Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive71

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


I had to share this...[edit]

WP:SOUP incorporates a quote I found on an old RfC. Feel free to redirect and delete if this text already exists elsewhere, but do I ever know what the original author meant! Guy (Help!) 13:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945[edit]

Different arbitrary POV tags persistently added by two users, promoting Russian POV. Disputing guys refuse to give any reputable sources on talk, which might testify that Latvia was not occupied by the USSR. Pretty clear case of minority POV pushing here, disguised with thriving for 'neutrality'. Advocatus diaboli 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
How can you resolve anything, if the users 'worried about NPOV' refuse to recognise neither WP:NPOV, WP:Citing sources nor WP:OR? The article itself clearly says why it was legally occupation, so that I don't see any possibility to phrase it otherwise.Advocatus diaboli 14:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 16, 2005[edit]

Some time ago, a user created several hundred pages about a day (e.g. Dec 16 2005, as opposed to our regular articles like November 1). These articles are redundant and ultimately unmaintainable, so it was suggested that they be deleted. Rather than creating several hundred noms, Fram (talk · contribs) created a single nom listing a handful, as linked above.

Now the point is that the arguments, and most people who commented, support removal of these articles. But, several people have argued that this is out of process. The problem with this line of thought is, that no matter how or where you want to discuss potential removal of these articles, there will always be people arguing that it was out of process. If you do it on AFD, people suggest CENT. Do it on CENT, and they'll request the village pump. And the village pump will ask you to get your {{shrubbery}} at AFD.

So I propose we look at the arguments rather than at whether or not it conforms to Da Rulez, close the AFD and remove these poorly thought-out articles. Thoughts please? >Radiant< 14:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Damn, we've had this transclusion debate before with WikiProject Cricket. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere that says we don't transclude in the article name space. My initial thoughts are that we cut out the forum shopping, but maybe run this one over for another week making that point clear and hope to develop a strong consensus. I'll try and find all the cricket discussion, it's about 18 months ago, I remember archiving it all together. That was one that spilled out onto the pump and cent as well, from what I remember. Steve block Talk 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Just make them go away, Radiant!, please. --Docg 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Aha, Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#transcluding_prose and Wikipedia:Template namespace. My gut is to push towards a merge and redirect to the monthly articles. Steve block Talk 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Analysis suggests that a redirect isn't necessary because there are little or no incoming links, and a merge isn't necessary because nearly all the relevant information is already in the more general articles like July 2. >Radiant< 14:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, I've had a look at a couple and seen incoming links, maybe ten an article. Protected redirects might stop future occurrences. Steve block Talk 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These pages are probably in the main namespace because Portal:Current events used to be in the main namespace. Several of them are still transcluded on other pages. I have suggested to move them all to subpages of Portal:Current events, as they might be archives of that page. Individual month pages like December 2005 (a page consisting mostly of transclusions of articles included in the AFD) could also be moved out of article space. Kusma (討論) 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    • This might be the best suggestion. They do seem to be part of the current events format as was, and they get pushed out of the article space where they clearly don't belong. Steve block Talk 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • yeah, they are a part of the current events portal, see January 2007, that's made up of transcluded pages from the portal namespace. I'm leaning towards closing as moving to portal namespace on that basis. Steve block Talk 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This does seem like the best solution, and is unlikely to be controversial or require further discussion since it matched the current practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yay. Proto has now closed the debate, stating that there is consensus to delete them, but we must nevertheless tag every single article and discuss it further in some other forum (which will undoubtedly also reject it as "out of process"). I find this a rather bureaucratic approach, and it will likely not be productive. >Radiant< 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As stated on my talk page, someone will see a page is deleted they didn't know about, take all 1400 pages to DRV, and enough people would ask for them to be restored based on them not having been AFD tagged for them to be restored (as DRV is based on headcounting, inexplicably). If you want them to go through AFD, then tag them for AFD and do it properly. If you didn't want them to be AFD'd properly, why bring the articles to AFD? If you want them moved to the portal namespace, be bold and just move them instead of complaining about bureaucracy. I won't mind. Proto:: 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • DRV is not based on headcounting, but on policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that since I started this thing (the AfD, not the articles), I'm willing to take every step deemed necessary, be it starting a WP:CENT discussion, posting on the Village Pump, or starting a new AfD with all (some 1,400) pages tagged: I'm also prepared to merge all articles into the month articles if that is the preferred solution, and to change all links to these pages (coming from article pages, not from user pages or talk pages) to better links (splitting in two parts usually). If any of these needs to be done, please drop me a note, and please also be patient since it is quite a big task obviously. I'm of course unable to do any of the needed admin tasks, be it deleting pages or merging histories. Fram 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As mentioned above, one thing you could do right now that probably wouldn't be controversial is to just move datedatedate to Portal:Current events/datedatedate. On the plus side this wouldn't require any more discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • But that would create cross-namespace redirects which would need to be deleted: further we would still need to decide what to do with all the redlinks this creates (in some cases correcting (i.e. dividing) the links, in some cases moving the parent pages (month/year) to the portal namespace as well. The latter would then necessitate the correction of several hundred redlinks per monthpage (e.g. December 2005 has approx. 600 incoming links). All this may be what eventually needs to be done, but I'ld like this to be quite certain and agreed upon before I embark on such a move / delete / correct party (which I'm still willing to do!). Fram 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Myriad articles on bootleg albums[edit]

Filthy113 (talk · contribs) is creating dozens of articles on bootleg releases (kind of an oxymoron) from the band Cradle of Filth. Since bootlegs are generally neither terribly notable nor really verifiable, they're getting tagged for deletion right and left, though I'm not sure there's really a speedy category that applies. Anyone have any thoughts on action that should/could be taken? Doesn't appear to be responding in any way to notes on User Talk page. Fan-1967 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nuke the lot. Bootleg albums are by nature almost without exception undocumentable per policy (WP:V) and guideline (WP:N). Guy (Help!) 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Neither WP:V or WP:N are speedy criteria. However, WP:IAR may be applicable here.--Docg 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, there are rules? Guy (Help!) 02:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm waste time in AFD or invoke "Speedy per SNOW"? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 09:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the answer is in the question. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some bootlegs are notable, but one should be able to present sources about them. 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (this was me; somehow I got logged out. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Pretty sure this is a case where {{db|custom reason}} can be applied. Admins can use common sense to judge whether articles so tagged can be speedily deleted. Gzkn 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do about images tagged for 7 days and deleted, then re-uploaded[edit]

I'm talking about images that are tagged as having no fair use rationale, no source, no copyright tag, etc. that are tagged for a week and deleted, then re-uploaded without satisfying the conditions required for keeping. An example I found is Image:Dabf162.jpg, which was recently deleted as being tagged without a fair use rationale for over a week and then re-uploaded (by a different user), under the same name as the original, still without a fair use rationale. This would technically not be speedyable from my understanding since recreation of deleted content is only speedyable after an XfD, which images that are deleted via this process do not go through. On the other hand, if we allowed this it would be a loophole people could exploit to repeatedly upload an image and not have it deleted for a week. VegaDark 11:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It was uploaded more than a week ago originally, correct? And no improvement has been made to its licensing statements in that time, correct? In that case, WP:CSD#I6. --tjstrf talk 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is easier to extend that logic in this particular instance since it was re-uploaded under the same name. But what about a different name, or an almost identical picture but technically different one? VegaDark 11:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
We regularly speedy delete articles that are things like My semi-plausible idea I made up and then reposted as Semi-plausible idea of my own invention. Images should be the same way. The title is nothing but what filename it's being stored as on the server, it's the same content. If the image were slightly different, that might be policy grounds for waiting a week, but if the uploader is being incorrigible just speedy delete it anyway. --tjstrf talk 11:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was a recreation of a speedy delete, you can't delete it under G4 "recreation of deleted material", but you can use another criterion to delete it, including the same one that speedied it in the first place, if the conditions are still the same. Tyrenius 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember that 'speedy' deletions of images involve a seven-day delay. So, the question is,do we have to let the 'speedy' deletion run its course for a re-upload of the same image? -- Donald Albury 14:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. Tyrenius 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for opinions on block[edit]

There's a discussion at the moment at WP:AN/I#Callous personal attack on which I'd be grateful for admins' input. The "callous personal attack" which appalled the original poster was:

"Its about time you had a weekend off, its all you ever seem to be doing(going on wikipedia)."

This, together with a few other examples, most of them no worse, some even more innocuous, has led User: HighInBC to issue JFBurton (talk contribs) with a four-day block. That seems to me to be outrageous. I'm inclined to lift the block as unwarranted, both in fact and in extent, but I'd like to get other opinions first. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm looking at the block log, and I see that said user has been blocked four other times for personal attacks and/or disruption. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
All in a period of less than two months. --Majorly 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but for what? I haven't done all the work necessary to find out, but if the earlier blocks were as poorly justified as this one, I'd say that they were also unjustified. Anyway, the main point is that nothing he's said this time warrants a block, in my opinion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh this is here too. Just for the record, the block was for the compounded reasons that the user was fully warned(warning which were removed), had been blocked for the same thing in the past couple months 3 times, the several example of incivility were all from the last few days, and the fact that the user was uncivil right after being warned, while I was reviewing is contribs. Is 4 days really such a long block? It seems minor considering the week long block the user received in December for the same thing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Removing warnings from a User's Talk page is not a blockable offence.
  2. It doesn't matter how many times someone has been blocked for an offence; even if the earlier blocks were justified, the new block has to be too. The definition of incivilty doesn't get weaker just because someone has been uncivil before.
  3. Given that the comments are so mild, barely uncivil at all, the fact that they were made right after a civility warning is irrelevant. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Per point 1, I agree, however it does reveal if the person was knowledgable of the policy. Per point 2, I disagree, a user being block for the same thing over and over is a clear indication of unwillingness to follow policy Per point 3, I disagree again, continued incivility past warnings is a blockable offense. You seem to be of the opinion that someone can be just a little bit uncivil as long as they want, I do think the amount of incivility plays a part.

My point is that a user that is ignoring warnings and continuing to violate policy needs to be blocked. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your view of point two goes against Wikipedia and natural justice. You seem to have misunderstood my third point, though, so perhaps you misunderstood the second point too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've just left this on his Talk page:

The block, I still hold, was unjustified on the basis of the evidence offered. However, User:FisherQueen has explained the background of this, with regard to your behaviour towards her (and I've seen your edit of her User page, and although four days is a lot, I don't feel like helping you out over this. I agree with Asterion that you need to start behaving and writing like a considerate adult. Perhaps when the four days are up you'll rethink how you interact with others. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Curious behavior on an article on AFD[edit]

Yesterday evening, I placed Daigacon on AFD. This morning, while I was checking for related changes in Category:Anime conventions, I noticed that Silentsam84 copied the entire article to his talk page[1] with the comment "For use if deleted." added to the top.[2] This is a rather strange thing to do for an article on AFD and gets me wondering if he plans on recreating the article later. --Farix (Talk) 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not really that odd - he could be doing it because he feels that in it's current state, it's sure to be deleted but he wants to work on it so that he can try and recreate an improved article some time down the road. Have you actually asked him about it? --Larry laptop 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not unless I restore his original talk page, which he blanked while copying the article. --Farix (Talk) 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please reinvite Germanium?[edit]

He was banned for editing an article and saying that the definition of one thing divided by nothing (1/0) is that it is an absolute and perfect non-cancelling combination of + and - infinity, something that is self-balanced and united as in the spirit of everything unified together, ala a theory of everything. Much like the complete and dynamic corrolation held in the eastern idea of yin and yang. Germanium would like to be reinvited so that he can teach us more about this line of thinking which leads to a perpetual source of energy and absolute abundance - a wonderful and unignorable chance for peace on earth— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Looking at the edits from your IP address, would I would wrong to assume you are Germanium? --Larry laptop 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am he— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

from the sound of it (and looking at your contributions), that's just a recipe to add various bits of wacky original research. What's the purpose of an unblock, if the intention is to carry on as before? Is the intention just to carry on adding your own theories on things? --Larry laptop 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As you were told, you were banned for posting WP:OR - you clearly were posting your own theories. If you would acknowledge Wikipedia's policy on the matter, and promise to stop, you could certainly be unblocked. -Patstuarttalk|edits 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
History of earlier actions can be found in this archive of this page in the section entitled "Gödel's incompleteness theorems". Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of no laws. Author in question seems unable or unwilling to accept the basic principles of Wikipedia:No original research. I see no reason for unblocking Germanium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and think blocking (talk · contribs) may be appropriate. Fan-1967 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's our answer folks - I suggest an IP ban - no point continuing this conversation. --Larry laptop 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good name for a group, that. :) Tevildo 04:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. He's so convinced of his rightness that Wikipedia rules are irrelevant to him, and he has no intention, or even consideration, of respecting them. Fan-1967 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't want to see this talk page fill up with OR. -- Donald Albury 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone. -- Steel 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Interwiki map[edit]

Request help in cleaning up this page, in particular removing sites that are (1) defunct or (2) inappropriate external links. >Radiant< 12:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden (talk · contribs) and WP:STALK[edit]

User:Oden is doing useful and unthankful job of enforcing our increasingly more strict policies of the fair use image by patrolling old images. It is a delicate task there it is critical to explain users that how their images that were celebrated catch just a few months ago now are considered shameful policy violations. Obviously, the users should receive all the explanations over the policy changes, be encouraged to find the free equivalents of the fair use, there should be an honest dialog over their reasons while the free images are unsuitable for the articles. The most important the users should not feel that tagging of their images is a sort of a personal harassment or a vendetta. I am not sure Oden is doing a right thing in this respect. He has chosen to patrol the fair use images based on the uploader. Often he has a disagreement with a user, then "review" all his her image over years. As a result the uploader feels harassed and persecuted even if Oden's claims are valid. From the point of view of stimulating the search for free images mass tagging of images by a single uploader are counterproductive: if tagging one..two images per week stimulate users to find free substitutes or releasing the images under free copyright licenses, mass tagging just lead to apathy.

Oden was many times warned by different admins not to violate WP:STALK and to be more thoughtful about user's feelings see [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I have counted at least five different admins and two prolific users in good standing. Still after all this warnings he behaves exactly the same. E.g. after a mild personal attack from [[User:Kuban Kazak] [13]. Oden within minutes started tagging Kuban's images: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. He never had any ineterest in Kuban images. I wish to apply WP:AGF but it is difficult not to see the usage of copyright issues as a weapon in a personal conflict, the thing a few admins including me specifically asked Oden not to do. Very similar methods are used by Oden in his personal conflict with Irpen. Irpen is not a problem user out of hundreds of the images he uploaded only a couple were found wrong but he does not take the stalking lightly. I specifically asked Oden to leave irpen's upload log along. Still after all these warnings Oden is still bragging about searching this log [19].

Guys, Oden is a very hardworking user and I do not want to block him, but the warnings do not have any effects so far. Can somebody talk with him and persuade him to change his modus operandi? Alex Bakharev 13:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Following a trail of contributions to find more violations is not stalking, in my opinion. Again, IMO, it is pure and simple that Oden is not in the wrong here; generally, people who breach WP:FU once do it again,and so looking back through a user's log is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. It seems, well, silly that you would consider blocking someone for it. Jimbo Wales and WMF take a dim view on bad FU images, and so should we - it doesn't matter how you find them. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. If it appears to Irpen/Kuban/whoever as though they are being stalked, this will probably be because Irpen/Kuban/whoever is repeatedly uploading unfree images in breach of WP:FU. Proto:: 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment.As I've said before, Oden is one of the relatively moderate folks in the anti fair-use group. But it does seem more than a bit disruptive to specifically target the uploads of individual editors as he appears to be doing. Daniel: Jimbo's opinion on the matter is just another opinion. Jimbo himself has said that trying to support something with "Jimbo said" isn't a fair argument. The argument here isn't about bad fair use images but in how people are going about tagging them, and Machiavellian tactics aren't going to help promote goodwill and community in Wikipedia. It's rude and disruptive. Proto: By this logic, then if the police go and beat someone with truncheons and haul him off to jail, that automatically makes him guilty of crimes. It's not proper in a modern society to assume that if someone is punished, it automatically means that person was guilty. And regardless of whether an editor has uploaded fair use images, WP:AGF asks that we assume good faith, which you're not advocating. As has been mentioned many times and subsequently pooh-poohed by folks who want to implement RfU, a category page with an automatic list of all fair use images should be created and then whoever wants to go throug them can do so one by one. This would eliminate this semi-wikistalking thing, and if nothing else, would give the RfU taggers an out when someone complains about their image being tagged. Instead, folks seem to insist on doing it the hard way, making people angry, making them feel stalked and persecuted, causing disruption and seriously affecting efficiency and community. I don't know why this is, but it's very backward. TheQuandry 16:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If you consider uploading fair use images after they have been removed and deleted because of breach of fair use to be vandalism, then there is no problem with his actions. When you find someone adding inappropriate external links to articles in your watchlist you usually check the user's contributions to see what else he has been doing. While I do not like "revenges" (in example, removing images because the editor who uploaded them has a conflict with you), if the images are correctly removed according to existing policy and the contributor reinserts them, he is also disrupting Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
TheQuandry: Are you aware that WMF/Jimbo may decide to step in and reform this process to reduce the number of FU breaches, as a Foundation edict? I was speaking to him yesterday about it, and if he does this, then his opinion does matter, very much so. It actually matters more than anyone else's, really. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Daniel: If/when WMF and Jimbo step in and make an executive decision, then I suppose there will be no more room for debate. Until then, Jimbo has only shared his viewpoint and Jimbo himself has said many many times that it's not proper to invoke him like that. And as of this moment, neither Jimbo nor WMF have made a Foundation edict. TheQuandry 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. It's possible to stalk by making edits that would be perfectly reasonable under other circumstances, but which are being used to target and punish certain users. I'm not making any claims about this case, but just pointing out that if, for example, I were to be in conflict with ReyBrujo, and then trawled through his edits, correcting all his typing errors, placing (perfectly justified) wikify, cleanup, etc., templates on articles he'd created, and so on, I'd be behaving badly. My edits would be being made, not with the intention of improving Wikipedia, though they might do that, but with the primary purpose of harrassing ReyBrujo. This has been (rightly in my view) condemned as wikistalking in the past. It's not always easy to distinguish from the perfectly proper business of following up a problem user's edits to tidy up after her — though when it follows immediately upon an attack in either direction, it's hard to give the benefit of the doubt.
  2. As I said, I have no real view about oden with regard to the stalking charge — but he has often carried out his purge of fair-use images insensitively and out of process, removing images from articles with vague edit summaries, and no previous warning message about the replacement of such images with properly licensed replacements, etc. He seems to have started taking his job personally, and that usually leads to problems. I don't think that he should be blocked or anything like that, but he does need to be talked to, and persuaded to slow down and behave towards other editors with proper consideration, and within Wikipdia policies. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden's actions are definitively not stalking as per the letter or spirit of that policy. If a contributor doesn't understand image policy, it's likely that they've uploaded other images incorrectly and thus reasonable to go through their contribution history and take the appropriate action. Image tagging is quite thankless work, yet essential to the project both legally and in the spirit of a free encyclopedia. Alex, I would suggest that you focus your efforts on helping affected users understand the image policies rather than disparaging Oden, who has done nothing wrong, imho. It's neither rude nor disruptive to correct users who violate Wikipedia's image policies. If they upload 100 images incorrectly, then all of them should be dealt with in as polite a manner as possible. Oden should use appropriate edit summaries and notify users, but he doesn't necessarily have to "slow down" (i.e. only tag one inappropriate image per user per day). Savidan 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that you either ignored or dismissed what I said about stalking. Also, why do you think that "slow down" means only tagging one image a day? The point is that his lack of courtesy and proper explanation of his actions is probably the result of trying to do too much; if he slowed down, he'd have time to do things in a way that didn't put people's backs up.
In response to what was said in response to a previous discussion of this, I probably am a little out of date concerning the hysteria with which this issue is treated in Wikipedia now. Perhaps the hysteria is justified by the U.S. obsession with litigation, I don't know.* Still, the idea that, for example, an image that depicts the subject of an article is inappropriate for an encyclopædia, being "merely decorative", is so at odds with every encyclopædia that I've ever seen that I wonder if those involved have lost sight of what we're supposed to be doing, at least in their explanations of their actions.
*The Nac Mac Feegle bear swords that glow blue in the vicinity of lawyers... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the discussion here may have turned away from the topic at some point: we're not debating the right or wrong of RfU, we're questioning the behavior of an editor who, to my eyes, is pretty clearly using this RfU issue as a way to get back at perceived enemies. According to comments towards the top, if someone has uploaded one or two fair use images that can be replaced, they probably have uploaded more. Out of hundreds of images uploaded by Irpen, Oden found a whopping TWO that were questionable enough for him to tag.
I STRONGLY disagree with Savidan telling Alex I would suggest that you focus your efforts on helping affected users understand the image policies rather than disparaging Oden... This is a misguided and out-of-touch argument. Just because you think Oden's results are in line with RfU, it justifies wikistalking, Alex should shut up and we should happily allow good editors with multitudes of mainspace contributions to be subject to retribution when they criticise someone's political motives? This whole thing is completely ridiculous. Apparently, the folks doing the "thankless job of tagging images" are incapable of doing wrong. TheQuandry 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Oden for 48 h after the new incidence of stalking. He was blocked by User:Cburnett for the 3RR violation. I have unblocked Oden, since he promised not to edit war. In minutes after my unblocking Oden started "examining upload logs" of CBurnett (see User_talk:Cburnett#Lists_of_episodes) and started a lot of other activities harrassing CBurnett (just see the last seven sections of CBurnett's talk page). This is an exact definition of WP:STALK. Since Oden was warned by a number of admins (see my starting message) and since this sort of behavior was already discussed on a number of fora (see [20], [21], [22] something should be done. Alex Bakharev 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't aware that Oden has such a history of basically the same set of actions, but I think he took it too far with me. If his actions against me aren't considered stalking then I hate to be the receiving end of real stalking. Cburnett 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the behavior has been overlooked and defended because Oden is seen as "implementing an unpopular and thankless task". Whether or not you agree with the implementation of RfU as per Oden and others, we must not ignore other problems or misbehaviors by someone just because they're seen as implementing an unpopular policy. Hopefully, Oden will take some time to reflect on this and implement RfU in a more evenhanded manner. TheQuandry 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Return of the editing of hexspeak articles[edit]

Hexspeak (talk · contribs) has been returning a variety of articles that were redirected per a previous issue as cited in WP:AN. I suspect that BlakeCS (talk · contribs) is probably a sockpuppet of this person, but I cannot say for certain, and I am not totally keen on going through with a check.

What should we do about this person who is just repeating the same stuff over and over again? The weird thing is that the person is applying the {{sprotected}} and {{protected}} tags on there to deter anyone from editing them. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Check through contributions reveal that most of them have already been re-redirected back to the main article (user talk page shows that VoA Bot II did most of the work). I did laugh on the userpage: "They contain tigers. They are semi-protected. They are not vandalism." Hbdragon88 06:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I ended up reverting his edits and warning him not to continue and to discuss his ideas here. I really don't see why he is doing this, as the magic numbers topic is good enough. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the ones which are not referenced on the target article. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What can you make of BlakeCS' user page? He seems to have all of those hexspeak articles preloaded on his user page. I saw an edit to his user page, and thought he had redid all of the articles. But in fact, after changing one of his pages to a redirect, I realised it was a sub-page. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I ended up putting them up for MfD. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't he break some sort of rule by recreating deleted content? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Threatening language on user page[edit]

Cindery (talk · contribs) has some vague threats on her user page... I realise I'm not neutral in the matter, so I'm bringing it here to get a neutral view and to let someone who isn't in a dispute with her pursue the matter further. Here's what it said on her user-page (It's in the third person)

"If you vandalize (redacted to intials JC) or Barrington Hall, someone will probably send her an email--and she will probably deal with you off-wiki." [23]

Now, no one likes vandalism, but is making threats of (fill in the blank) is a good idea? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse a good length block, but I cannot make it, since I am not uninvolved. User has been blocked before for making personal attacks against me and for sockpuppetry. She has already stated that she does not want to contribute any more to the encyclopedia, but wants to ensure that I get desysopped. She continues her disruption to this date. – [24]. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well... Nether of us are unbiased so I'll just leave it at that and let someone else evaluate if the user-page comment is OK or not. I invited Cindery to the conversation to either take the intuitive and change it on her own or offer a defence for keeping it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 09:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that's a little too vague of a threat for us to act on it. It's so vague that I'm not sure it's even a threat. But I'll let others chime in. I will say that I'm not familiar with her behavior, so this might be her way of threatening people. Just my 2 cents. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact nature of the past disruption -- I remember that there's been a (confirmed) checkuser case or two, some AN/I threads, and such. The language of current relevance isn't exactly friendly, but unless it seems to be directed at a particular person, I'm not sure if doing something about it would do anything besides inflame the situation (if similar language were used on a talk page, or especially user talk, my story might be different). Will give links if/when I dig up any pertinent information. Luna Santin 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree. Or if it was something more substantial such as a specific threat. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery is certainly not a calming influence. Look at WT:EL for example. I would say that this is a direct threat aimed at Nick and Dmcdevit. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It refers entirely to User:Swkap and his alternate IPs, with regards to Joshua Clover (who is also mentioned at Barrington Hall). It is something you should email Sam Blanning about. (which is what I have done and will do again if Swkap reappears.)-Cindery 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
So that's two problems then. First, threatening language on your user page; second, it's clumsily written so the target is not obvious. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Only one user has ever been blocked for vandalizing JC--it's pretty specific. Naming him on my userpage isn't a good idea, because I think he could be encouraged by such attention, and it would draw unneeded attention to the sad case of (redacted to initals Sw). (About which, the less said the better.) Leaving a vague notice that my absence doesn't mean he is now free to vandalize JC preventively protects not just JC, but Wikipedia (I think he does look at my userpage, but doesn't read ANI, etc.) It is not a good idea to discuss this on-wiki, and I urge to you to email Sam (the admin who blocked Sw, and with whom Sw has corresponded via email) if you would like to discuss it further.-Cindery 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Or you could just say nothing, on the basis that everyone who needs to know, already does. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Sam indef blocked Sw as a vandalism-only account, and then accidentally unblocked him because he didn't notice that Sw's email requesting unblock on the grounds that he wasn't Sw came from Sw. Sam stated that he couldn't re-instate the indef block until Sw struck again, but would reblock immediately. In the absence of a permablock of Sw, there's cause for concern. It is to the benefit of all that Sw knows I will not abandon concern for that article, even if I left Wikipedia entirely.-Cindery 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but why the vague threats of off-wiki retribution? That seems totally inappropriate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Because it discourages Sw from misusing Wikipedia to try to hurt/get attention from/harass people he knows in real life, which is what he was doing. If promised response to him is off-wiki, email straight to Sam etc., he doesn't get any on-wiki attention/there's nothing in it for him to abuse/vandalize Wikipedia again.-Cindery 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that using threatening language for off-wiki retribution is/was good judgment on your part. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the evidence that it was good judgement is that Sw has not returned, even though I have posted a wikibreak notice. But speaking of good or bad judgement, is there some reason you are ignoring the Foundation:[25], after you removed 70+ links with AWB yesterday, citing "licensing information per EL"?-Cindery 16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for Nick, but he's not "ignoring the Foundation"; the quote you linked from Barberio is cherry-picked to support his/your position (see the full thread in question). MastCell 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Problematic userpage[edit]

Dwain has been asked by admins to remove polemical pages, and also had a sockpuppet that he claims was unintentional User:Pitchka. He has since moved said material to free hosting and has linked to it from his user page. Inclusive of this is a list of Wikipedians who he believes are Masons (self-identified or not), and a whole lot of disinformation and propaganda (which, he lists as "BANNED ON WIKIPEDIA" as if it were a personal issue rather than a policy violation on his part). I would also imagine that the other subpages he had here, which were also full of the same, have also been moved. Is there a way to do something about this officially or otherwise? MSJapan 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the link? The userpage is still being abused, regardless of whether the content is hosted on it or linked to externall.y -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You would think so, but said user did exactly what I expected, which is rv your link removal as "vandalism by another user." So what's the next step? MSJapan 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he may have cleaned up the page, removing the things about freemasonry, paganism, and whatnot. If you still want to, or if he steps it back up, you'll probably want to take it it WP:ANI or follow the dispute resolution guidelines. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. He edited Badbilltucker's title on BBT's comments regarding the subpage deletion to add in a link to the Geocities page, both on User talk:Dwain and User talk:Pitchka, which I have removed. If it comes back, I'll go to ANI. MSJapan 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, on December 13, 2006 I added a link. Ms Japan I can see that my page of notes on Freemasonry has upset you greatly. That's too bad. I didn't realize that quotes about Freemasonry by the likes of Albert Pike, The London Daily Telegraph, and John Salza; a list of religions that find masonry opposed to Christianity; and a list of Wikipedia Freemasons who all identify themselves as such and who even list themselves under a Freemasonry category would cause so much angst for you and yours. The page no longer exists on Wikipedia so your problem should be over. You believe that you are teaching me a lesson, I guess because you feel that you are so superior to me. Actually, you have taught me a lesson. Some Freemasons are very afraid of exposure! Good luck in your cause. Dwain 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Dwain, please do not release any personal information about other wikipedians, on or off the wiki. It is rude and a violation of privacy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What personal information are you talking about? The fact that he is a mason? The fact that he has written about me learning a lesson or the apparent fact he is afraid? I'm confused. He has been going after me for awhile now. I'm not releasing any personal information on anyone it is already on record in Wikipedia. Dwain 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If the information was already public then it is not a violation of privacy. But really, what does it have to do with writing an encyclopedia? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how much you know about the whole issue. But as far as my page on Freemasonry went I had some collected notes on freemasonry. Some were quotes and some was info on what sects declared it incompatible with Christianity. I was hoping that some of this material would be allowed some inclusion in some of the various articles concerning freemasonry. However, I discovered soon enough that several editors of these articles were determined not to allow this information into the articles and would remove it. So I left it on my page. After noticing that these editors seemed to be defending freemasonry and trying to put it in a good light I started to see exactly wo they were and discovered that most of them claimed to be masons themselves. Now everything I learned about masonry says that they will not reveal what they profess and do within their temples. Further members are said to swear that tey will lie to protect the craft. This would seem to explain why any negative info that gets into an article is down played or refuted within the article. This explains why they won't allow links to webpages that were created by former members who tell what freemasonry is actually about. They try to discredit people and remove info they don't like even on te userpages. If they are deliberately shhaping articles to down play any negative info and to put their organization into a good light, then this is very apropos to my questions. They successfully removed my page which pointed out that members are sworn to lie to defend the organization. Did you know that members of Scotland Yard are not allowed to be Freemasons? This is because they are suppose to do the things I just outlined and are therefore not trustworthy. Apparently, Wikipedia admins don't care whether the information in these articles are accurate. Because I was reluctant to remove my Freemasonry page, my userpage was attacked by vandals like this: LOOK HERE! Whenever I wrote to and admin asking for guidence Ms Japan would follow and leave messages. These articles do not reflect reality, but reflect Mason propaganda. I think it is improtant to note this. They think it is important to prevent this info from coming out! Why? I don't stop people critizing my edits, or the Pope or Bishops. But they will not allow me to bring up that Masons swear to lie and that the lower level masons are lied to as to what their symbols actually mean, so even if they break their oaths they might not be putting down accurate info. This is why even with all the harrassment from Ms Japan and the anons who have been vandalizing my pages is not going to stop me from getting the word out. In fact, it is making me more determined than ever. Dwain 20:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Dwain can believe whatever he wants, but the arguments have been disproven in numerous sources, even those written by non-Masons. It is the obvious desire to push that POV on others and disseminate incorrect information (with other people's names on it) that concerns me. To say that whatever a Mason (or anyone in any group, for that matter) says about his or her own group is obviously a lie or propaganda because someone else doesn't believe it is a tautology. However, as Dwain isn't open to discussion on the matter, things end up here. MSJapan 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You have been caught lying twice now Ms Japan! Here you say I'm "not open to discussion," here and on December 13, 2006 you say, "I attempted to open a discussion with said user about this page, and the end result was that my comments were removed from his talk page with no dialogue being opened." These are both false statements. For discussion and dialogue was forth coming from me here: User_talk:MSJapan#Your_userpage on November 7, 2006. Both are lies! And you wonder why I would question your edits? I tried to placate the numerous anonymous users as well as Ms Japan by editing things out of my note page on freemasonry but that wasn't enough. I moved my page off Wikipedia and still he's obviously afraid, hence this listing. It's funny that Ms Japan should fear the words of Albert Pike and John Salza both having been masons!!! Dwain 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a community sanction[edit]

Mugaliens (talk · contribs), formerly (to a very high degree of probability) Dr1819 (talk · contribs) seems to be just fine as long as he does not go anywhere near high-heeled shoe, skirt and dress or any other article related to the wearing of skirts and/or heels by men. See also Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mugaliens. I'd suggest we simply ban him from those articles and their Talk pages, because past experience indicates that he will never give accept consensus that conflicts with his rather firm views. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also some experience with this individual and his... idiosyncratic... opinions on male fashion, but I don't think what you propose is by any means necessary. He hasn't made any objectionable edits lately, it seems, and appears to by and large abide by consensus on the contents of the pages you mention. My advice would also be to just ignore Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mugaliens; it's going nowhere and is a waste of your time. Sandstein 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


I have archived an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell. Durova had already provided a summary. I made {{rfc top}} and {{rfc bottom}} from the AfD templates. I think we should do more of this; RfCs that ramble on for ever and never reach closure or a conclusion are a problem. Is this a thing worth doing? Guy (Help!) 12:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't recall ever seeing an RFC that had a useful conclusion or a constructive result, other than blowing off steam. So probably not. >Radiant< 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich reached a conclusion. But why would it be a problem to archive stale RfCs rather than leave them open indefinitely? Guy (Help!) 13:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Guy: it should be made clear when an RfC is closed via some templates (or, preferably, templates plus an explanation that provides some closure for the participants, but that may be impossible). "Closing" RfCs will stop people adding to stale RfCs when they should open a new one instead. Kusma (討論) 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
just as a general comment - I've never seen much of a purpose for RFC (in regards to editors) as the actual practice seems to be "Request to whine like fuck and drag up all and every little slight in the history of wikipedia and allow everyone with a grudge to leap on and try and beat the editor around the head" (I've never been the subject of a RFC by the way). --Larry laptop 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a valid criticism. So what do we do? We could make it more like ArbCom, requiring difss etc., but that would make it more adversarial (which would be bad). Guy (Help!) 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggested once somewhere that RfC could benefit from having a group of neutral coordinators or clerks who could monitor ongoing RfCs, keep them civil, close them at some appropriate time (perhaps after a week without edits, or some other similar time period), and perhaps produce a summary of the comments made that could serve as a "result" of sorts for all parties involved to make use of. The way I see that, it wouldn't be an arbitration or a trial, but a sharing of thoughts that could benefit from someone helping to keep it tidy. Right now, as it's been indicated, it's a bit of a battle royal. With someone generating a summary at the end, it would at least have a product to be looked at. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree. Let's make it happen. Where do we start? Village pump? Guy (Help!) 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say WP:VPR would be a good starting point. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Küblböck[edit]

I've added a section which is considered for speedy deletion. And please I want you to remove this article completely from Wikipedia because Daniel Küblböck is not famous enough to create his article. Morris Munroe 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Küblböck is famous enough to have an article on Wikipedia. You linked to an unrelated AfD, so I have reverted your edit. Apparently Daniel Küblböck has (correctly) never been considered for deletion. Kusma (討論) 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No, he is not famous enough and I'm rather unsatisfied with your act. I mean there are several American actors who are not available on Wikipedia but Daniel Küblböck, that German punk does exist, that's unfair. Where can I post my request? Morris Munroe 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
He has a number one single in Germany, thus meets WP:MUSIC. To nominate the article for deletion (which won't succeed), please use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to request articles on American actors, please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Kusma (討論) 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
<personal attack removed - User:Zoe|(talk) 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)> And thanks for your answer. I will request it. Morris Munroe 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

IP address[edit]

Hello! The IP address has been warned numerous times by several people. Yet, they continue to vandalize articles by adding speculation or rumors to those articles. Everyone has become extremely frustrated regarding this person because this IP address has not been blocked. Several people, including me, have used the correct procedures and policies. Yet, nothing is being done to stop this person from vandalizing articles. I am a senior trainer at SeaWorld Orlando and I am ensuring that the articles regarding SeaWorld remain accurate. It is rather difficult when you have an individual constantly adding speculations or personal thoughts not backed by reliable sources. Something needs to be done because this is rather annoying and taking up too much of my time. I reported this individual on WP: AIV and they suggested that I post this user on WP: ANI instead. Can you or anyone else help me with this particular situation? Thanks! SWF Senior Trainer 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given a 24 hour block. Follow up if problems resume. DurovaCharge 03:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Need help sorting out a badly initiated AfD[edit]

There's a minor problem over at WP:AfD: an editor nominated an article for AfD last night... or rather, tried to. Apparently they were unclear on how to proceed, and instead of using the normal (and admittedly somewhat complex) method for doing so they simply tacked it onto the end of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_14. I pointed out that this was not the way to do an AfD and the user attempted to do it the right way, but apparently modifying the "log" page has created a badly formed AfD sub-article anyway. (Which I've tried to at least make functional) The contested article itself has the proper template, so at the very least the notification to editors is working fine, but I'm not sure what kind of mess this might cause for the AfD side. I think an admin, ideally one with serious experience with the behind-the-scenes workings of AfD, should take a look at this and make sure AfD isn't going to explode when this is closed. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you got it fixed. Article has been created properly, AFD tag on the article properly points to it, and it's properly transcluded in the 14 January log. I've taken off the "HELP" note, because everything looks proper. Fan-1967 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sealand page just gone.[edit]

I have checked, and I can load any other wikipedia page, but the main article for Sealand is just gone. I don't mean blanked, it just won't load. I've done cache clearing, and all that. Could someone else just check and see what the heck is going on? Thanks. NipokNek 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope sorry seems to work for me--Markie1234 20:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me too. alphachimp 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have bothered you all then. I still can't get to it, but it must be me somehow. NipokNek 20:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I servers regularly do things like that. Try editing it and see if the text loads in the editbox. 14:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Help in the article Savage Islands[edit]

There is a war of edition in this article. I din´t do changes only revert the edition of Pedro because he was adding fake information and I show that is true in the discussion page. The answer of Pedro are things like that:

hã? que estás para ai a dizer seu anormal? --Pedro 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The translations is "What are you saying, retarded?" He is menacing me with be banned also but he is not administrator. Please help. Noviscum 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to use this page for dispute resolution. See WP:DR. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on "American Conservatism"[edit]

One editor has moved the main article American Conservatism to a new title without any discussion on TALK, let alone consensus. HELP needed. Rjensen 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Appearently, it has been discussed on Talk:American liberalism and Talk:Liberalism in the United States. --Edokter (Talk) 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


I do believe that this user User:DominiquePonchardier is impersonating wikipedia staff by placing notes on sandbox and other pages claiming it is a message from WMF. --Markie1234 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 22:25, 15 January 2007 Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "DominiquePonchardier (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Troll)
Looks like it's taken care of. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark McGuinn AfD[edit]

I was looking through the 5 day old AfD's for any to comment on or close (as obvious Keeps) and I found Mark McGuinn who looks to pass WP:MUSIC and have a consensus to Keep but is included directly on the Log page with no subpage and no AfD template on the article see [26]. Since this is a rather unusual situation I thought I would bring it up here for an administrator to deal with. Eluchil404 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First thing you should do it move the debate to a sub-page.
As for moving from there... You could... 1. Relist properly and let 5 days pass. 2. Close it as a "techinical keep" and let someone else re-nominate it if they feel strong enough about it or 3. Close it as a SNOWBALL keep with the slight risk of being overturned in WP:DRV. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1 month block of[edit]

I have blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for this thread: [27] and a string of sneaky vandalism. Since it's a long-block I thought I'd bring it here for community review or reversal. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have gone with a smaller, 96 hours one, however I am not against a long term block when there is a willingness to disrupt Wikipedia. However, account creation blocked? This is where I object. The reverse DNS goes to which makes me think we can have some collateral damage there. -- ReyBrujo 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit long for a first block (I might have given a 1-weeker). Honestly, though, I think it's your call, J. smith. If you feel it's appropriate (and certainly sneaky vandalism is quite bad), by all means do it. We're probably not served by having this character editing. alphachimp 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm maybe 1 month was a bit long. I didn't see any edits from the address other then the recent sneaky vandalism... that's why I blocked account creation. If anyone wants to reduce the length or remove the AC block, feel free. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection[edit]

Why does cascading protection do about images on Wikimedia Commons? I can't really imagine it protecting images at Commons, but I'm also finding it hard to believe the cascading protection would automatically upload a local copy of an image. Does anyone have any insight into the answer? -- tariqabjotu 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It does nothing, the images remain on commons and unprotected. Prodego talk 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling that was it... just wondering... -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Harassment from another editor[edit]

Administrators, I have a current problem with a wikipedian named John Reaves. We got into a disagreement today over the kidnapping of Shawn Hornbeck then went to my talk page. After discussions and his "warnings", I expressed to him the desire that he does not contact me any more on my page. He continues to come back and respond, after warnings from myself on this matter. He even challenged me to report him. I want nothing to do with this person, and do not have a high regard to him after reading of some of his past encounters with other editors. Please see that this person no longer has any contact with me, as I now consider his behavior as harassment. Kerusso 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I went to this editor's talk page to discuss the incivility and the personal attacks they made on Talk:Michael J. Devlin. They posted things such as

"Seems you think too highly of yourself here. This John Reaves goes around issuing people "warnings" and such, and after looking at his profile, he has no authority to do so. Just a over jealous poster who thinks way too much of himself. I would not place much crediance in what he says."


Well considering I have checked your comments on various articles and you clearly seem to think you are above all else, that is a sign of someone who thinks too highly of themselves.

. John Reaves 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that after all this has been pointed out to me, I pointedly made it clear to him I wanted no more comments from him, and this person has continued to keep coming. THAT is why I am here. Where I am wrong, I am wrong, and have not comment further to this person in that regards. I ended it in regards to him, and he decided he could not stop. I ask that he be requested to stop. It is simple as that, which this person can't seem to understand or comprehend. Kerusso 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This user thought they could "end it" by accussing me of stalking. There's no policy that says an editor may not defend his character against slander such as this. You can't "end" something by leaving open-ended personal attacks. John Reaves 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I will await an answer from the administrators. Also if this person posts on my talk page again, I will notify the administrators here. Kerusso 04:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like John Reaves has Wikistalked or harassed. It would have been better to have used a boilerplate template for the talk page warning because the wording was pretty vague. Better still, a few polite words asking Kerusso to be more civil might have been all that was needed. To Kerusso, any editor can post a warning to another editor's talk page. I consider this a level 1 caution - which is supposed to be a polite tap on the shoulder. Not much to worry about. Have a breather and best wishes to both of you. DurovaCharge 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Durova. Kerusso 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized this is in the wrong place. Should this be moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? John Reaves 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe Durova made a decision and ended it, or do you see some need to keep it going even further? Let it drop! Kerusso 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, stop freaking out. I was just asking if it should be moved since you commented in the wrong place. This is for discussing administrative stuff, incidents are supposed to be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And no, I see no reason to continue this as I was proved right. John Reaves 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Technically, yes, this matter should be at WP:ANI, not here. But since the matter has ended, there is really no point moving it there, and there is no point continuing it there (and here). --210physicq (c) 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

system template edit requested[edit]

I already brought this up without opposition at Wikipedia Talk:Categorization:

New users seem to have the idea that you add pages to categories by editing the category page itself. Could we add something to the boilerplate for editing Category pages, so it tells them not to edit in an article, but to add the category wiki-text to the given article? This would save me and many others a good deal of time in reverting mistaken edits to categories, and would therefore allow us to focus further on articles.

Can an administrator please implement this? Thank you, --Urthogie 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that falls into the reign of the devs here. I think BugZilla is the way to get the idea implemented. Hbdragon88 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
But admins can edit such messages according to Wikipedia:Administrators. I've done a search of past BugZilla requests, and ones such as these are often considered too specific to enwiki to be even considered.--Urthogie 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You can also try to give the idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to get some feedback from other community members and developers. -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If I do bring it up at both pumps and it gets double approval, would you be willing to edit the template? Or are you just sending me there? Thanks, --Urthogie 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait, can you point which template? -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I see it doesn't exist as of yet, but couldn't an admin create it? It would be very much similar to MediaWiki:Talkpagetext.--Urthogie 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah... hmm... well, not sure which template is the one that appears when editing a new category. You should go to proposals asking for that template name and the modifications you want. -- ReyBrujo 05:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki pages are listed at Special:Allmessages. I don't think there's a separate page for the category edit window, but I'm not the most knowledgeable about such things. Chick Bowen 08:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Categories? -- Agathoclea 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwatched pages[edit]

Approximately how many pages are there in Special:Unwatchedpages, or is it kept empty? James086Talk 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Heh! What a lot of redlinks I got before I purged the cache... Guy (Help!) 14:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Only the first thousand are viewable, and lets just say that that doesn't even get through the '1's. ;-) Prodego talk 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow I would have thought it would be much smaller. Haha someone should make Wikiproject unwatched. James086Talk 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I occasionally entertain myself by culling the pages that begin with symbols (which are usually garbage), either deleting, redirecting or moving them. I tend to lose faith in humanity by the time I've gotto the start of the '0's, but that first part is pretty well patrolled. Personally, I would allow unwatchedpages to be seen by everyone, as 90% of vandal fighting is done via recent changes, anyway, and the benefits of getting some of these cleared up (a lot of the unwatched pages are also garbage) would outweight the risks of letting people know which pages aren't watchlisted. Proto:: 13:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If everyone can see it then I would suggest only after 4 days like the ability to move pages. I'm quite interested by that list and I might put in an RfA soon so I can dive in. James086Talk 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
For those who are curious, when I just looked, the 1,000th (and last visible) page on the list was 1964 (emulator). It's on my watchlist now, so don't even think of vandalizing it. :-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk (Misc)[edit]

I do not want to single any individual editors out but I'm a little concerned (maybe that's too strong of a word) about the Reference desk/Miscellaneous (the others could be similar I haven't looked) and what could be developing there. There seem to be a number of editors who seem to post only to that board and in a manner more suitable for general forums than an encylopedia. Not asking for any particular course of action but if a few people could keep it on their radar... --Larry laptop 10:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Journalist seeking assistance[edit]

If an administrator could take a look at this Request for Comment and assist in answering this request from User:Edwardlucas (husband of Cristina Odone) it would be appreciated. Catchpole 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish more people disclosed their potential conflicts of interest as candidly as Edward Lucas and handled disputes as well. I've left my response. Best wishes, DurovaCharge 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Tyrenius 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

There are changes in question at the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guideline being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#'Administrator conflict of interest' regarding the extent to which our guideline should reflect conflict of interest in general (example: admin power use) or should be resticted to the recent consolidation of the former vanity guideline and the former paid-editor guideline. WAS 4.250 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

archive comments[edit]

Administrator Gurubrahma gave me a link about archiving comments. I hardly understand anything because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not well. Can you please summarise this link? Please leave a comment on my talk page if you agree. Thanks. Morris Munroe 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page shortly. Sandstein 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Eguor admins[edit]

Some events from the past couple of weeks inspired me to create a new category and populate it with myself. Join me if you think this is cool. If you consider it a horrible idea then tell me why: my flameproof suit just returned from the dry cleaners. Cheers, DurovaCharge 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the category talk page. Chick Bowen 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possible POV to watch for[edit]

We've got the corporate PR types trying to put their spin on their corporate articles, it looks like labour has discovered the same - might be a good idea to keep an eye out for POV'ness and WP:V on any article where labour disputes are underway -- Tawker 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That's fairly blatant. Dandy. Would that kind of work fall under the COI guidelines, considering they're suggesting focusing on the union message in labour disputes? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I also notice they seem to get the impression we're a "company" (However I may have misread that). 13:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't we? Wikimedia Foundation :P Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did notice he said he added a paragraph "filled with links to the company's website", in other words, the edits he made were sourced and (presumably) verifiable. He also advocates discussion on talk pages when challenged, which is also good. The only troubling thing I saw was persistent use of the definite article with the name "Wikipedia". It always makes me shudder when people say "the Wikipedia". —Angr 10:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Move gone really bad.. Intel Pentium III & friends..[edit]

I tried to switch places on 'Intel Pentium III' and 'Pentium III' however it seems wikipedia engine won't let go of 'Intel Pentium III' redirect page so the move is screwed up. Could someone please move the Article 'Pentium III tmp' -> 'Intel Pentium III'. And put a link from 'Pentium III' -> 'Intel Pentium III'. Please help with this..! I feel really bad about this screwup, but the database management software seems to have been caught in a momementum 22. Will not try this again, as it seems the database simple can't handle article switches. Again.. HELP! ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electron9 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. --210physicq (c) 07:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!, btw could you swap 'Pentium Pro' and 'Intel Pentium Pro' ..? Electron9 07:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus for this move. It was decided a long time ago that microprocessor articles should not have the manufacturer's name in the title. A while back, some guy decided to move all such articles, and those moves were reverted. This move should not have been made. jgp TC 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh crap. So I have to fix it back? --210physicq (c) 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess so. Not your fault, really... jgp TC 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Moved back after a bit of deleting. No big problem. --210physicq (c) 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To prevent future confusion, it might help if you added a paragraph to the MOS somewhere with a link to where this decision was made. >Radiant< 11:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Is it possible to set a half block to this IP? I mean, is it possible to block this IP from editing Wikipedia but not from creating an account or signing in? 10:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, yes. But why would you want that? Fut.Perf. 11:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocks on request are specifically prohibited under the blocking policy, though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If he asks he'll probably give us a reason in a few minutes. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:USERNAME[edit]

User:Ken Fogarty has the same name as Ken Fogarty. He even contributed 4 times on the article.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request on WP:RFC/NAME. Let's wait and find out. Hbdragon88 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sorry for posting my request in the wrong place, but some admins at IRC told me to go here.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a violation if he's the same guy. Then you just have to worry about WP:COI. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would the subject of the article write that he is living under a freeway in Houston? [28] Hbdragon88 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Admin 100b and others[edit]

Would anyone object if I went rouge and just deleted these as being potentially divisive, in making blocking and deleting seem like a big fun competition, or will I have to take them to TFD?

Not that three are not used at all, with Blnguyen using two of the seven (500b and 5000d), and PinchasC and Moondyne using one each (200b and 1000d respectively). If I do have to go via TFD, is there any way to link multiple TFD notices to the one discussion (as with AFDx)? Proto:: 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe suggest he moves them to his userspace? yandman 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, but I'm suggesting they be got rid of, not shifted to userspace. Proto:: 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
They serve no useful purpose (and sort of imply that someone's worth as an admin is in how many blocks, etc, they've imposed). I won't deny that I've considered speedying them myself before. -- Steel 14:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy the unused and {{subst} the used ones. No one will complain, and if they do tell them Aaron "save the userboxes" brenneman suggested it. - brenneman 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I say delete the lot of them, and make yourself a nice template that says "this admin has deleted at least 7 templates on enwiki", then delete that as well. Repeat as necessary. >Radiant< 14:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I killed the 100b one, now we just need a few more other rouge admins to take out the lot. --Cyde Weys 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone is deleting them before I've had chance to subst them appropriately.(ahem!) Proto:: 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... I thought of that afterwards. Just C&P the text. -- Steel 14:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
All done now. :) Proto:: 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how many deletes I have to my name, but I do enjoy the irony of so many templates boasting these statistics now taking their destined course. :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not far off the 5,000, and approaching a thousand blocks. I need to get out more. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not far off 50, and approaching twenty blocks. I need to get out less, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Do any of the counters actually tell you how many of each admin action on has performed? Proto:: 10:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I think you just go to your log and hit "next 500" a bunch of times and count. >Radiant< 11:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Interiot's tool does, when it's working. Chick Bowen 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Free Republic[edit]

There's a real mess over at that page. It's been the focal point of a hot dispute for long enough that I've considered opening an arbitration request. User:Carolyn-WMF performed some deletions recently that included cited material, which has created confusion. The editors are presumptively respecting it as an office action but wonder why it was done. Jossi seems to be the most active admin. I looked into things today after I opened an e-mail from one of the disputants that contained a serious allegation and a broken hyperlink, which I've tried to chase down in the page history but haven't verified yet.

I'm not sure what to make of this whole situation. If it weren't for Carolyn's edit I'd contact Jossi and probably start drafting an arbitration request. Comments and suggestions are welcome. DurovaCharge 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, straight to arbitration would be skipping a few steps. Has anyone tried mediation? Or maybe an RFC? --Cyde Weys 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to look up some old diffs to be certain, but I think I pointed them in that direction two months ago. DurovaCharge
This mess is about to get huger now... And I am probably the most active admin. Prodego talk 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
And I'm not certain I have a good solution. That's why I'd like to discuss it here. Any ideas? DurovaCharge 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think Merzbow is doing an excellent job as a stabilizing factor, and essentially a mediator, and that over time that should calm things down. However, it is possible, as you suggest, some more immediate remedy be preformed. Prodego talk 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not the impression I got when an editor petitioned me by e-mail. I'm on thin ice here because I was asked to treat it as confidential, yet I'd really like to see the page get some fresh eyes and additional feedback. DurovaCharge 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not so much content disagreements at the moment (I've found the long-time editors on this page intelligent and very willing to compromise), but the actions of a notorious banned user. I'm not going to speculate anymore on the alleged actions of this user (at least until the Wikimedia people clear some things up), but all the bizarre details are at the article's talk page. In fact, I doubt there is anything more any of us can do until Danny et al respond. - Merzbow 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it help if I did an investigation the way I did with BooyakaDell/JB196? Some old fashioned gumshoe work proved that Booyaka was a sockpuppet of a banned account that had been dormant for too long to get a checkuser. I'm sure you've got other irons in the fire. Yet I'm here if you need me. I've already been on this case for part of the history and I think I know who you're talking about. DurovaCharge 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd welcome your input Durova. Jossi was doing a GREAT job mediating until a notorious sockpuppeteer (now banned) started creating numerous sock puppet accounts to sway consensus and 'vote'. Although this user is banned, he is still affecting the article, and I believe he even might have contacted the foundation impersonating someone else and asking a Wiki employee to edit the article. Most unseemly. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a very serious accusation. Level it with caution. DurovaCharge 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You're familiar with what's being discussed? The banned user's claims here were proven to be completely false here - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with them, but they're pretty tough to encapsulate in a short request here. Please accept my apologies if I oversimplified. Bear in mind that, although your accusation may be meritorious, frivolous charges of that sort far outnumber real ones. The safe course is to be slow about making such a charge unless you're absolutely certain and ready to back it up with page diffs that connect all the dots. DurovaCharge 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Good advice. Once I confirmed that the user's claims regarding authorship were bogus, I did speculate as to how it happened that a foundation employee ended up editing the article. Better to wait. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Presumptively respecting" something as an office action is insanity. If something is aWikipedia:Office Actions it needs to be clearly and explicitly stated as such. Have we learned nothing from the past stupidity (including dead-minning) with respect to this? There are "vanilla" edits as well from this account, like where she's listed herself as bookkeeper. Her removal of the section with citations should be treated just as any other user's would be.
brenneman 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is this edit, in which she says she works at the office that causes some speculation. Also, she actually removed herself from the employee list in the edit above??? Prodego talk 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You're correct of course. Not that it matters, I simply meant it as an example of a "normal" edit, I could have used another example. I do note that the request for clarification has gone unanswered. We cannot and must not be put in the position where we are afraid to make straight-forward edits based upon random speculations. I am going to examine the removed section as I would if under normal circumstances, and if I'm satisfied by the reference I'm going to uncomment on it. - brenneman 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've uncommented out the section, re-written it since it was copyvio in the form of a long quote easily summarised,added details to the bare html reference, and noted on the talk page that I've done so. I stress this here again: Verification is not negotiable. In teh absence of either a real source saying Walker didn't write the piece or some real indication that this was "official" then the citation must stand. It is worth noting that the Walker part of the article is only very small, and the came citation could easily be used without mentioning the guy. - brenneman 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I posted here is because of the confusion about whether something was or was not an office action posted by a Foundation employee in the normal course of work, or a hoax, or something else. It deleted referenced material on a page with a longstanding edit war without explanation, which is definitely something I'd like to see the longstanding sysops comment on. DurovaCharge 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bryan is now trying to recruit people to insert material for him. See [ this FR thread]. He specifically mentions the articles: Kwanzaa, Abortion, and President Bush. Prodego talk 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Now? That thread's entire lifespan was December 2005. DurovaCharge 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
He bumped it after it had been laying dormant for 8+ months. Trollific. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I see.[] Although I'm not entirely clear on how you identify this as the same Wikipedia editor, I'll trust Prodego's conclusion. What would you like me to do? DurovaCharge 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like you to contact Carolyn and/or Danny, ASAP, possibly by phone. Frankly, I am shocked that Carolyn would NOT be checking her talk page after taking such drastic and unusual action. This needs to be addressed as well. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That is not necessary. It can be assumed that she made a normal edit, and it can be removed just like any other. However, just like any other, you should explain why you do, if you do. Prodego talk 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
A Wiki employee makes an edit after recieving a mysterious phone call, possibly from an imposter, who we KNOW gave her false info - she deletes sourced info that a notorious banned troll happens to want deleted - and you call that a 'normal edit'? I'd hate to see what you'd consider an 'unusual edit'! ;-) - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean, that she is an employee should not carry any weight in this matter. She should be considered like any other editor. Prodego talk 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Something new to watch for?[edit]

Can someone identify or explain what this edit was? Spam? Vandalism? Something really nasty? Or a mistake--note that the previous edit by the same IP was a good edit--no it wasn't; I misread it as the other way around somehow. Perhaps this was just simple vandalism, then, in which case, I'm sorry for taking your time. Chick Bowen 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like just a new user playing around, light vandalism/spam. -Patstuarttalk|edits 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It seems to be the latest fashion in vandalism. I saw one like this the other day. Not quite sure how it's done though. Tyrenius 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The part that messes up the page display is the unclosed <div style="position:absolute;left:15px;top:110px;width:100px;height:31px;"> near the end of the added content. Most of the rest is simply dumped on the page verbatim. (BTW, I added diffonly=1 to the diff link above — doing that is probably a good idea when posting diffs to something that messes up the page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
They have dumped a ready made myspace layout onto the page hoping it will look the same as on myspace. ViridaeTalk 12:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah--this is quite useful, and I'm glad to know of the diffonly trick. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass[edit]

I feel that my page Piotr Blass is being vandalizes and targeted for deletion Please look into this. Thanks Dr Piotr Blass —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pblass2002 (talkcontribs) 02:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

No problem here: it's being discussed at WP:AFD. If the article is worth a keep, it will be kept. If not, then deleted. -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize, again, Dr. Blass, but his article, always an autobiography, has been deleted many times, and was recently allowed to be undeleted because it's {{deletedpage}} status was removed.—Ryūlóng () 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion logRyūlóng () 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As a question, isn't courtesy blanking (as was done for his first AFD) intended for people who wish to go away? It seems he doesn't want to leave, he just wanted to remove the first round of embarassment. Fan-1967 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the result was delete before it was courtesy blanked. Check the log history (not providing a link, as it defeats the purpose of the courtesy blanking). -Patstuarttalk|edits 03:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that. It just seems that for him to request the AFD be blanked, and then recreating the article, is gaming the system. Maybe I was wrong. I viewed courtesy blanking as an extension of right to vanish. Fan-1967 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Misunderstood your comments. Patstuarttalk|edits 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the AFD as Dr. Blass has shown no attempts to actually leave. I will contact Jimbo about my actions.—Ryūlóng () 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Addtionally, if someone feels that I was out of line, I will not object to its reversion.—Ryūlóng () 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the opionion that Dr. Blass has been gaming our system. The new article offers little of substance beyond what was deleted before in the prior version and the user appears to be canvassing for support. My comment at the deletion discussion reflects that. DurovaCharge 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot Piotrek Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Piotrus Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Ryūlóng () 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Groan...salt the earth if possible. DurovaCharge 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It was. Centrx went out deleting {{deletedpage}}s. That's how he remade Piotr BlassRyūlóng () 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, let's not extend any more courtesies. Fan-1967 04:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive135#Piotr Blass for a former discussion that I brought up.—Ryūlóng () 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
And User:Piotr Blass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the original account.—Ryūlóng () 04:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see Dr. Blass's IP address was blocked for a month last year for a threat.[29] He's started four different threads on Jimbo's talk page today. How much do we tolerate before discussing a community siteban? He doesn't raise new points, just repeats himself. DurovaCharge 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, sock of banned user, recreation of deleted pages. Why are we even continuing to discuss? Fan-1967 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Have any of his accounts actually been banned? DurovaCharge 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought Piotr Blass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had been. So why's he using the sock Pblass2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)?

Just as recreating a page automatically contests a prod, recreating a page implies waiving your right to a courteousy blank. Savidan 05:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been speedied and salted. Fan-1967 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

<devil's advocate> Anything to suggest this the the real Blass other than his claim to that end, and does it make any differance? Just exploring the possibilities here...
brenneman 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He's invited me to one of his lectures, at some point. Also, it's hard not to tell its him.—Ryūlóng () 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It's inconceivable that anyone other than him could duplicate that level of vanity. Besides, the argumentative writing style is inimitable. Fan-1967 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been receiving quite a few emails from him, as in the past I tried communicating with him and explaining what Wikipedia is and such. Unfortunatly the last time we talked he was convinved Wikipedia is a cult... I cannot guarantee it's the real Piotr Blass, and it's one person, but the level of disruption - good of bad faithed - has reached the level where I'd support ban as well, even if only to stop real Piotr Blass from geting defamed more for vandalism on Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ban time?[edit]

Based on Dr. Blass' constant abuse of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the community, I propose that we ban him from contributing to Wikipedia because he has clearly exhausted our patience. His only contributions to the project are his autobiography, the article on Zariski surfaces, Jimbo's talk page whenever his article is up for deletion (appealing to a "fellow Floridian"), and the talk pages of those who oppose him, because they are not knowledgeable in the fringe area of mathematics. This would include a ban on Piotr Blass (talk · contribs), Pblass2002 (talk · contribs), and the IP (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as any others he may use.—Ryūlóng () 08:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Clearly has abused Wikipedia. Edit history on the latest article (before it was deleted) showed that when a