Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive250

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

Noticeboard archives


More WP:BLP drama involving DRV[edit]

Two incidents tonight throw a little more fire on the ongoing war between DRV and BLP. First, User:David Gerard deleted and protected an article that DRV closed as restore history and redirect. Discussion here and here reveals the same arguments both sides have been using in this debate up till this point. The pro-DRV people are saying "we are following consensus and you are wheel warring" while the BLP-ists are saying "DRV is invalid plus respect for people's personal lives trumps everything else."

The second incident involves User:Tony Sidaway [closing] a DRV he voted in, and called the nomination "trollish" and "stupid" and subsequent revert warring over whether he should be allowed to close it after making such comments. The DRV itself also has other BLPists weighing in, with users such as (once again) David Gerard insisting BLP can be a speedy deletion criteria even in excess of CSD:A10 [1] and BLP being the ultimate end-all answer to keep an article deleted no matter how bad the deletion was. See also [[2]]. -N 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues concerning how BLP and related concerns should be addressed in connection with this general type of articles are extremely significant. I would prefer to see them discussed in the context of the relevant policy pages and as appropriate in specific cases, with an eye toward gathering experience and building consensus, rather than in the crucible of a multi-pronged and bitter arbitration case, but the latter is becoming more and more unavoidable if this keeps up. The excessive name-calling that continues to pour in from lots of experienced Wikipedians who should know better is not helping matters one bit. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to see it discussed that way too, especially since I refuse to participate in arbitration cases. But Arbcom was unavoidable the first time someone said "No, you can't contest my BLP deletion!", because our dysfunctional dispute resolution process has absolutely no other way to impose sanctions on long-standing contributors who at least can make a believable claim that they are acting in good faith. -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, the problem is it's not being fought in appropriate cases. People on both sides are fighting battles over EVERY ARTICLE where the subject wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion without the one bad incident, even in cases where reliable sources are available ad infinitum and the articles are carefully written to avoid making disparaging comments beyond mere recitation of the facts. -N 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, the whole point is that the mere naming of the article after the subject of the one-off incident is a problem, because it's certain to be the number one hit on the search engines for their name. Wikipedia happens to be ridiculousy powerful on the net, and the BLP policy was put into place pretty much as an "or else" by Jimbo and the Foundation for damn good reason. That's why policy and practice ever since the introduction of WP:BLP was to shoot such articles on sight and shoot them again every time they rise again. I'm at a loss to understand how anyone ever got the idea it was otherwise, or that a DRV straw poll could override it - David Gerard 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
(And by the way, WP:BLP came this close to mandating sympathetic point of view, in direct contradiction of the fundamental content policies, rather than being an expression of them. Check its early history - David Gerard 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC))
The way it's currently being interpreted, it pretty much does mandate sympathetic point of view. That's one of the fundamental problems with it. *** Crotalus *** 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No, what it mandates is that we don't allow our encyclopedia to be converted into an attack vector by way of "biographies" which use reams of wikitext to list every single possibly bad thing a person ever did, right down to the time they listed that $20 donation to the Salvation Army twice on their tax return. Minorly notable people who have only been in the public eye because of a single incident in their lives cannot possibly have balanced, encyclopedic biographies written about them and thus Wikipedia becomes a permanent Internet record of that single incident masquerading at their entire life. FCYTravis 03:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"BLP being the ultimate end-all answer to keep an article deleted no matter how bad the deletion was." You've stated it absolutely succinctly: product is more important than process. BLP is a content policy formed of fundamental content policies turned up to 11; DRV is a process aiming to work around problems of another process, AFD, to deal with maintenance - David Gerard 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I just want to see the cases not decided by those who would interpret the principle in the most restrictive possible way, which is the way things are being done now. The admin community, I believe, understands, agrees with, and believes in the principle, and should decide these in a consensus manner. The way things are being done now leads to not only incorrect decisions but also a REALLY LARGE amount of Wikidrama. Mangojuicetalk 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You still have to accurately demonstrate the BLP concerns. You don't get to say "BLP" and get your way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not agonise over these fripperies. This was my close and it will stand, proceduralism and wikilawyering notwithstanding. My only contribution was to give the community a chance to end the silliness now.

This isn't a hard discussion to close. There are living people involved here who have had no part in what happened to them--they were days old at the time. The arguments that say essentially "this subject should be covered" are valid. But we also have a policy on Biographies of living persons and its guiding principle is that of the hippocratic oath: first, do no harm.
This subject, that of the terrible damage caused by hospital mishaps, can be covered adequately without creating articles about individuals who have been the subject of such mistakes and must live with them. Wikipedia is a top ten website, and such entries would follow these blameless people wherever they might go.
Numerically there is already a clear consensus to endorse the deletion. Morally, and I do not use that word lightly, there are unimpeachable reasons to endorse without prejudice to the information being used, sensitively and with due attention to balance and privacy, in other article. But we do not have the material to write a biography. These are private individuals.
In the name of Wikipedia and in the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy, this deletion stands. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If policy and consensus rule here, your decision will remain overturned. Who's side are you on? and why do you continue to cite a policy you've never read? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh a little bird told me to close it, and dictated the wording. I'm on your side, Jeff. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Could have fooled me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your closure and I would do it again. It is clearly inappropriate for you to close speedily, just as it would be for me to do it. The way, the truth, and the light 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was David Gerard's edit that you reverted. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not write an article on the hospital mishap itself, and make the two names as redirects to that article? *** Crotalus *** 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That might work. We could conceivably produce an article on the incident that did not unduly reveal personal identities, but cited reliable sources that may do (and in most cases necessarily so otherwise they wouldn't be much use). But then why would we keep the redirects? The individual identifies are not relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Unilateral deletion is not the way to make such a change. That's the whole point. The way, the truth, and the light 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What he said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The close was not a deletion. The article has been deleted and there is a clear consensus to keep it deleted. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No, there isn't. Now you're simply making things up. No legitimate deletion rationales have been given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There quite clearly isn' If you would stop vote counting for a second you would notice that DRV is about deletion policy. The cited reason for deletion is quite clearly invalid - there was assertion of notability irrespective of wether you think it was notable or not. The second issue of BLP is clearly under attack as well - apart from the fact that that was not the reason given for the articles deletion in the first place. ViridaeTalk 02:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rightful aim is to be a respectable and freely-available academic resource and, as such, a force for global intellectual enlightenment. To become a theatre for gawking at the mishaps and misfortune of private citizens, or worse still a platform for their communal ridicule as with QZ, would be a gross and intolerable perversion of that goal.Proabivouac 02:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, none of us disagree with that goal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't make the news, it only records it. We didn't cause QZ to become an internet meme. We didn't cause Crystal Gail Mangum to make a false accusation of rape and thus become notable. For us to fail to record those facts because they may be unpleasant is, in my opinion, a breach of that aim. The way, the truth, and the light 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Were we a news outlet, you'd have a very good point. To state a principle which should be obvious, merely appearing in the news does not make one notable enough to merit mention in a serious encyclopedia. Sources are a prerequisite, not the justification, for an article.Proabivouac 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty in this encyclopedia that is far too trivial for a normal encyclopaedia, but wikipedia is not govered by matters of space so ther si room here for an article on anything the community judge notable and can write about in an encyclopedic manner (NPOV, referenced). Similarly some of the community may find some topics to be too much fluff/too trivial so they are quite welcome to take the article to afd for disussion - but not delete it out of process citing bogus reasons. ViridaeTalk 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As an observation, the bio on Gail seems to meet WP:BIO on several points; WP:BIO is longstanding and has broad consensus. If people want WP:BLP to trump WP:BIO's generally-accepted guidelines on inclusion, they should bring up the issue there, as well. --Aquillion 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Biographies of living persons (BLP) is far more important, and has much stronger teeth, than Wikipedia:Notability (people) (BIO). This isn't an issue. BLP is, however, far more controversial than BIO. Obviously not having ever read BLP or BIO I cannot undertake the task of education. I can however predict the result of this struggle: BLP will win hands down, every time. Skimming the top of BIO, which is the most I ever do, I see this statement: "if the subject is living, we must follow our policy for biographies of living people." Being the brainless gadfly that I am, I assume that this ends the argument. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, WP:BIO doesn't really have much going for it against BLP; policies generally beat guidelines. What does is that Wikipedia is not censored. There is a difficult line to draw between the two. Mangojuicetalk 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but "not censored" has never meant "not edited." We exercise responsible editorial policies and selectivity in the subjects that we cover and how we cover those subjects. The fact that "Wikipedia is not censored" does not now and has never been interpreted as issuing a free pass to write anything on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) There are a number of things that concern me about this entire situation. Wikipedia is run by consensus. Not only the utter disregard for consensus, but the (seemingly) sheer contempt for the masses that some editors have shown, is deeply and utterly disturbing to me. While libel guidelines are important, they do not excuse unilateral action. While policy permits, and demands, that material failing the three core policies be removed from BLP articles, the actions under discussion here are of another scale and scope. The admin forum and biography noticeboard both provide appropriate places to discuss potentially controversial, disruptive or counter-consensus actions. No individual sysop has the ability to lay down office action-like demands. If after discussion on AN or BLP/N, there is a lack of clear support for the action, it should not be undertaken. The Foundation can be contacted if there is truly a BLP concern that both consensus and further on-wiki discussion have not addressed. There are plenty of appropriate avenues to take regarding these issues and they should be used. Of course, that's my own view and you're welcome to some salt with it. Vassyana 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the actions in question demonstrate that Wikipedia is maturing into a responsibly : written and edited encyclopedia. If there ever was a time when it was OK to write fundamentally and permanently unbalanced "biographies" of people on Wikipedia simply because "they're bad people" - well, that time is over. The article on Crystal was the account of her creation of an unfortunate and scandalous newsworthy incident, along with whatever other tidbits that reporters dug up could be found to insert. That is patently not a biography. A true biography would involve multiple interviews, lengthy research and repeated trips through editorial review, and would be written so as to place that incident in context within her entire life. There is no published biography of her to provide such a source, and we can't do it ourselves - thus, we cannot have a biography of her. It's just that simple. FCYTravis 04:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please. If that is the new requirement for biographies in Wikipedia, you will need to delete over 90% of the biographies, because most of them don't have bloody books written on them. That's not realistic. Horologium talk - contrib 05:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You know what? Maybe we should. We cannot create entire biographies for people based on news reporting surrounding a single incident in their lives. That's not how biographies are written in the real world, and Wikipedia exists in the real world. FCYTravis 05:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are establishing a standard that does not exist in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Articles about people are biographical, but there is no standard that says they must be proper literary biographies. The standards say that outside sources must have treated them as worthy of notice, that the information included in verifiable in reliable sources and that the presentation is a neutral reporting of the available facts. Additionally, I hardly find it to be a sign of maturity when people take it upon themselves against the rules and principles of Wikipedia to enforce their view of a rule. WP:AN allows sysops to confer openly with other sysops. WP:BLP/N allows an admin to seek consultation on BLP issues. The Wikimedia Foundation has a process for reporting and resolving BLP concerns that cannot be resolved through consensus and discussion. What requires the need to short circuit these available avenues? Vassyana 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"A neutral reporting of the available facts" is no longer enough. Articles about people which focus entirely on a single negative incident and fail to place that person's actions into context are fundamentally unbalanced and place undue weight on negative aspects of their lives. If we cannot create an article which encyclopedically and biographically explains a person's entire life, not a single incident in their life, we should not pretend to have article on them. "Good enough for now" is no longer acceptable when it comes to living people. FCYTravis 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
None of this explains why existing avenues of discussion and appeals to the Foundation need to be short-circuited. Our policies and guidelines additionally do not reflect a position as strict as you espouse. Again, what creates the need to ignore consensus and available avenues of recourse? Vassyana 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The Foundation is MIA. In an ideal world, they would be combing through all this cruft and removing all potentially libelous or otherwise damaging material about living people. Here in the real world, if we won't do it, it will, in the best case scenario, ultimately be done for us by some combination of lawyers, legislators and journalists. In the worst case scenario, it won't be, and we'll wind up hurting a lot of innocent people.Proabivouac 06:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the Foundation is still replying to legitimate BLP concerns sent to them. Removing all potentially damaging material is hardly ideal. Should the articles of convicted murderers (as a clear example) have all mention of their wrongdoing removed because it is damaging to their reputation? BLP already allows, and has allowed, the immediate removal of poorly-sourced negative information to protect people from unfair accusations and false statements. There is no good reason, outside of clear speedy deletion or BLP violation, for well-sourced articles to be deleted against consensus without open discussion and other available options. Vassyana 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: "As far as I'm aware, the Foundation is still replying to legitimate BLP concerns sent to them."
Just because someone isn't currently aware of a Wikipedia article about them or hasn't yet complained to the Foundation doesn't mean we're not responsible for what we publish from now until they are/do.Proabivouac 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I never said we were not responsible for it. On the contrary, I have repeatedly said that there are avenues that already address this. Again, what requires a need for unilateral action outside of policy against consensus, without using the other avenues of resolution available? Vassyana 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus takes time to obtain under the best circumstances, and this conversation is proof that the community's decisions - especially when hobbled by a view of "consensus" which asks for considerably more than a simple majority - don't reliably produce the appropriately responsible answer. Most cruft has a constituency which can produce a local bloc large enough to thwart a "consensus," if not a majority. This is bad enough when the material is merely flippant and irrelevant, but unacceptable when the well-being of innocent people is concerned. At the end of the day, and in the real world, "but there was consensus on Wikipedia!" isn't really much of an argument compared to "I lost my job due to false rumors," "my son committed suicide due to constant ridicule," etc., anymore than is, "but it was ultimately deleted after our elaborate processes had taken their due course!"Proabivouac 07:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If it were false rumours, the material could be immediately removed for being poorly-sourced negative claims. That would be well within policy. If something has multiple non-trivial reliable sources, to be a bit cold, it doesn't really matter how the subject feels about it, provided we properly report what sources say about the person. I am sure a lot of people would like that kind of information to go away. I'm sure Michael Jackson doesn't want the coverage of child abuse allegations, for example. You can argue all you like that M Jackson is somehow different because he is famous. Notability is not fame. He is still a human being with the same feelings as other human beings. However, it is a subject covered in multiple non-trivial sources, so there's little to no question that it fits out inclusion criteria. I will again ask: What requires these issues to be handled outside of policy, outside of process, outside of on-wiki discussion and outside of the available appeal to the Foundation, when these avenues are available? Vassyana 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What? I think you're linking to the wrong page: the relevant page for libel is Wikipedia:Libel. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of that page. I apologize for being less than clear. The strict guidelines found in BLP are founded on concerns of libel, hence my allusion. Vassyana 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take this time to point out these recent edits by Tony, one of which is in my userspace. He blanked userboxes in userspace protesting out-of-process deletions: diff on User:Disavian/Userboxes/Out of Process; diff on User:CharonX/Userboxes/User admins ignoring policy. Both of the edits had the edit summary, "This user is against inflammatory userboxes." Now, these userboxes had nothing to do with the ongoing BLP "fight" (for lack of a better word); they refer to the mass userbox deletions on anything that was remotely inflammatory around the time WP:TGS was invented and implemented. Now, I know there's no policy that says someone can't edit another person's userspace, and that inflammatory content may be deleted, but I think these edits violate WP:DICK and that the boxes are hardly inflammatory. Silencing someone else's respectfully stated viewpoint is no way to argue your point. In summary, I'd prefer it if all of this BLP drama stayed out of my userspace... but I fear that is too much to ask. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... that's not BLP drama, that's idiocy. I'm quite frankly at a loss to why someone won't just block him for disruption (but I do know it won't happen). -Amarkov moo! 05:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure, i'm thinking about making that block right now. DES (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now I'm really annoyed that I've sworn never to begin an RfC. The problem is, I know I have a good reason for it, and it's not worth violating to get disruptive things stopped faster. -Amarkov moo! 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Though I personally feel nearly all userboxes useless at best, at least those are related to Wikipedia, and, though I utterly disagree with their editorial statements, I do not find them particularly inflammatory.
However, I cannot see neither how these edits would merit a block, or what they have to do with this discussion. Restore and ignore.Proabivouac 05:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
After I copied a bunch of userboxes to my userspace oh so long ago, I've put them aside and focused on real editing. Sometimes I wish I'd never gotten involved in TGS, but while I've got 'em, I might as well do a little to maintain them, ya know? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, these ubx's are stupider then most. Thank him next time. -Mask? 05:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read through two DRV's this whole thing, all the links in here that weren't to policies i'd read before, some policy, and at the end, as a regular editor and as a regular observer here, I see Tony Sidway getting away with BLP = IAR, consensus be damned, with a big fat side of 'And if you don't like it, I'll delete your obvious sign of opposition, so PH3AR me'. This is a very disappointign showing to a regular editor. Sure looks unethical that Tony got into the DRV with a clear intent, and ignored the massive discussion and, as I saw it, reasonably balanced number of people on each side, to get his way. the fact that those on his side were eventually resorting to 'sod off' instead of discussion hardly does anything to make me more sympathetic to their side. Like another editor above, I know Tony won't even have a handprint on his own hand for this, much less serious review, but there's one more editor who sees less and less good every day when it comes to admins policing each other. The blue wall's building here. ThuranX 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have to accurately demonstrate the BLP concerns. You don't get to say "BLP" and get your way. I couldn't agree more. It worries me that so many experienced Wikipedians are using BLP as an excuse to ignore others and do as they want. Unless the material is libellous, then this kind of decision should be open for discussion and debate. We shouldn't have biographies on some people, sure, but we do have to draw a line somewhere, and this line is not clear-cut. And the debates should be conducted fairly, which includes not being closed by people involved. There seems to be a belief with the BLPers that their actions can (and even should) completely circumvent any normal procedure - speedying sourced articles, early closing any debate involving DRV, closing debates they're involved in, etc. Even if their POV is right (which it often is), the way they're going about it seems designed to piss off everyone who disagrees with them. Would it hurt so much to follow process occasionally (particularly when the article itself has been deleted, so there's no immediate BLP concerns)? Would it not save time in the long run by avoiding tiresome meta-discussions on the validity of previous discussions? Just because you're convinced you're right, doesn't mean you're not sometimes wrong (in the eyes of the rest of the community). Trebor 08:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You suggest "There seems to be a belief with the BLPers that their actions can (and even should) completely circumvent any normal procedure." This is the case if the situation is grave enough. You can take them to arbitration if you think they're getting it wrong. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In one of these cases, the one I submitted for review, I don't think the situation qualified as "grave" enough to bypass the AFD process. I find it troubling that administrators are apparently so highhanded and feel they have a right to bypass the usual procedure that would allow for discussion and a consensus vote. I think speedy deletion is appropriate in cases where there is clear libel of the subject or where no sources are provided. I've nominated articles for speedy deletion in those cases or where notability was in question. None of those criteria were met here, in my opinion. I am glad that Tony Sidaway or someone else decided to overturn his original decision to close that review and allowed the discussion to continue. I also appreciated Tony Sidaway's apology for calling my nomination of the speedy deletion for review as "trollish" and "stupid." --Bookworm857158367 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    It was certainly incredibly stupid. I apologise for implying that any malice might have been involved in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No, but the situation isn't grave once it's at DRV. The article is no longer there, so there's no immediate problem. There should then be an opportunity to review the decision. The problem is when you decide that you can also force through the review by closing it yourself. Discussion is good (unless you're suggesting you're infallible at this). Since when were we encouraged to go straight to arbitration? Trebor 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I echo that. I think David Gerard should be commended for a one hundred percent correct decision. Whether BLP was invoked for a good enough reason certainly can be debated further, but DRV is not a supreme court of deletion, and the decision can still be appealed to and overruled by the Arbitration Committee. El_C 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The right to appeal BLP decisions to ArbCom (if that were the only way, which it isn't) would seem a bit vacuous these days, considering that even when Doc & Tony (representing one extreme) and Jeff (representing the other) want them to accept a case, they teeter on the edge of refusing it. Fortunately we still have DRV, which can't override BLP policy, but is fully empowered to decide what things have BLP implications and what things don't, just like any other place where editors seek consensus. Vadder 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review is not competent, nor is it empowered, to determine what does and does not fall under the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh? I understand that you don't think it's competent, but then you don't think anything which disagrees with you is, making that description fairly useless. But since when was deletion review not empowered to review deletions? Show me anywhere where it says BLP deletions can't be appealed except to ArbCom (who don't do content disputes anyway, so I'm not sure why we'd be supposed to take it there). Trebor 11:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. Deletion review may review deletions. However my statement did not say that it could not. I said that "Deletion review is not competent, nor is it empowered, to determine what does and does not fall under the Biographies of living persons policy." I hope that makes things clearer. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Any admin may hit an emergency BLP button, and if/when they invoke it, then it's up to the AC to approve or disapprove (including desysoping). El_C 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the arbcom hasn't spoken yet, let alone said this. It seems as though you're asserting that no other admin has the right to reverse such an action even if consensus backs them up. That's rather disturbing as we know that even if arbcom takes this case, it surely won't be willing to review every such. The way, the truth, and the light 00:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And another[edit]

The DRV closed improperly last night (here) was closed again properly as 'undelete and list'. 30 minutes later, this was reversed and the articles deleted again. The way, the truth, and the light 01:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported my actions to arbcom, and am willing to defend them there.--Docg 01:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As per your talk page, that re-close was quite ridiculous. There is nothing in BLP that stops these articles. ViridaeTalk 01:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is consensus to overturn, may I add?--Wizardman 01:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
See my closing reason. I was not being the judge of consensus, the close was procedural upon consultation with the deleting admin who had admitted her (honest) mistake in deleting something as an A7 when it is not. ViridaeTalk 03:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Even Badlydrawnjeff is now saying your closure was out of process. So, I guess it was right of me to undelete.--Docg 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case, if the DRV closes again with the same result, undeletion would be in order. And we know how you feel about that. The way, the truth, and the light 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is there consensus to delete? Not a single worthwhile delete argument has been made. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Doc did the right thing. He will not be sanctioned for this. Viridae, please carefully consider your responsibilities as an administrator on a top ten website. Treating such obviously problematic articles as routine "procedural" cases is not the right path. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, stop already, Tony. Unless you have evidence that the articles were problematic, of course, which ahsn't been forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The problematic nature of these articles is not in question. It has been very widely discussed and is fundamental to the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is patently false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, no. Do you want the brief explanation or the full one? The brief explanation is "Wikipedia is not Jeffopedia", the full explanation is that the subjects of the articles are private individuals who were only newsworthy because they were switched at birth. This isn't a tabloid newspaper and we don't do human interest stories, and we most certainly are not about to invade these people's privacy by putting an imprimatur on articles in their name. The material can be used, with due respect for their privacy, in appropriate articles in the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is why it's patently false - your policy analysis is akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat in this case. We are incapable of invading their privacy, as we write from sources. If it were unsourced, you wouldn't see me complaining as much, if at all depending. You must read the policy for anyone other than disruptive people to take you seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, you forgot about the part where these news stories, such as they are, were forgotten along with all the rest of yesterday's news - or they would have been, except for the fact that Wikipedia had articles on the two people purporting to be "biographies," meaning that anyone browsing one of the world's top-10 Web sites could stumble over their whole sordid history with a few mouse-clicks for all of eternity. FCYTravis 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There is an overly-detailed article on Terri Schiavo, an article for Michael Schiavo. Should these not be deleted also? Gtrevize 04:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the above is deceased and both became involved in a major public debate over the right to die which involved everyone up to and including the United States Supreme Court. These two boys... were not. Next? FCYTravis 04:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Steve Bartman, Juanita Broaddrick, Brian Chase, Dog poop girl (photo), Trisha Meili, Shazia Khalid, Earl Washington Jr.? 05:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
From a quick glance, Broaddrick and Meili are clearly encyclopedic biography subjects - Broaddrick publicly accused the president of the United States of rape, while Meili is a rape victim who has written a memoir and speaks publicly about overcoming sexual assaults. Washington, Jr. is probably a candidate to be merged into an article on overturned capital murder cases. The article on Bartman is probably far too detailed, and should either be ruthlessly cut down or merged. FCYTravis 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The incident is notable... the people aren't. Their "biographies" are basically only about the incident... another one (from the same article) William Hammesfahr. Gtrevize 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It's quite debatable as to whether we should have a separate article on Mr. Hammesfahr. That article, we should take a look at merging. Maybe there's enough to merit a full bio, maybe not. FCYTravis 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So you agree that sometimes notability overrides privacy. In that case, what level of notability is sufficient is a legitimate question. The way, the truth, and the light 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
We also consider the fact that Mr. Schiavo made repeated public statements on his own behalf, and has now written a book about his experiences. He is in no way an unwilling participant. These two boys have not done anything to place themselves in the public eye - the only reason they are known is that their mothers filed lawsuits. FCYTravis 05:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And Schiavo differs from He may have not been originally willing, but he certainly is attempting to capitalize upon it now, as an adult. Horologium talk - contrib 06:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Who said anything about QZ? FCYTravis 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is of course the same issue as with QZ and Mangum, both of whom are clearly more notable than this. The way, the truth, and the light 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) :Some questions. When does notability overcome privacy? When there notability for only one event, or a very limited set of circumstances, where is the line between the event being notable and people being notable for the event? What is the line between unflattering sourced information and harmful sourced information? On merging as a solution to claimed harm, won't the name and incident still rank high in search engines if the data is there, regardless of the name of the article? How does merging minimize and/or prevent harm? Thanks for you time and consideration. Vassyana 11:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; I don't think any simple policy will suffice for all cases. I don't see the problem in reaching consensus on a case-by-case basis. The way, the truth, and the light 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The DRV has been closed again, by uninvolved admin Kurykh. This is probably the most reasonable outcome at this point, though it does not justify the disruptive out-of-process deletions. The way, the truth, and the light 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in a discussion at the Virginia Tech massacre pages about the appropriate way to write articles like that. It seems that what happens is that in the initial news frenzy, the articles gets extremely bloated, and people write minute-by-minute accounts of what happens, including trying to find lists of all the injured (ie. still living) people. I'm ambivalent enough enough about the inclusion of gory details of how the individuals in question died (that should be toned right down, in my opinion), but including details of how the injured got injured was way too much. It seems that eventually such articles get revisited and cut down to size again, but there should be a way to control such editing frenzies. Otherwise Wikipedia just looks like a sensationalist tabloid news site. Carcharoth 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User: alleges that Merkey's edit warring again[edit]

Despite having been warned, having appeared here twice for exactly this behaviour, Having an Communit Sanction proposed, and an RfC... [3] and surrounding edits. 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging sections and asking for citations is not edit warring. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No, but deleting content, as in the diff linked above, when that content makes it perfectly clear that the Southern Cherokee Nation is not federally recognised, purely because that content contains the words "Southern Cherokee Nation", and despite it being in perfect context with the relevant part of the article, is. You have repeatedly stated that you will delete any references to the Southern Cherokee Nation on sight. And there you are, doing it.
If they are referred to as "Southern Cherokee Group" its ok. "Nation", "Tribe", or "Band" implies Federal Recognition. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The text in the diff above that you removed even states there was an attempt to get recognition for a "Southern Cherokee Nation" (with quotes!), so even if "Nation" implies recognition, it is understood in that context that it is not recognized. BTW, anyone can call themselves a "Nation", whether recognized or not. What something is called is what it's called, and if that conflicts with the federal government's idea, so be it. Lexicon (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
See the article on Micronation for some interesting examples. *Dan T.* 12:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere, but I'd like to submit a couple diffs, and as what is the next step for the dispute between Mr. Merkey and I (and others?). Mr. Merkey has a viewpoint of WP:V which says that in matters related to the Cherokee, only the US government and representatives of the three Cherokee tribes recognized by the US government can be used as reliable sources, while my interpretation is more broad (I wish to include academic and reputable news sources (using these as examples so as to be clear that I am not wishing to include websites and self published sources)). He and I discussed this issue on Talk:Cherokee, as well as on his talk page (relevant diffs of our discussion here and here, although more can be read at Cherokee's talk page). In the end, He decided that he did not wish to enter into one of the wikipedia based dispute resolution channels, and recommended that I edit freely. Having done so (much to his ire), he has reverted a number of edits, with a focus on his concept of WP:V, a particular example being this. This conflict makes it very hard to edit Cherokee, although it must be said that Mr. Merkey has a record of very strong edits. Given his refusal to go through dispute resolution, I am not sure what my next course of action is, and I bring this here mostly for dispute resolution advice. However, the nature of the dispute is relevant to the incident at issue, and perhaps understanding the dispute as a difference of opinion on WP:V will better help the community deal with the situation. Thank you, Smmurphy(Talk) 22:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's pretty extensive discussion of these issues on Talk:Cherokee, which I haven't read fully, but it looks like Merkey has an odd interpretation of WP:V and some WP:OWN issues. Peer-reviewed academic material is almost always a good source for an article. Mediation could be helpful here, if we can persuade Merkey to participate. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and we were very close to agreeing on mediation with this comment. But then he archived his talk page, and further discussions on potential mediation were rebuffed. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) has been actively participating in our normal dispute resolution processes, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2. Please do likewise. Uncle G 00:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if that RfC wasn't a separate enough issue that I shouldn't get involved there. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Per Uncle G's advice, I have placed my comment at the RfC discussion page. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking only at this discussion, and taking for now no opinion on the substance of the dispute, I see User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey civilly and rationally discussing his area of expertise as would a serious academic. and I am at a loss to see why he has been demonized on this noticeboard.Proabivouac 07:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
He's up and down when it comes to civility towards me (see edit summary "remove non-indian wannabee author and false misleading materials about how "I wannabee and indian" story - no evidence author is Native or knows the culture. Spam ref." regarding author Louis Owens), but he is rightfully indigent when being harassed. This is a difficult case because Mr. Merkey is being very patient and as polite as he can with respect to the harassment he relieves, but then some of his ideas and edits make it difficult for other polite editors to work. I'm not sure his ideas about verification are ones that would be associated with a serious academic, but they are very sensible when one looks at him as a sort of activist. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if I looked further into the matter, I would arrive at the same conclusion. Some of his diffs, as presented in the RfC, are clearly problematic. However - and I think we both agree on this - I cannot see what here should require the immediate attention of an administrator, beside the appearance of anonymous attacks against him on this noticeboard; these should be removed on sight.Proabivouac 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that these "incidents" haven't been very substantial (and, as SqueakBox suggested, the RfC seems spurious as well). I've been in discussion with him about his interpretation of policy, and have tried not to get involved with the harassment type stuff, and I only brought my earlier statement here as a request that someone who knows more than I give me/us some advice how we can get through our dispute, especially as he's stubborn to enter mediation (perhaps understandably so, given his experience in mediation has been mostly through bad faith accusations against him). Plus, if I am completely wrong, perhaps it would be easiest just to have an experienced admin let me know. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mycroft.Holmes block[edit]

Per [4] User:Mycroft.Holmes was improperly blocked by admin User:BrendelSignature. The case lists four reverts, but the four reverts were outside of a 24 hour time period, and therefore, there is no violation of WP:3RR, which is what the user was blocked for, as proved [5]. I am suggesting the Mycroft.Holmes should be unblocked as this was an unwarranted blocking for no violation. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the spirit of 3rr is to discourage blocks. It isn't a license allowing 3 reverts/day. -- Cat chi? 20:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
the reverts are near enough to a 24hr period that I would suggest that clearly falls under Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. . At worst, this is going to make that editor more inclined to talk things out - let it stand I say. --Fredrick day 20:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Mycroft has been a revert warrior at Parma, Ohio for years. (yes, as in over 12 months). Given that I think that block was fine.--Wizardman 20:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The User:Brya socks in general[edit]

I am running through all of the plant families, then will move on the plant taxonomy articles, using the categories to find them. I found another Brya sock. The socks are obvious, not clever, they do exactly what Brya did, he/she doesn't try to hide the fact that the account is an obvious sock of a more experienced Wikipedia user, and none of them protest being blocked. The edits are rather elaborate Bryafications of plant taxa and plant taxonomy articles.

Is this usual, that people with blocked accounts produce multiple socks (4 found so far) and make a few edits? What's the point?

Is there anything that can or should be done other than labeling or blocking all the socks as they are discovered? She/he is quite busy doing pretty much what got him banned at other language Wikipedias, the difficult writing (which caused us to think the user was a non-native speaker of English, but the user uses English in all his/her non-English wiki accounts, just difficult, jargon laced, incomprehensible English that must all be edited here), changing everything to APG II (something I would like to do in taxoboxes, but the community disagrees with) without consensus or community input--the latter going on right now on commons.

Is there any preventative for this, to get User:Brya to stop making the sock puppets? I think I know the answer to my own question, but I would love to learn otherwise.


KP Botany 03:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The only solution is to have the IP address blocked. Ask at WP:CHECK to have this done - at the lower section, I believe. Od Mishehu 08:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. That had not occured that he/she might be using the same IP with each sock puppet. Probably, as the socks make no attempt whatsoever to hide the Brya identity. KP Botany 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks Mishehu! The check revealed a total of 13 socks, 9 in addition to the four I found[6]--all socks doing obscure edits in areas of taxonomy/nomenclature that botany folks don't often visit, although I see one editor has been tailing the various Brya socks and reverting most of the edits. The folks at WP:Check blocked and tagged all of the socks, so all the botany folks have to do is revert the edits as necessary. KP Botany 00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppetry[edit]

Based on a routine CheckUser of a vandal account, I Heart Vandalism (talk · contribs), it has been conclusively determined that this is the same person as Rackabello (talk · contribs), MostCover (talk · contribs), and ThaBigCunt (talk · contribs), at least one of which appears to be a regular editor. Also see Special:Undelete/Mighty Morphin Red Sox Rangers. Administrator attention requested. Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All blocked indef.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if they were not socks, I would have blocked due to username violations. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Where's the place to get the template he created deleted? Mangoe 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott[edit]

I am trying to "update" all my older sigs with the aid of an approved bot in the aftermath of my username change.

User is revert waring over me updating my sigs including on pages like my own RFA. User has a history of involvement with me even on a wiki he has very little involvement with (see: commons contribs commons:User talk:Ned Scott or Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cool Cat (03) (admin only access) (deletion log)). He also has a lesser history with me here: [10] , [11]. I find the users current tone unnecessarily uncivil and dense.

I know signatures are not worth fighting over much less revert war over. I however find Ned Scott's involvement disruptive due to his past history with me.

-- Cat chi? 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to be changing your sig on archive pages, where it potentially places the conversation out of context? --tjstrf talk 10:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
See the WOPR section here. I do not believe altering a sig can place the conversation out of context in any way. -- Cat chi? 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Judging by that link, I see I'm not the only one with this concern.
Yes, the sig replacement can indeed place a conversation out of context, since it no longer links to your name as User:Cool Cat, resulting in confusion if someone refers to you by that name in the course of your conversation. The redirect avoids this problem, but only if the archive still contains the redirect link.
So yes, stupid edit war, but please stop editing archived discussions in a potentially harmful manner. --tjstrf talk 11:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh please! How is "cat out" any more in context than "Cat chi?"? I will be renaming the rfas too in due time. Revert wars such as the one quoted here slow down my speed though. How is it useful to anybody for Ned Scott to revert war with a bot and later me over my sig? -- Cat chi? 11:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In that sense, changes of this kind are even more ridiculous. Is everyone allowed to their old signature in archives at whim were there not even a username change? Also, yes people would still refer to people by the username shown on mouseover. —Centrxtalk • 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes everyone is allowed to change their sigs unless explicitly prohibited. People have done this before and its beyond logic why some people are making a big fuss over it. Not everyone has popups, I certainly don't. -- Cat chi? 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So you think anyone who wants can simply change their signature, not even their username, and make 5,000 edits to talk archives each time to do so? "Everyone is allowed to do something unless explicitly prohibited" is on Wikipedia is not correct, but regardless the redirect policy is explicit about the use of redirects and policies on talk pages and archives are explicit about not editing archives and mutating old discussions. —Centrxtalk • 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If they want to press the edit button 5000 times, sure. I do not think there is any policy/guideline basis to oppose my edits. You really have no reason to waste your time on something this cosmetic. -- Cat chi? 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The changes you are making are cosmetic. Keeping erroneous text out of talk pages is not. Also, you have completely neglected to address the places where your edits are explicitly prohibited, specifically Wikipedia:Redirects, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Template:Talkarchive, and contraindicated, specifically Wikipedia:Signatures. —Centrxtalk • 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
None of those policies apply as I explained why on my talk page. Please do not post the same thing on multiple locations. -- Cat chi? 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat signature changes[edit]

I have to agree with Ned Scott and tjstrf on this issue. There's no good reason to alter your sig in archives. I understand that it would be nice to have old sigs take on the new appearance, but this is just a cosmetic concern. If someone believes it was inappropriate to alter your sig on a certain page and reverts the change, it's probably best to leave that one as is. ChazBeckett 12:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe I should have a detailed rationale to make "cosmetic" changes to my signature. It is my signature and the change is as you point out cosmetic. Hence there is no reason for anyone to revert this. This is a non-issue. -- Cat chi? 12:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
On the majority of pages it probably will be a non-issue. However, if the change is contested on certain pages, just let it be. I believe that maintaining the integrity of an archive (by this I mean keeping it exactly as it was) is more important than cosmetic changes to a signature. The fact that at least three users have now expressed concerns about your changes should be evidence that this is not simply a non-issue. ChazBeckett 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is being silly now. Arguments are now "because we say so". Why arent archive pages automaticaly full protected then? Also your argument doesn't explain this edit. user is being disruptive. You do not "raise a concern" via a revert war. You use the proper means of dispute resolution which of course does not include a revert war. -- Cat chi? 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this has become silly. Look, you've changed what, 98% of your old signatures? Are the remaining 2% important enough to make a big fuss over? The reasoning isn't that "we said so", it's that archived pages should remain as they were when they were archived. If someone doesn't mind their user talk archives being changed, no problem. If some users object to changing RfA or xfD archives, leave those ones alone. Shouldn't be a big issue, but you seem to be trying to hardest to make it one. Please, if your sig change is reverted, move on. ChazBeckett 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Half of Ned Scott's reverts are not on archive pages. "The big fuss" is because someone is revert waring rather senselessly stating that they will not be tollerated. -- Cat chi? 12:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone given any serious example of where this change would make a conversation potentially confusing? It seems a little silly to be opposing a user's control over his own name simply because you can think of some possible scenario where it might be of some inconvenience to someone who really wanted to read archived material. --Haemo 13:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In this specific instance, the block log of his old sig (User:Cool Cat) did not carry over to the block log of his new name (User:White Cat). Someone clicking the new sig would not see the blocks of the user who actually posted the comment in the archive. ChazBeckett 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If you look at my userpage I am linking to that very log. My block log from last year however wont be very useful to anyone. That still does not affect why I can't change my signature. I second Haemo's assessment. -- Cat chi? 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Put bluntly, your block log is a mile long and is very relevant to your account, whether you change your name or not. Also, the link on your user page to your block log is broken. ChazBeckett 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Please also include a link to the block log of your original account (User:Coolcat), which also seems to have gotten lost along the way. Thanks, ChazBeckett 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If he's linking to it, I don't see the problem, therein. --Haemo 13:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Un-indent)First, the link to his block log on his user page is broken (although easily fixed). Second, to find this block log they have to visit his user page and read the description. So if someone is reading an archive and clicks on his modified sig's user talk link they'll end up at User talk:White Cat. There's no way of telling that the User:Cool Cat account, with its mile long block log actually made the comment. Normally the redirect message at the top of page would perform this fucntion. In a way, this mass sig changing is serving to erase history. See the problem now? ChazBeckett 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Serving to erase history? Talk about paranoia. I am "taking" responsibility of my past edits by doing this. Also who isn't aware of my username change by now? If someone is reviewing my history I would expect them to at the very least take a glance at my userpage. -- Cat chi? 14:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The redirect message is what informs people that a username change may have occurred. "Oh, I clicked on User:Cool Cat and now I'm redirected to User:White Cat. He may have changed his name." Altering old sigs removes this hint. ChazBeckett 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats really ridiculous. This isn't the median for this. You are welcome to propose a policy over it. -- Cat chi? 14:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's not an archive or an otherwise "closed" conversation, I personally don't see a big problem with changing the signature, but I still don't think it's worth fighting over if someone else does (have a problem). ChazBeckett 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how a debate being archived or closed matter in my control of my signature. All archives are copyrighted under GFDL which allows modifications legally. Archive pages are not protected, have you wondered why? -- Cat chi? 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not a legal matter. Under the GFDL, vandalism is "legal". Under the GFDL you would be free to simply delete all your comments just as much as you would be free to change your signature. The issue is whether doing so is appropriate on Wikipedia. —Centrxtalk • 19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Do not freaking alter the title of this case. This is a review request on User:Ned Scott's conduct NOT mine. -- Cat chi? 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've made a subsection for the more general discussion of this issue. ChazBeckett 14:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well at least he moved his page, so he can keep MARMOT's vandalbot in the history, of course that really should be a matter of pride. — MichaelLinnear 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a point? My userpage was moved automatically. -- Cat chi? 19:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the signature should be changed really but reverting these changes? That's utterly useless and serves no purpose. Yonatan talk 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The changing username thingie didn't mentioned if White Cat is allowed to do this or not; the only thing I saw was that sigs had to be changed manually to reflect the new username. But honestly, I believe a redirect would have been easier and a short explaination on the top of White Cat's userpage and talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The redirect already exists. —Centrxtalk • 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The purpose is to keep the talk page discussions intact. It is no more purposeless than reverting someone who simply deletes a section on the talk page, or who changes their comments on a talk archive. It defeats the purpose of having a talk archive. —Centrxtalk • 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
For user page archives, the user should have a choice to keep the signature change or not (I have chosen not to, since I know about the username change). But for the articles, I see you point so they should be left alone, since White Cat's userpage has the information I talked about earlier). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Talked about earlier? Where? I really feel the logic of the approach is flawed. Archive pages' content should be preserved and I am not altering the discussions themselves in any way. Syntax of the signature is not a part of the discussion's content. Logs of my edits are already altered. Aside from User talk:Zscout370 all my contribs have been moved under "White Cat". There no longer is a "Cool Cat (talk · contribs)", as it is my former username. -- Cat chi? 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Keeping talk page discussions intact isn't some golden rule. If somebody changes a signature, it shouldn't be automatically reverted as it isn't the changing the contents of the discussion (and nobody's gonna be mislead in any way by this change). It is much more purposeless as the contents of the discussion remain pretty much the same. Maybe the changes shouldn't be made in the first place but reverting them is even more pointless than the change in the first place. Yonatan talk 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So if someone refers to "Cool Cat" in the discussion, how is the reader going to know who they are referring to? In this case they might assume that "White Cat" was the same "Cat", but maybe not and anyway that is so peculiar a case that it cannot be a general principle. —Centrxtalk • 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone commenting from the outside, I think brining this issue here is beyond lame, if someone wants to change his/her signature, just let it be, why revert someone just because someone wants to change a signature. Go back to writing encyclopedia. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think this is definately WP:LEW material. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It is so lame it isn't even funny :D -- Cat chi? 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, if you want to see what a page (and its signatures) looked like at the time of the discussion, then look in the page history. It is terribly easy to fall into the trap of thinking that an archive page is an accurate representation of what the page looked like back then, but this is a wiki and that assumption would be wrong. However, I disagree with changing sigs like this, as the real issue here is that when people read references to "Cool Cat" in a conversation littered with stuff signed by "White Cat". That will be terribly, terribly confusing. Having said that, I too edit archive pages, especially when I see them appearing in cat due to improperly used templates that should have been either linked or substituted, instead of transcluded. Carcharoth 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'm sure White Cat will be happy not to edit any archived discussion in which he's referred to by his old name (or alternatively, if there's agreement, he can change the reference to his old name to a reference to his new name, then again, I doubt there will be agreement on this). Yonatan talk 01:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he's insisting on it now, but Cool Cat now wants his old userpage deleted to no longer include it's redirect, which will make for confusion on sigs that were reverted from his update. Seems pointy. He's now trying to get the redirect speedy deleted, despite the lack of an appropriate CSD. Does the 3RR apply to removing bad speedy tags? -- Ned Scott 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are pointy... -- Cat chi? 01:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:CSD#U1 applies as far as I know... Yonatan talk 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
U1 instructs one to see Wikipedia:User_page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? for further guidelines, which says:
"...if there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page."
-- Ned Scott 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And over 2,000 pages still link to User:Cool Cat. Many of these links are not apart of Cat's sig. -- Ned Scott 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
People have gotten their userpages or former userpages deleted before. You are explicitly prohibited from removing {{db}} tags btw. -- Cat chi? 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Things like a right to vanish don't really apply when you are not vanishing. Other users delete their userpage, but while still using that account. The reason your userpage should still contain a redirect is to point out that when people talk and link to "Cool Cat" they know who is being talked about. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And as I've already said, you were incorrectly applying the speedy delete tag the moment the redirect was recreated. Removing incorrect speedy tags is done all the time. -- Ned Scott 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is obviously contested, Cool cat, err white cat, just MFD your user and user talk pages, and this discussion can go on there, rather then here. And if folks agree there that its a good idea then they can be deleted. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cat, it now seems like you're grasping for a reason to get back at Ned Scott; I cannot believe you filed a 3RR report against him for removing the speedy tag from your (former) user page. I honestly do not understand why you are so desperate to distance yourself from your former username. It's awfully suspicious and your vigor toward achieving that end is attention-seeking excess. -- tariqabjotu 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. It is my fault that Ned Scott recrated my deleted userpage twice? I never asked him to edit that page. -- Cat chi? 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm saying it was a silly 3RR report. -- tariqabjotu 02:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We now have an MFD, which was created by White cat on the page, go chat it out there ;) —— Eagle101Need help? 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hang on. White Cat is Cool Cat? What happened to Chi Cat and Cat Out? I'm confused, now... Carcharoth 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes. Chi Cat and Cat Out (actually it's Catchi? and Catout) are just his signatures (for his new username and old username, respectively). Ugh... I cannot believe I'm commenting in this discussion. It's so ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed it is rediculous, changing signatures is rediculous, but reverting the changes to the signatures is no less lame than it is to change it in the first place. It's almost like "ZOMG YOU CHANGED THE SACRED FORBIDDEN ARCHIVE PAGE" attitute. Anyhow, I'm with Yonatan on this issue. This discussion have very little value and I think the faster everyone would let this go, the better. I would highly encourage everyone, no matter what side your on, to let this go, and make constructive edits to the encyclopedia. Reverting vandalism, cleaning up articles, etc, whatever. Anything is better than getting worked up over this. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 02:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

These are my thoughts on the matter: White Cat shouldn't be doing this stuff, so he should stop. Let's forget about the former signatures he's changed at this point; it doesn't really matter and edit warring over it is stupid. Let's put this issue in the past and move on. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

New User:Molag Bal sock needs blocking[edit]


Alphablast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been confirmed as a sock of banned sockpuppeteer Molag Bal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) with a checkuser by Dmcdevit (note this was carried out privately). Evidence can also been seen of this in Alphablast's contributions. Would an admin please block. Thanks. Will (aka Wimt) 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AIV. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Plus the link to his talk page shows its linked to user:Eaomatrix, a sock of Molag Bal here..--Cometstyles 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this possible sock; please notify me if it is contested. Aquarius • talk 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The user now asks for unblock, contesting that there wasn't a checkuser. Is it possible for the private checkuser result to be posted? Aquarius • talk 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of sock puppeting[edit]

here an editor uses a false accusation of me being a sock puppet [12]. I'd like either proof or an apology. Since any such proof is impossible because I'm not a sock puppet, I'd like it noted that this editor has falsely accused me of this and expect a retraction. Piperdown 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got me fooled. I checked Piperdown's recent contributions, and nothing seems amiss. It would be appropriate for User:SlimVirgin to explain why she identifies Piperdown as a sockpuppet instead of blanking the request for said explanation. She could also file a report at WP:SSP. Again, I don't see what the story is. YechielMan 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromised Account[edit]

Someone look at Shanker Aravind per this diff and take the necessary actions. mrholybrain's talk 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Asked him to clarify, I really can't make much sense out of that request. I don't (as yet) see anything that calls for the account to be blocked while it's sorted, but I'll keep an eye. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP speedy issue[edit]

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.

Someone please look at this user page (name obscured). I know that it should be speedied as a copyright violation, but the user who created the page disagrees. Thanks, Iamunknown 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation in copying a Wikipedia page to your own workspace. You cannot violate copyright in that regard. Wjhonson 01:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Copying Wikipedia pages is a routine, standard thing that we have done for years. Wjhonson 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This relates to two articles that I speedied last night for reasons currently under discussion at deletion review. I would appreciate if efforts could be made to conduct that review in a calm and civil fashion. Newyorkbrad 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern, and realize that the title of this section is certainly inappropriate. I now change it. --Iamunknown 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The user subpage was a copyright violation of whichever editors wrote the now-deleted article because the GFDL mandates attribution. Therefore, I deleted it under CSD G12. Picaroon (Talk) 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The GFDL states that it may be copied verbatim. The article states it comes from Wikipedia. That is the required attribution. If not please explain why it is not. Wjhonson 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations offers a more easily parsed version of why, "The article states it comes from Wikipedia", is insufficient attribution. --Iamunknown 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it seems to say that such a copy is allowed. In any case, many users have such copies of deleted articles in userspace, and it's clear the reason this one was deleted was the BLP controversy. The way, the truth, and the light 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown if you read that Copyright article you can see that it does not require the entire edit history or any edit history for that matter. It only requires posting a certain short notice. See the example here.Wjhonson 02:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The application of the GFDL to Wikipedia histories is controversial. It makes me wonder why we have admins always talking about how the history is needed for GFDL purposes. The way, the truth, and the light 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Second that - the database dumps even include HTML-only versions with no edit history. And we distribute those. CMummert · talk 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL requires attribution of the five greatest contributors to the work. This is a fact, regardless of what other pages and current practices may or may not say. Yonatan talk 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To whomever posted "Iamunknown if you read that Copyright article (....) See the example here." The article, however, no longer exists, and so the edit history can no longer be divined. It is an infringement of copyright. --Iamunknown 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The edit history is not a requirement of the GFDL and the "five greatest contributors" is also not a requirement of the GFDL. If the GFDL actually states this, please point to where it states it. Wjhonson 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So all the guy needs to do is have any admin look through the deleted edits and make a list of the contributors? I'll do it if he asks me. The list of users is all that they include on I think you're putting process over results here. CMummert · talk 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(IANAL) Interesting assertions, CMummert. I thought that I was attempting to apply standard practice regarding userfied pages; if that means that I am putting process over results, so be it. Incidentally, what results are you referring to? The page is currently at DRV, so if it were to remain deleted, it would be inappropriate for the page to remain userfied; if it were to be undeleted, this whole discussion would be moot. And it is still moot, because there is Google cache.
At any rate, deleting userfied pages that are merely copy-and-pastes does seem to be standard practice, so I guess that if you are going to take issue with that, you will need to talk with someone more knowledgeable than me, like the Free Software Foundation, the Wikimedia Foundation, or a lawyer. Beyond that, you would need to redefine standard practice within the Wikipedia community. --Iamunknown 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of assertions, it is common practice to delete copy-and-paste userfied pages, *when those pages* are copyright violations of other works. Userfied pages which are copy-and-pastes *from* Wikipedia are standard. We often tell Wikipedians to *do* just such a thing in order to edit "in their sandbox". This is S.O.P. Your assertions above however do not match what the Wikimedia Foundation has, or hasn't said on the issue. Wjhonson 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm interested why you concern yourself with what the Wikimedia Foundation would say; I would think that you should be concerned with what (1) trained lawyers, such as from the Free Software Foundation, or (2) the Wikipedia community (upon information from such lawyers), would say. --Iamunknown 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Re Iamunknown: By process over results I mean that there is a trivial way to make the copy acceptable under the GFDL - just list the contributors at the bottom like (example: Main page). Since that is an official WP page, I think we can assume it shares the foundation's interpretation of the GFDL.
In any case, copying speedied articles to userspace so that they can be improved is completely standard practice, so long as there is a good reason to do it (see Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles). Of course it is not a way to premanently avoid deletion of an article, but Wjohnson explicitly said the copy was only there temporarily. In this case, there is a good reason for a copy to be temporarily available, so that the DRV can proceed more smoothly. CMummert · talk 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Except the Google cache works fine for this purpose. Ultimately, though, this is a pretty pointless debate IMHO. The level of discussion needs to be elevated instead of what is essentially dirt kicking on both sides. Calwatch 03:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern. I don't feel knowledgeable to elevate the level of discussion. And at this point any further discussion is moot, as we have the Google cache and a uber-userfied copy hosted by Wjhonson on his or her personal website. I guess then that the discussion is resolved per lack of anything to actually discuss. :-) --Iamunknown 03:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Iamunknown. CMummert · talk 03:36, 28 May 2007 (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.


contribution history

This user is edit warring, disrupting, inserting nonsense and personal attacks against me into an article, most likely has violated 3RR tonight... Just all over the place. This might be related to User:TheDeciderDecides from last night. This editor may have a legitimate beef about content, but they are going about it completely wrong. Edit history is limited to a single article. - Crockspot 04:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The IP has now received an appropriate final warning from SlimVirgin. I suggest you report it on WP:AIV in the case of any recurrence of its behaviour. Sandstein 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't quite sure where to report this one. The only article this user edits is now sprotected, so unless they find a new interest, they're hamstrung for now. - Crockspot 06:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

HideandLeek (talk · contribs)[edit]

There's excessive political and religious POV on this user page, as well as attack towards homosexuality, illegal immigration and defamation towards someone named Holden Caulfield. Suggest deletion of userpage. --DarkFalls talk 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The user that page belongs to has made less than 50 mainspace contribs. His last contrib was March 2, 2007. He has also made personal attacks against openly gay users. See [13], [14], and more in his contribs. This user is not here to contribute constructively. [15] --Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
GNAA troll, blocked as such ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:RicoCorinth NPOV violations[edit]

User:RicoCorinth has been consistently reverting edits to Homeowners association and Community Associations Institute, in order to reinsert his bias against homeowners' associations and the CAI. He consistently accuses me of not discussing my edits, despite my providing edit summaries; I've also discussed my edit to Homeowners association on the talk page, yet he continues to revert. He previously attempted to go to mediation; I explained my unwillingness to work with him due to his incivility and lack of understanding of WP:NPOV there. Αργυριου (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Stealth AN/I[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Using this page states, "please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed."
So why didn't Argyriou inform me of this report? -- Rico 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Invalid Report — Wrong Venue[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Dispute resolution states, "Please be aware that these pages are not the place to bring disputes over content."
It looks like filing this report here was improper. -- Rico 05:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice in section title[edit]

The title of this report is, "User:RicoCorinth NPOV violations." This pre-assumes that I am guilty just because Argyriou says so. Can this be changed to "RicoCorinth's alleged NPOV violations" — or "Edits of RicoCorinth that Argyriou alleges violate NPOV" (since he's the only one making the allegation) — or "Alleged NPOV violations: Argyriou or RicoCorinth" (since we both accuse one another of NPOV violations)? -- Rico 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Absence of Due Process in Homeowner associations[edit]

— Rico 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing here which requires administrator intervention, as it is a simple content dispute, unless you want to have both of you blocked for WP:3RR violations. Please try to agree on a neutral wording for on the article's talk page. If you really can't come to an agreement, try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. —dgiestc 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Community Associations Institute lobbying organization[edit]

  • This started on May 7, when Argyriou prefaced material attributed to a peer-reviewed textbook that was published by Yale University Press, with "According to McKenzie, the author of a book critical of common-interest developments," providing no source that establishes that Professor "McKenzie [is] the author of a book critical of common-interest developments."
    Argyriou's edit summary is, "clarify bias of source" — so Argyriou admits that Argyriou's insertion of the unsourced material is to make the author of the book, an academic, out to be "biased".
    It is not necessary to preface the sourced material with "According to McKenzie," because the statement is obviously "according to McKenzie," because Dr. McKenzie's book is cited in a footnote immediately following the material.
    But the article is not about Professor McKenzie. It is about the Community Associations Institute trade association. I could have just as easily written, "According to Professor McKenzie, the author of a book that won the 1995 American Political Science Association prize for best book on urban politics."
    The difference between Argyriou's content and my content would have been that I would have attributed mine to a reliable source.
    I could have just as easily written, "According to McKenzie, the author of a book that is currently in use as a textbook in accredited universities that are highly ranked by US News & World Report's annual America's Best Colleges article."
    But the article is about the lobbyist, not Dr. McKenzie.
  • On May 22, I removed the unsourced material.
  • Three hours later, Argyriou reverted my edit.
  • On May 25, Argyriou finally writes, on the article talk page, "stop removing the description of Evan Mackenzie (sic) as a critic of homeowners' associations". So Argyriou's edit is to write that Professor McKenzie is a "critic of homeowners' associations"? I could just as easily describe Dr. McKenzie as a professor at the University of Illinois, that also teaches at The John Marshall Law School — in other words, he's an academic — but the article is about the CAI trade association.
    Furthermore, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is quite clear. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
    "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia."
  • May 25, Argyriou is blocked for editing abuse on the Community Associations Institute article.
    The administrator's comment? "Clear violation."

-- Rico 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't said what you're asking for that requires administrator intervention. Page protection for an editing dispute? 3RR block? Block for some other reason? —dgiestc 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for anything, beyond what I questioned in my initial replies. I'm not the editor that filed this report. -- Rico 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou's edits suggest POV-pushing[edit]

Argyriou's vandalism[edit]

The homeowners association article had an external link to the Community Associations Institute trade association in it. Next to it was a {{Verify credibility}} tag, that produced "[this source's reliability may need verification]." That made sense. CAI is a duplicitous spin meister that uses specious propaganda and doublespeak to con Joe Sixpack.
The {{Verify credibility}} tag is listed as one of the dispute tags.
Argyriou summarily deleted the tag, with no discussion, even though there was no verification done of the source's reliability.
At the time, Wikipedia:Vandalism stated:

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

Improper use of dispute tags
Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled.

-- Rico 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou's WP:EL violation[edit]

Argyriou added a second external link to the Community Associations Institute trade association article.
WP:EL Important points to remember states, "avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."
WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided states, "one should avoid ... Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."
CAI is a property managers and lawyers trade association that duplicitously claims to represent homeowner association homeowners while lobbying against them.
Argyriou refers to CAI as "a lobbying group."
-- Rico 00:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion in edit summaries[edit]

Argyriou wrote, in this report, "He consistently accuses me of not discussing my edits, despite my providing edit summaries."

  1. The Wikipedia community does not indicate that edit summaries are the proper place for discussion. That is what the talk pages are for, where all the editors of an article can discuss the article and come to a consensus.
  2. Argyriou uses edit summaries to call me names, so I can't be expected to accept them as Argyriou's substitute for talk pages.

-- Rico 15:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is down the hall and to the left. I strongly suggest those involved here make use of mediation, it appears it's quite needed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou's nonsensical bending of NPOV[edit]

Argyriou entitled this AN/I report, "RicoCorinth's NPOV violations" — but Argyriou accuses people of violating NPOV by writing that NPOV is what it isn't!
In Lostinletterkenny's talk page, Argyriou wrote that an article with more information about one kind of dance, than another, is "against Wikipedia's Undue weight policy"! Wikipedia's Undue weight policy refers to "viewpoints", not kinds of dance. It's sheer nonsense!
-- Rico 06:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Striking out a proven sockpuppets comments[edit]


Could I have a ruling on this one please? If my wrists need slapping please slap them. Aatomic1 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The user in question was a proven sockpuppet of, who is a banned user. Banned users are banned and their comments at RfCs and the likely regularly struck. Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not even a real RfC, so I don't see how any comments made in it can be somehow magically transferred to one that is subsequently opened. One Night In Hackney303 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Kittybrewster/VK rfc appears to be a private RfC. It's been around since early March, so the authors have had time to compile whatever information is necessary. It's got certifications and endorsements yet it's never been made an official RfC. Editors on one side of the issue are allowed to edit it but there are complaints when editors on the other side try to do so. If there's no intention of making this an official RfC then it should be deleted eventually. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that they believe that they can do things that their "opponents" can't (see the recent MfD by Astrotrain, who is associated with Kittybrewster, of a similar page that One Night In Hackney maintained, which was recently closed as a keep. SirFozzie 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

I see there are several BLP-related discussions on this noticeboard at the moment. Would anyone be able to look at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre? I raised some concerns on the talk page a few weeks ago, and I see that such concerns are still being defended on the talk page. The article includes sections like "Students injured in Room 204" - often with an accompanying "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." This practice is, in my opinon, best described in this quote from the talk page: "There is no single canonical list of the wounded. PERIOD - as you like to say. Scraping together names from conflicting reports is original research". Some example of gratuitous details from the article, that, in my opinion, go against the intent of Wikipedia:Biography of living persons (names omitted below, but mentioned in the article):

  • "A bullet hit [his] left side and right arm, puncturing an abdominal muscle"
  • "A 9mm bullet hit [his] head behind the left ear. Its final resting place was reported by USA Today as the skull and by the Uruguay Daily News as the throat. Another bullet hit his shoulder."
  • "wounded in the right thigh twice, causing a pierced femoral artery; [he] used an electrical cord as a tourniquet to stem the bleeding from the inch-long gash in the artery) On Saturday, May 12, 2007 [he] was able to walk unassisted across the stage at his graduation ceremony to receive his diploma with the use of a crutch."

In my opinion, this excessive detail about the injured students (and the details of the dead is excessive as well) is another example of the sensationalist, tabloid-style, articles that, when written about living people, should be dealt with by WP:BLP. All the material is carefully sourced, but to news articles written in the immediate aftermath of the events. The main article, Virginia Tech massacre, has improved a lot, but less-watched articles like List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre still have these sort of problems. What should be done? Carcharoth 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFC. WP:AN/I is not for these types of issues. Paul Cyr 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like a few opinions from here first, if you don't mind. Give it a day or so? If you disagree, put the resolved marker back. Carcharoth 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Current discussion at:

Earlier discussions at:

I still think the information on the injured victims is is a combination of original research (synthesis of existing sources), excessive and indiscriminate information, and sensationalist as well. Carcharoth 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

These same concerns, which I also share, have been raised before on the page the list of victims was originally WP:CFORK'ed from:
There are major issues with WP:OR, WP:BLP, useless morbid voyeurism, etc., but the page has had enough support to survive an AfD, and I think most of this is a content question that should be sorted out at the appropriate talk page. --Dynaflow babble 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Update:the names of the living have now been removed, so that is an improvement. I should have thought of that myself. Carcharoth 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I hope that will be acceptable. The whole question of whether we actually should be cataloguing this in such detail I leave to others, but in the past few days I've seen considerable support for edits in which I have retained information and references while removing names of private individuals. I think we may be close to the point where we can add this as principle to our guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So what was the BLP issue here, exactly? Well sourced, not negative in tone, and the few that I've looked at thus far don't appear to have OR issues, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The BLP issues were largely fixed (today) here: [17]. The OR problem comes in because, while well-sourced, the sum total of the article qualifies as original research. Definitive lists of the victims do not seem to have been published, so the creators of the page were required to collate information from a variety of sources and synthesize it, the definition of original research. Journal articles are well-sourced too, but they are inadmissable as Wp articles for the same reason. --Dynaflow babble 23:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase - what BLP issues existed to fix? The article was entirely compliant. As for OR, what you describe does not appear to be original research, nothing's being synthesized in this instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
A time bomb. Unnecessary intrusion on private identities. We should probably think carefully before using names of private individuals who happen to be involved in tragedies. We probably shouldn't be asking "why remove these names?" but rather "why retain these names?" If our articles are verifiable then the names can be obtained from the source material. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is titled List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. When people read the article, they probably expect to see, well, a list of victims. As the discussion on the article's talk page mentions, other news sources have reported these names, and we also have a full list at Columbine High School massacre.
This article survived an AfD (I would have voted 'delete') so it seems there is consensus to have this information. The way, the truth, and the light 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel that it's more like there's a point at which increasing lurid detail, however properly sourced, simply become inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. There's no real encyclopedia merit to stating largely irrelevant details of a crime, when there are references in the article which attest to them, and which the prurient reader can peruse at their own discretion. --Haemo 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to draw a bright line anywhere, I just want us to ask ourselves as a community, in each case, "is it necessary that the name of this private individual be entered into this encyclopedia which is now a top ten website?" Maybe in most cases we'll find that it is necessary. And maybe not. However we're an encyclopedia and not a phone book or a catalog of stuff that has happened to private individuals, so if we can write about private individuals without naming them (and as it happens, we can, easily) then we should continue to ask this question, without prejudice to the possible answer. It's just important to recognise, in my opinion, that we do have a moral responsibility to ask the question. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"or a catalog of stuff that has happened to private individuals" thats what an encyclopedia is! Every event in history happens to a private individual, often lots of individuals at the same time. PS are thier "un-private" individuals in your opinion Tony?Hypnosadist 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
They're not private individuals anymore, Tony. That's the first place we start. As a secondary issue, "a time bomb" is no less a justification. I'm considering reverting you pending some sort of better explanation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I endorse reverting, though I think the whole article is unencyclopedic anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this is fair, since in ten years when they commemorate the massacre, they are not going to read the names of the wounded. None of the wounded people did anything notable (as reported in the media) other than just being hit by bullets from the shooter or jumping out a window. Therefore, I agree. Calwatch 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, they're certainly not public figures, at least in the legal definition. Personally, I'm not strongly swayed either way on this one: I don't think including them adds much value and so, in the interest of privacy, we may as well not; however, Googling a few of their names shows that generally the news stories on them are as prominent as the Wikipedia article, so our inclusion doesn't have a particularly large influence on their online presence. On balance, I think privacy outweighs the very limited value we gain from including the names. Trebor 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think something should be added to WP:NOT along the lines of "not a sensationalist tabloid news site". That would cover stories of disfigured sex offenders, star wars kids, fat kids, massacre victims, and so on. The idea is to focus on the tone of the articles, not the content per se. An encyclopedic tone would omit details like names, while still linking to sources that use the names. In effect, the names are excess information, whereas the essential details are what need to be in the article - 26-year-old man spawns internet meme etc. The idea is that if you use tabloid news sites as your sources, the article you write on Wikipedia will end up an undignified, sensationalist, piece of recentism. In ten years time it will look silly. Do we ask for articles to look OK now, or do we hope that in ten years time someone will have remembered to let the "here and now" reporting style, with excessive detail, slip away into the footnotes of history. And before people say Wikipedia must record these details otherwise they will be lost, it is not Wikipedia's job to record history. If posterity does not record these details, it is not something Wikipedia should be doing. We should be documenting what others write about history, not writing it ourselves. Carcharoth 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like Jeff to consider this. Rather than ask: are these people public or private individual, ask "do we need to put these people's names into our top ten website?" My feeling is that the names of these persons do not need to be there because their names have no encyclopedic significance. Enough identifying information is given, and enough references, to satisfy verifiability. Completeness is not an issue because the names are not relevant to the incidents and the people in question do not appear in other Wikipedia articles because they're not involved in anything else that we write about, or else if they are, it's mere coincidence. I've drawn the line at faculty and I think that's fair. A faculty member involved in a university shooting can expect, I think, to be regarded as a somewhat public individual, both because of his involvement as an educator and his involvement in such an incident, but I could be persuaded otherwise according to the situation.
So I'd like Jeff to make that step: to consider carefully, and admit that others may also be considering carefully, the question: do we need to include this person's name in the account of his experiences? --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia, not an ethics experiment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sure that once there has been enough time for people to regain their perspective, that page will be quietly deleted anyway. We don't have "list of voctims" pages, we have deleted a fair number of them in my time here. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this argument is not about this VTec page itself (WP won't record the names of most of the 30,000+or- americans Killed by guns this year so why the injured of this event are notable is beyond me) but the some editors want to Bloat BLP from its legitamate role in protecting WP from harm to some Human Right to Privacy. All the info is in the public domain are we could not use it anyway so we are not publishing private details like peoples addresses (which would be a legitamate privacy issue). Hypnosadist 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

While on the subject of Wikipedia drama, see spoiler warnings[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning#We don't need any of this has the claim (by Tony Sidaway, also mentioned in the other DRV drama section above, but he's far from the only person involved) that if nobody reverts 5000 changes made without consensus, that proves that obviously the proposed policy used to make the 5000 changes actually has consensus. (And yes, that 5000 literally is 5000.) See also Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler.

There's also quite a bit of other dubiousness; for instance, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates has been repeatedly edited to get rid of as much of the spoiler warning exception as possible. In other words, the proposal to get rid of most spoiler warnings has been written into a guideline even before the proposal itself has been accepted as a guideline. (And of course there's been no discussion on the talk page of the other guideline.)

Moreover, splitting the discussion between two pages seems to be an example of forum shopping, and I find it very undesirable that the proposal is being treated as a fait accompli and the only changes being discussed are its exact deatils. Ken Arromdee 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your view, isn't this announcement going to cause more drama? Please follow Dispute resolution if you have a grievance against any Wikipedia editor. You don't get a free pass just because the target of your complaint happens to be prominent. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned you because of the connection to the other section, but this is far from being about you. There are other people involved, and modifying guidelines before consensus and with no discussion, or making 5000 changes and claiming consensus, is bad regardless of who does it. Ken Arromdee 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Continous insertion of unsourced material[edit]

I had previously pointed out the edits of Sc4900 (talk · contribs) to ANI. Editor was subsequently blocked.

Clearly, this editor is trying to disrupt Wikipedia by inserting fictional creations and unsourced material. Please stop this vandal.

xC | 07:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the sock indef and User:Netsnipe has blocked the IP 3 months. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, quick work! Thanks for taking care of that, happy editing! xC | 09:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack page[edit]

Resolved ResolvedCU showed William Henry Harrison to be a sockpuppet - user is now blocked for abusive sockpuppetry

User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite Is a personal attack page against me, using incivility and bashing me.--William Henry Harrison 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but you orignally called me a sockpuppet - hence why we had a little laugh about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr Harrison. You accused Ryan of trying to get a sockpuppet of his through RfA. That was an outrageous personal attack on you part. You are going to have expect some fall-out from such a rash accusation against a well respected admin. You owe Ryan an apology. WjBscribe 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I crossed out what I said about that. That is a good enough apology. He needs to apologize to me for alluding to me as unimportant. Calling me a sock puppet and not crossing it out as I did. And calling my comments, "pointless". I ask for an apology.--William Henry Harrison 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why anybody would want to apologise to a pointless unimportant sockpuppet is beyond me. Nick 17:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Harrison, you have curious definitions of words... you use "personal attack" in a way I've never before seen, as with "sockpuppet" and "apology". Crossing something out is not an apology. Ryan is not a sockpuppet. And I havent seen a personal attack against you yet. Philippe 17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a user he supported on RFA, and who gave himself a barnstar to... Majorly (talk | meet) 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Help request[edit]

Resolved: User:SanchiTachi indefinitely blocked. EVula // talk // // 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please repond to User talk:SanchiTachi on their talk page, as I'm sick of responding to them at the minute and wish to remain professional, something I'm not sure I can do if I continue to respond. --Deskana (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In one case the user was attempting to use potential copyright issues as leverage to get unblocked, but I've resolved that problem now. Outside comment is still needed. --Deskana (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The guy is wrong yet again on the GFDL thing, and I see that nothing has been learnt since the last debacle yesterday. I'm not going near this guy as I'm not sure I can be unbiased given his comments recently. Suggest here that SwatJester get involved and take a look. In the meantime, the 3RR block should stay, as it's totally indisputable - Alison 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
He appears to have WP:OWN issues in the extreme. [18] --GentlemanGhost 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't reply to his talk page, for some reason. However, the diff's for 3RR are as follows:
  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]
  6. [24]
  7. --Haemo 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
His talk page has been fully protected by Deskana. Go figure :/ - Alison 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears that SanchiTachi continued making personal attacks on his talk page when his talkpage prot was lifted. He has now been indefinitely blocked by Deskana - Alison 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


a particular admin has threatened me with a block, so i'd like to know whether that is reasonable.

on this article, an older image has advertisements on it and is zoomed out to quite a distance. one editor cropped the image down to what looks more in line with the rest of biographies wikipedia (a headshot with no ads, not zoomed way out). this change was reverted and i was threatened if i put the image back in i will be blocked. can you tell me if this is acceptable?

thank you 04:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't tell you. You have not given us sufficient context to judge the situation. For example, the warnings issued? And the reason that was given for the reversions. No administrator would revert you and say "I will block if you continue reverting" without giving a reason. --Deskana (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See User talk: Phony Saint 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
To clarify the issue here. A number of IPs have been harrassing David Shankbone who uploads a vast number of free images of celebs (see his userpage). The images are fantastic and, as we know from issues with replaceable fair use, very hard to come by. David has rare access to the sort of people we really need photos of.
This account and another which I blocked for trolling have been systematically replacing his images with cropped images uploaded to Commons which do not contain proper attribution (the reuploader claims to be the author) and hence are invalid as far as GFDL is concerned. Whether or not cropped version are better is a matter for discussion. However these IPs have only targeted David's work. I see this as part of a campaign of harassment against David and this IP's history as well as that of User: show clear Wikistalking. They are not the first to display a strange interest in his uploads in particular. Such conduct against a valued member of the community is unacceptable and I have made it clear that if any of these accounts continue in such behaviour, they will be blocked. WjBscribe 04:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
His pictures are definitely needed, but don't forget that if anyone comes up with a better picture, that will be used instead. There are several of those pictures that I would agree need cropping and/or have backgrounds that are too "busy". Best to get people to stand against a monochrome backdrop, rather than a mix of an American Express advert and a movie poster, as in the Patricia Neal case. I agree with the cropping there. Don't get me wrong, we should all be grateful for the pics, but cropping is something that is allowed. If David Shankbone doesn't want his images cropped, he needs a more restrictive license. Carcharoth 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't just about the cropping. That's a part of this. And there may be an argument for cropped pictures. Both those have to properly attributed. And this isn't about just one picture. Going through someone's contribs and altering them is problematic. Particularly as part of a wider pattern of harassment. It isn't the crops in of themselves that are the problem, but the way this behaviour is targeting a specific contributor and the background to this incident. Editor have been wikistalking David for months now under various IPs. He's undertstandably stressed by this and we have to make sure that editors are not being harrassed. In my judgment, the behaviour of this editor is not legitimate (regardless of whether cropped versions may be preferable in some instances). WjBscribe 05:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue isn't the cropping, it's the Wikistalking. There is a systematic effort to remove my Wikipedia name from the photographs. No more, no less. --David Shankbone 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, wikistalking is bad. I haven't looked into that closely, as I'm just looking at the photography issues. Hopefully WJBScribe can deal with the alleged (I always say that to cover myself) wikistalking. Carcharoth 05:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't be fooled by this IP. Their most recent incarnation is User:, but they have also trolled and vandalized under User:, User: and User: Their most egregious behavior which had them blocked about four times was under User:, which is where there vendetta against me was born since I listed about ten reasons why they should be blocked. In those reasons you'll also see an admin review of their behavior mentioned. It's clearly a Wikipedia editor who goes anonymous since from day one they had a handy knowledge of tags, AfDs, RfCs, block reviews, etc., not to mention the Wiki style. They have teamed up with a friend, German IP User: for re-naming all of my hard-worked on, difficult-to-obtain photographs. It is an issue not only on the Commons, where the IP was warned to stop claiming credit for my work by an admin there. Their work stretches to all international projects. Both IPs continually vandalize the Afro page with a blurry photo of a guy in a photoshopped afro wig, to name only one instance. This IP was blocked for edit warring POV edits on Nancy Reagan, began remove all mentions of the Academy Awards from articles, and the list goes on and on... This has been going on for months. Once the heat on one of their IP addresses gets too much, they switch to another IP address to make it difficult to follow their behavior. Welcome to the world of my troll. Now the troll has enlisted the help of a German user who is re-naming all of my files. This is becoming a problem. --David Shankbone 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
i looked at the image on commons, it is properly attributed. it says it came from davidshankbone: [27] 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It says says "Author | Frauleinwunder" which is incorrect, that is the name of the person who cropped it. And even with attribution, the wikistalking would still be an issue. WjBscribe 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think User talk: helps. From what I can make out, the user cropped a picture released under a CC license, but neglected to make it clear that the new (cropped) picture was not their's. Well, maybe. I'm not entirely sure of the exact sequence of events. I did something similar with Douglas Adams: before and after. I was worried about getting the attribution correct, so I asked on the Commons Help Desk. Not quite sure of the history that led to block threats. Ah. Now I see. It is explained at User talk:WJBscribe#My contributions. Carcharoth 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

so is it ok to put the cropped pictures up as long as they have attribution? the uncropped photos have a lot of ads in the background. the advertisers make sure there logo is there behind celebrities but we don't have to play along by having pictures that are zoomed out so far to show them. 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, I mentioned the advertising as well, but I am sure this is just a case of the photographer managing to find Ms Neal and saying "can I take your picture please", at an opportune moment. The background is just poor photographic composition, but necessitated by the brief "window of opportunity". I've done this sort of thing before. You feel embarassed to say, "can you move over here where I can get a better picture", and sometimes you can't do that, but sometimes it is worth trying. As for Photoshopping images to clean up backgrounds. I only do that with my own images. Cropping is as far as I go with other people's images. Carcharoth 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
just a side note, blurring the ads with photoshop might not be legal. i remember a spiderman movie swapping in its own ads for billboards in times square and getting in trouble for it.[28] 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That lawsuit was dismissed: [29]. It was clearly frivolous and I'm surprised that there weren't sanctions against the lawyers who brought it. *** Crotalus *** 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think removing them completely is OK. Carcharoth 05:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Carcharoth, what license would you recommend I use to not allow cropping? Also, did you see my message above starting with "Don't be fooled by this IP..."? --David Shankbone 05:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about that, I'm afraid. I have changed the authorship details on the cropped picture so that you still get primary attribution. I am going to put the picture in the article and credit you directly in the caption. Is that OK? Please revert my changes if there are any problems, and we can discuss. Carcharoth 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
All of the images that have been cropped have been re-uploaded on the Commons. Putting my name in the caption is problematic. The main point to have my name in the file name is for external-Wikipedia downloads to keep the attribution. --David Shankbone 05:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Carcharoth 05:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm still unsure here: can i be blocked for replacing the photos with others that are cropped if they have attribution? 05:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is to first check the license, then crop if that is allowed (in most cases it will be), and then add "cropped" to the filename. Don't change the filename, and at each stage ensure you keep the attributions to the original author. If you mention yourself at all, make clear that all you did was crop the picture. If you do everything right, it should be fi