a cabal-like atmosphere. (I will note that there's an RFC in place on the talk page but only specifically covering the use of birth and death dates, not the wider issue.)

I am getting a feeling it is getting worse, though certainly its only hitting the edges of WP:CIVIL, but there is a lot of questionable behavior going on. First off is [73] this discussion on WT:MOSNUM which is only a continuation of current behavior: User:Tony1 and others seem to assert that consensus has been reached but at least two predominate editors (User:Arthur Rubin and User:Locke Cole) are simply asking for more discussion and clear demonstration of consensus. The editors wishing to remove the formatting of dates seem to sweep these concerns under the rug and continue to perform de-linking of dates with automated tools despite the discussion not being resolved.

Second, a thread on WT:MOSNUM pointed out that there exists individual dates (day, month, and year specified) which User:Ohconfucius brought (in a single month block) to AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003. That AFD seems to be fine, but then when User:Greg L comments that When someone nominates all our “on this day throughout history” articles (like January 1) for deletion, someone please let me know., an AFD of a series of date-month article was created by Ofconfucius at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 1. I try to look for good faith here, but when both these editors (as well as those supporting the deletion of the day-month article) have made it known they do not want date formatting and see any generic day or year articles as being collections of trivial objects (see, for example this barnstar challenge that Greg L's offers to show the futility of such articles), or here on WT:MOSNUM where discussion on when to link shows individual views, I cannot shake the feeling there's gaming of the system going on. The second AFD series is certainly not disruptive to the point of blocking, but it is appearing to be very WP:POINTy in line with the reasoning to get rid of dates.

Irregardless of whether or not dates should be linked or not, I cannot help but to look at the behavior on the WT:MOSNUM page and walk away feeling that there's a cabal at work that refuses to listen to reasonable requests to discuss matters further before implementing them (even though I agree on many of their points on the actual matter of date formatting - it's simply the approach they are taking that concerns me) It's not yet to a point where blocks or the like have to be issued, but I am concerned that if discussion continues as it does, with it spreading to other WP areas of process without any significant and proper discussion of the basic points, it may become a deeply entrenched edit war. It may be that this needs to have moderation (I don't see this yet as an Arbcom case yet), but I don't see any resolve on the talk page alone is going to work. --MASEM 10:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Awe jeez. The above is nothing but a big hearty bowl of non-bleached, vitamin-infused whine. The debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003 was civilized and productive. No one there was accusing another of bad faith. Everyone posted what they truly believed and that was that. Some voted to keep, some voted to delete, and others voted to merge. I happened to have voted to Keep (and to merge) those articles by the way, since I thought those articles had utility that could be put to good purpose. I see that Masem rather conveniently omitted that little tidbit.

  I also said in that same post that I thought the “this day throughout history” articles were worthless and instead of trying to delete “specific-day” articles, we should delete the purely-random trivia articles. Well, Ohconfucius nominated them here and I posted my honest opinion there too; a vote to Delete. It’s my opinion and stand by it. This is the point, Masem, where you jump up and down and say “See! See… Greg L said it again!. Shut him up. Shut him up!”

  So, Masem, you may not, with impunity, misrepresent my intentions and slyly imply to admins that everything I wrote was in bad faith in an effort to dictate to me how I may think and how I may express my thoughts. And in a marketplace where ideas are exchanged (a discussion forum)! Last time I looked, Wikipedia did not operate like Red China and did not have roving bands of thought police to quell unpopular thought and minority viewpoints. I take a very dim view of these tactics, and, frankly, were this real life, at this point I would invite you to do something to yourself that isn’t generally considered to be physically possible. Being however, that this is Wikipedia, I must be more civil and suggest that you not run to mommy every time you find your written arguments aren’t finding sufficient traction with others. Greg L (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• As someone mentioned in this I'll say WT:MOSNUM is very frustrating because of the unwillingness to expand the discussion beyond just those who frequent WT:MOSNUM (and I don't even consider myself that, as I only turned up once I noticed automated removal of date links (which removes date autoformatting, something I think we should try to save). However I was greeted like others have been greeted the past few months: I was told that there was already discussion of this and that there didn't need to be new discussion because it would be "a waste of time". Of course the problem with that is that there's been at least as many people asking/complaining about it as there were that voted in the isolated straw poll to approve the change. What's needed is a larger community wide discussion (with potentially a straw poll) to really determine if we'd rather lose date links/formatting or if we'd like to explore technical solutions that keep autoformatting in place. But that discussion doesn't seem interesting to the "cabal" inhabiting WT:MOSNUM. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the basic premiss of you point, Locke: have a big discussion with lots of participants and get it over with. The trouble is, if you let a bot loose to implement the decision, I can pretty much guarantee you that new editors will come to WT:MOSNUM upon discovering their blue dates are black, complain about it, be met with the reaction you’re speaking of (this has been discussed and is settled), and will come here to complain that their opinions aren’t being considered. At some  point, one actually has to say “this has been discussed and settled.” Greg L (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. I don’t think this was the venue to have just had this discussion. I suggest you copy (or, better yet, move) your post and mine to WT:MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• The point that people have been trying to make is that when people come to complain and ask "where is the consensus", no one can point to it because there was no attempt to get a wide consensus in a form that WP usually uses for policy changes. If you run an RFC with announcement in all the usual places and archive it, those that come along later to complain about bots or editors enforcing that consensus can be pointed to that central discussion. That is what most of those disagreeing on the page are all about - editors are pointing to anecdotal evidence to support their conclusions to the change in policy. --MASEM 07:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

MASEM's opening statement appears to be a long way from the mark. "they seem to refuse to discuss further with those that are against that change nor seem willing to go to an RFC or other central process for making sure they have consensus" ... um, no, the debate occurred at MOSNUM talk for some two years, intermittently, and more continually this year, culminating in intensive debate and a proposal in August. It was widely promulgated (in WP:VP, but that is small-fry compared with the number of WikiProjects and article talk pages surveyed and alerted). Since the decision to dispense with date autoformatting, in August, the issue has been marked by the wide support it has enjoyed at large in the project. One example is at FAC, the pace-setting, where the change was promptly adopted by nominators, apparently without a single complaint (nominators do complain readily about many things). FLC is aparently happy with the change. I'm struck by the objections at the talk page of User:Lumos3 to his/her attempt to relink dates—I've only just become aware of this. It speaks strongly of a culture change at WP.

Against this, we have the same old voices complaining in vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT terms; they are in evidence here and at MOSNUM talk. They are forutunately a small minority, as much as they attempt to repeatedly discredit the overwhelming consensus and "flog a dead horse". Let's get over it and move on, please. Tony (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot disagree that date autoformatting specifically done by linking dates ala [[May 1]], [[2008]] was consensus depreciated. That change was announced and taken, which is fine. But two issue still get brought up that were not core of that decision, or stem out from DA removal as a result, and have not be brought to a wider discussion: 1) Thinking ahead to if/when the MediaWiki devs (as suggested at Bugzilla) may be able to provide a correct date autoformatting that doesn't invoking linking by retaining some type of metadata on the dates as to make bot conversions easy and 2) non-autoformatting linking of dates (which can be done technically) and the issues with various "month day" and "year" articles (akin to the March 1 AFD noted above) - or, more exactly, when are dates linked? This is not the dead horse, these are new issues that bot- and script-assisted DA removal have created. Again I have to point out that I'm not against getting rid of the old DA, though I do feel we should prepare the way for a proper implementation by DevTeam, and am on the fence about when dates are linked, but my personal opinion or anyone else's personal opinion on how this should be done is not the issue. It is simply the atmosphere of the WT:MOSNUM where the opinions of those that are against complete outright date linking are being shot down without any discussion. I'm confident no one wants to un-depreciate autoformatting as was done before for all the strong reasons stated, but the number of concerns of wiping the plate clean of date links that are just being overlooked is my biggest concern here. It is not a healthy talk page environment. --MASEM 13:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent persistent vandalism on Republic of Macedonia page

Since the 14:36, 2 November 2008 User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ [74] unsourced addition of the Greek language among the languages spoken in Republic of Macedonia the page has been the target of continuos vandals and disruptive edits in attempt to add by force the Greek language. A pretty extensive talk page debate [75] has shown that up till present there are no reliable evidence/sources that confirm this information. In the contrary we have lots of pretty significant evidence that there is no such linguistic minority.(UN [76]European Council [77][78] Encyclopædia Britannica [79] BBC Educational [80] Eupedia [81]etc). In the light of this evidence, non of which mentiones once a Greek linguistic minority its clear that the Greek language cannot stand among the languages spoken in Republic of Macedonia with no reliable and relevant sources stated. Still some Greek editors didn't want to hear any reasons and have been adding this language regardless of the contrasting evidence submitted. This disruptive editors whitout any explanation or with the note "back to consensus" attempt to push this the Greek language despite there is no evidence and even less a consensus on the matter. In the bottom line id ask an article protection of the Republic of Macedonia page since this persistent tag-team vandalism is not bareable. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism, it's a content dispute, but you're right that there has been edit-warring - not least involving you. I've protected the article for now but you really need to work this out with the other editors, not fight over it in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Im not fighting anythig all im saying is till there is something unsourced and unverified, and till there is an ongoing talk page debate it will not stay on the article. Alex Makedon (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty Category

Resolved

Folks, I don't have time this AM so could someone work out who ( Hepuk (talk · contribs) )this single minded editor is and press appropriate buttons ? Or perhaps I'm thinking tired and all is good - thanks - Peripitus (Talk) 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on editing patterns, its likely this guy. I have started an checkuser request to confirm, but since his most recent targets have been protected, it looks as though he has gone on a rampage. Meh... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked by Nishkid64, all edits reverted by me. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Need an admin with access to ODNB

In a couple of days, two issues from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 10 will come ripe for admin closure. With both, there are concerns of "substantial similarity" with the ODNB. I do not have a subscription to ODNB, and I am "advertising" for an admin who does. Do you? Do you know one who does? Please see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#ODNB concerns for background and pitch in if you are able to help determine to what degree revision may be necessary to separate from source. Help would be much appreciated. :) (I am also spamming WT:C, though I know this is not heavily monitored.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have any luck here, you might want to ask WP:REX. Regards, the skomorokh 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll put that on my list in case necessary. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete/Restory history

Resolved

I want this edit out of my history immediately. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 02:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The circumstances surrounding that edit, the discussion on the contributing editor's talkpage, their response to this thread (removed by Grsz) and their recent behaviour on the admin boards certainly merit a discussion as to what ought to be tolerated before strong warnings and/or blocks are issued. the skomorokh 03:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see MBisanz has saved me the trouble. It should go without saying that comments like this, followed by that are completely inappropriate. Mr.Z-man 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: user in question blocked for three weeks by MBisanz for personal attacks/harassment. Grsz's request is outstanding. the skomorokh 03:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To remove that would be history revisionism in its worst form. Absolutely not. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So I have to look at his vulgar crap all the time? I've seen much less removed. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a bold "edit this page" tab at the top of your talk page if you would like to remove content from it. You're talking about deleting the revisions from the history, which is never done in cases like this. The user has been blocked, so I don't really see any need for further admin action here. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You already removed it, no need for it to be deleted from the page history. No further administrative action needed here, marking resolved. Tiptoety ^talk 03:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes obviously I knew I removed it. I don't want it in my history. Bullshit it's never done. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has been blocked. Your request does not seem to fit the bill of Oversight policy, and I see no major reason why this edit needs be wiped. seicer | talk | contribs 03:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Ignore it and go on. It might be useful if the user acts up again. See the history on my user page for really nasty crap from users. The more you let morons like this bother you, the happier they become. It's clear he was just trying to piss you off. Why let him? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing title blacklist

Right now I'm trying to take advantage of the wonderful new categorized archive of past RfAs to collect statistics.

My collection script hangs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rschen7754, a page which doesn't exist and which is apparently on the blacklist (I can't tell at all what regex it's matching). I'm not trying to create that page, but pywikipedia hangs when it encounters that page because there's a "you can't create this" message where there should be a text area. It concludes that Wikipedia is down and goes into a waiting loop.

Certainly there are ways to work around this (such as having the script log in as me -- no don't panic it's a read-only script don't call the adminbot police -- or skipping that particular name and hoping there aren't others like it). But the fact that this page is blacklisted is probably a bug in the blacklist. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the blacklist? It doesn't match anything on either the local or global blacklists. If you try to create the page manually, exactly what error message do you get? --Carnildo (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is really bizarre: it's being blocked by a regex that isn't on the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Using my non-admin account, the regex given is .*Rschen7754.* # for non-account pages., which appears on the global blacklist (despite it clearly saying it was blocked locally). Mr.Z-man 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Turns out my copy of the global blacklist was out of date -- that entry was added to the global blacklist abour four hours ago. --Carnildo (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the stewards did that. Man, that's bad luck that you were doing it just then... --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what practical reason there is to blacklist this username (other than avoiding an RFC/RFAR/etc). — CharlotteWebb 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for figuring out what was happening. I ended up working around it -- for this and another page whose title I've forgotten now -- but it is still weird that Rschen7754's name is blacklisted. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

save the wiki page "Meenas"

This user “User:Satyashodak” is constantly editing Wikipedia page regarding “Meenas”, a community from north of India. He is neglecting the validity of the article which is based on citation of published books and journals. His edit log messages are giving sign of very personalized attack. I kindly request the administrator to look in the matter and protect the article. Many Thanks ashish Ashishmeena (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have given that user a Warning about the three revert rule. If they revert again, please bring it to The edit-war notice board for further action, or just let us know here, and someone can deal with it. Also, consider this YOUR 3RR warning; report and let the admins take care of this, don't open yourself to 3RR blocking as well by continuing the war from your own side. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

need some help

Resolved

Hi. I need some help. I started a new category related to stubs which we sorely need. now someone has instituted a request for deletion. various editors admit the need for this category, but they seem to want to delete it over minute differences. Can some admins please help and provide an opinion? I appreciate it.

the category is: category: stub parent categories. It is being proposed for deletion at: Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#Cat:Stub_parent_categories. there is also a major discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#parent_categories. please feel free to provide some input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

History reporting problem - article Maritime disaster

Hi. I need some help also. The software changed my username to an IP address. The IP address appeared in the history instead of my name, Wallie. Now the history is not being recorded, if the text is changed! Also, sometimes it will not allow "undo" say that there are unresolved edits. This looks quite bad to me. What can be done? Wallie (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here, I'll respond on your talk page. looie496 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Moved from WP:VPP

I've been contacted on my talk page by an IP (67.160.51.32) that claims to be Seattlehawk94, a user that's blocked indefinitely for being a sock of Dereks1x; the userpage has been protected to prevent Seattlehawk from posting unblock requests. According to the Seattlehawk userpage, the block was made after a checkuser case. Where can I find the request for checkuser for Seattlehawk? Looking at What Links Here for User:Seattlehawk94, I find that s/he appears only at this request, in two instances: (1) Seattlehawk posts a comment, and (2) Alison notes that Seattlehawk is a sock. I cannot find anywhere to prove that Seattlehawk has been found a sock by Checkuser; and as no other reason seems to be given for Seattlehawk's block, I'm not willing to block the IP for evading a block or ban. Moreover, I contacted Alison three days ago, asking for an explanation and/or link to the checkuser request, but she's not yet replied. I'm quite confused in this case, and (given that Alison's not yet replied to me) I think a further note for Alison wouldn't be productive; of course, I'm not going to wheel war, especially as I've never seen this user before and thus don't know what's going on exactly, but seeing that I'm being asked into this situation by the IP, I really would like to see what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes Checkusers are ran without a formal report, if Alison said someone is a sock, then I would gather this is what occured. That being said, she is semi-retired, so I would say if there is consensus developed here to unblock the main account then it wouldn't be wheel-warring to carry out the consensus. –xeno (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x#Dereks1x (17th) has Alison's finding. I'll avoid commenting beyond what's already been said. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am quite confident, based purely on the WP:DUCK test, that Seattlehawk is Dereks1x. Its all part of his games... Some of his most recent socks have been protesting, demanding that Seattlehawk is removed from his own list of sockpuppets, because its "not him". He's known to play these silly "hey, this isn't me!" stuff. Alison is QUITE familiar with the whole Dereks1x/Archtransit sockfarm, and I trust her judgement completely on this one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the RFCU link above closely. Seattlehawk94 just suddenly appeared asking about some account that hadn't edited since June! What in the world? "Oh, I've been meaning to do this for the last five months"?! My guess is that Dereks1x was trying to gain some information about how long it took for checkuser data to go stale - or something along those lines. Huge kudos to Alison for seeing through that and checking the reporter instead. There's little other explanation for the RFCU in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things: (1) I hadn't observed until just now that Alison is also a checkuser, and (2) so checkusers are allowed to run a test without a report being filed? I did see Alison's finding on the 17th part, but that's what I meant about "(2) Alison notes that Seattlehawk is a sock". No complaints: I'm simply so unfamiliar with the checkuser process that being thrown in by accident by this IP's messages made me rather confused. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

On #2: see WP:BURO. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. RFCU is used to file reports so that Checkusers who may be unfamiliar with a situation may act on it. There is no formal requirement that a report be filed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser is just another word for alchemy; nobody truly knows how it works, not even the practitioners, so there is unlikely to be a definitive response (not one you can trust, anyhoo) to your query. Now, I will get back to editing just as soon as someone changes me back from a newt for spilling the beans here... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to poison the well, here LHVU, checkuser gives its users the ability to check the IP addresses used by registered users. Simply because we don't have access to those IPs does not mean that, as a class, checkusers cannot be trusted. Just because a process is not transparent does not mean that anything nefarious is going on, AGF and all... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, my response was supposed to be humourous (hence the newt comment) - and I am aware that CU's have a few more subtle procedures to point toward two accounts being the same person than mere ip review... nevermind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe one has to weigh the user to see if s/he weighs the same as a duck... thus proving they're made of wood... At which time, the burning can commence. –xeno (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Thanks much for all the comments and explanations! As I said, I'm hitherto completely unfamiliar with the process, so (being aware that checkuser is a very rarely available tool) I had just assumed that a procedure needed to be followed, like we have to go through a procedure to delete most articles. All makes sense now, as far as I care. Since the IP that commented on my talk page is claiming to be an indefinitely blocked user, would someone block it as a sock? I don't feel comfortable doing it, as I've somewhat been involved in the situation already. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau article page seems to be corrupted

Resolved

I was editing the Kevin Trudeau page and several error pages kept coming up. I finally got the edits to go through and they are viewable on diff in the history. However, page seems to be corrupted when I try to visit it. Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Have you tried clearing your cache? J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me now as well. Oh well, it must have just resolved itself in one way or another. Atlantabravz (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets - 50+ case backlog

I would normally if I see a backlog put {{adminbacklog}} at the top of the page. However, this backlog is just huge and IMO needs multiple admin eyes to look at the case there - some were filed in late October and haven't been doubt with! The backlog in the least needs to be brought down to a reasonable level. D.M.N. (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mothers (and fathers) may I ?

I'm feeling unnaturally civic-minded today, and was looking at the indef-blocked IP report. Somewhere up above, it was mentioned that "most of them just need to be unblocked", and since a number of them have now been blocked for nearly 4 years, I was willing to go through the list and unblock--but as a fairly-new admin, I'd rather not step on anyone's toes, let alone screw something up monumentally. Rather than send messages to each and every blocking admin about things that they did during the first Bush administration, I'm posting here to see if there'd be any howling objection if I were to set a cutoff and unblock the IPs in question--for example, if I were to undo all listed blocks older than a year, would that alarm anyone? (If this is the stupidest idea anyone has ever heard of, please don't pounce; I saw a post asking for admins to attend to some issues, and rather than charge in blindly, I'm asking first. Thanks!)GJC 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, that makes me a little uncomfortable -- I'm not sure why the page says that most of the IPs need to be unblocked; it seems to be that most have been indefblocked for very good reasons, ie. known IPs of banned users. Unblocking these for no reason other than to have them unblocked doesn't sound like a very good idea. GlassCobra 18:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I just undid most of CSCWEM's indef's except for the aol block ones. –xeno (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I am guessing you have a good reason for that. For posterity, could you explain so that others do not become confused? Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I examined the vandalism that preceded it, and the block reason, and didn't feel that an indefinite block was warranted. Since CSCWEM is de facto retired, dropping a note seemed like an excercise in futility. –xeno (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Don't undo blocks willy-nilly. You need to contact the blocking admins and check with them, or else post the specific blocks here for discussion. It may be helpful to sort the database by admin and deal with them in batches, or post them here in reasonable sized batches. You can lose sysop access for hastily unblocking. Sometimes the block reasons have not been made clear, but the block is there for a damn good reason. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• (Non admin) One thing bugs me. They are indef blocks. That means, at least in my eyes (as a non english native speaker) that the block is indefinite, in other words, it is there forever. Why are you looking at unblocking all these IP's? An indefinite block surely should be that once its there, it should be there for good. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  Indef != infinite. For the IP accounts, even if they are static, it is easily possible that the owner has changed over the past four years. looie496 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Glancing at the list, I see at least three categories of indef-blocked IP, each of which should be dealt with differently:

1. Ones that shouldn't be on that list, but "proxy" was misspelled or whatever, causing the regexp to miss it. These should be unblocked and then immediately re-blocked with the appropriately spelled message in order to get them off the list.
2. Ones associated with notorious sockmasters. I would be very leery about unblocking these, because the most notorious vandals have shown that no amount of time or effort is too much. So they very well just may have sat on an IP for four years. Who knows. Don't unblock these.
3. Ones that were blocked for persistent vandalism or spamming, but which are not associated with any sockmaster or vandal in particular. In these cases, the indef != infinite maybe comes into play if some admin is ready to do the work. I think unblocking all of the ones in this category wholesale would be disastrous... but I could see unblocking a dozen of 'em, waiting a week to see if any of them resume vandalizing/spamming, and then moving on.

I can see an argument against this too. But hey, it's a proposal... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Jehochman, and Jaysweet many of these IPs were blocked indef for a reason, including banned user evading blocks from static IPs, spambots (in which many of them are open proxies), harassments, open proxies, etc. It's not like we are blocking thousands of innocent users. A few I blocked a while back are in that list, and they deserved a indef. Talk to the blocking admin before unblocking the IPs, but if the admin is inactive (like some of them are), then either use common sense, or discuss with other admins here (especially with the banned users). Secret ^account 20:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

IPs should almost never be indef blocked. As Looie496 says, even a static IP will likely change owner eventually. Open proxy/Tor/spambot blocks should generally be 1-5 years or less, Tor nodes can run on dynamic IPs. Blocking IPs used by banned users indef is generally pointless, unless for some reason they have a static IP, blocking 1 IP in a likely dynamic range of several tens of thousands is useless. The only thing I can really think of is AOL proxy ranges, as AOL proxies should now be sending XFF headers, so no one should be editing through the proxy IPs anymore. For future reports, a WHOIS/RDNS link might be helpful. Mr.Z-man 20:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I disagree, open proxies and Tor does more harm than good, and if they change owner, let them to a unblock tag with evidence that the IP isn't a open proxy anymore. Secret ^account 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    • TOR exit nodes have a very short half-life. Block one for 24 hours, and by the time the block expires, there's a 75% chance that it's no longer a TOR exit node. --Carnildo (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• What about ones like this? (admins only) These shouldn't really have been blocked indef in the first place (unless I'm missing something). Black Kite 20:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Could have been a banned user, I trust Jerry judgement, if it's not a banned user, unblock I guess... Secret ^account 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Z-man's comment (er, excuse me.. Mister Z-man ;), I would add to what he said about static IPs that, you know, the average American family moves something like every 3 years or so... So for IPs that geolocate to America at least, even if it is a persistent vandal behind a static IP, after 3-5 years there's a pretty decent chance that a different person has that IP address anyway.

I think a lot of the IPs on that list could be blocked without doing any damage. I would definitely oppose anything that used to be an open proxy, no matter how long ago, cuz those are just too dangerous. But if it was just some kid who wouldn't stop vandalizing, meh, maybe his family moved or he graduated or got a girlfriend or something. No harm in opening up the IP in that case.

I dunno, just my thoughts on that. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

@Secret: That was sort of my point, wasn't it? That a lot of those were blocked for a reason? <shrug> Whatever.. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Had a edit conflict with you, that's why it's mostly a repeat. Secret ^account 21:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, I think I misparsed your comment. I thought you were saying, "I agree with Jehochmann. And, Jaysweet, those IPs were blocked for a reason..." but maybe you were saying "I agree with Jehochman and Jaysweet. Those IPs were blocked for a reason". Sorry for the confusion! ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am very glad I bothered to post instead of just doing what the instructions in the other post said and unblocking. I guess Wikipedia and my real-life job have something in common after all--volunteering to do something extra can be a dangerous choice! :) GJC 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I made the "other post" referenced above saying "most of these should be unblocked". I was wrong. All of these should be unblocked. Why? Because we don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Now, that being said, many of these need to be re-blocked (after being unblocked) for a period of time, say 2-5 years (possibly longer for rare cases), but even open proxies are no longer indefinitely blocked from my understanding. There are plenty of cases on here where an indef block was ridiculous, including single instances of run-of-the mill vandalism. Legal or death threat? A year block is more than enough IMO. Sockpuppeting? A year or two seems enough (simple to re-block if it continues after unblocking). VegaDark (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia article vandalized

Can someone take a look plz, untill 15:52, 12 November 2008 [82] the link List of homonymous states and regions under See also has been present with a consensus by the editors. On 15:52, 12 November 2008 the Greek User: Zakronian has deleted this link with no talk page referece, with just the summary "removing article of low significance, it's been already included in more lists than it deserved". After i reverted his vandalism, he has deleted again this harmless see also link with the summary: GFYS, i think no translations are needed. Just one minute after I restored once again the link on 20:35, 13 November 2008 my edit was reverted this time by the User: Zakronian compatriot User:Hectorian, with no explanation for his disruptive act. Again Macedonian related articles are constantly being vandalized by Greek disruptive editors. After Republic of Macedonia now this. Can something be done about this editors or in the bottom line lock the page till full moon passes and this disruptive editors vent their frustrations elsewhere. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, it is a purposeful, good faith edit. Vandalism does not mean "edits I do not agree with". His edit may be right, or it may be wrong, but it is NOT vandalism. Please stop edit warring, and seek dispute resolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Its disruptive editing when with no real arguments WP:IDONTLIKEIT someone reverts a consensus solution again and again. If someone should look for dispute resolution are the editors that are looking to change the article by WP:WEDONTNEEDIT Alex Makedon (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow - was there even a single day in which you didn't fill an ANI for something completely out of the reach of this noticeboard. --Laveol ^T 21:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

keep your pov for 10 чрвени Laveol Alex Makedon (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Alex Makedon, you really really need to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my request and have no reason to add anything Fut, so asking me to stop, besides being off topic, is pretty futile, especially with this dramatic "really really" tone. Alex Makedon (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism, use dispute resolution. Everyone else, move on... —kurykh 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Help needed to undo autoblock of User:Mooretwin

User:Mooretwin was recently blocked, but this blocked was removed on a "tome served" basis on further investigation (see User talk:Mooretwin.) However, the user is still autoblocked, and neither the user nor myself are able to determine how to undo this. Can some more knowledgeable admin help us sort this out, please? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I and the editor may have sorted this out now, but I'm waiting for confirmation from the editor that they can edit other articles now.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It has now been completely resolved.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To find autoblocks, just stick the user that the autoblock is affecting in http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php . It will find the autoblock and give you a link that you can use to remove it. —— nixeagle 04:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

I blocked 173.17.158.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 72 hours a couple of days ago. Almost immediately after his block expired, he started in again, so I blocked him for two weeks. I went to do a WHOIS on his IP address and I got this. Is there any special rule about handling blocks of IANA IP addresses? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

whois results:

NetRange:   173.16.0.0 - 173.25.31.255
CIDR:       173.16.0.0/13, 173.24.0.0/16, 173.25.0.0/19
NetName:    MEDIACOM-RESIDENTIAL-CUST

Mediacom, mid sized US ISP. BJ^Talk 05:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange, because the link J.delanoy pointed out shows a different result. Where is this result from? Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 05:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It was right on the {{IPvandal}} whois link. Duh. /me facepalms myself J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP belongs to Gulf Breeze High School, which is the article the students were targeting. A whois search shows "network:Network-Name:MEDIACOMCC-173-17-156-0-Gulf Breeze-FL". A Google search of "Gulf Breeze-FL school" shows this belongs to that school. Spellcast (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Help needed to undo autoblock of User:Mooretwin

User:Mooretwin was recently blocked, but this blocked was removed on a "tome served" basis on further investigation (see User talk:Mooretwin.) However, the user is still autoblocked, and neither the user nor myself are able to determine how to undo this. Can some more knowledgeable admin help us sort this out, please? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I and the editor may have sorted this out now, but I'm waiting for confirmation from the editor that they can edit other articles now.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It has now been completely resolved.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To find autoblocks, just stick the user that the autoblock is affecting in http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php . It will find the autoblock and give you a link that you can use to remove it. —— nixeagle 04:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

I blocked 173.17.158.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 72 hours a couple of days ago. Almost immediately after his block expired, he started in again, so I blocked him for two weeks. I went to do a WHOIS on his IP address and I got this. Is there any special rule about handling blocks of IANA IP addresses? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

whois results:

NetRange:   173.16.0.0 - 173.25.31.255
CIDR:       173.16.0.0/13, 173.24.0.0/16, 173.25.0.0/19
NetName:    MEDIACOM-RESIDENTIAL-CUST

Mediacom, mid sized US ISP. BJ^Talk 05:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange, because the link J.delanoy pointed out shows a different result. Where is this result from? Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 05:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It was right on the {{IPvandal}} whois link. Duh. /me facepalms myself J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP belongs to Gulf Breeze High School, which is the article the students were targeting. A whois search shows "network:Network-Name:MEDIACOMCC-173-17-156-0-Gulf Breeze-FL". A Google search of "Gulf Breeze-FL school" shows this belongs to that school. Spellcast (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs)

I blocked Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs) indef for general disruptive editing. I first noticed him about to close a bad faith AFD on his part Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trading card sets which I voted delete afterwards because of other reasons. I saw all of his personal attacks in the AFD, and was about to warn him, then I saw his block history. Seems like he is harassing User:Libro0 for months, leaving a history of reverting, personal attacks, incivility, block evasion, and sockpuppetry, which consists of a good chuck of his recent edits (the rest are simple wikilinks and other insignificant edits). He was blocked several times already, and he doesn't seem to learn. No reason to keep him around. Thanks Secret ^account 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Note seems to me that Your Radio Enemy (talk · contribs) is a likely sock, maybe a checkuser is in place. Thanks Secret ^account 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the indef block. I first ran across BCG at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:50s Topps Logo.jpg, where many of his posts were uncivil. Then I watched hopefully as Libro0 sought mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-04 1950s Topps, but BCG posted only incivility there. —teb728 t c 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - This editor`s contribution history shows that he has remained just as incivil and uncooperative after each of his four blocks. It is high time that his disruption to the project ends. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• If Your Radio Enemy is a sock, an indefinite block would be in order given his history of socking. Since he's continued the same behavior that previously got him blocked the first three times, I'll have to endorse the block. Spellcast (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - It was a good block. This guy obviously doesn't have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfairly Blocked by Luna Santin

Blanked due to it turning out this account impersonated a real life person of the same name. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Avinesh

This user was confirmed to be a sockpuppet in this case. Sockpuppet templates were placed on the sockpuppet pages alerting people to that fact. User filed an unblock request that was denied. His reason was that he had no idea who these people were and that he 'suspected' that individuals at his place of work were contributing. However, checkuser and sockpuppet cases established that there was significant overlap on areas of interest, including styles of writing. After user said that he had no idea who these sockpuppets were, user comes back and removes the sockpuppet tags and says that the sockpuppets retired 'at his request' (even though he doesn't know these people). After the templates were placed back, user removes them again and this time says that if we assume he IS the puppetmaster, then he has the right to remove the templates from these pages. This was the second time he was accused of being a sockpuppet. In an earlier case he again claimed that he was using a shared IP and that he 'suspected' that people from his office might have edited the same articles. I've told him that he shouldn't remove the templates since those users were confirmed to be sockpuppets. He doesn't want to listen and asked me to take the case to ANI. --vi5in^[talk] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an old issue and User:Vivin too was accused of sock (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vivin) & reached inconclusive. See User_talk:Vivin#Your_sockpuppet also. It is sure that I rmd that tag as it looks odd to me. However, the tag is in place with my comment. I think this issue is over, but still wondering why vivin started this thread? Also reporting Vivin's edit war & uncivil discussion at User:harjk user page & talk. --Avinesh  T  04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See this diff, vivin rmd my comment, should be severely dealt with. The user still keeping bad faith & edit warring. --Avinesh  T  04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has a long history of violating WP:OWN, WP:COI, and has been accused and confirmed of being a sockpuppet twice (first case here. Similar circumstances to second). This user assumes that any attempt to edit the pages that he has worked on is "vandalism", even going so far as to launch frivolous sockpuppet accusations against editors. I find it highly unlikely that both times people from his office would create user accounts and edit the same articles with the same POV, including the same type of language. Also keep in mind that for being new accounts they seemed to have a rather extensive knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. This issue was over, and the sockpuppet pages were appropriately tagged. This user then tried to remove them (claiming that they look 'odd', which isn't a valid reason in any way whatsoever). Furthermore, this user has given many conflicting accounts about these sockpuppets. In one instance he claims he doesn't know who these people are, and then he claims that they are people from his office, and then he claims that because the checkuser confirmed them to be his sockpuppets, he has the right to go in and edit those user pages and remove the sockpuppet templates(!) There has been no uncivil discussion on my part. In fact, after he removed the tags and then wrote to me on my personal webpage, I quite civilly explained to him why the templates had to say. Of course, he later removed my comments from his talk page (completely within his right to do so), calling them "bad faith". The reason I brought this up to ANI is because the user kept reverting the pages and then asked me to take the issue to ANI. --vi5in^[talk] 17:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The user appears to have stopped removing the tags, so I suggest this issue be closed. --vi5in^[talk] 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I recently blocked one of Avinesh's accounts and then he denied he was the owner of another account on-wiki, but then he emailed all over the place with his other name; Only a mug would believe this guy's "friend" explanation, he has used socks abusively before and is now using a separate account for his religious battles. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there is no surprise in YellowMonkey’s comment here. In fact, I was reading this posting today (interestingly speaking about User:YellowMonkey [Blnguin] & User:Vivin [Vivin Paliath]), the same people who are in this thread too. Just asking a clarification from YM: About 2-3 weeks back, when another user asked YM about googlean’s sock id’s this was your message to him. And now, this you done. YM, I am not able to catch your contradictory statement although I undid my edits of ‘retired’ tag & commented.? What was your ‘special interest’ in this topic? --Avinesh  T  08:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. Good one. And I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that link to the WSJ Livemint article. But thanks for the plug \o/. --vi5in^[talk] 15:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect on user talk page

Resolved

After being warned for vandalism, User talk:Assa Al Rapa blanked his talk page, then redirected to an image of a reindeer urinating and now an image of someone giving the finger. I can't find any guidance on this but wouldn't this, for instance, cause a problem for anyone using say Twinkle to give them a warning? Sure, they can blank the page, but redirect? dougweller (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:He has been blocked. Anyone can give a warning see WP:WARN 220.239.47.163 (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Right i get you. If that editor was messing with his talk page then you can call for a reblock with "cannot edit own talk page" or just full protection. The editor has not done anything since being blocked 220.239.47.163 (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Doug is an admin and wasn't looking for this type of answer. I've struck out the response to make it more obvious that a response is still needed. looie496 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When unsure about any user's behaviour because no rules seem to apply, the key question to ask yourself is Does this hinder the improvement of the encyclopedia ? If the answer is "no", the behaviour is acceptable, otherwise it's not.

How does that apply to this particular case ? Well, user talk pages are provided to allow communication between editors on encyclopedia-related matters. If the user is messing with the talk page in such a way as to make it difficult for other editors to communicate with him, it hinders the improvement of the encyclopedia. So at the least you should "un-redirect". If the user continues to cause other editors to spend time "fixing" the talk page when they could be working on the encylopedia, the user should be blocked so as to improve everyone else's productivity. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I have blocked for this in the past. –xeno (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note, the account has been indef'ed as a vandalism/trolling-only account. And after looking over the contributions, I'm inclined to agree with the block period. If the user is unwilling to communicate with others, and redirects visitors to obscene content, and hinder the communication process, then they should be blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. This is what I thought was the case. Looie496, thanks for helping me get the information I wanted, and Derek Ross, thanks for your clear explanation. dougweller (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We have an image of a reindeer urinating? Where? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history's userpage

Userpage is used as an advert for sikh-history.com or is being used by multiple users ("we"). --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just take it to MFD or at the very least, point him to WP:USER. Out of policy-respects, I'll informed him. -- 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky81682 (talk • contribs)

My page is not an advert for www.sikh-history.com and there is only me editing. Consulting others before editing behind a computer I would say is good practice.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Clear misuse of userpage (see WP:UP#NOT). Sikh, I suggest you minimize your beliefs to a sentence or two, or this will probably go to MfD (with an almost certain delete outcome). Tan | 39 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: MfD started here. Tan | 39 17:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

He's removed almost everything from his user page -- his talk page though -- almost a whole article there. dougweller (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban: User:Pcarbonn from Cold fusion and related articles

• Prior ANI threads and resolutions attempts:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_review_this_case (and older archived threads - feel free to add 'em as you find 'em))
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive157#Cold_fusion
  • Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Cold_fusion (and subpages)
• Recent diffs cited as troublesome: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#diffs_just_from_November

• Proposal: User:Pcarbonn is banned from Cold fusion and related articles for six months.

Executive mini-summary

Pcarbonn is alleged to be a single purpose account, to edit with a conflict of interest, to have repeatedly violated WP:NPOV, and to have boasted off-wiki of his success at altering Wikipedia's coverage of cold fusion in order to present it in a more positive light.

Question of jurisdiction and rationale for this proposal

There has been some confusion about whether this issue should be handled under arbitration enforcement, but the majority of editors contributing to this straw poll were of the opinion that cold fusion is better described as "pathological science" or "fringe science" than pseudoscience, in which case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience may not be applicable. Hence this proposal: that question of jurisdiction will be irrelevant, however, if the community can agree on a ban here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

You are making a bad assumption here that folks seeing this on AN know the full details of your particular case. Please give us links to all relevant items, and a short description of why you want this topic ban and what you guys have tried prior to requesting this. —— nixeagle 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's all in the threads that SheffieldSteel has linked above. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair criticism; I've added a little more information. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per previous thread discussion here. The poor attitude displayed is a contributing factor to my support. Verbal chat 17:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am most troubled by the statement Sourcing to NewEnergyTimes (where he was published congratulating himself on getting Wikipedia to promote cold fusion) after consensus was it is not reliable. I can see the reference, but can someone elaborate on what the statement in NewEnergyTimes was?—Kww(talk) 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See the second diff here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's clear enough to demonstrate that he has a stated agenda contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia. Support topic-ban.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I looked through the diffs presented in the above thread. I've also looked through the article. ScienceApologist said that Pcarbonn cited the NewEnergyTimes, yet the diff shows him bringing it up on the talk page.[83] The rest of these diffs leave me very suspicious of SA's honesty; they're mainly of Pcarbonn on the talk page, stating substantive points and citing substantive research. Two are in the article space. For one, ScienceApologist cites Pcarbonn "insisting that two-thirds is not a majority" for this diff, when Pcarbonn doesn't seem to dispute the mathematical fact but rather increases the precision of the statement by substituting the word two-thirds in for the word majority. I try for precision whenever possible. That looks like a good edit to me. Keep in mind that if a physicist is a well-published academic, then citing articles by that physicist from places like the NewEnergyTimes might be appropriate. Yes, Pcarbonn says that publications acknowledge a growing controversy over new research in cold fusion. For example, a 2008 article in Nature India is titled "Cold fusion hot again". I see that there are talks in these threads of wiping out all of these fine sources and going back to the 2004 version. How can you justify eliminating articles from things like Nature? Why react to this article as if one's entire worldview revolves around cold fusion being reflected as pure pseudoscientific garbage. Why does it matter so much? Recently a professor at Osaka University in Japan unveiled what he calls a working cold fusion reactor.[84] This used to be in the article, but it has been deleted. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Are we trying to "save people" from hearing about the latest news regarding cold fusion? Why? If a professor claims to have a working CF reactor, that is news worthy of an encyclopedia. It is not our job to fact-check it or ensure that readers know that this is just an announcement, not necessarily a confirmation. As a reader, I come to Wikipedia because, unlike textbooks, it does not censor the latest breaking (encyclopedic) news, or shy away from the most in-depth details. II | (t - c) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ive read and re-read the above post and cannot work out who "you" is meant to refer to. Please clarify whose honesty you doubt, if nothing else. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. For some reason I thought the "diffs" thread (which is the only one which really matters) was started by you, but it was started by ScienceApologist. So I doubt his honesty, which isn't surprising to me. It says something when the best diffs you can come up with start with "[the user] pontificating on the talk page". What do you think of those diffs, and what do you think of the more recent third-party sources? II | (t - c) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with you is that you think that the mainstream is wrong and Wikipedia is the place to right that wrong. Well, I'm sorry to inform you that it is not. You might try wikinfo instead. They prefer the sympathetic point-of-view over there which is closer to what you advocate. Your continual push away from NPOV is well-known by those who track your contributions. You're a very good contributor, you just don't conform to our core policies. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support per the AN/I discussion, the delisting discussion (which arguably would not be necessary if PCarbonn adhered more scrupulously to the weight of sources), and years of usually civil insistence that NPOV and should be superseded by advocacy. (Note that I am occasionally involved at Cold fusion, but generally lack the time or inclination to fight over every point I try to research and add). Reverting to a few years back might be a bit extreme, but WP:DUE must be respected. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  Yes. In my perception, based on a very brief stay at the article, this is how Pcarbonn is compromising WP:DUE. Consider the facts: 1) There are over 50,000 papers indexed by ISI each year on Applied Physics / Condensed Matter Physics, which all ignore this revolutionary anomaly. 2) Britannica has two paragraphs about Cold Fusion in their article on fusion, completely ignoring the five or so recent papers. 3) Sourcing policy only considers reliable sources about the topic in question, not the extend to which most reliable source don't even bother refuting it, therefore, the presentation is vulnerable to attack. This vulnerability is masterfully exploited by Pcarbonn.

  In any case, surely there are editors without vested interest in cold fusion, who cold oppose the Britannica POV, if that is indeed too conservative; but Wikipedia's inability to deal with non-well-established-knowledge pushing is the worst aspect of this project, so I hope something is done about it. Vesal (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which acknowledge a controversy from Wired and Nature India. For example, a 2008 Wired article states that "verification of these controversial results is not the problem".[85] There is also an article on it I'm not seeing how the amount of mainstream physics work published is relevant to what is included in the cold fusion page. Am I reading you correctly in that you advocate removing most of the now-considered acceptable sources on the subject, such as the Nature India article, Wired article, and the cold fusion research articles because mainstream physics ignores cold fusion? I would oppose the Britannica POV (or, more accurately, their article, which is likely short because of lack of resources), but I don't have the time or the interest to learn about cold fusion, especially since I would then have to have edit-wars with SA and others concerned that CF isn't being presented negatively enough. II | (t - c) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wired magazine is hardly known for its cutting-edge reporting on the natural sciences. Like other cold fusion advocates, you seem to be preferentially enthralled by sources which present cold fusion in a positive light. Nobody says that such sources don't exist, only that they shouldn't be driving the content of the article. In fact, the article should conform to the mainstream understanding of the subject per WP:NPOV. That is, we need to make sure that readers understand that the majority of the world thinks the subject is a whole lot of pathological hooey. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Vesal, you complain about "Wikipedia's inability to deal with non-well-established-knowledge pushing". Do you imply that this applies this case ? Isn't there a principle of Justice that the benefit of the doubt should benefit the accused ? Pcarbonn (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the very core of this problem is that you are pushing non-well-established knowledge. You emphasize sources from low-level technical journals, but well-established knowledge is reflected by Britannica and physics textbooks; you constantly emphasize the resent experiments, although the significance of these are quite unknown. Now, it is perfectly fine to oppose the Britannica POV, but we should extend from well-established knowledge very carefully, and that is hard when someone with a vested interest is dominating the discussion. Vesal (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support as I said in the AN/I discussion, our goals should be to improve the encyclopedia, not advance a particular viewpoint. If PCarbonn is interested in contributing here, it needs to be on areas unrelated to Cold Fusion. Shell ^babelfish 22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Shell; tendentious editing drives away too many good editors Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I think Pcarbonn's editing has been borderline at best, and their off-wiki comments are troubling in that they reveal a desire to spin the article. Wikipedia has more than 2 million articles. Banning somebody from a handful is not a very strong sanction. On balance, I think this ban makes sense, but it is a difficult call and good faith editors may disagree and this diff seems to provide a solid justification. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC) and 23:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support a ban/block on Pcarbonn for the reasons mentioned by SA, Verbal, and many others. There is clearly a conflict of interest and some serious and unrelenting POV pushing. He is more than willing to wage a war of attrition allowing more NPOV edits to be added and stand for a time before working the text back to his position.--OMCV (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• support ban mainly per Shell and Kww. If Pcarbon proves himself able to contribute productively to other areas maybe we can revisit this ban at some point in the future. I hope that he might grow to appreciate NPOV more if he became more involved in other topics. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Pcarbonn's stated intent[86] is to "win the battle" over cold fusion. Crowing about his victory on his blog[87] is, in my mind, the final straw. Skinwalker (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

unless I am mistake,m that was back in June, and refers to the result o fa mediation which he says supported his approach to the article. And, to a certain extent, so it did. It think it ridiculous that someone should be topic banned because he accepted a mediation DGG (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, that mediation was a bungled mess, handled by a mediator who alienated a number of editors who were much more familiar with the science. I received the rudest e-mail of my life from that "mediator" who then essentially told me he would ignore me for the rest of the mediation. Since then, that mediator has driven an excellent editor off Wikipedia and has continued a low-level campaign of harassing editors with science backgrounds. Sometimes, more often than we'd care to admit perhaps, mediations go wrong. This is one of the classic examples I turn to. It's why I no longer participate in mediations, in fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nominator Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose topic ban. I totally disagree with him on the underlying subject, and I am not sure i agree with many of his edits, but i regard his work as fair, or at least fair enough to avoid banning. This is an attempt to win at AN/I what could not be won at the article or the medation. The place to try this if people insist is at arb com. FWIW, I don't think I have ever involved myself with the article itself. But I do know this is not the place to discuss article content. DGG (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with content. Its an issue of COI among other things.--OMCV (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

DGG thinks that fringe ideas should be allowed to present themselves in their full glory because he thinks that's the best way to educate people about their problems. However, he's in a very tiny minority: a minority that long ago forked to wikinfo. I'm generally amazed that DGG hasn't found his way over there yet. They seem to embody his ideals for an encyclopedia better than Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose topic ban. I am not involved in this article but looked at the diffs and evidence presented against Pcarbonn.I don't see policy violation. 2/3 for example is not a weasel word. "Most" is. What exactly is pontificating, self-congratulation.[88] These words are judgments based in opinion and not policy violations. I don't see either of these things as accurate descriptions, but if I did when did these add up to a policy ban. I could go on, but what I see is a discussion that should go back to the article where it belongs; editors with differing views but discussing reasonably, and an article that had FA status. I note as well that this is another try at having an editor banned, a concern. I would suggest that such an article requires patience and lots of discussion rather than a ban that prohibits an expert in the field from editing given that although he certainly may have a certain slant on the information so do many of the other editors there. Discuss rather than eliminate and punish.(olive (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

• Support topic ban. This editor doesn't seem to understand or accept the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

the purpose is to be a user-edited encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia edited by those user whose views i happen to support. DGG (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You're thinking of wikinfo. This encyclopedia only lets editors edit whose views conform to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. It's not sympathetic to the user's POV. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I use this encyclopedia to help my kids (all three of them) with their homework. I prefer that it be as accurate as possible. In order to be accurate, we need to remove cruft such as non-notable topics, and fringe points of view. We need to make sure that the remaining stuff is fairly balanced. Editors who cannot set aside their personal beliefs (or at least try to do so), may have to avoid certain topics. Pcarbonn has made clear that they view Cold fusion as an ideological battleground. We cannot allow that sort of editing to continue. Jehochman ^Talk 06:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I cannot imagine what kind of report would be handed in by a student reading the current Wikipedia article on cold fusion. The slant of the article toward sources which are written by advocates of cold fusion means that most anybody reading it would probably produce a report of fairly poor quality, I'm afraid. It was such reports, in fact, that got me involved in Wikipedia in the first place. I'm confident that students reading the Big Bang article will come away with a good background and grounding in the main ideas of the subject. Not so much with many of the articles you see my username show up on. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - but only with the provisio that it is a provisional topic ban that is lifted if and when:
  1. PCarbonn broadens his editing base (so show that he isn't just here to promote his version of cold fusion or to lift his own personal profile) and
  2. that he gains consensus prior to any edit on the pages listed at the start of this thread. Shot info (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Being an SPA can be fine. Sometimes fringe editors provide useful views. But fringe POV focused on a single topic? That's a recipe for NPOV violations. Would support a return to the topic if he meets Shot info's conditions immediately above. Cool Hand Luke 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support this is clearly a single purpose account determined to push a particular viewpoint and to change the article on that viewpoint so it no longer conforms to Wikipedia policy. I see the editor has decided to "stop editing for some time" following this discussion. Hut 8.5 07:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support — I have voiced support for this topic ban before, and I still support it. Pcarbonn is a SPA, who is editing here in the spirit of wikiality. I would also support extending the ban to the talk pages, too. – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. After reviewing the evidence above, I'm forced to conclude that Pcarbonn is arguing for his POV within policy. Sadalmelik, he's not engaging in outright Wikiality because he's providing sources for his claims.
  
• .....The proposal here is to get someone banned for having a minority point of view, so some article can get reverted to a version preferred by the majority. SA, has basically admitted that he's using this venue after not getting what he wanted in mediation. I agree that content mediation is problematic on Wikipedia, because the mediator(s) may not have the necessary background, but AN is not any better in that respect. Even if I can empathize with SA's goal, I cannot empathize with his method for achieving it, which is reminiscent of how communists dealt with ideological divides.
  
• .....There are dozens of politics-only accounts that are engaging in far more partisan behavior than User:Pcarbonn, and nobody is trying to get them topic banned, but that's only because they have more buddies around to watch their backs here. Asking Pcarbonn to start editing Pokemon articles in order to "broaden his editing base" is ridiculous.
  
• .....SA, there is no such thing as "WP:NPOV view". Are you really claiming your view is the NPOV standard? Wikipedia isn't Nature; it cannot contain only uncontroversial scientific topics. Allowing only mainstream orthodoxy in Wikipedia can be quite dangerous in any field, because in many areas this would exclude healthy controversy. For instance, most psychologists swear by MMPI, and so do many judges. Does that mean I should be topic banned for adding a critical section about the Fake Bad Scale (sourced only to a newspaper), if someone displaying a "psychologist" user box decided that most psychologists don't agree with the criticism? As long as Wikipedia is governed by WP:V, and not (scientific) truth, you have to keep arguing with users like Pcarbonn over the WP:DUE weight of minority positions.
  
• .....I think the article on Cold Fusion can be written to present the minority view with due weight. If you still think Pcarbonn's behavior is problematic, WP:ARBCOM is thataway. VG ☎ 11:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I can "source" any claim I care to make up. The moon is made of green cheese! So one argument demolished.

Next, the issue here is not that Pcarbonn has a minority point-of-view. The issue is that Pcarbonn wants to see a minority point-of-view given more WP:WEIGHT than it is WP:DUE and is using tactics, techniques, and editing practices that expressly are forbidden by a number of policies. In the sense that a "majority" "prefers" a version here, it is a "majority" that wish to see the proper weighting of the article and treatement of the subject.

Mediation happened a LONG time ago and I do not come here because of that incident. The mediation in question was poorly handled and I was not a party to it because the mediator essentially refused me access in defiance of the standard rules of mediation. That is neither here nor there, though. You have misinterpretted the situation.

Fourthly, comparing me to the cultural revolution seems a bit ridiculous. This is Wikipedia we're talking about here: an encyclopedia, not a society.

You are right that there is no such thing as the NPOV view. And obviously I'm not claiming "my view" is NPOV standard. What I am claiming is that NPOV demands, especially with regards to WP:WEIGHT, that we treat minority opinions as minorities and majority opinions as majorities. This is where Pcarbonn and I differ. I want to see WEIGHT enforced so that the majority opinion of cold fusion (that it is an example of pathological science) is given the weight of the article while the minority opinion (that it is an unfairly oppressed minority field in science) is marginalized. My opinions on whether cold fusion really is pathological science or not are irrelevant.

Sixthly, we're not talking about someone adding a properly weighted section to an article, as you describe. We're talking about this "hypothetical critic" (you) trying to take over the entire article and rewrite it from the Fake Bad Scale perspective. And then, when other editors point out the flaw, waste everybody's time and efforts by contintually removing, rewording, or discarding attempts to realign the article to a state that it is currently in. Pcarbonn isn't adding a "section" here, he has commandeered the ENTIRE article. I expect that with Pcarbonn gone we will give his opinion the weight it deserves in the article, but we cannot do it while he has a vice-grip hold over the article.

Finally, taking this situation to arbcom is, to my understanding, the next step if the community doesn't act on this issue. However, if we can get consensus without arbcom wouldn't that be better? I'll make sure to include you as an involved participant if that's where we end up. However, I'd prefer it if we didn't end up there.

ScienceApologist (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You sound like you're threatening me with ARBCOM for not agreeing with you here. I'm as uninvolved as it comes on Cold fusion. I admit to not having read the whole article, but I find the I find the current lead considerably more informative than the one that was featured four years ago.

If User:Pcarbonn has had the massive deleterious effect on the entire article that you claim, I'm not seeing it. Color me blind. VG ☎ 12:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not threatening you with anything at all. Just pointing out options in the same way you pointed options out to me, is all. Your detailed opposition seemed to be singularly obsessed with my behavior, so I thought that maybe you'd have something to offer the arbcom case. And if this whole discussion comes out as "no consensus" because of your argumentation, well, then, I think we do have something to arbitrate because my idea of a harmonious editing environment and your idea of a harmonious editing environment seem so diametrically opposed as to be fairly near impossible to maintain in conjuction.

Secondly, I agree with you about the lead. I should just point out that the lead is currently in my preferred version due in no small part to a vigilance I'm only able to maintain due to peculiarities of my current work schedule. It is the only part of the article that I've been able to work on while the disruptive tactics have continued for the last few months. What is on the talk page and in the edit history is a record of false starts, driven-away editors, pointless machinations, disastrous argumentation, a complete inability to move forward, dismissal of reliable sources, promotion of unreliable sources, etc., etc., etc. Why should it be that just because I've been insisting on a good lead that we should happily tolerate such an unhealthy editing environment?

Lastly, it is very clear to me that you didn't consider the evidence very carefully. You've offered counterfactual (mis)interpretations of rationales, motivations, timelines, and positions and haven't responded substantively to any of the places where I pointed out where you are wrong. It is true that I really don't appreciate being dismissed with a claim that I'm engaging in CCCP-style censorship and a wave of the back of the hand toward ARBCOM. It just evinces an attitude that is rude, jerky, and boorish.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're taking this too personally. We've both made our points, and I have neither the time or the desire to engage in a feud with anyone. VG ☎ 13:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This notice is a strong-armed attempt at POV-pushing. I've known the editors long enough to see through it. I recommend that newcomers to this discussion review the evidence before commenting. Kevin Baas^talk 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC) — Kevin_baas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User was renamed (capitalization).

  The above signature links to the user and talk pages for Kevin baas (talk · contribs) which redirect to those of Kevin Baas (talk · contribs). Regardless of these distractions, the editor who made this comment has recently made few or no contributions outside the cold fusion subject area. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• What POV-pushing is going on here? Seriously, I don't want to be part of any POV-pushing attempt, so please inform me. Is it POV-pushing to want articles to be more like other reputable encyclopedias? Vesal (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose topic ban - Editors need to learn to use WP:DR to resolve content disputes. Take this to another round of mediation, rather than use AN/I. If all fails, take it to ArbCom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Defense by Pcarbonn - The private feedback I received encourages me to say the following: if confirmed, a ban decision would be a shame for Wikipedia.

First of all, it would result from a mockery of Justice, reminiscent of the French Reign of Terror. Which Justice would punish someone for SPA, when it is not an offense ? Which Justice would take the argument of COI, when I was cleared of it in another judgement ? Which Justice would punish me for expressing an opinion, when no evidence is presented that I did it aggressively ? Which Justice would punish me for boasting of my success, when it is not an offense ? Which Justice would punish me for wanting to present fairly a significant point of view, when one of its past decision was actually to allow that ?

What happened to the original American ideals ? Your master revolutionary and second president, John Adams, once defended the primacy of rules, even British ones, over the rule of a mob. That's why he was appalled by the French Revolution. He defended the value of free speech, and, wary of the dangers of individuals, designed a constitution with check and balances. Wikipedia has such check and balances in the core policies. He would certainly have defended me in this case of free speech.

Furthemore, it would be a mockery of Science. Good scientists make a difference between skepticism and rejection. Rejection is only allowed when a theory is falsified. As the DOE said in 1989, and again in 2004, the cold fusion theory has not been falsified. Therefore, good scientists familiar with the matter keep an open mind. Some news article ignore such fine points, and consider cold fusion "rejected". Unfortunately, some wikipedia editors as well, despite the many sources (and our article), which only says that most scientists are skeptical. All my efforts have been directed to clarify this difference, to defend the view that cold fusion is still a controversy, a view that is well sourced and contrary to what some of the signatories above believe. (I regret not having stopped User:IwRnHaA from presenting cold fusion as confirmed (e.g. here, which I believe is a prime reason for the demotion of the article from GA).

I have decided to take some distance with Wikipedia for a while. Still, if the ban decision is confirmed, I would be convinced that Wikipedia has become a tabloid, for the reason stated. Hopefully, overtime, it would mature. I would wish you good chance. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support I don't have American ideals, I'm British. More seriously, the initial experiments were flawed, the claimed results would have created a lethal dose of radiation, and it all doesn't matter because the problem is an obvious COI. If Richard Dawkins was editing the article of Adnan Oktar, it wouldn't matter that Dawkins was probably in the right, what would matter was that Dawkins has a COI because Adnan Oktar is attempting to vilify him in the Turkish courts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahowmker, how do the claimed experimental results become relevant to whether the individual in question should be banned from editing the article? DGG (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to be a POV fight between two sides with each side being equally culpable of POV pushing. This proceding (IMH)) is just a method to oust of one side of the debate by the other side of the debate rather than go through the normal WP:DR channels. I've seen this behavior before from the same editors. "I don't agree with you. I can't change your mind. Therefore I am going to recommend a topic ban." That's rather petty. I don't think that COI is an obvious problem here, nor do I think that an editor should be banned because of SPA. That said, I would encourage Pcarbonn to branch out and look at other articles which desperately need help from willing editors. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on a dangerous precedent.

• This is a dispute about content: No teacher in an academic environment could ever consider Wikipedia an acceptable source for definitive information, because of the nature of how the articles are created. Wikipedia articles are influx, are never confirmed stable sources of knowledge. We cannot, then, use the argument that, the article needs to be stable so my kids or my students can rely on it. No article is ever that stable. As well, few educators at the post secondary level and hopefully at the secondary level could consider Wikipedia or any encyclopedia, although a starting point, a legitimate reference.

• As a dispute about content, have the appropriate procedures been followed when disputes about content arise, and has Pcarbonn supported these procedures. Pcarbonn has agreed to mediation in the past and there is no evidence that he refused appropriate discussion or procedures as concerns content.

• Until all of the appropriate procedures on content disputes have been exhausted this case has no business being here. Jumping from a content dispute to a request for a sixth month ban is a ludicrous jump in logic and judgment on our parts.

• As a content dispute there seems to be the nonsensical notion that Pcarbonn has been able to control this article despite the active involvment of other editors like Science Apologist who maintains an opposite POV from his. No editor created that article on his own. No editor trod over other editors to make his edits stick. No diffs indicate that kind of scenario.

• There seems to be a notion that the article is a mess. From who's viewpoint? The article had GA status.

• No Wikipedia Policy or guideline prohibits single account editing . Single account editing is a possible indicator of concern when an editor begins to violate policy and guidelines in his editing practices . Pcarbonn has not edited outside of policy/guideline. There are no diffs that indicate such editing. As such we might consider that we are dealing with an expert in this field who has strong views on the material . As long as he edits within policy he is Wikipedia compliant.

• Removing Pcarbonn from editing this article leaves another POV in control. Is that good for the neutrality of the article.

We set a dangerous precedent for Wikipedia when we attempt to limit editors with expertise from legitimate editing of articles in their areas of knowledge if they are not violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We set a dangerous precedent when we jump past the procedures in place for content dispute and instead, gang up on an editor rather than follow appropriate procedure. We set dangerous precedents for Wikipedia when we ignore content and instead move to attack one editor for a POV, editing in compliance, when other editors in the same article have well known POVs. Making these kinds of judgment by passes Wikipedia policy and guidelines and places judgment into our hands - a kind of mob rule, always a desperate scenario.(olive (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

The article is a mess from the viewpoint of those future Nature reviewers, who will compare this article with Britannica and consider it a major blunder, making Britannica win 5:4 in that contest. Can this project, for once, get over the misconception that he most civilly pushed POV is the most encyclopedic POV?? It isn't hard to compare with Britannica, if you don't know enough about the topic. This isn't just my POV versus yours, read up on the topic in some other encyclopedia! Vesal (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your talking about content. Argue this in a content dispute process.(olive (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I was talking about motivation. Is his motivation to improve Wikipedia? To present a neutral evaluation of cold fusion? Or is it to present cold fusion in the most positive light that he can? The latter is unacceptable, and his statements have persuaded me that it is what motivates him.—Kww(talk) 19:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We put ourselves in a very precarious position if we attempt to decide motivation. I couldn't care less what motivates him in the context of this dispute, but I care that he is editing within policy. Do you all mean to tell me that SA has no influence over there. Let them work it out, or take it through the content dispute process, but we cannot dare to decide what motivates someone else, and then in doing so suggest a 6th month ban.None of us should have that kind of power.(olive (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I'm not talking about specific content, I'm saying that this "all POVs are equal" idea is flawed, because some views are more encyclopedic than others. I wish admins would make a simple comparison with other reference work, rather than content-agnostic judgments. This applies to any article, even where it would contradict my own POV. I certainly have fringe views, such as I don't believe in free will and I believe that view is the cutting edge in cognitive science, but it would be very wrong to overwhelm the article with specific experiments to skew the presentation, because the fact that we lack free will is not well-established knowledge, yet... This is precisely what Pcarbonn is doing to the Cold Fusion article. Vesal (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not about specific content but it is about content. Pcarbonn is not solely responsible for that article .... If there are concerns about content on any level it needs to be discussed and dealt with. The way of doing that is not to cut down an editor to get him out of the way so things can move along .... That's not Wikipedia. I'm not saying you're doing that, of course, just that this case is presenting that as an option.(olive (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

 Redflag This thread has deteriorated into bickering. Therefore, I have filed a Request for Arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant white flag. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

good step. The decision, whatever it turns out to be, is likely to be better thought out-- and get better acceptance than we will here. DGG (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO - this is crazy. Referral to ArbCom flies in the face of the trend to community resolution. If it is indeed "just" a content issue, ArbCom is powerless anyway - unless it will be referred to the nascent "experts committee on sources", which I thought most people were against anyway. If it's a behavioural issue, it should be solved here. The current tally is 2:1 pro-topic ban. Subtract the "usual suspects" on both sides and it would still likely be pro-topic ban (haven't even tried to tally that!). See above at Shot info, who could be considered as among the usual pro-science pro-mainstream pro-verifiable advocates: temporary ban, prove an interest beyond the single topic. Why are creative solutions being discarded in favour of an ArbCom reference? What is ArbCom going to deliver here (beyond a three-month delay and "parties are reminded")? This is cutting off discussion among potential neutral parties. Anyway, just my opinion... Franamax (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Woot! Shot info, who could be considered as among the usual pro-science pro-mainstream pro-verifiable advocates :-) Shot info (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Shot, I thought you had the best idea in the thread, that's all I care about. Given that it's a polarized thread though, I felt I had to categorize you somewhere - and I can only go by my own experience with your edits, so I called it as I see it. Substitute anti-, null-, skeptic-, agnostic- or any prefix-prepositional-adjunct-clause you wish, it was still a good idea. I apologize though for any false characterization! :) Franamax (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey I'm not disagreeing :-) ... Although you might want to watch out...there are some admins who will slap you with some CIV warning or some other silliness. Shot info (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't disagree much there. I thought this discussion was proceeding reasonably well. Expecting unanimity is a bit much, and this seemed to have been settling at a pretty clear supermajority, which is as close to consensus as any of these things ever gets.—Kww(talk) 04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem. We do not have a clear policy for implementing Community topic bans. The closest thing we have, WP:BAN states that a ban happens when no administrator is willing to unblock. How do we apply that to a topic ban? I am not sure. An administrator, User:Jossi has already objected to the topic ban, as have a few other editors I respect (such as User:DGG). My feeling is that something as serious as a topic ban probably shouldn't happen at a noticeboard unless there is a clear supermajority, and no administrators objecting. It is very easy to generate support for a proposal where a bunch of drive by editors chime in "support, per the guy above". This is not the sort of fair and careful consideration that Pcarbonn deserves. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the first sentence of the "problem". There should be a clear policy - and weren't you just lately asking for something along the same lines? Lets get at it then.

I've just been quickly through the comments above and I don't see that many "drive-by"s - although enough committed observers as to skewer my putative secondary analysis of neutral opinions. But you won't find any better distribution at ArbCom, will you? Instead, you will find a more limited group of editors, more constrained as to how they can comment on content issues.

And you touch on a really big issue - "no administrators objecting". As far as you mean "one single administrator defies the community will", that concept really needs to die soon. That has nothing to do with ArbCom, it has to do with the admin corps and its self-organization. You cavil at drive-by comments supporting a topic ban, yet you would defend any drive-by (I don't mean Jossi) admin who stopped in to say they would overturn? Like I said, that's crazy. Franamax (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arithmetic is a bit off. Both jossi and DGG (opposing above) are admins, and DGG has been opposing this ban ever since JzG brought it up in July. Furthermore, you are declaring that editors without an admin bit should have no say in a (community) ban discussion. Since when does community == admins? VG ☎ 13:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Whose arithmetic do you mean? I'm looking at JEH's referral to AC, based at least in part to the math/thinking he describes above. The closest reference is held to be WP:BAN, and there "no admin is willing to unblock" == "!one admin stating a willingness to unblock" - ergo one dissenting admin -> paralysis. Similarly with specific attention to a proposed topic ban, JEH cites a dissenting admin, Jossi, with the implication that the admin status is sufficient to null the proposal. Now I respect all of JEH, Jossi and certainly DGG, the other named dissenting party - but I don't recognize any (or all) of their dissents as sufficient to stop this discussion and direct it instead to an ArbCom case. I would much rather see the discussion proceed here, especially on the basis of Shot info's terms, towards a resolution - and the aggrieved party would then be free to file with ArbCom. If a community solution can be achieved, to me that's a far more satisfactory outcome. Franamax (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should also take into account here that none of the dissenting admins above, to my knowledge, are going to go against a consensus decision. If there's a community consensus to impose a topic ban, then they're not going to lift any blocks resulting from it without discussing it somewhere.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to continuing discussion here, there has been an arbcom case opened. I'm not going to tell you all to pack up shop here and move there, but I'm pretty sure input over at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion would be more useful then input here. (I really don't see any clear consensus to implement this restriction or consensus not to implement it... but that is just my opinion as an editor). —— nixeagle 21:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I should make a note to those wishing to continue this, if you guys want to see an easier to read consensus on the matter, I would suggest someone not involved with the proposal above reformat and rewrite the proposed ban taking into account suggestions in the comments. Some of the comments are of the tone "I like the idea... but I'd only accept if XXX conditions are in place". Incorporate the whole of the discussion and make a new subsection below with it and let the community discuss that topicban. —— nixeagle 21:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Second Comment The biggest problem with this thread is that pretty much zero evidence of objectionable behavior has been presented. The only diff presented by those supporting is of Pcarbonn stating that he has "won the battle" or somesuch. That's not much to go on. It's pretty amazing that people are willing to support such a major move with so little evidence. II | (t - c) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anna Anderson concerns brought to your attention

You will have seen the bloodbath at the admins' notification page concerning the abuses and hounding, occurring at Talk:Anna Anderson. "Alexius Horatius" has referred this to you. I am here to call to your attention the need for either moderation, arbitration or someone to step in, review all facts and delete Anna Anderson as it presently stands. Since a consensus was nearly reached there, two particular troublemakers began the insults and wikishouting all over again: aggiebean and finneganw. Soon enough you will be aware of my identity. Please help that mess! That is all I have to say.75.21.124.148 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Editing to correct factual error.75.21.124.148 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)