Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive107

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

Noticeboard archives


Proposal: Require a link to the apropriate talk section in tags that say "See talk for details"[edit]

There is a lot of tagging going around when there is no discussion on talk, tag is just used to discredit the article based on not liking it, making it impossible for content creators to validly remove the tag by correcting the issue because there is no information on what exactly is the problem. This could be cut down seriously by setting a requirement in the templates to link to the appropriate talk sections, either preexisting or created by the tagger. --Alexia Death the Grey 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It'd be even more useful if instead of tagging, people just fixed the articles. -- John Reaves 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Truer words aren't often said (er - typed) John Reaves. Is there a section of the MoS that says that the tag can't be removed? Without talk page follow up to state what needs improvement they should be removable in my opinion, but, there are always new things to learn here at wikipedia so if there is a section that says this can't be done if you could please leave a link to the appropriate spot it would be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC).
I believe tags can be removed for a few reasons: obviously bad faith, obviously using the wrong tag, not providing any explanation for adding a tag, and maybe some other reasons. I've removed tags if they were added with no explanation and the worst thing that's ever happened is the person adds it again with an explanation. Natalie 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I this kind of removals however are kown to cause revert wars diverting the focus from the issue to the tag.Thus this proposal. It has many benefits, including the fact that if somebody is curious why there is a tag, its easy to check and possibly fix the issue outlined. Ive come across articles having POV or Unverified tags for ages and when Ive asked on talk what it is for the regulars say something like it is that kind of a topic. That cant be normal. Adjusting the template to require the reference to discussion would save everybody a lot of trouble...
Tagging an article as, for example, having NPOV issues, has always required explanation on the talk page by the tagger. If they don't explain what they think is wrong with the article after a reasonable amount of time, then it's fine for another user to remove the tag. --bainer (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've proposed this before - if the tagger hasn't explained the tagging within 30 minutes, then the tag can be removed without considering it a revert. Whether the explanation is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or not is a different matter. -- Sander Säde 04:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Help moving User_talk:Doug/WikiProject Agriculture to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Agriculture[edit]


A planned move was messed up by someone posting a banner to the talk page of a redirect. We successfully moved the Project page from userspace but the talk page could not move. There is nothing of substance on the target page, just the banner, please either move over it or full history merge, so that the talk page is where it needs to be. Thanks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you can request non-controversial moves at WP:RM#Requesting uncontroversial moves.-Andrew c [talk] 21:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Or even faster: put a {{db-move|source page}} on the target page. EdokterTalk 22:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued violations of WP:NPA by User:Neutralhomer[edit]


Tempers cool down between us, then we start debating about radio stations again, and as has been the case in the past, User:Neutralhomer posts something like this. I have tagged his talk page with {{uw-npa3}}. JPG-GR 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As usual, he's removed the warning tag from his talk page, but here's the dif of me adding it. JPG-GR 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Per usual, this is the fourth time the above user has brought our discussions to this board (the previous three times the posts were either ignored or decided it was out of the relm of ANI). I have continued to show patience (which is not a virtue I have much of) with the above user, while he just chooses to argue everything and refuses to find middle ground on anything. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between some nice, healthy heated debating and a personal attack on a person 9+ million people from and editor's homestate. JPG-GR 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Err I wouldnt go so far as to say that was a personal attack - more a minor civility issue. ViridaeTalk 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but this has been a continuing issue with this editor and I whenever a debate gets heated. When one is starting to lose a debate, it's certainly not ok to start violating policy. JPG-GR 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I think we are both losing the debate....and sight of the bigger things, like WP:WPRS. Like my Mother would say, "we can't see forest for the trees". - NeutralHomer T:C 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with something they'd like an administrator to do about this problem in the next few minutes, I'm going to go ahead and mark this discussion closed. A Traintalk 00:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey A-Train, I personally see nothing that can be done by an admin. It is essentially a problem that should be (and is) hammered out on respective talkpages. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Not much point to this call-out. A Traintalk 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Moore[edit]

I certainly don't care enough about the topic to take it to DRV, but could I ask someone to cast a second pair of eyes over this AFD? This looks to me like the most dubious "non-admin close as keep per consensus" I've yet seen (4 deletes, sole keep from the original author with no argument in favour).iridescent 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, non-admins shouldn't close such discusions, especially contrary to consensus. No point in dragging such violation of WP:DPR#NAC to DRV, so I just went ahead and deleted the article. MaxSem 20:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
My closure of this discussion was consistent with Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, which permits non-administrators to close discussions, and requires that "Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines." The deletion of this article, purely on the basis of vote counting, without any explanation of a legitimate policy-based rationale for deletion, violates Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, which expressly provides that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." By contrast, my closure of the discussion fully explained why the retention of the article was consistent with Wikipedia policy. John254 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As we are clearly Wikilawyering, non-admin closures are only acceptable when the result of the discussion is an uncontroversial and obvious keep. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is advice for administrators in assessing consensus when closing deletion discussions. This is not applicable, as you are not an administrator. Plus it was a really, really bad close (keep, really?), which probably didn't help. Neil  20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions states that "If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results." It does not support the contention that even experienced users who are not administrators, but are quite familiar with Wikipedia policy, may only close discussions whose results are "uncontroversial and obvious keep[s]". If, in practice, the policy is to be applied so that "non-admin closures are only acceptable when the result of the discussion is an uncontroversial and obvious keep", it might be worthwhile to modify the text of the policy to reflect this, so as to avoid misleading editors. John254 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Upon further research, it seems that as of January 2, 2007, the "Non-administrators closing discussions" section of the deletion process did state that "Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." [1], but at least by June 10, 2007, the policy had been changed to its current wording [2]. Does this change in the text of the policy reflect an actual shift in the policy itself? John254 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
My personal view: Non-admins should be encouraged to close XFDs that are consensus keeps. Experienced contributors with knowledge of deletion policy and relevant guidelines can use their judgment in determining consensus. Those who disagree with XFD closures should go to DRV regardless of who the closer was. In this case, John254 is an experienced contributor here who made a contentious AfD close. If challenged, it should go to DRV, and not be immediately reverted just because he is not an admin -- Samir 23:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Also needing some eyes:

shoy 21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Especially the Ezarik one where a {{not a ballot}} was needed and the consensus was anything but obvious. To me, it's not good form for a single person - even an admin - to close several related AFDs as the appearance of bias sets in. Such a bias claim would have some teeth when one of the closes clearly goes against consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
My closure of related AFDs was appropriate in this case, since the AFDs presented essentially the same issues. In all cases, they dealt with people of whom there was sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources as to establish presumptions of their notability per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, a point which does not appear to be disputed. Against these presumptions, I weighed WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, incorrectly invoked as though it provided an independent rationale for deletion, rather than a mere restatement of the applicability of the notability guidelines to deceased subjects, WP:BLP1E, incorrectly applied to deceased subjects, subjective assertions that the subjects were non-notable, and, in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination), personal attacks on the subject of the article, and abusive sockpuppet accounts being used to vote, mostly for deletion. I am well aware of the need to avoid bias, or the appearance of bias, in AFD closures. That's why I have closed discussions on the basis of solid policy rationales, such as the general notability guideline, or where there is little support for deletion, rather than my personal beliefs concerning the importance of the subjects, and why I have avoided closure of discussions concerning articles with which I have significant editorial involvement. John254 23:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My personal view: If you want proof that the AfD process is a worthless vote-counting crock and that admins are useless far too often, take a look at this AfD closure. The non-admin provided a clearly reasoned well thought out explanation of the issues brought up in the AfD from voters whose main objections were glorified WP:IDONTLIKEIT complaints, addressing and considering each justification proffered for deletion and how it fit the criteria of the relevant Wikipedia policy. The non-admin closure is tossed out and an admin comes along and counts votes (note lack of an exclamation point) to come up with his determination of consensus. If admins aren't enforcing Wikipedia policy and are merely adding up numbers on each side we ought to be able to get rid of admins in their entirety. For my purposes, I'd give User:John254 the admin mop any day. He's far more likely to toss out the mop and actually use his brain. Alansohn 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with John254's view of what ought to be policy, and wish we could could convince other people that this is what we should be doing. However, there is no point in pretending that something is universally accepted when it isn't, and no point is snow closes when there might actually not be the agreed consensus of everyone reasonable. It was in my opinion an unreasonable close--and the solution would simply have been to revert it and let the discussion continue. It would have been equally unreasonable from anyone, but the supposition is that an admin would have known enough not to have made it. Not always true of course, which is why we have deletion review. I agree with Wkinight94 that care needs to be taken with related articles. I do not agree that all of them should in fact have been nominated together. The issues raised were only superficially similar, and the basic argument that such crimes and their victims are never notable was not furthered by the inclusion of one or two instances where they pretty clearly were. It would have been far better to pick one of the least notable and see how consensus is. It would have been far better not to close in accordance of what things ought to be, especially for an article where this might reasonably be argued otherwise. Moderation and compromise is what avoids situations like this. 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) That was DGG.--chaser - t 04:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As the one who nominated them, and who (along with Redvers) started the discussion that eventually led to this wave of AfDs, I do agree with DGG above; I did my best to avoid treating these as a "batch" nomination — deliberately not mentioning any of the related articles in each articles' AfD nomination, and spacing them through the AfD log to ensure there were a minimum of five unrelated discussions between each of these to try to avoid any appearance of a bulk-nom and encourage each one to be considered separately. I've not challenged any of the other closures by John254 yesterday that shoy mentions, as there were at least valid "keep" arguments to base a decision on. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Moore the only "keep" comment was from the creator of the article and gave no actual reason to keep the page ("As I created this page, and as the page relates to the Imette St. Guillen page with references to Nightlife Legislation, which are also mentioned in detail on this page, I'm voting to keep this entry"). Even if every "delete" comment is discounted — and those four delete comments came from Stifle, Redvers, JJL and Whpq, not SPAs or new editors who might not understand policy — there would still be nothing to base any kind of consensus on and it should have been relisted.
As things stand, we're now in a situation where Boitumelo McCallum, subject of the AfD which set the whole discussion in motion, is deleted, whilst very similar articles are kept, which must be leaving MurderWatcher1 and ImmortalGoddezz, who did the bulk of the work on these articles, in an understandable state of frustration as there's no way for them to decide whether & how to continue to work on this series.
I'm not a wild-eyed deletionist as regards these articles, and did my best to phrase the AfD noms as clearly as I could to show that I was neutral on the subject, but I do think these AfDs are going to set a precedent and need to be handled carefully; murder victims almost always do technically satisfy WP:N as they get at least some coverage over time (at the time of the murder and at the time of the trial), but there are a lot of them - between 500-1000 per year in New York City alone. Since articles on the individual victims of terrorist attacks, bombing raids, school shootings, war casualties etc are routinely deleted (the mass deletion of the 9/11 casualties is the most obvious example - also witness the current AfD on Behnaz Mozakka), there is a glaring inconsistency here. Normally, I'd support merging articles of this nature to single lists along the lines of Murder victims in New York City in 2004, but the sheer numbers make this impractical.iridescent 11:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we applied the relatively objective and predictable standard of notability set forth in Wikipedia's general notability guideline to victims of homicides, we wouldn't have a problem with leaving contributors "in an understandable state of frustration as there's no way for them to decide whether & how to continue to work on this series", since they would have clear prior notice of what sort of articles would be acceptable on Wikipedia. Articles concerning victims who received substantial individualized coverage in reliable sources would be retained, while articles about victims whose only individual mentions in reliable sources occurred in the context of lists of victims, "police blotter" columns, or the obituaries would be deleted. Alternatively, if we are to apply the subjective, ad hoc standard of notability articulated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Moore, we may well leave contributors "in an understandable state of frustration", since there's no way to determine notability prior to an AFD discussion. John254 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I will weigh in here as someone who has been bitten (albeit mildly) by closing AFDs in which I should have contributed a comment instead. If one disagrees with what appears to be the prevailing outcome while an AFD remains open ... be that outcome based on well articulated arguments, appeals to policy/guideline or simply voting (ugh) ... the best course of action is to provide an opinion on the disposition of the article (in this case Keep with well articulated reasoning) and let the next person come along and review the AFD including your argument and trust that your argument will be taken into account. I have closed AFDs where I provided long explanations of my closure action, bringing up outcome options and arguments that are not presented in the AFD discussion - if you need to explain your actions with appeals to things that do not appear in the discussion, don't close but rather contribute. That is my advice based on my own learning experience. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If there are no objections, I plan to take the three AFDs listed above to WP:DRV. shoy 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection with that one. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It probably wouldn't surprise anyone to find that I think the articles in question are worthless crap that are contributing to Wikipedia's slow demise into a cesspool of sensationalist and worthless articles on crime victims and tabloid fodder. But as much as I deride the usefulness of the articles in question, I will say that John254 (talk · contribs) put forth a very reasoned closure. I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning (policy overrides consensus; guidelines do not) but I have a hard time discounting it just because he doesn't have the mop and bucket. It's not like he said "Keep, WP:ILIKEIT."--Isotope23 talk 20:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed on pretty much all fronts. I can see what he's saying that there is significant coverage, and yet the articles existing still doesn't sit well with me. It's almost like the article needs to be titled Murder of Jennifer Moore. It's the case that is quasi-notable - for whatever reason - not the victim. I agree that John254 did a good job of explaining himself. But people are less likely to put stock in a non-admin closure, esp. one as controversial as this, and esp. when the same non-admin closes a bunch of similar AFDs using the same logic. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've relisted the articles in question at DRV here. shoy 13:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could use an uninvolved admin at Frontline (magazine)[edit]

I was wondering, if I could get an uninvolved admin or two, to give me a hand at Frontline (magazine). For quite a while, there's been a slow edit war there. I've tried talking to the users about it, I've tried (and another admin has as well, a few times) protecting the page, but, whenever whatever runs out, they seem to go back at it. I've also blocked the users in question at one point, for 3RR. It's probably worth noting, that one party, has 3 accounts, from what I can tell. They don't use them at the same time, it seems, so I don't think that sockpuppetry is an issue there.

  1. Lib Democrat (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
  2. Liberal Democrat (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
  3. (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Anyhow, I'd really appreciate it, if an uninvolved (and more experienced :) ) admin could take a whack at stopping this slow edit war. SQL(Query Me!) 09:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the contrarian editor's (Liberal Democrat) version:

a) The first link provided does not work ("as a result of the current editor in chief's apparent P.R. endeavor for the Communist Party of China [1]")

b) The HVK link does not mention anything that the allegation made by the contrarian editor

c) Link 3 is about Xinhua and has nothing to do with Frontline. Link 4 has no mention of any human rights activists throwing any flak, as claimed.

d) Link 5 and 6 have been acknowledged in this writer's version.

e) Poor editing, lack of grammatical rigour

f) Neglects all the other points mentioned in the edit that I have reverted to, in the name of "promotion", an allegation not proven or discussed in the discussions page.

Vrsrini 11:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The concern expressed and contested was regarding the point on Anti - Imperialism which i pointed out (along with many Users as it can be seen in discussion page in the past) with sufficient sources that it was just Anti -Americanism which the current editor in Chief of the The Hindu group is endorsing at all the level,Standing on a high horse on issues like civil liberty and Freedom of press ,the magazine spaces articles and view points from media agencies Like Xinhua which appeared like a double speak/hypocracy,this was the only point many users in the past and me now was trying to point out, but the contrarian editor has tried discounting this down through out the period of time. Many occassions this edit could get survive because of the one sided locking of the article. Most funny part about this is that for substantiating the claims the user is just making use of the entries in tha article itsef and certain other Advocacy groups such as Znet. The contrarian editor agreed to accomadate the critism to a minor extent only after a persistant battle.The following points still needs to be contested.

1.Anti-Americanism / Imperialism,which the contrarian editor was not able to come out with sufficient sources except those from the article(Frontline magazine) which many percieves as marxist global perspective of Anti americanism.

>>Well Known Historian,commentator and visting professor of Yale University Ramachandra Guha talked about the same in his column in Telegraph,an August Indian daily. Big Brother Fascination

2.Duplicity on stand on Human Rights ,Democracy ,Freedom of Press. An insight into the following articles will give a better idea about the point I'm trying to elucidate



Liberal Democrat —Preceding unsigned 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Many problems in the above:

a) Anti-Americanism ..Marxist perspective..?? There is no correlation. The writer is advised to read some treatises on Marxist understanding of Imperialism and Frontline (magazine)'s articulation of the same.

b) There is no proof of Frontline supporting the suppression of human rights or freedom of press or democracy.

The quoting of Xinhua, et al sounds hollow. Other diatribe written above ("hypocracy", what does it mean?) is not understandable.

Request an independent arbiter to look at the contrarian editor's views/(non)-understanding of the genre of Frontline (magazine).Vrsrini 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the parties in the "edit-war". I have explained the reasons for reverting to a version time and again in the discussion page for the Frontline (magazine) entry. Let me explain the problem in brief. Frontline is a magazine that caters progressive opinion from the left standpoint. This has been mentioned in the entry. In foreign affairs, the magazine has maintained a consistent anti-imperialist position. Several articles (a sampling of which are also mentioned in the entry) attest to this fact. Now the dispute is to whether Frontline is anti-American or anti-imperialist. The entry was changed to say that "Frontline claims to be an anti-imperialist magazine" and even this is not accepted by the alternate editor ( Lib Democrat (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) ). The entry that is being reverted to is a) neither wikipedic (has a bunch of grammatical errors), b) has an array of critical points alone. I have tried to reason out and mention things in the discussion page, sought out help from admin, third party requests have been filed, but the alternate editor doesn't seem to agree upon anything. This is the case in a nutshell.

Vrsrini 10:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting my sub pages and archived talk page[edit]


I would like to get my subpages and archived talk pages semi-protected, but Steel359 keeps reverting my edit on WP:RFPP by getting rid of my request. I just want them semi-protected because:

  1. I don't look at my archived talk pages very often.
  2. What if someone vandalizes my archived talk page without having me knowing it for up to a few months, and the vandalism doesn't get reverted/removed until I see the vandalism?

So I would appreciate if an admin semi-protects my archived talk pages and subpages. NHRHS2010 talk 00:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well this isn't forum shopping at all is it? – Steel 00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This strikes me as spurious. Why don't you just add them to your watchlist? A Traintalk 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, this is not sort of form shopping at all. I just would like them semi-protected because if they aren't semi-protected, then they are in danger of vandalism and trolling. If they are semi-protected, I can save lots of time. And I clear my watchlist every once in a while because every time I patrol special:recentchanges and use the rollback button, suddenly, too many pages appear in my watchlist and then I can't find my pages there. NHRHS2010 talk 00:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And also, I am often busy with school, homework, etc. so I only go on Wikipedia less than one hour a day. NHRHS2010 talk 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither Steel nor I are willing to protect your talk page archives; there's really no good reason to. Why on earth would anyone vandalize your talk archives? Just watchlist them, I think you'll find that there's not going to be any admins willing to do this for you. A Traintalk 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, this is ridiculous!!! I just need them semi-protected because they are in danger of vandalism and I can't even watch my archived talk pages and subpages (even from my watchlist) while I'm sleeping, going to school, church, piano lessons, etc.!!! Although I may have them on my watchlist, I don't have time to check the history of 7 of my archived talk pages and 4 of my subpages!!! NHRHS2010 talk 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, NHRHS, but the way I read the protection policy is Indefinite semi-protection may be used for... User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user... but (bold for emphasis, not rudeness) Semi-protection should not be used... As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred... WODUP (?) 00:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Then could you at least protect my subpages other than my archived talk pages (User:NHRHS2010/prr, User:NHRHS2010/About me, User:NHRHS2010/My Wikipedia Experiences, and User:NHRHS2010/My Travels)? NHRHS2010 talk 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you please explain why it is you feel that your talk page archives are in special danger of being vandalized? A Traintalk 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandals often visit userpages and talk pages of a user that have warned (or blocked) that vandal, so my talk page archives can be easily accessible by vandals. NHRHS2010 talk 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) You guys should protect the pages he has asked for. The reason for policy not allowing the preemptive protection of talk pages is to keep the lines of communication open, making this project truly editable by anyone, IP's included. There is absolutely no reason for an IP edit of a registered user's main page (that's why SP is allowed upon request), the same reasoning applies to archived talk pages or subpages. Furthermore, there's a double standard at work here, admins get away with preemptively semi-protecting their talk pages for months at a time -going against both letter and spirit of wiki-ideals and policy. All this established user is asking for, is SP of pages an IP has no business editing anyway. Please extend the courtesy, it's common sense and perfectly in line with official policy, which states, "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for: (among other things) . . .User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user." So, please SP everything but his talk page as requested. R. Baley 01:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, R. Baley. I just want my subpages indefinitely semi-protected, but you (admins) don't need to semi-protect my main userpage until vandalism gets serious. NHRHS2010 talk 01:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the overall outcome (prot or no prot), NHRHS2010's request shouldn't simply be removed from WP:RPPP without explanation. Further, Steel359 should not have used the admin rollback to revert NHRHS2010's edit that re-added the request; this was not vandalism. Had Steel359 taken the few seconds required to provide an explanation when declining the request, rather than removing them with the edit summary "decline all", I suspect all of the above could have been avoided. - auburnpilot talk 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out above, the semi-protection policy says: Semi-protection should not be used: As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred. I don't see any of your subpages being heavily vandalized. I do see that your user page has been hit a few times. I don't even have my own protected. I have added your subpages to my watchlist, so, at least you'll have an extra set of eyes on them. SQL(Query Me!) 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a general and separate provision of the policy, not as applicable as the one which specifically pertains to this situation, which states that user pages may be indefinitely semi-protected at the request of the user. The specific statement I quoted earlier does not say anything about vandalism, possible, historical or otherwise. But we could argue policy all night, instead why not just grant the request? There's no good reason not to. R. Baley 02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Guys, could we all calm down? I think that when an established editor would like his or her user pages protected so that he or she doesn't have to continually worry about them being vandalised, it should simply be a common courtesy to do so. Sure, it may violate the letter of the protection policy, but in the interest of keeping editors happy and minimising conflict, I think that it is the least we can do... --Iamunknown 02:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh, Sorry if I appeared anything other than calm, that was not my intention. If my comments came across differently, my apologies. Still, I agree with the spirit of your comment ("keep editors happy") if not the letter ("violate the letter"). Take care all, R. Baley 02:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. Your comments seemed calm enough - some of the comments at the start seemed to me to be rather heated... :-\ And to try to be more clear, I don't think protecting user talk pages is a good idea except in extreme cases, but user pages seem fine. :-) --Iamunknown 02:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, I finally get your name "Iamunknown", not "lamunknown" (On my screen they both look exactly the same :-) R. Baley 02:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhg, change your signature, it's disgusting. -- John Reaves 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to offer some manner of protecting for this fellow's talk page. Clearly he has had enough of a problem to warrant asking for it. In addition, Steel359 is way out of line with deleting his request.Bstone 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see what the issue is. I've semi-protected all the subpages and the talk archives for him. User is in good standing, it's not a complex request, it's a reasonable reason, and so it shouldn't be a problem. Neil  10:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Neil. :) --Iamunknown 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White privilege (sociology)[edit]

Call me oblivious, but I can't see what is the controversy over this article, and why I should not close the debate as keep without consensus. Where's the supposed POV, the alleged lack of sources? Should we leave this AfD open another 12 hours or more? I can't see any consensus forming to delete. Can a more experienced sysop look at this and mop it up, or should I be bold? I'm off for a wikibreak to sleep. Bearian 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you User:Rebecca. Bearian 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page blacklist[edit]

Is this allowed?...User_talk:Porcupine/Blacklist. Porcupine has a notice on his talk page that links to this. Rlevse 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, what if those users need to contact said user? Seems stupid to me to check some blacklist before you ask someone a question or contact them about an issue, and copyright vio notifications are definitely not vandalism. It seems the user has a false impression of what constitutes as vandalism. DarthGriz98 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Nobody owns their talk page. Chick Bowen 14:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This user does not own his talk page and that "blacklist" is a violation of WP:OWN. 1 != 2 14:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Advice on best way to proceed.Rlevse 14:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is a small consensus here that it is not appropriate, and a much larger one at WP:OWN. A suggestion would be to tell him that userspace content is there only at the consent of the community and that it needs to be removed. If the user does not remove it willingly, then removed it yourself. Not sure if it is the best way to proceed, but it is a valid way. 1 != 2 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh... has anyone asked him about it? I peeked, but couldn't see any attempts to contact him at his talk page. Also, notifying him about this thread would be the decent thing to do. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just notified him. - TexasAndroid 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I did too.Rlevse 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Why? I already got told about it. It's just harassment. I've deleted it and added you to the BL.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'll reply in about three mins. Please don't do anything until I do so.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Basically, it's a list of users with whom I am not prepared to enter into dialogue. They pester me, are rude, accusatory... you've all seen the notice. The fact is, see here and here. I can delete any comments I want without fear of the 3RR or other retribution; I just gave some polite advance warning. I will still delete any and all comments left by those users, and I will keep a post-it-note blacklist on my computer monitor - deleting it will accomplish nothing.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you can delete them, like you did my good faith post, but your edit summary was less than civil. But you can't stop them from posting.Rlevse 15:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. It just seems stupid for a load of admins to increase server load by intentionally letting people post on a page where the posts will definitely get deleted. I genuinely don't mind; the end effect of a crap-free talkpage will be the same. Also, calling your post good-faith was a mistake. I mean "vandalism" - it wasn't necessary to double-post that and you know it.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You obviously don't know what vandalism is. Rlevse 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)While I agree that the very notion of a "blacklist" flies in the face of WP:AGF, the WP:USER guideline states that editors can remove comments at will. While the act of removing others' message may not be against policy, actually advertising a blacklist certainly seems questionable. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)It is not stupid, it stays in your talk page history for others to see while checking up on you. So if someone posts, say a personal attack warning, and you remove it, it can still be found later. You have no right to prevent anyone from posting to your talk page. 1 != 2 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As I say, it's more polite to ask people not to waste their time than to cause them to waste it. But I'm really genuinely not bothered. It's certainly not blockable, and I could just add that content to the main user talk page if the subpage is deleted - it's not really disallowed by any policy.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
At its worst its misuse of user space nothing particulary "blockable", regardless of that the page its pretty much redundant since no user actually "owns" his/her talk page nobody can "ban" someone from editing it, so lets just delete it and case solved. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Does not mean it can't or won't be deemed disruptive. I should point out being disruptive is being blockable. I'd suggest cutting out the wikilaywering and engaging in discussion with folks here. Please do note that uncivil edit summaries only add fuel to the fire. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If I personally think the concept of blacklist isn't a good idea (even if not "disallowed"), the posting here contrary to my wishes is vandalism part of your message is more worrysome, this is simply untrue. You may remove the comment, but posting is not vandalism as long as it is civil. -- lucasbfr talk 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
From WP:USER: "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community."

Section break[edit]

If the community decides it is not appropriate(which it has), and removes it and you return it then yes, you can be blocked. It is best that you know this ahead of time. 1 != 2 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not Wikilawyering. I'm simply saying the following things:

  • I will delete any and all messages left by those on the blacklist.
  • It's in the interest of you guys to let it stand, since it prevents timewasting and server-load.
  • I genuinely won't object or attempt to replace the list if it is deleted. I'll just stick to it.
  • 3RR excepts userspace reverts, I believe.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Your not wikilawyering? You should read the part of 3RR that has exceptions for user space, "inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere" is not exempt. 1 != 2 15:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not Wikilawyering. I'm simply saying that I don't give a sh*t if you delete it or not, because it still stands.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do realize if those on your blacklist leave civil comments, and you delete them with an uncivil edit summary or act meanly about it, it will be regarded as disruptive. I don't need to say more I don't think. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Not strictly true. See WP:USER and WP:DRC - any comments may be removed. This includes pestering, harassing, unsigned, babyish for my talkpage - it's up to a user how much leeway they allow silly users such as User:Shokuwarrior for example.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
How exactly do you think having a blacklist will prevent server-load? how will having the name of a user in a list prevent him from posting a message to you? if you are lucky enough this will provoke them and they will end up trolling just to annoy you. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, if you are disruptive about inforcing your "blacklist" you will be blocked for disruption. Enough said. There is an encyclopedia out there, lets get cracking. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)As I understand the science of the internet, making a change and having it reverted uses server-load. Thus, preventing the change from being made to start with prevents that server-load. Eagley, I quote: "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages". It doesn't restrict that to incivil comments.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This is one of those rare situations where it is appropriate to note WP:PERF. The load which you talk about is minimal, but I fear that this is a diversion from the real matter of abuse of AGF and OWN. I for one will ignore your silly blacklist if I need to leave you a message... Martinp23 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)As I've said, it doesn't remotely concern me. Do what you all want.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
now you are wikilawywering. If you are disruptive you will be blocked, enough said. Removing polite comments from users without responding to them, once may be ok, but keeping it up will be regarded as disruptive. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not, though. It says that I may remove comments. That means, without being pedantic, that I may remove comments. Or have I made an error somewhere?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You may remove comments within reason. If someone approaches you about an edit you make to the encyclopedia, you'd best respond to them. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's normally best to reply to a comment. I may, however, delete it anyway, particularly if it's unsigned, pestering and so on.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point, having a the name of a user in that list is redundant, that user can edit the page if he wants you can not ban anybody from editing you talk page because you don't own it. Actually if you are dealing with a troll something like this will only encourage further trolling, the only thing you can do is deny recognition. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, guys. I've said that if you want to delete it, do so. What's the discussion for?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mainly I thought I'd attempt to teach you a bit, if I could be so bold. Basically if one of those on your list has a problem with one of your edits for example... you'd best respond to them rather then deleting their comment. As such, its pointless to have the list, as I hope you have the good sense to know when to blank a comment and when not to. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This is silly a talk page is for talking. Constructive comments are not vandalism. Sumoeagle179 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts: User space is managed by the user. The main requirement (civility and actual disruption aside) is not to misrepresent dialogs on it. Removal of notices is fine - any user can ignore comments by another user; they are however counted as being read though, I don't think anyone's disputed that. The problem here isn't the choice "I will remove and not reply to comments by these people who I don't like". Thats a permitted choice, so long as its understood they'll be treated as having been read either way.

The problem as so often with your comments, Porcupine, is more, the tone and style causes friction and inflames problems, where there was really no need. To take a non-internet example, there's a difference between quietly ignoring the phone and door when Jim the Neighbor calls... and telling Jim "I'm Not Talking To You And Any Contact You make Will Be Ignored!!" See how there's a difference? Especially since Jim may actually one day have stuff of value to say, perhaps. Nobody minds if there are certaibn people you don't want to talk or respond to. Its as so often, the making of a point of it, pushing it at people, insisting They Must Know About It. Hope this clarifies. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I glanced quickly at the Talk page, and it seems like "Twinkle abuse" has been a sticking point in two different blocks. I'm not familiar with Twinkle myself... it's the kind of tool I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, because sending automatic vandalism reports is like programming your computer to dial 911 for you... as likely to start trouble as end it. It seems like it's not the deletion of comments per se or even the attitude but the accusation of vandalism via using this Twinkle that is the root of all the other problems. I see the page on Twinkle gives some prominent warnings, but perhaps they should be more detailed. The other thing I should say is that people imposing blocks should strive to be absolutely the paragons of civility, politeness, and compassion, because otherwise when they impose blocks for personal attacks it can seem unfair. 06:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping by AFD group[edit]

Obvious forum shopping by the only 3 to vote delete at the AFD[5]. Also, they do not advise the article's contributors on the article talk page that they are kicking the can again in theirsecond forum. Mysticpair 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • DRV seems appropriate when you think an AfD was improperly closed. WilyD 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Should not (as a matter of fairness,courtesy and collaborativeness) the fact it is being discussed and voted on at DRV be indicated on the article or its talk page? Mysticpair 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • {{delrev}} (requires substitution via subst:) is the way to note on the article. I took care of that now. Using DRV is appropriate when an XfD close is disagreed with (although they should discuss with the closing admin first). Notice to prior discussion participants is always a courtesy, never a requirement. GRBerry 22:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        • It was discussed with the closing admin diff an hour before I decided to take it to DRV. I also notified the closing admin after I had lodged the DRV request diff Gnangarra 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
High time we had consensus to make it a requirement at every process. As usual, there are proposals. I really am amazed that there is any resistance to requiring it--it seems like not just courtesy but the minimal standard of basic fairness. BITEs not just the newcomers but everybody who doesn't continually hang out around Wikipedia like us regulars. DGG (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Mysticpair it was difficult to inform you about the request at DRV as your account didn't exist at that timediff [6]. Gnangarra 01:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Cute deflection attempt; but everyone can see that you and the other 2 who voted delete did not tell anybody about the DRV other than each other [7]Mysticpair 02:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you read WP:SOCK? Also, I'm not aware of any policy that states editors are required to notify others regarding deletion review. Your own diff indicates that I would have created a deletion review anyway. --Strothra 02:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wait, who is Mysticpair? Further, note that Gnangarra came to the AfD on his own. I'll admit that I asked for Sarah's attention, but that was simply because she is an admin and because I was attempting to figure out the proper procedure in dealing with an unruly user who was removing the AfD tag - I never asked her to weigh in on the actual AfD.[8]. There is no cabal. --Strothra 02:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the accusation here? Who has forum shopped? In what way? In what forums? Hesperian 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The three who voted delete are now trying to delete it overhere without informing the editors who voted neutral or keep of the DRVMysticpair 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence of such a conspiracy. Whoever took it to DRV forgot to tag the article, that's all. Hesperian 06:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about?--Orcaguidearmy 06:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor, apparently. Hesperian 06:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Who's Hanlon? I don't understand :(--Orcaguidearmy 06:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why hasn't anyone answered my question?--Orcaguidearmy 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Soccer team[edit]

Just thought I'd let everyone know I've created an essay comparing the hierachy of the wikipedia community to a soccer team. I actually think it makes quite a good analogy, but shows we all have to work together to move in the right direction. Take a read if you have time :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting read. I think someone may need to come up with an Americanized version (Baseball or Football) for us to understand better. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sasha Callahan, with all do respect, what American doesn't know at least the basics of soccer? Most people I know have much more knowledge of soccer than football or baseball. Hmm, where are you from!?!? I think soccer is the best universal sport to use, as it is one of the biggest sports in America, the UK, and universally. нмŵוτнτ 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, maybe you would like to add a section for Disruptive fans, something like "These people deliberately cause trouble for the team. Known as vandals, they inevitably get banned from any team activiities". Moriori 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think that's already covered by what the stewards do. I think it's important to be clear that the majority of fans that come to read our encyclopedia cause no problems whatsoever, and without them, we would be nothing. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So which of our admins kick mops at their midfielders? Will (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My moneys on Moreschi! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we headbutt other players? — madman bum and angel 01:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were supposed to be one happy team who live in harmony with each other, and you're talking about headtting! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
But... headbutting people is fun... what if I just headbutt trolls? — madman bum and angel 02:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, this is awful to say but it doesn't really do much for me. Oh, I get the roles of Wikipedia people but the actual parallels to the soccer team roles, nothing. And this is why I have pledged to never make judgments on soccer/football team/player related articles: I have no feel for the sport at all and inevitably cannot tell notability or non-notability. I admit to my horrible flaw but at least I know my weakness in this area. ;-) Pigman 03:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, that was insensitive and rude. My apologies. Pigman 04:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ryan's a smart chap and has been an admin too long to have thin skin; I'm sure he'll appreciate the honest criticism. A Traintalk 04:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Critisism of soccer and my essay eh? Ryan Puts the pigman in the naughty corner! Your entitled to your opinion mate, it's for personal reference anyway, helps me understand this crazy place a little better :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 10:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You could probably draw parallels between the hooligan element and vandals, and between the non-English wikis and the various leagues of Europe. I want to be Diego Forlan, he was my favourite player. Neil  10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Good thinking about the league and hooligans - I've added them in now! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Message from the fans[edit]

The red for rouge admins (aka Administratte Rosse) like Pierluigi Collina.

We are the fans and we want our manager (Mourinho) back. We protest and we will keep shouting (disrupting and may be vandalizing). Please don't book that player (Rooney). He's still a valued and experienced user. He's just being harassed and trolled. Another player got a yellow card twice? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't hire English admins, then Will (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
More precisely, don't have a Poll... LessHeard vanU 20:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, polls are evil. But Russian admins are even moreso. Will (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand any of this. Perhaps that's best for all concerned. Raymond Arritt 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Graham Poll infamously gave out three yellow cards to a player - two gains automatic dismissal. My further comment is an aside to the equally infamous "russian linesman" decision from the 1996 World Cup Final. Will (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to remember his name or at least the game. That's why i mentioned it above. Thanks Will. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lift out "RAF 151 wing story" from Continuation War artical to own artical[edit]

Lift out this information who now roughly covers 1/6 of the text to own artical Why?

  • It has noting to do with the continuation war.
  • At the breif time the 151 Wing operated in Murmansk Finland and UK where not in war on each other.
  • The wing was there to defende the port of Murmansk and to protect Leandlees shipment, Finland did not attack neither.
  • During the countinuation war over 58000 finns where kill, not one was killed with a brittish bulit.
  • The section of the 151 wing is a result of extrem POV pushing (See discusion and archives)

--Posse72 09:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the RAF in Murmansk section? I don't think it dominates the article enough to require splitting (it's certainly not 1/6 of the article), but be bold if you think it does. In any event, this is not an administrative matter. You may also want to request proofreading assistance if you make the move yourself; feel free to ask me to assist with that if you like. — Lomn 13:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: of course, if you've already been bold and been reverted twice, it's probably time to discuss it on the talk page. On the upside, the reverters appear to agree that a split, provided a quick summary and link remain, is fine. In fact, if you're going to spin off an article, you can probably leave the current section as the quick summary, with no additional work needed. — Lomn 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just left a note at the WPMILHIST. This is clearly a content dispute and hope members of the project would help you guys. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72, could you please remove what you have on your userpage? It surely goes against our guideline. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Link blacklist?[edit]

How do I request a link be put on the link blacklist? The link is to an attack site of a convicted stalker of Shannon Miller. (see the article history and the blp noticeboard for more details). Thanks. --Rocksanddirt 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks! --Rocksanddirt 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
We have a local blacklist which would probably be more appropriate since it's not being spammed meta-wide. Add a request to the talk page for the record. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:(F'cking) (Bullsh't)[edit]

What is the procedure for dealing with usernames like this? I hardly think it's appropriate, but thought I'd ask for opinions. --DanielCD 19:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List it at MFD. Bearian 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, looks like someone zapped it already. --DanielCD 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
For future use, if they hadn't, WP:UAA would have been the place to go, not WP:MFD. --barneca (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. --DanielCD 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As Barneca said, for blatant violations of WP:U such as this, report them to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. For less blatant cases, discuss it with the user first. They will sometimes agree to change their username of their own accord. If discussion fails to resolve the issue, then the community can discuss the username at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. --Bongwarrior 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Or just zap them. Addhoc 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of A7[edit]

I've started a discussion here on adding literary works and films to the list of items that can be deleted per WP:CSD#A7. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

QUestion about deleting[edit]

Is their a tool that allows me to delete the talk page at the same time i delete the article, or is that something the developers only can make? The Placebo Effect 06:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd ever want to do that - but there's a quick link right there if you ever wanted to do it faster. I'm sure if you asked a user who is familiar with userscripts, they could make something for you. Majorly (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Having it as a option in the deletion formula can prove very useful, clicking on a box to add a checkmark to something is definitely easier that having to do the entire process all over again, I can see this being particulary useful when a user tries to clean up some of the backlog at CAT:SPEEDY. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has done work over at CAT:SPEEDY, I [respectfully] beg to differ. There was an instance where I had deleted an article, but reversed myself after reviewing content on the talk page. Sure, the article could have been given the deep-six without anyone batting an eye, but the {{cleanup}} tag seemed more appropriate than the {{db}} tag which was slapped on it. --Aarktica 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I mean just as an option. Such as after an AFD, when it is obvious the page is deleted. The Placebo Effect 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I can see how that would be useful for such well-defined cases. The closest option to being simultaneous it the one referred to by Majorly — the article is deleted, and a script provides you with a link to delete the associated talk page as well. --Aarktica 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
For example Aerosol-PFC. It was labeled as a copyvio, and it did/does have significant copied text from a website. But then on the talk it shows that the copyright holder released the text under GNU. I speedied it then went to do the talk aswell and restored (log). James086Talk | Email 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What's being proposed is a option, not something that will be a default feature. Regardless of that its common sense to check the talk page of a article before deleting, this must be common practice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#On_deleting_pages has always said to delete the talk page first. It's a useful check. Perhaps there could be an option when deleting the talk page to delete the article as well, but the talk page should always be looked at first. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It would certainly aid in speedy deletions. When deleting, I always look at the talk page and each page's history, logs, and links before deleting. But after this, an option to streamline both deletions with one action summary seems useful. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD concerns[edit]

Resolved: The general issue with the articles in the category will be addressed elsewhere. GRBerry 17:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has raised concerns about my actions at an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda, as noted here: User_talk:Bearian#your_concerns, with my responses here: User_talk:Geo_Swan#AfD_concerns. I am mortified that I made such an uncivil comment at an XfD. However, I truly believe that my reasons for deletion were justified. In any case, I left the actual closing and deletion to another sysop. Should a deletion review be opened? Should the content be userfied? Should I turn in my mop? Should I stop bothering you folks with my issues? Bearian 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed note on my page. I have left a request at wikipedia:content review, so initiating a deletion review now is not necessary. I may request a full deletion review later.
Before I do so I would like to get to the bottom of the main argumment advanced in the {{afd}}, which the closing admin relied on -- namely that {{blp}} prohibits the reporting of any allegations that has not been proven true.
Salman Rushdie was accused of blasphemy. It seems to me that if this interpretation of policy was valid we couldn't report the allegations against Rushdie. If this interpretation of policy was valid, would we have been abl to report the original allegations against OJ Simpson?
I tried pointing out to those proposing this interpretation of policy that the very first line of WP:VER says

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Cheers! Geo Swan 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Bearian, we all lose our cool sometimes. Being honest about having done so and attempting to repair both the user relationship damage and the effects on the database is the sign of a good editor. (Thinking that fixing the effects on the database is sufficient to do the former, on the other hand is a sign of a poor editor.) Don't hand in your mop, you didn't close the discussion and I beleive from other recent experience that you are self restrained in use of it.
Geo Swan knows how to use deletion review, whether for a full review or to request a copy of the article. As a DRV regular and part-time regular closer, I choose to refrain from DRV opinions elsewhere prior to actual DRV cases.
However, Geo Swan is absolutely correct that WP:BLP requires reliable sourcing about a claim, not reliable sourcing that a claim is actually true. WP:NPOV requires that we report who holds claims if they are claims of partisans that may not be generally accepted. GRBerry 17:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the people that had suggested deleting this article. The problem, as I saw it, was that we had only primary sources in the end for this. I posted to Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees yesterday, looking for guidance on this issue, so I'll post it here too--it might be more expedient, and it is all the same matter anyway. The same principle applies to the "raw list" that was contained in this article about a non-notable list generated by some researchers, that does to all of the articles we have on most of these Guantanamo detainees. This is a synopsis of the issues, which I wrote yesterday:

I've been looking through Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees, and I'm fairly concerned about it. Virtually all of these people are allegedly "notable" for a sole event: having been captured by the United States government for alleged terrorism or terror-related activities. Nearly every single article, hundreds of them, is the same. I sent three to AfD yesterday (I could have merged them all into one AfD but I wanted each reviewed independently in case I was mis-reading things):
I would venture, from reviewing at least 50 casually today, that
  1. WP:BLP1E applies in virtually all cases. The articles are not biographical in any real sense.
  2. Each is allegedly "notable" for having been captured by the US government.
  3. All sourcing is functionally primary-only.
I compared it on the AfDs to, "the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something. We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney."
I think that per our policies as I've read them, we could conceivably delete hundreds of these BLP violating articles on non-notable people under AfD. However, I'm not sure how best to approach this. Virtually every single article was created by User:Geo Swan, and he already seems somewhat annoyed at me for having processed AfDs on a few of these articles. I'm not sure if launching an AfD with over 600+ articles is the right way to do this, but these articles seem to be inappropriate for us to have.
My questions: what should we do with this? Sending them off to AfD a few at a time each week would be pointlessly slow, repetitive, and just lead to hours of repeated statements (again, each article is the same basically--insert a new name, with a minority having different traits and sources). Speedy deleting out all articles in the category would be bad, as I would venture something like 5%-10% would certainly pass AfD and would require inspection. Should I just review each, make a massive list, and then send them all (easily over 200-400 articles) to one very long-running AfD? Any advice would be appreciated.

Just putting that out there, as this matter (as evidenced by Geo politely debating everyone extensively on this) seems fairly complex. I was going to process this under Village Pump as someone on Guide to Deletion suggested, but as they said it would ultimately come here, I figured may as well post this in light of the discussion now underway. Thanks. In essence, nearly all these articles and the now-deleted lists are likely/probably WP:BLP violations and almost certainly violate WP:BLP1E. • Lawrence Cohen 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the whole point of WP:BLP1E and the surrounding fuss was this: instead of writing an article about each GTMO detainee, we should name names within the context of our articles on Guantanamo Bay, Camp X-Ray, etc (if at all). I think the individual articles should go unless the detainee is notable for more than just, well, being detained (per WP:BLP1E). It's unfortunate though understandable that there appears to be a level of personal investment in these articles which is leading to hurt feelings. MastCell Talk 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite so - perhaps something should have been done before 600 possibly-BLP-violating articles on unnotable people could be created. But the situation is what it is - is a mass AFD viable? Neil  17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was leery of doing a huge AfD with 400+ articles, but was prepared to go through each one to collect a list of ones that meet the BLP1E failure, or BLP outright, or simply aren't notable. I honestly don't see why a flat list of names wouldn't suffice for the interested, Google would direct viewers to where they need to go, as would our internal search. Collect a massive list and AfD them all? Send 5-10 to AfD per week? The more I see this the more I'm convinced this group of articles shouldn't exist, unfortunately. • Lawrence Cohen 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop the forest fire? We don't need to discuss the articles in the category as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees, Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees and here. I don't think the poster who raised this concern was acting in poor faith - but centralize discussion in one place only. GRBerry 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. • Lawrence Cohen 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the original concerns about my actions were resolved here [9]. Bearian 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Where then? Perhaps a Request for Comment would be an appropriate step, the topic on the table being "Should BLP1E apply to this article set?" --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)



Is anyone working Wikipedia:Requests for page protection today? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have :) It's been busy - Alison 08:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, would anyone be so kind as to let me examine the deleted text of Daima? (I'm sure it's nothing, just find it hard to believe an article written by WillowW could meet the criteria for speedy deletion, especially 8 months after it was written, but then life's full of surprises). Thanks – Gurch 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was a one line stub and the only thing that it stated was that Daima was an artist, not a single claim of notability. It did meet A7 speedy criteria. A G-search is hard to do with the name to see if the artist would have met our standards so I can't comment on that aspect. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
OK... I guess I'll have to take your word for it – Gurch 01:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran's sockpuppets[edit]

Regarding our recent block of Melsaran, the arbitration committee saw no reason not to release the names of the sockpuppets we believe were his:

We're still not prepared to name the person we think we behind the whole thing, but since blocking Meslaran (with Picaroon's help), we've uncovered more evidence that seems to confirm our suspicions. Raul654 04:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Curious. The Matthew_Richardson account was used to oppose RFAs that Melsaran supported. What's the point? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Assuming they are socks, a way to make the contributions look dissimilar. ViridaeTalk 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If anyone started to suspect the two accounts were related, Melsaran could have pointed out that they held different opinions on the RfAs. In both of the RfAs, there was overwhelming support and the Matthew_Richardson account was one of the few opposers. Thus, Melsaran got to fabricate some evidence the accounts were separate and not have to worry about the oppose vote changing the result. Chaz Beckett 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, what a collosal waste of time. Pathetic. Like one vote from an obvious sock (no, it wasn't obvious that it was Melsaran but it was obvious that the accounts were socks of someone) is really going to turn an RFA discussion. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As I remember, the "my criteria" page he was linking to said something silly along the lines of "Categories are important: all admin candidates should have at least 50 edits in the category talk namespace". I assumed at the time it was someone making a WP:POINT about the tendency of some people to oppose RfAs with a comment like "not enough edits to namespace X". If so, it was not necessarily an unreasonable point, but a silly way to make it. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A wiki-suicidal way to make a point as it turns out. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how the ***cruft accounts fit in, with a grand total of one edit, what possible evidence could have been derived from that? EdokterTalk 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume they can tell which IP address created an account. Together with the name commonality and the odd javascript edits... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this honestly the extent of the "disruption" that led ArbCom to believe that a ban of a (mostly) constructive editor was required to prevent the imminent demise of Wikipedia? Yikes.bbatsell ¿? 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well no, read Raul654's original message above. They think all this and Melsaran are actually all socks of some other banned user! They just haven't said who that is yet. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of all of the various excuses thrown about to justify the block without a shred of public evidence of disruption. None of them relieve me of the complete and utter disappointment in the ridiculous way that this was undertaken. It's fucking unbelievable, in my view, but it's clear I'm in the minority, so I'll just shut the fuck up. I've definitely lost all of the trust in the committee that I had just a couple of weeks ago. I realize no one gives a shit, but that doesn't make me any less saddened. —bbatsell ¿? 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
From my short and somewhat cryptic discussion with Raul on IRC, this report is quite likely just the tip of the iceberg. Mr.Z-man 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this could have been handled better, but it looks like ArbCom did the right thing by blocking. Using sockpuppets in RfAs is quite disrutpive and that doesn't even begin to address the fact that the Melsaran account is also a sockpuppet. I guess everyone views this in different ways, but it doesn't bother me that much that evidence hasn't been released while the investigation is ongoing. Chaz Beckett 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
We are very open to suggestions about better ways to handle matters like this; if you have specific concerns, ideas, etc., please do let us know. Kirill 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm fuzzy on why there is so much angst about this. From what I gather, ArbCom has made it clear that Melsaran, etc., were socks of some banned user. That's really all I need to know. Would I like to know who the original banned user is? Sure, scandals are fun and juicy. Am I going to get all angry if I never find out? No. Am I going to get all angry if it takes me a month or so to find out? Of course not. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. A user was doing some naughty things, ArbCom discovered this and the user was blocked. While I'd also like to know some details, it's perfectly fine with me if privacy reasons prevent this. Chaz Beckett 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Just for my curiousity, is the hush hush because it's not all done, because the methods shouldn't be spread about publicly, or because the banned dude in question was very bad? I hope it's not the third as now he's getting more attention through Melsaran than would've happened with "Sockpuppet of Jesse McBanned", but anyway I'm just curious so feel free to blow me off. Milto LOL pia 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This is all completely bloody ridiculous. The evidence shown is nowhere near enough to warrant an indefinite block. The User:Matthew Richardson account (which should never IMO have been blocked anyway; I registered my protest with the blocking admin at the time) was certainly an inappropriate use of a multiple account, but quite possibly he just did it to take the piss out of RfA as a way of relieving frustration - which isn't a good thing to do, but is understandable. Certainly nowhere near enough evidence to block a good, productive editor. The ArbCom has, once again, completely discredited itself by acting in an arbitrary and high-handed manner. It's things like this that are driving people away from Wikipedia and making the place fall apart - why, for God's sake why, should we indef-block an account which was actually doing lots of good work for the goddamn encyclopedia, on such a paucity of evidence?! WaltonOne 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Walton, with all respect I thought you agreed to take a step back from this one? The block was not for using these socks, it was because ArbCom formed the conclusion that Melsaran was himself a sock of a banned user. I note that Melsaran's only communication on the subject [10] has been to say that he is discussing the matter with the Committee. He is at liberty to post to his talkpage or email others if he feels he is being treated unfairly, similarly he may presumably waive whatever privacy concerns prevent the case against him being set out in full on-wiki. But I find statements like "completely discredited itself by acting in an arbitrary and high-handed manner" completely unhelpful when you are not in full possession of the facts. Should it come to light that ArbCom are mistaken and lacked the proper evidence support their actions, then no doubt the community will demand answers to some pretty tough questions. Can we try and not make these discussions unnecessarily charged? WjBscribe 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are my concerns:

  • There had been no evidence presented showing disruption by the Melsaran account. Instead, Melsaran was a productive editor (with caveats, as always).
  • Though the facts seemed to change depending on which arbitrator or checkuser was commenting at the time, it was clear that while it was believed that Melsaran was a sockpuppet of someone, there was no conclusion as to whom.
  • As such, there was no way of knowing whether the alleged sockpuppeteer had been blocked, banned, or had in any way disrupted the encyclopedia. In fact, based on the information provided by those on high, it was entirely possible that the alternate accounts did not run afoul of WP:SOCK. (I can't imagine that ArbCom would act in this scenario, but again, zero evidence, zero justification. I can't indefinitely assume good faith in the absence of such faith being demonstrated.)
  • The privacy policy has been cited as a reason that more information cannot be provided. However, if there is conclusive evidence of multiple accounts disrupting the encyclopedia or evading a ban, there is no restriction on the release of that information. The only scenarios in which the privacy policy would restrict the release of the evidence are:
    • There is no demonstrable vandalism or disruption of the encyclopedia from either sockpuppets or the sockpuppeteer
    • There is insufficient evidence linking the sockpuppets to the sockpuppeteer
  • If the first applies, then a block is entirely unnecessary. If the second applies, then the block is entirely premature and should not be enacted until the evidence is clear and a conclusion can be published with accompanying evidence.

Again, there has been no indication of imminent disruption of the encyclopedia — no one could point to a single edit of Melsaran that warranted a block. Do I believe Melsaran could be a sockpuppet or alternate account? Of course, it's possible with any account — that's the nature of the way Wikipedia works. Had the account been a blocked user evading a block, then a block would be unnecessary — blocks are preventative, and if the user has reformed, then all the better for Wikipedia. Had the account been a banned user, it's less clear what to do, and the response would have to be undertaken on a case by case basis, and ArbCom of course has the prerogative to act accordingly.

My main concern has been the complete lack of transparency. It's this type of behavior that leads to our numerous critics. Normally, I think them to be hyperbolic hand-wavers without a bit of substance, but it's cases like these that make me doubt. I don't in any way see why the committee had to act so quickly and so forcefully before the investigation was completed. Once the investigation was completed, the evidence could be presented publicly and the reasons behind the block would have (hopefully) been clear. There would have been no issues caused by Wikimedia's privacy policy. Again, there has been no presentation of imminent disruption, and the investigation had obviously not concluded nor had it provided conclusive evidence of who the sockpuppeteer was. In the absence of any of these things, a block of a productive editor is premature and unwarranted and entirely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.

I hope this explains my position, and I hope that the Arbitration Committee takes my concerns to heart (I appreciate your response, Kirill) and focuses, in similar cases in the future, on the transparency necessary for such extreme actions. I likely will not be checking this thread anymore, but you are free to e-mail me or utilize my talk page should you wish to correspond with me. Warmest regards, —bbatsell ¿? 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. WaltonOne 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thirding is typically useless in discussions such as this, but inasmuch as Bbatsell fears that "no one gives a shit", I should say that I, for one, echo quite heartily Walton's "hear, hear".

Has Melsaran said anywhere that he believes he has been treated unfairly? That he would like the full case against him made available to the rest of Wikipedia? I realise it is frustrating not to know all the facts and not to able to provide independent review of the block. Might I suggest that you start by asking Melsaran whether he welcomes this assistance or would prefer to be allowed to continue attempting to resolve the matter privately? WjBscribe 21:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Let me respond as best I understand the situation. Remember this is based on public postings by the various arbitrators and checkusers from the previous report. I think I'm right, and all you have to do is read the various comments carefully to see where I'm coming from. (Of course, I may be wrong.)
    • There had been no evidence presented showing disruption by the Melsaran account. Instead, Melsaran was a productive editor (with caveats, as always).
      • Melsaran has made a number of edits suggestive of someone with a point to make, and and lot of people suspected him of being a reincarnated user of some kind, but he hadn't done anything overt to warrant a block or ban.
    • Though the facts seemed to change depending on which arbitrator or checkuser was commenting at the time, it was clear that while it was believed that Melsaran was a sockpuppet of someone, there was no conclusion as to whom.
      • That seems to be correct.
    • As such, there was no way of knowing whether the alleged sockpuppeteer had been blocked, banned, or had in any way disrupted the encyclopedia. In fact, based on the information provided by those on high, it was entirely possible that the alternate accounts did not run afoul of WP:SOCK. (I can't imagine that ArbCom would act in this scenario, but again, zero evidence, zero justification. I can't indefinitely assume good faith in the absence of such faith being demonstrated.)
      • Comments in the previous thread made clear that a checkuser was run showing that Melsaran was abusively using sockpuppets, and it was the edits of the sockpuppets that allowed ArbCom to make a determination of who he really was, and he in fact is a banned user. Because checkuser data is preserved for a limited time period, it was not possible to determine which blocked user Melsaran was a reincarnation of based on technical evidence alone, and since Melsaran was a "good hand" account, it was only when his own recent use of socks was discovered that identification based on behavior of the socks was confirmed.
    • The privacy policy has been cited as a reason that more information cannot be provided. However, if there is conclusive evidence of multiple accounts disrupting the encyclopedia or evading a ban, there is no restriction on the release of that information.
      • Yes, which is why (at least some of) the sock accounts have now been publicly identified. Remember that some of the sockpuppet edits may have been oversighted (two of the accounts have no live or deleted edits visible), to protect the person he was stated to have been harassing, and to protect his own privacy. If this is a banned user known by his real name, there are strategic reasons why an offer of "Go away quietly and we won't make a big stink that might affect your real life" might have been made.
  • Hope this helps. Thatcher131 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher has already helped contribute some good sense to this thread. Let me see if I can clarify some more. I am very disappointed by the claims of Bbatsell and others along the lines of "there was no way of knowing whether the alleged sockpuppeteer had been blocked, banned, or had in any way disrupted the encyclopedia. In fact, based on the information provided by those on high, it was entirely possible that the alternate accounts did not run afoul of WP:SOCK." That seems like blatant misrepresentation at worst, and a severe lack of good-faith-assuming at best. I'm not sure why you've chosen to ignore it, but it was told already in the original thread that Melsaran was banned for engaging in harassment and stalking with his sockpuppets, and that it was connected to an ongoing vile campaign by people off-wiki to target a particular user on Wikipedia for abuse. It doesn't matter whether Melsaran is a reincarnation of some banned user, or simply a copycat. He is banned in his own right for what he did now; if he was already banned, then he is doubly banned, but that doesn't make him any less banned now. There's nothing more to be revealed, unless you insist on our reversing the oversight of the offending sensitive material. This isn't a transparency issue. There is no reasonable expectation that the community should have access to the edits that got a user banned for harassment, other than that and the sensitive technical evidence gained from checkuser that connects the accounts, you know all that I know. I'm sorry if what's left after we protect our own isn't juicy enough, but that's no reason to spread FUD and make demands for more evidence. Dmcdevit·t 02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher131's and Dmcdevit's comments are good explanations of the situation. When we are dealing with a persistent banned user that has harmed in the past and continues to harm with other sock accounts, we can not let any of their accounts remain active past the period of investigation. It would be irresponsible of us to give the banned user an opportunity to harm with this account. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In a comment from Melsaran [11] on his talk page, he uses the words "...until I have resolved this matter with the ArbCom." Could you elaborate on what this might mean? Is there any pending resolution? Thanks, Chaz Beckett 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In coversation with someone (not an ArbCom member) on IRC, I was informed that Melsaran admits to having copied a known harasser, and is sorry. The question then becomes, (1) do we believe he is only a copycat, and if so (2) do we extend a second chance to someone who, apparently just for kicks, copied an extremely vicious stalker? I can see good arguments on both sides of the question. (If someone came along and copied the style of Willy on Wheels or Jason Gastrich or Amorrow, and then said "I was only kidding," would we give him a second chance?) I think it would be best to let ArbCom make the decision without further kibitizing from the peanut gallery. After all, these are 15 people who were elected because they were believed to be reasonable, fair-minded and level-headed. Thatcher131 16:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for member of the arbitration committee[edit]

Is there a reason Melsaran is still able to edit on other languages: [12]. I know the technical answer that blocking him here doesn't block him there, but I was wondering if he was banned here, do the nl users (I don't know if they have an arbitration committee) have to ban him there, or is it a wikimedia-wide ban? If it is not a wikimedia-wide ban, has some heads up been given to the Dutch Wikipedia admins? Is any needed? Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an ArbCom member, but the answer to your question is that each project applies bans individually. There is an admin on Wikiquote who is banned on this project for example. If someone needs to be banned on another project, it should be raised there. The fact that the person has been banned on one project may be persuasive evidence that they should be banned on others, but it isn't conclusive. Certainly the Arbitration Committee's authority does not extend beyond this project. WjBscribe 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) ArbCom can do nothing about other languages/projects, thankfully. I really don't think the admins should be informed either. For example, on Simple English Wikipedia, we have editors who are banned on here, who participate in a responsible manner. Majorly (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - perhaps this may suggest that over here we're far too trigger-happy with blocks and bans. And people wonder why participation rates are declining. WaltonOne 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it merely means that the English ArbCom's authority only extends to the English Wikipedia. Thatcher131 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that users which are banned here are happy elsewhere is not a reflection on our banning of editors, nor on them. Some people just work better where they don't have personality clashes with other people causing them to behave unreasonably. --Deskana (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My conjecture is that we're running out of encyclopedic things to write about. Keegantalk 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so, but if more people paid attention to the fact that editors matter more than the enforcement of petty rules, then we'd find it much easier to retain contributors IMO. (This isn't a comment on the Melsaran case specifically, but on Wikipedia as a whole.) WaltonOne 08:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with 'sensitive' blocks[edit]

Just some ideas for the next time a situation like this comes up.

While the ArbCom obviously shouldn't supply the contents of harassing edits there is no apparent reason the harassment could not be described in general terms. I doubt many people would have complained if ArbCom had at the start issued a statement that, 'Melsaran has been blocked after multiple checkusers concluded that he was operating sockpuppet accounts which were posting the reputed real name and address of another user and making death threats'... or whatever the actual harassment was. No need to quote or leave visible the edits or even say who the target was, but clearly explaining what the person actually did wrong ought to be the first order of business. Just saying 'harassment' can mean alot of different things... if it was the 'he posted a link to' type of 'harassment' which was in vogue not so long ago I'd have said an indefinite block was un-needed. Presumably it was something considerably worse than that, but if any such has been stated I haven't seen it.

Also, in cases where further investigation is needed/desired I'd suggest allowing 'good hand' accounts to continue operating. If they don't know they are under suspicion they are that much more likely to do something which can be used to confirm their identity. Since the Melsaran account was (apparently) providing positive contributions for the most part, there likely wouldn't have been any harm in 'giving him enough rope to hang himself' while privately discussing how to present the case to the community without revealing any sensitive information. --CBD 11:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Overall, we did as you suggest here. We proceeded slowly, watching the accounts, discussing possible alternative explanations and decided what type of information could be released. We have to balance the community's desire to know with potential damage on several fronts if we release more information. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It's incumbent on ArbCom to release enough information that a concerned Wikipedian unconnected with the situation can reasonably assure himself or herself that the decision was fair and correct. Banning users is one of the most significant administrative acts that can happen on Wikipedia, and people's desire to understand what is happening is no matter of sensationalism or scandal-mongering, it's a desire for basic accountability. We need transparency to make sure Wikipedia is being properly run. Questioning official decisions and asking decision-makers to justify themselves is not undue mistrust, it is basic, Civics 101-level good governance. If the project loses the faith of editors, there is no project. Nobody has ever cast doubt on the ArbCom but there is growing discontent over the administrators more generally have conducted themselves and reached their decisions. It's hard to imagine a case on Wikipedia where "I'm keeping secrets from you for your own good" applies. Even in the wider world, where that privilege is sometimes evoked in matters of crime fighting, national security, and privacy, it always erodes trust and is suspected (often correctly) of being used to hide mistakes, corruption, and conflicts of interest. Here, withholding information runs counter to the basic open spirit of the project, where nearly everything is done on the record and out in the open. Surely, if things are redacted, mentioned in generalities, attested to where the proof is too sensitive, promised for future release if the investigation is ongoing, or if necessary even share the information with a trusted intermediary or accept audits or decision reviews by someone disinterested, ArbCom can surely satisfy any reasonable concern over a decision like this. Wikidemo 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That is what we did. :-) After our decision to indef block, we promptly gave a general description of the situation and released some information. After the content was redacted (oversighted), we released more information. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ehh... I think the, 'we did that' bit misses the point. You could post 'he was bad' and call that 'giving the community a general description'. Technically accurate... but practically inadequate. The most detailed description of 'bad' in this case which I have seen is, "engaging in harassment and stalking with his sockpuppets". Now, I've seen people, including ArbCom members, call things 'harassment' and 'stalking' which I'd say were nothing of the kind (e.g. the aforementioned linking to but there are enough different personalities on the ArbCom that I've no doubt that if those labels weren't clearly applicable in this case someone would be objecting. Thus, that's enough for me... 'he was bad'. However, others may have difficulty trusting ArbCom as a whole or know/like Melsaran better and want something clearer. Thus, again, in the future I'd urge the committee to come out in their first post about any blocks involving 'confidential evidence' with an explanation of the actual 'bad acts' in as much specificity as possible. You can't say, 'He posted that CBDunkerson is really Conrad Dunkerson and lives in Wharton, NJ', but I can't imagine what would be wrong with saying, 'He posted what he claimed were the real name and address of another user'. It doesn't reveal anything sensitive, but is alot clearer than 'harassment'. --CBD 16:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Calibrating this sort of sensitive communication is always a tricky business. Each new case is a learning experience. Thatcher131 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly so. Just giving my opinion / advice. --CBD 10:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Melsaran asked to leave his page intact until this issue is resolved [13]. Viridae acknowledged the request and reverted [14] [15]. Burntsauce came along and reverted back to the indef ban template. Please note that Burntsauce and Melsaran have a bit of an issue going on between them right now. I was going to revert back to the previous version but wanted clarification before I did so. I see nothing wrong with it until this matter is truly cleared up. Just wanted others opinions. Spryde 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue isn't fully resolved yet, and until we know for definite that Melsaran is going to remain blocked, then his userpage can stay as he left it. I'll protect it if it gets reverted again. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That was my thinking but I wanted a third party involved. I have spoken my piece about this whole issue elsewhere and decided I might not be acting in the best interests of the project. Thanks! Spryde 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And I protected as I got reverted. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, as an aside, I don't think it was appropriate for you to revert and then immediately protect the page, given that you had already reverted earlier. As an involved admin, you should have left it to another admin to protect. Not a huge deal IMO, but just a heads up for the future. Chaz Beckett 18:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If he hadn't, I would have. I would offer to unprotect and semire-protect except then someone would invoke the dreaded "wheel-war" term. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No, that would be pointless and I actually think the end result is fine. The problem is that anyone looking at the history will see Ryan twice reverting Burntsauce and then immediately protecting the page. There wasn't any rush for the page to be protected right this second so asking another admin to protect would have been much better in the long run. Like I said, not a huge deal to me, but it's things like this that get people riled up about rouge admins and such. Chaz Beckett 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I actually thought about that Chaz, I just thought it was best to nip it in the bud before it go out of hand and adding the banned template before it's sorted could ammount to harassment. I'm more than happy to unprotect it if people think it was inappropriate. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
An easy use of WP:IAR. Otherwise, Burntsauce would have probably re-re-reverted and then an uninvolved admin would have had to block him and then it would get ugly and sticky. No one wants to see all that. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Except this did not improve Wikipedia. Melsaran is blocked, and is not being unblocked. There is nothing up in the air about the Melsaran account being blocked aspect of this situation unless the committee specifically says otherwise. I don't see how there is any dispute over the applicability of the {{subst:sockpuppeteer}} tag - he is a sockpuppeteer, it's proven, and he's been blocked. I'm readding the relevant tag to his userpage, as is the norm in this sort of situation, but will leave the talk page be for now. Picaroon (t) 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It nipped it in the bud that's for sure. I don't believe that slapping a sockpuppet tag on his userpage at this point in time is the best thing to do, he is still in discussion with ArbCom about the whole thing, and until that concludes, we should leave the page how it is. We put the tags there when we know someone isn't coming back. In this case, we aren't 100% sure at this stage. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
We're never 100% sure someone isn't coming back, so we might as well just remove the tags from User:Willy on Wheels using that logic. There could be any of thousands of sockpuppets of banned users asking the committee to unblock them right now, but we aren't going to leave their userpages in limbo for the duration of the discussion, now are we? Melsaran is blocked, period. If he is unblocked, the notice can be removed. Until then, we need not fool anyone into thinking Melsaran is an active user, because he's not; he's a blocked sockpuppeteer. I also note that Raul placed the template in the first place. Melsaran's request to leave his userpage as is does not override this. Hope that helps. Picaroon (t) 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave Melsaran's userpage tagged as a sockpuppeteer. Melsaran has had basically no contact with the arbcom over his block. (He sent James a two-sentence email asking what happened, and that's it.) And according to Thatcher above, he has admitted to others that we're right about the sockpuppeting. Raul654 03:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum link on Sac-Anime[edit]

I have been engaged in a minor edit war over a forum link to the convention.[16][17][18][19][20] In the last edit summery and on the talk page,[21] I explained my rational for removing the link. The person(s) who keep restoring the forum link have not made any other edits outside of this article. --Farix (Talk) 12:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And Ohshimasu (talk · contribs) restores the forum link yet again with an edit summery of, "if you are going to let other conventions list their message board/forums then unlink those too."[22] It's pretty clear that he or she did read the talk page or look at the other anime convention articles. --Farix (Talk) 11:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Userpage soapbox, requesting some opinions[edit]

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

This userpage:User:Deeceevoice,current version as of posting seems to be used primarily as a soapbox for the user to preach various (offensive to many) views and rant about perceived racism of wikipedia editors. The userpage has a huge bold text proclaiming "free the jena six" with links to websites with petitions as well as a long essay preaching against wikipedia, essentially proclaiming that wikipedia is racist and "white-washed" and concluding that "Wikipedia is a f***ing runaway freight train headed straight to hell. It's downright and despicably dangerous." This information is quite offensive and I think it goes against WP:USER. I am posting this here because I wanted to get some input on the matter to see what everyone else thought. I believe that this soapboxing isn't helpful. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has been blocked 20 times in the past and has also had several issues with soapboxing on their userpage. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile to review the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice with Deeceevoice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The passed remedy states that "Deeceevoice is prohibited from using her user page to publish offensive rants." and that "Any administrator may delete any offensive material from her user page at any time." Wikidudeman (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This same issue came up a couple of weeks ago. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Wikipedia for systemic bias against black/African American topics. Calling out specific editors is not really appropriate, but general comments are generally ok. Thatcher131 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive305#Discussion_re_userpage_User:Deeceevoice. We really don't need to be revisiting this over and over again. Thatcher131 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it's being used as a soapbox. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Not to mention that this editor has previously been sanctioned and is prohibited from posting anything even remotely offensive on their userpage, and I've seen several offensive things on it. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Then don't look at her page if you find it offensive. It's not an "offensive rant". I agree with Thatcher about revisisting this again, and that it is perfectly acceptable to criticize Wikipedia for bias, because it's true! I find your badgering of DC offensive, so should I report you, Wikidudeman? Jeeny (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You're not assuming good faith, firstly. Calling a simple request that the editor remove the offensive info from their userpage and a simple request for more comments here isn't "badgering". Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for rants about politics, race or how wikipedia is "a f***ing runaway freight train headed straight to hell". If you think such soapboxing is acceptable then I think you should review policy. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to assume good faith if I see otherwise. Anyway, you may want to review policy, yourself. Soapboxing is not allowed on article talk pages, sure, but it happens. Also her user page is about Wikipedia, and the policy on userpages says that's okay. Jeeny (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What does the Jena 6 have to do with Wikipedia? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now you're nit-picking. That's been already addressed, anyway. I was refering to your complaint against her "offensive rant". Links are okay too on user pages. Jeeny (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the statement "Wikipedia is a f***ing runaway freight train headed straight to hell. It's downright and despicably dangerous."? What about posting links to one of the instances the editor was blocked and insinuating that the block was done because of race? Or how about implying that User:Stbalbach is a racist? The implication is made in a very sarcastic and roundabout way but it's made. Is this all acceptable? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The links to specific edits have been removed. Alleging that specific editors are racist is not acceptable. Thatcher131 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
O'rly. You know what is really unacceptable? Racists. And if one can call someone a dick, but not a racist, (I'm talking about blatant racism, not "alleged" or "perceived"), then there is really something wrong here. It shouldn't have taken a year to have self-proclaimed racists finally banned. If I didn't hoot and holla about it, and get myself blocked, then they would still be here. (Well, others helped too, but I called it as I saw it, no tippy-toeing around.) It worked! Although, there's still a couple of 'em left (that I know of). Jeeny (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really silly and I'm getting tired of it. I'm not an admin or an important user, but it really annoys me when it seems like one person is being picked on just because they are trying to speak up about unfairness and racism. Now can we all get back to improving the wikipedia again? Please? futurebird 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not "speaking up about unfairness and racism" but ranting against what they perceive to be racism and in the process making accusations about various editors, insulting various editors and offending many more. This sort of behavior is unhelpful for many reasons. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Racism is rampant here. I know, I've been blocked for calling a self-proclaimed racist a racist! Who was then banned by Jimbo himself. That is frikken ridiculous when you can't call someone out for that which is very obvious because it's not "polite". I don't know about the users she had linked to, though, but I know a racist when I see/hear one. And if it walks like a duck, it is a duck. Jeeny (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that what Deeceevoice posts on her user page is not, on balance, useful to the project. We would no doubt benefit greatly from intelligent and calm discussion of the problems regarding racial bias on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, rather than participating in anything such, Deeceevoice has always preferred to post antagonistic diatribes. Pure vitriol is simply unhelpful, and this is why Arbcom ruled to prohibit the posting of these sorts of rants on her user page. Quite where we draw the line, I don't know, but I've observed that Deeceevoice has a habit of attempting to maintain as caustic a user page as she believes she can get away with. It generates nothing but bickering, and I can't help but feel that it's probably best blanked and protected, and everyone can just move on to more useful activities. — Matt Crypto 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, last time I tried to do something about it, a lot of people jumped to her defense. I was apparently a racist, promoting censorship, I was an abusive administrator, and I had made a huge error of judgement. Apparently. I am unsure why so many people wish to protect DCV's right to have soapboxing tirades and rants on her userpage despite being under a specific Arbcom injunction to not have any content of that sort. Perhaps it's white guilt? Neil  18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh please. Let's get back to working on articles. This reporting crap is more disruptive than anything. It's a friggen userpage! There are many articles that have mis-information, psuedo-science, and poorly referenced. Now please, get back to work on the important things. Wikipedia article space! Jeeny (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
We do have standards on what is appropriate for user space, and we have them for a reason. If the inappropriate content goes away, we won't see it being reported again, right? The solution seems rather obvious. Friday (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This user has a long history of abusing their userpage. I would suggest totally blanking the page and fully protecting it. Deeceevoice can request an admin make edits to it if/when she decides to use the page properly. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Or Che Gueverra. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Provocation much, Wikidudeman? El_C 03:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The userpage has a huge bold text proclaiming "free the jena six". Oh really? Not now it doesn't. It proclaims "Justice for the Jena Six!" Moreover, that's just what it said just before WDM started this thread. Now, I was under the impression that the "Jena Six" (like Deeceevoice herself) are US citizens in the US, and the related events happened in the US, and thus that it's a matter under US jurisdiction; and I was also under the impression that justice for all citizens was central to the US constitution and therefore that a demand for it would be intrinsically apolitical. So where's the beef? ¶ By contrast, I am slightly worried by Deeceevoice's statement that Wikipedia is a f***ing runaway freight train headed straight to hell. If she doesn't mean that it's a fucking runaway freight train, what does she mean; and if she does mean this, why the coy asterisks? ¶ But that's only a minor quibble. More importantly, the world is probably safe from the Wikipedia freight train as long as potential contributors/detractors to article content are instead wasting their time recycling tired old indignation over this particular user page. -- Hoary 10:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right, My mistake. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The only reason this link to a particular editor is receiving much attention is because of the fuss about removing it. Which arises from some users appearing more willing to put effort into WP:OFFICIOUSness instead of focussing on improving articles. Deeceevoice can help to contribute, or can be repeatedly goaded into fights. Since users are usually allowed considerable leeway in what they put on their user page, heavy handed policing seems to me a pure waste of time. I can appreciate the concerns that criticism shouldn't name users, though of course forums like this do it all the time. However, persuasion by polite and frank discussion with the aim of finding a mutually acceptable way forward must surely be preferred to imposing censorship. .. dave souza, talk 12:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem as that numerous attempts have been made to get the user to change their userpage and it only resulted in edit warring and page protection to keep the inappropriate material off. BTW, I originally posted this to get opinions on the matter, not to censor the editor. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for flagging that mini-essay, dave souza. I wasn't aware of it, and it might come in handy in the future. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This friggin bullshit again? Give it a rest: there's an Encyclopedia to write. What is with you people?
And while we're at it, let's look here [23]: a picture of William Tecumseh Sherman? Seems to me that that might piss off more than a few Southerners. So, what is the point of the picture: to soapbox on the glory of total war? •Jim62sch• 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Although the image of William Tecumseh Sherman is the Wikipedia:Picture of the day; not soapboxing. - auburnpilot talk 22:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That's right. It changes every day. I didn't add the picture of Sherman. It changes automatically. Right now the Sherman image is gone and there is now an image of the panoramic view of the Melbourne Dockland. I don't use my userpage for anything other than utilitarian purpose. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
So the image of yourself that you present is utilitarian, and an automatic reflection of the picture of the day. Fair enough. My understanding is that userpages are for users to tell others a bit about themselves, as much or as little as they wish. So even if, for example, a user bends the rules and presents a sermon or religious statement, that's fine by me. It telle me more about the user than something censored and sanctioned by committee. .. dave souza, talk 11:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The picture of the day is also important to keep track of. Userpages aren't meant to be used as saopboxes to preach about the evils of Wikipedia or accuse other editors of being racist. That's just inappropriate in my opinion. Now if thinking that it's inappropriate to use a userpage for rants about how bad wikipedia is or to accuse other editors of racism makes me "officious" then I guess I'm officious. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen more racism on Wiki than I ever expected to see, so I have no real problem with DeeCeeVoice pointing it out. Admittedly, she's a bit strident at times, but unless her feelings spill over to article space I don't give a damn. See, I think Free Speech is like, really cool, dude. The only thing that DCV violated was your restrictive sense of propriety. So sad, too bad: don't look at her damned page. Had you any sense you'd realise that by bringing this up repeatedly you are giving her the exposure she wants and if you blank the page you'll be making her a martyr in what will likely be seen as a racist witchhunt. But, you do as you will(Hell, just because I was a PoliSci major doesn't mean that I understand the dynamics of political systems and movements any better than does a lima bean, so just ignore my advice). •Jim62sch• 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Without addressing the rest, just keep in mind that you do not reserve the right to free speech on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Free speech - auburnpilot talk 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oddly enough, that's not listed as a policy, it is in fact an essay. Of course, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored is a policy. Oddly enough, though, none of the definitions of Soapbox fit DCV's page. All so odd, yes? •Jim62sch• 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Policies aren't exclusive. The fact that Wikipedia isn't censored doesn't trump our rules on civility, personal insults or soapboxing. Accusing other editors of being racist is unhelpful, divisive and inappropriateWikidudeman (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


I've been monitoring User:Josh Gotti and his ridiculous amount of proxy sockpuppets for a while now. Most of his vandalism is pretty harmless, and involves adding a link to Big Hunna Entertainments, a non-existent record label, to musicians' articles. For some reason, however, Big Hunna is blue-linked to the main page. Does someone know why this is, and can it be fixed? Thanks! :) Rockstar (T/C) 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect page, so it will now be a redlink. J Milburn 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. the "redirected from..." thing that's usually at the top of the page when you've been redirected doesn't show up when it's a redirect to the main page (try User:Barneca/Sandboxen/SE to see). I had to fiddle with the URL itself to get into edit mode, and finally figured out how to blank the page a few seconds before J Milburn nuked it. I'm guessing it's because of the banner at the top of the page "covering" what would normally be seen there? --barneca (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good point. I didn't think about the Donate banner. Thanks for deleting, J Milburn! Rockstar (T/C) 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rockstar, I meant the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner, not the donation banner. If the donation banner messed up the redirect link, people would be even more annoyed with it than they are now. --barneca (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. My bad. That makes more sense anyway. :) Rockstar (T/C) 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's not the banner, but the part of MediaWiki:Monobook.css that hides the page title on the main page (look for ""). Apparently it also hides the redirect notice that usually appears just below the title. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes please...[edit]

As I'm tangentially involved - I've never edited the templates being argued over, but I've done a lot of work on pages using the templates - could someone else have a skim through this mess of sockpuppetry and personal attacks (and the contributions of the assorted SPAs) to see if I'm over/underreacting. (The "sockpuppeteer" mentioned is Lucy-marie, blocked last month for long-term socking on, among other things, the templates in question.)iridescent 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, while on reflection I won't do any blocking myself in this case, having interacted with both parties previously, could I suggest anyone who does get involved, make of