Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive123

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

Noticeboard archives


User:CltFn/Winn doom[edit]

I would appreciate some admin eyes on a disputed CSD case. It pertains to this page: User:CltFn/Winn doom, which is a recreation of an article deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom. I placed {{db-repost}}, but that has been disputed. Does G4 apply? Regards. ITAQALLAH 12:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I agree with User:Matt57 here, G4 is not applicable to content that has been userfied, as long as it is the user's intent to improve the article. You might want to ask User:CltFn if he still intends to work on it. -- lucasbfr talk 12:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My guess is probably not, he has just been indef-blocked following a discussion on AN/I. ITAQALLAH 12:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ow... gonna delete then :D (don't hesitate to undelete if the user is unblocked) -- lucasbfr talk 14:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bardeep sockpuppets?[edit]


Not sure if this is right place to report this but I am suspecting that User:Bardeep3 may be a sockpuppet of User:Bardeep an indef-blocked user, based on the name. Currently User:Bardeep3 has vandalized various administrator's user pages in addition he seems to be being disruptive on his talk page (see [1] (warning 800K). Thanks VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, user already blocked. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again[edit]

Change name[edit]

Resolved: pointed out proper venue --barneca (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to change name to Rickcar witch is the same name I use at my Swedish account. V*M*D 17:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They can take care of you over at WP:RENAME. This requires a bureaucrat, so no admin attention is needed. --barneca (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:The Cyndicate legal threat[edit]

I have declined User:The Cyndicate's unblock request per this comment in which he says "This is just horrible and I guess its time it is stopped. I guess you need to hunker down and get ready for legal fight." I have informed him that he can be unblocked if he rescinds the threat of legal action, and will support any admin's unblocking of him upon such condition. - Revolving Bugbear 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I used to love/hate people like this when I was a moderator/admin of a sports message board. Assuming he does follow through with it, I really wish I could see his reaction when a laywer tells him that no, his civil rights have not been violated. Resolute 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you're right about that. - Revolving Bugbear 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the case has been needlessly escalated. A friendly notification that a) legal threats are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, and b) such a lawsuit would have had no merit (just like you can't sue a newspaper for refusing to publish an [unsuitable] article you have written), only followed by a block should the user continue with that behaviour, would have been better. (See User talk:Wojowc for how I handle such matters.) Now I am afraid the block must stay, at least for now; the user has not just not withdrawn the legal action, but also threatened to use a bot to revert changes to his text, and proxies to avoid his block. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot threat was also made pre-block, I believe. - Revolving Bugbear 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed that. (I probably still wouldn't have immediately blocked him for that, but it makes the block more warranted.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the block was a borderline case, as I don't believe the user knew the NLT policy before he made the statement. On the other hand -- and I realize blocking is stressful and frustrating -- his reaction to the notion that he may be unblocked if he redacts the threat is not particularly comforting, and possible evidence post hoc. - Revolving Bugbear 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note that reporting someone to the authorities is considered a legal threat in WP even though in real life it's not a legal threat. - I've known for a while that this is the case, but it doesn't fit with the stated reason for the NLT policy. Anyone know how this got in there? I've got a disconcerting feeling that this comes from people thinking that WP:NLT is intended as a vindictive "punish people for threatening us" policy, and changing it to conform to that. Moreover, it is not in the written policy itself, and does not interact well with "Withdrawal of legal threat". —Random832 14:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What it actually should say, and I don't know when the language got changed, is that threatening to report someone to the authorities is a legal threat on Wikipedia. That, in my opinion, is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Talking about it on-wiki has to be prohibited to keep it from being used as coercion, but Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance against legitimate police complaints that have nothing to do with WP. - Revolving Bugbear 17:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page now as it appears all he wants to do is make more threats. Nakon 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall a case a couple months ago where someone was indef-blocked for carrying out such a "threat" (IIRC it was a report to an animal welfare organization, not law enforcement); there doesn't seem to be any valid basis in the principles behind WP:NLT to justify leaving someone blocked after the "threatened" action is out of their hands (and thus can no longer be withdrawn even if they wanted to) unless we decide that we want to be vindictive and punitive about these things. —Random832 18:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, sorry, I'm bleary eyed as I need to go to bed, but... am I getting this right? No Legal Threats means "don't threaten to go to law, but if you actually do sue then that's all right"? Coz that's very bad reasoning. It isn't punitive nor vindictive to block or leave someone blocked if they do in fact take legal (or similar) action against another user. It's common sense to leave them blocked/block them whilst a legal action is taking place or whilst a report to "a higher authority" is underway. And beyond, whatever the conclusion. NLT is not just designed to prevent legal threats, it's designed to say that we, as a community, don't allow for threats or actions to influence us. If you make a threat and carry it out then you remain blocked, forever, for the good of the community because We Don't Do That. What if it was a murder that was threatened? Do we say, oh, since the other person is dead, you can come back, as you're not threatening it any more? Please tell me that's not what you're saying? ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll just point out that it is a common practice when an editor indicates that they are contemplating suicide or real-life harm to other people for Wikipedians to notify the relevant authorities; there are frequent discussions about this on AN and AN/I, particularly trying to locate a trusted editor in the relevant geographic region. The concept of notifying authorities when there is a perceived real-world threat is important and valid; failure to do so could be quite harmful to the project and the community as a whole. This concept does not apply in the case of the threats posed by The Cyndicate; however, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Risker (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Redvers, I think its just a common business practice to not discourage people from seeking legal action. Then they'd argue they were coerced into not exercising their legal rights/letting the other party abuse their rights. So yea, the wording, don't threaten to sue us cause we'll block you, but if you do sue, we won't is awkward, but at least from a US view, seems normal.
I'm still trying to figure out how anything this user did was related to a disability. I don't see anything in the articles he edited to relate to disabilities or medical conditions. Also, do IPs even have monobooks in which to run scripts or would he have to re-register (and therefore be easy to ID) to run the reverting script he mentions? And where is there any debate on wikipedia of it being public or private, thats a new one to me! MBisanz talk 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Darn. I wanted to ask him how or why he thinks the Americans with Disabilities Act would even apply, since it is very obvious that he could not be discriminated against bast on disability, since we could not possibly know. Ahh, well. Whichever of you admins who has a financial stake in this place are sure gonna regret it come April Fools Day... ;) Resolute 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Makara Jyothi[edit]


I’ve had a general cleanup in the article Makara Jyothi and asked for third opinion about removing all three tags placed. I listed it in RFCreli list also. Before doing it, asked another admin’s opinion also. I would have removed all tags as no consensus formed yet after a massive cleanups made. However, since it is a disputed article, administrator’s intervention is imperative in this case. Until now, no action taken yet. Please verify the current article and remove (if ok) all tags placed. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wider attention for significant AfD: Adult-child sex[edit]

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate place to post this, but I thought editors here might want to know about this AfD, because it is an important issue for Wikipedia and would benefit from the clearest possible result, considering the controversial history of the topic and the other articles related to this one.

This is a neutral request for comments at the Afd for Adult-child sex

My intention is not canvassing. I'm not the nominator of the AfD and I'm not posting this to find others to agree with my position in the debate. More editors will be better for the results, whichever way it goes.

The AfD will be closing very soon I think -- it's page is here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

It seems like the best thing for Wikipedia would be for more editors to enter comments at the AfD, so that whatever is decided, it is done with wide participation, so it can be better seen as a community consensus.

Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On how many boards have you posted a notice about this? I seem to recall seeing about a half dozen a few days ago... Pairadox (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....seems a little contradictory, if you ask me:

This is a neutral request for comments at the Afd for Adult-child sex

My intention is not canvassing. I'm not the nominator of the AfD and I'm not posting this to find others to agree with my position in the debate. More editors will be better for the results, whichever way it goes.

I'm tempted to clain DUCK on this one! :)

That friendly alien from the Vorlon Home World, previously known as Kosh —Preceding comment was added at 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CltFn/Winn doom[edit]

I would appreciate some admin eyes on a disputed CSD case. It pertains to this page: User:CltFn/Winn doom, which is a recreation of an article deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom. I placed {{db-repost}}, but that has been disputed. Does G4 apply? Regards. ITAQALLAH 12:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I agree with User:Matt57 here, G4 is not applicable to content that has been userfied, as long as it is the user's intent to improve the article. You might want to ask User:CltFn if he still intends to work on it. -- lucasbfr talk 12:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My guess is probably not, he has just been indef-blocked following a discussion on AN/I. ITAQALLAH 12:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ow... gonna delete then :D (don't hesitate to undelete if the user is unblocked) -- lucasbfr talk 14:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bardeep sockpuppets?[edit]


Not sure if this is right place to report this but I am suspecting that User:Bardeep3 may be a sockpuppet of User:Bardeep an indef-blocked user, based on the name. Currently User:Bardeep3 has vandalized various administrator's user pages in addition he seems to be being disruptive on his talk page (see [2] (warning 800K). Thanks VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, user already blocked. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again[edit]

Change name[edit]

Resolved: pointed out proper venue --barneca (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to change name to Rickcar witch is the same name I use at my Swedish account. V*M*D 17:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They can take care of you over at WP:RENAME. This requires a bureaucrat, so no admin attention is needed. --barneca (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing some Rfds 2 weeks old[edit]

Can someone close some more debates in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 8? They started two weeks ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I got a few of them. The problem with most is the exact same issue: everyone says delete, but one editor says that the page documents a page move. нмŵוτнτ 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. As Rossami said: "as long as the target page is kept, the redirect should be kept to document the pagemove" - I agree. So why did you close as delete? Would have been better to nominate the target article (Earl Merkel) at AfD. All the redirects would then have been hoovered up by that redirect cleanup bot. Carcharoth (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where else to bring this up...[edit]


At Adolf Hitler, we seem to be having a problem, first noticed by an anon this morning here. When logged in, the article appears normally as this, however, when not logged in, it appears as the previous, vandalized version. What can be done to fix this problem, and where is the best place to seek assistance? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's really weird. Jackaranga (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried a WP:PURGE, tell me if it's fixed. -- lucasbfr talk 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried reverting to an earlier revision, and now even when I'm logged out it is OK, even though my edit didn't show up in the history ! Very strange. Jackaranga (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh it must have been the above, that fixed it ^^. Jackaranga (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Everything seems to be working fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True Witness (talk · contribs)[edit]

Something strange going on here. I suspect a sockpuppet. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for harassment (see hidden comment posted on a talk page by the user), and as a suspected sockpuppet account (perhaps of Its Pytch.. Hon based on user page layout). If my reasoning is not sufficient, a checkuser request can be made. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing pagemove![edit]


Someone just moved {{US-army-bio-stub}} to Aubrey S. Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which leaves a number of articles transcluding the above article. Could someone with pagemove privileges sort this out?-- (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Doing... Woody (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Future requests can go to Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen if not urgent. Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)



There seems to be a large snowdrift building up at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 21#Polish counties templates of WP:CSD#G6 candidates, which could be uncontroversially resolved by any idle admin. Happymelon 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider me an idle admin. (Actually, I should be working, but I'm not really motivated this afternoon.) I closed the discussion and deleted the templates. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars[edit]

Nominations are open for the Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.

FT2 (Talk | email) 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Need some AfD opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265)[edit]

I wish to gather some third opinions on how this AfD's should be closed. The deletion policy did not state anything about deletion of articles for content disputes nor NPOV issues as far as I am concerned, so I'm tempted to close this AfD as invalid or no consensus. However, there is a clear consensus towards the deletion of the article, despite the fact that it goes against the policy. Personally I think that this AfD should be closed as "no consensus" because the deletion policy did not state anything about deletions of articles from POV issues, and it states clearly that If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. I would appreciate if any third-party would like to comment on the AfD itself. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Those wishing to delete the article seem to be arguing that it's a POV fork of Franco-Mongol alliance. POV forking or other content forking to get around consensus seems like a valid reason to delete an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should avoid closing this because you have come here for advice, and this creates an appearance that you lack confidence in the decision, and that you are subject to outside influence, when you really should stick to what's in the discussion. Let another administrator take care of this. Jehochman Talk 03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Axandramile[edit]


Could somebody remove the {{helpme}} template from this page, it's protected and the help-me keeps popping up on IRC. The unblock template is already in place there, helpme is not needed. Thanks! --omtay38 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done already, nvmd. :-P --omtay38 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We've lost a good one[edit]

Resolved: User left wikipedia, usertalk resoted

Just a post to say that Rudget deleted his own userpage and usertalkpage today. We've lost a really good , no, extremely talented, editor and new admin and I'm very sorry to see him go. No need to go into the why's and why not's, I not trying to open this up again because it's already been discussed. Just a sad day for Wikipedia that's all. Keeper | 76 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A sad day. Just curious- I know we have a right to vanish, but are admins allowed to delete their own user and talk pages? Bstone (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are we losing so many admins? Whenever I get tired of dealing with stuff, I just take a step away, but always come back... hrm. :\ EVula // talk // // 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
At the rate admins are added, we're going to have drop-off as well. It's a natural product of the expansion. Many admins who vanish, reappear later as themselves, or under a new name.Wjhonson (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
People should not generally delete user talk pages, no. But it's not the worst thing that could happen, either. As long as it gets restored whenever he comes back, no real harm done. Friday (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not just del, but also prot, no history. The google cache is still present however.Wjhonson (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
User talk pages are deleted when people invoke the right to vanish. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And if the user does that him/her self, doesn't that mean we assume they want to vanish, as Rudget has clearly stated prior to deleting his own pages? Sorry Rudget, I honestly didn't mean to draw this much attention to you. I really hope you come back. Keeper | 76 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it normal to protect the pages as well? Wjhonson (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It was protected prior to the deletion--Hu12 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't it decided when RickK deleted his Talk page, that it's okay to delete User pages, but not Talk pages? Corvus cornixtalk 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Admins's talk page usually contain discussion relevant to other editors, and to articles. They should not ordinarily be deleted. Blanked, maybe, but not deleted. DGG (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but at the same time i feel we should respect Rudgets privacy, and request to vanish. Tiptoety talk 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the best thing is to undelete and blank. Corvus cornixtalk 05:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Rudget was a great editor (and person), so I trust in his reasoning for leaving. Not sure about the blanking though. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 05:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Rudget seems to be back and making very few edits [3], as such i think that his usertalk page needs to be restored. Tiptoety talk 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would call that "tying up loose ends". - Revolving Bugbear 19:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just the same, i think it would be best to resotre and blank. Tiptoety talk 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, looks like Rudget restored it, blanked it and redirected it to his userpage. Tiptoety talk 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I restored it, it says retired on it now. I agree that even though he is making very few edits, he is making edits. His talk page should be there with a "Retired" message to avert people's eyes and type-fingers instead of the mysterious looking redlink. Keeper | 76 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>And now this edit from Rudget. Cheers to you my friend, best of luck and all that. Still hope you come back (as Rudget or not - there's a good person behind that pseudonym...) Keeper | 76 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Farwell my friend. *And with that the curtian drops* and i mark this thread with {{resolved}}. Tiptoety talk 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Libel alert -- change to Main Page (In the News) needed immediately[edit]


The Jerome Kervial entry on "In the News" is written in a way that could expose Wikipedia to libel danger.

I have brought this up at Talk:Main Page, but I believe the matter is urgent enough to require immediate administrator intervention.

I have posted an short explanation of the issue and suggested replacement wording on Talk:Main Page under "Errors in In the News." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been reworded by Hbdragon88 (talk · contribs). --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Arbcom with fairly broad implications[edit]

Hi folks, this case has issues within it on editor behaviour which go past the original brief and may affect other areas of wikipedia. I have thrown up a suggestion here in the workshop which would have broader implications and I encourage people to read (if you can't get the context have a browse through the rest of it if you have time). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, take a look. The basic question is "How much fancruft should Wikipedia have?" The big problem used to be band articles, but standards seem to have been established there. The issue with bands was "are they notable?" The issue with TV is "how much detail is too much?", which is a tough concept to define, although WP:FICT tries. --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNO closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wilcher[edit]

It would be a WP:COI if I performed the WP:SNOW at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wilcher, but it is getting might blustery.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the discussion should go for a little while longer. It might actually spur some discussion about the notability of athletes' biographies. If the nominator changes his mind later, or if there's a slew of "keep" votes after another day and no "delete" votes, then the snowball clause would be appropriate. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Rogue Penguin[edit]

The Rogue Penguin is refusing to allow an addition to the article Shinigami (Death Note) . The addition deals with the thought that the mysterious Shinigami that appears in the Death Note director's cut special could be Light Yagami. The modification I have been attempting to make is one stating that there is speculation that the Shinigami may be Light Yagami. This does not imply that the Shinigami IS Light, it merely states that there are those who think it that he is, or may, be Light.

The statement that there are those who think the Shinigami to be Light is a FACT. There are many arguments over whether or not he may be, but the arguments ARE existent and should not be ignored. This can be seen in the past modifications of the article and in a few outside sources as well:




The Rogue Penguin has decided to ignore this fact stating: "it would be unsourced speculation"

Speculation is a theory that is not (or very lightly) supported by evidence. Siting speculation with a 'credible source' would be almost impossible as the entire idea of speculation is that it is not credible.

The fact is, many people THINK that the Shinigami is (or may) be Light. The fact that it is a thought that is shared by a generally wide community would be reason enough to include it in the article while making sure to state that it is only speculation so as to let the reader know that there are people who believe it to be true, and it adds another way of looking at the ending scene which generates healthy discussion (as can be seen in the outside links above).

To ignore an idea out of arrogance is foolish.

Bokugakira (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he is following policy, WP:V in particular. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd specify to undue weight. I don't find it relevant what three or thirty bloggers, posters, or videographers think unless they happen to be "people you should listen to", for example experts in that area. Random opinions don't add to the content imho.Wjhonson (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Would a mention of the quote (using the source [7] ) be acceptable if it carried no opinion? Then it would just be additional information, no speculation involved.

Bokugakira (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It would appear plausible that is a reliable source for a synopsis of an episode. I am not myself familiar with that site. The main question to ask is, are these synopsis writen by the staff at, or are they submitted by any member of the general public. The fact that a page happens to allow additional forum comments isn't relevant, imho, to what other content the page may contain. Many reliable source bloggers allow comments and yet they are experts in their fields and may be cited as such. If you and the other editors have further comments, it would be judicious to take them to either the Talk page at verifiability or the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks, and have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC) show info is almost entirely user-submitted. It's not a reliable source. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism of (aka HinduMuslim)[edit]

I think the article of Islam in India should be block because Contributions/ (or aka HinduMuslim and Vikash83) has always attacked my in my Talk Page because I've only added sources of Indian Gov., CIA, U.S. Department of States, etc...all were showed the common estimates of Muslim population in India as 148 million or 13.4% (please look at its history [8] and here is his attacks:

And he is staring to vandalize some Chinese or Buddhist related article such as Religion in China, List of religious populations,History of Islam in China, Islam in China.

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as noted at User talk:, but will not block the other users immediately, without more evidence. Anyone? Bearian (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficult request for unblock[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user requests unblock. It would be difficult for one admin to handle this request without carrying a heavy burden. If unblocked, there will be debate. If block is kept, why is one admin's opinion sufficient as the request would be removed from the unblock request board and possibly not seen by anyone except those who watchlist this user (which may represent a biased statistical sample)? Therefore, I am seeking AN advice.

A possible outcome would be that there will be record of what the community thinks. This could act as an advisory to ArbCom. It could simplify things for ArbCom. As always, be kind and not bitey. Note that I have not researched the editor's edits. I don't favor pedophile advocacy as I understand it and certainly not pedophilia. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This needs to go through ArbCom, from what I recall, this was specifically stated to the user when they got blocked. I'm going to decline this per long standing precedent. 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talkcontribs)
It strikes me from the unblock reason that Jim hasn't changed at all. Surely advocating the right of pedophiles to self-identify in such a vehement manner on a publicly watched page like Jimbo's, basically saying he wouldn't take no for an answer, as well as editing the main space in a very POV SPA way, explains the block. If he were to come back admitting it isn't okay to defend endlessly in wikipedia the right of pedophiles to self-identify (see WP:NOT) and that he wanted to edit non-pedophile articles I would strongly support lifting the ban (which is against disruptive editing, not t e editor himself) but Jim appears to want to be unblocked to pursue exactly the same path as before. There is an extremely heated debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Adult-child sex right now and unblocking Jim and then having him rushing off to participate in said debate would be extremely unhelpful to the heat in that debate, indeed I wonder if it is that debate that has inspired Jim to ask to be unblocked at this particular time. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, given the nature of the block, the user in question should appeal through ArbCom as directed. Personally, I am not getting in the middle of this one... 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This thread can be closed or blanked now, the unblock request has been declined by Ryan Postlethwaite. Addhoc (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • Thread closed as matter is resolved. Unblock denied. The rest of this debate can happen elsewhere. 17:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with rangeblock[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: mangojuice got it. 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. So I am a bit of a newish admin, and some of the more techincal aspects of autoblocks and rangeblocks still confuse me. This user: [9] appears to have been caught as collateral damage in a range block. I am inclined to believe they had nothing at all to do with the problems that caused the range block. Can a more experienced admin look into this and try to fix it? Thanks a bunch! 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The block is on, and it's a {{checkuserblock}} which means no mortal admin should be undoing it without consulting the checkuser. The user is currently being advised to request an account, so there's little more to be done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate all of the feedback between you and Mangojuice (who has contacted the user and is arranging a username)... 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Escalating blocks versus swift indefinite blocks[edit]

One of the things that I find troubling about the current culture of admins and blocking, is the propensity to indefinite block too swiftly. There are some cases where indefinite blocking is definitely required, but there are other cases involving contentious articles and groups of articles, or an editor who is disrupting content but can contribute something, rather than just behaving badly, where I think a different approach would work better. Have a look at this from one of the arbitration pages:

"Editors who are disruptive, including but not limited to edit warring, making uncivil remarks and personal attacks, and filing vexatious complaints, may be banned from the affected pages and/or placed on one revert-per-week limitation, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Editors who violate page bans or revert limitations may be blocked for up to one week per violation, with the maximum block increasing to one year after the fifth violation."

This may look like excessive bureaucracy, but I think it is a better system than trying to have community discussions on contentious bans. It would be simple to ask the uninvolved admins to record this in the logs, but my main point is that this is a far better way to handle things than the current "indefinite ban if enough admins don't have the patience to give you another chance". It doesn't have to be exactly like that proposal above, but is there any chance that those admins wanting to have indefinite blocking as the second or third option in their armoury would consider using escalating blocks instead? Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we probably jump to indef too quickly in many cases, but I don't think slowly escalating blocks are the answer. If someone gets warned and/or blocked for something, we assume good faith that they weren't familiar with our rules. They do it a second time and get blocked, we might still assume good faith, they do it again and I think most people would stop assuming good faith. On a collaborative project, users who constantly piss off other people are a major impediment to a decent work environment. If someone doesn't learn after a couple incidents that things like POV-pushing and incivility are wrong, I see no reason to delay the almost-inevitable and let good users suffer as a result. A topic ban might help some cases, but not always. A topic ban for an SPA is pretty much the same as a regular ban, except it needs people policing the user as we have no technical method to enforce a topic ban. Mr.Z-man 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As bears repeating, indefinite does not mean infinite. If the User wants to come back, all they need to do is to explain on their Talk page or in an email to an admin, that they realize that their previous behavior is wrong, and vow to change their modus operandi. Corvus cornixtalk 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that is that indefinite blocks invariably drive people away rather than promoting reform. People grow up, mature and change, and there is no reason why someone 2-3 years later should be forced to start a new account, or grovel to get their old account unblocked, because of previous indiscretions. Maybe the terminology needs to change? People (especially new users) do interpret indefinite as permanent (and a months-long block is not set in stone either - people can appeal for that to be shortened). Nice as the ideal is, simply saying "fill in this form saying what you did wrong and say you will be nice and we will unblock" is not a good way to get genuine reform happening, and it sets admins up as judges of past behaviour. The alternative of "I've unblocked you, be nice or you will be reblocked" is in some ways better, and shouldn't be denied because some people prefer the other method. Requiring people, on their first or second offence, to write a lengthy essay explaining how they are now a model Wikipedian, is unrealistic. Improvement and reform can only come with experience, and no-one gets that while they are blocked. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Slowly escalating blocks implies that the block is being used as a punishment. "This is the third time you broke the rules, your punishment is now a 1 month block". Blocks are NOT PUNISHMENT. While arbcom rulings or community sanctions carry the weight of punishments, and can be enforced by blocks, blocks in and of themselves should not be handled this way, IMHO. If the blocking admin believes that the user needs to be stopped immediately, but can be "talked down" from problematic edits and can be counseled, then anything more than a day or two is just vindictive punishment. If the blocking admin believes that the user shows no signs of ever becoming a productive user, and expects disruption to continue as soon as the block is lifted, then why not make it indefinite; we shouldn't lift a block when we truly believe doing so will cause a disruption. Short blocks get attention and stop ongoing disruption. Indefinite blocks prevent problematic users from continuing to edit. The middle range stuff makes no sense, unless it is something agreed upon as an ArbCom sanction or otherwise, it just makes no sense given the blocking policy. 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
So why do arbcom limit themselves to one year blocks and propose escalating blocks? The point is that there are cases where the user is (or appears to be) reformed and has productive edits in the past. There are banned users who do appear to have changed and matured, and the system is heavily weighted against them ever getting another chance. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Because ArbCom does hand down punishments, and it is within their jurisdiction to decide the appropriate length of their punishment. Admins don't punish. We use the blocking tool to prevent vandalism and disruption. Either the user being blocked is expected to change or they are not; the mid-range blocks (like 2 weeks) take neither of those positions into account. 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure ArbCom are punishing and not preventing? No blocks should be punishing anyone. By your logic, someone banned for a year should be banned permanently or not at all. I think the real reason for ArbCom not applying indefinite blocks is because they recognise the potential for miscarriages of justice, and recognise that people can change (but now I'm just speculating). The point here is that excessive indefinite blocking will eventually disrupt the encyclopedia by causing the number of new contributors to dwindle - it is a question of getting the balance right. By the way, how does what you said apply to community bans and the "if no admin will unblock, a user is de facto considered community banned" (even in the absence of discussion) bit? Carcharoth (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I was issuing short blocks to "vandalism accounts" at first (you know, AGF), but all (or almost all) the accounts that came back after the block continued to vandalize. An other issue is that these accounts are then autoconfirmed and can start having fun with page move. -- lucasbfr talk 10:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about vandalism accounts here, but do be aware of the need to distinguish experimentation and vandalism. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Nvm I was away for a few days and I didn't understand the background story behind this thread until now. -- lucasbfr talk 14:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Admins clearly know the difference between a new user fooling around with test edits and someone repeatedly adding "This guy is teh gay" to a biographical article. I fully trust my brother and sister admins to use blocks appropriately in each case, and to know the difference. Wikipedia does not suffer fools long, but we do have a lot of patience for newbies. If you have a specific concern about how a specific block was handled, perhaps it would be a good idea to include difs. Before the most recent post, it was hard to tell, as it seemed Carcharoth was asking for general opinions on blocks, and such opinions were being sought apropros of nothing. However, I reiterate that I inherently trust admins to make good judgements about user behavior, unless clearly they show themselves to be untrustworthy... 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You would be surprised how many people experiment by putting "This guy is teh gay" in an article. That's the problem, you see, some people assume that anyone making an edit like that is doing it to get a kick out of it, rather than chosing an inappropriate place and method of experimentation. You used the word "repeated" and that is a key qualifier. What we call vandalism can sometimes just be someone going "hey, is it really possible that anyone can edit this thing? Wow! Yes, I can. Oops, I just got blocked." Now most people recover from a start like that and can go on to be a good, productive editor, which is why we have warnings. A similar learning process is seen for more "advanced" concepts, such as civility and NPOV and so on. Ideally, all editors would be perfect Wikipedians from the start, but that's not the case. People learn as they edit, and the first block on an issue should be seen as a learning experience. You have to have a clear pattern of failing to learn the same lesson, not just "lots of blocks, no more patience needed, indefinite block". Does that begin to make more sense? Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
True, but once someone has been told "Please stop doing that" and then "We really mean it... stop doing that" and then "Really, you will be blocked if you do it again" and then they are really blocked for 24 hours, and then they come back from the block and make the same edit again, and are blocked for 24 hours again, and then come back and say "Fuck all admins I will do what I want." I inherently trust ALL admins to treat that case differently than someone who makes a joke or test edit a few times, and then says "sorry guys, I was just screwing around. I will be good in the future". And, when an admin says "lots of blocks, no more patience, indefinite block", why do we assume the admin is lazy and has not investigated further. I trust my fellow admins to make good judgement on these issues. Admins don't just look at the number of blocks, they look at the reasons for the blocks, the contribs history, and lots of other factors before asigning an indefinite block. If you have a specific case that needs review, that would help. Otherwise, I will reiterate: Admins know how and when to block indefinitly, and are doing so by and large in a reasonable manner. (edit conflict) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a month-long block in the hopeless cases (usually those who would have lost interest anyway if they had been reverted and ignored) will usually result in a dead account that the user doesn't return to. Same effect as an indefinite block. The users that really want to contribute tend to come back after the month is up, and some of those change and improve. Carcharoth (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, an indef blocked user can use the unblock template to explain their case. A good mea culpa gets unblocked most of the time. A determined vandal can wait out the month and be a pain in the ass again when it expires. As I said before, if the blocking admin feels in their heart that the user is not going to be a vandal anymore, anything more than a day or two is eggregious. If the admin believes the vandal has no interest in reforming, what is the point in letting them vandalise every two weeks or every month. If you really believe that they will vandalize as soon as the block expires, why let it expire? 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Though there are cases where an admin does feel in their heart that someone could contribute, but other admins are just as adamant that the user should remain blocked indefinitely. Those are the difficult cases. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) As for examples, it would help if it was possible to list indefinite blocks separately from other blocks. That way we really could see if the proportion of indefinite blocks, as compared to other blocks, has increased or decreased over time. Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. If we are to learn to be better admins, some data may be informative... 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe someone will rustle up some stats? Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional point[edit]

I just noticed this point from Redvers:

"And admins are guilty here too, blocking on an AIV report without researching deeply - as I find often as I come back from checking edits, find "good faith but misjudged" all over them and an indef block applied. I used to complain (off-wiki, for the sake of non-drama), until I got a reply containing the words "Mind your own business". So now I don't bother at all. But I don't see how the 'pedia is being improved through all this, I really don't." [10] - User:Redvers (my emphasis)

I'm going to ask him to comment further here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi y'all! Yes, this was said in relation to the use of automated editing tools. Frequently - as in at least once every time I clear out AIV (two or three times a week?) - I find this pattern:

  1. User:Newbie edits foo, adding "can I reeely edit here?"
  2. User:TwinkleAlice reverts, and warns User:Newbie. No welcome message, and uw-vand, not uw-test used.
  3. User:Newbie edits bar, changing something minor ("Mr" to "mister", say) but making the article a bit worse.
  4. User:TwinkleBob reverts, and warns uw-vand2.
  5. User:Newbie edits foobar, reordering a sentence and making some good, some bad changes.
  6. User:TwinkleCharles reverts, and, perhaps seeing the two warnings, warns with BV
  7. User:TwinkleCharles places a report on AIV
  8. User:Admin blocks User:Newbie indef.

User:Newbie's total career on Wikipedia: under 10 minutes.

There are variants on this, including shortcircuiting at point 4, with TwinkleBob BV-ing, reporting to AIV and User:Admin indeffing all within seconds.

Some of this problem is due to newer admins having come up through the Wikipedia-as-a-roleplaying-game route and still playing the game. Some of this is because admins AGF of the person reporting the "vandal" - especially when AIV is backlogged, it's easier to assume that the reporter is right, double check the last edit and that there's a BV warning, not check the time and block indef.

Now, I don't argue with blocking indef - it should exist, it should be used, it is much more often used correctly than it is used incorrectly. My beef is with it being used for non-blatant vandalism - what we used to call "testing", and the incorrect identification of tests by editors using automated tools. That we as admins are facilitating these bad warnings by blocking on little or no evidence is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in itself. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Here are a couple reports I just checked out at WP:AIV: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - apparently, this user's offenses include replacing "horn" with "French horn". Is that vandalism? No, that's just someone who's perhaps unfamiliar with Wikipedia terminology or the discussions that have been done regarding the accepted terminology of a horn (instrument). Content disputes are not vandalism.
Canccono (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - created an article named "If u know me good for ur face u butt head and BTW KILL (someone's name omitted)", vandalized Thyroid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and other edits seem to indicate a vandal-only account. I was considering a block for being a vandal-only account, but he hadn't been properly warned, so AndonicO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) gave the correct warning.
I think Redvers is correct in that people often give quick warnings with Twinkle and make quick reports to WP:AIV without fully investigating the situation. Maybe some of these people are users who really want to become admins, so they hope to increase their chances by calling themselves "vandal fighters". I don't know what it would take to change this culture, though. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite disturbed by this as well; I've left notes on dozens of users' talk pages that they should check the times on the last warning, and the last vandalism before reporting, but only a few really follow the advice. Perhaps we need "MOAR", as Gurch puts it. · AndonicO Hail! 16:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
all of this is a reason why usually a informal statement saying "enough of this. stop now, or I can and will block you" seems to work well for many types of people playing with WP. I have never had a school-type guy continue after something like that, & I often actually get an apology. DGG (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting (related) point, from editors recently talking on AIV's talk page:

It's been a while since I reported a vandal, and was amazed to see the new info box which apparently indicates a new "soft" stance against vandalism. I now have to spell out exactly what the vandal did to get it taken care of? Things that were once considered vandalism no longer are? My God, COME ON! We editors fight this crap ongoingly, and the best defense we had was swift and decisive action by admins against vandalism. If this is no longer the case, I will have to think very carefully about if I want to continue helping to keep Wikipedia clean and accurate. IP editors who are basically untouchable continually vandalize these articles without any requirement to register. If I had my way, you would have to register to edit to begin with. If my take on this is true, you are going to begin losing a lot of diligent editors as time passes. Many of us already feel like we are at the breaking point.

A small chorus of agreement from other "vandalfighters" follows - "I totally agree with all of the above..." "Yes can common sense please prevail". Now this is Not A Good Thing - editors arguing they shouldn't have to "spell out exactly what the vandal did to get it taken care of". One goes as far to say "I myself am fighting to keep pages free of vandalism but i simply cant do it forever! And as soon as i leave [...] these pages are going to become full of vandalism/false information again".

So "vandal fighters" are threatening to leave unless we (admins) get the same hair-trigger as them. This suggest there are people here who only fight vandals and they're burning out. Would I be incivil if I suggested that these people try something else instead? I don't know what. Perhaps writing an encyclopedia? Is that too crazy? ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 09:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I just added my name and noticed there is a backlog of requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for AWB, dating back to January 13. Thanks -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a backlog. Porcupine is the only user who was listed before yoyu got there, and The Placebo Effect is looking into it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Imahge speedy backlog[edit]

Can some admin please deal with the speedy images? There are over 40. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit speed[edit]

Resolved: no problems 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Could another admin look this over and see if this user is currently editing at a speed that may indicate the use of an unauthorized bot? It seems a little suspect to me, but I may be paranoid. I'd like an outside opinion from an experienced admin.

Given that its a new user, and an apparent SPA; only interested in tagging comic book articles as unreferenced, this caught my attention, and given the speed, it looks suspicious. Or maybe I am crazy... 07:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No I believe you are correct, this account's rate is six edits per minute, that is a edit every ten seconds, its quite hard for a user to do so by hand, (search+adding template+repetitive summary=more than ten seconds) even if he is pasting the edit summaries he must be writting the templates by hand and unless he is working out of a category or list the search pattern is just too quick. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean, there is one stretch (7:35 UTC) where he does 13 edits in one minute. That's less than 5 seconds per edit. So, what should be done? I am not sure how to handle this, a more experienced admin may want to cover this? 08:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a interesting aspect of his pattern and that is that those edits that appear to be made by hand are at a very slower rate, to a maximum of two per minute. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The way bot policy is implemented/enforced now, edit speed is a fairly minor consideration. A script with manual approval of each edit can reasonably get up to 12 edits per minute, and manual scripts, especially for small jobs, can run without approval. Only automatic bots strictly speaking *require* approval, but there is no way to differentiate an automatic bot from a manual script by contributions except if the operator doesn't stop or respond to queries, or the edit rate is far too high for any manual approval. The fundamental question is whether there are any technical or policy problems with the edits. Bot edits, even manual, must have consensus. Adding a small number of cleanup templates, while perhaps annoying, is probably not against policy. Doing this on a large scale could be disruption. Gimmetrow 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Define "Large scale". There are two streches that concern me, from 7:34-7:38 there are 24 edits, and earlier from 7:24-7:25 there are 16 edits. Also, the issue of the single-mindedness of these edits is sort of WP:POINTy as well... 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that 16 edits per minute is a too much even for a manual script, there must be a semi-automated script somewhere in there. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If a script pauses for a Yes or No for each edit, whether you call the script "manual" or "assisted" or "semi-automatic", it's not an automatic script. Are there any actual concerns with the edits? Gimmetrow 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One edit every ten seconds for a group of 41 articles? I can edit that fast with nothing more than a tabbed web browser, and have done on occasion, editing and repeatedly previewing all articles in their individual tabs, and then hitting save across all of them in quick succession once I'm finally done. It's not the rapid process that the speed of the saves at the very end leads one to think it to be. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's what I was doing. sorry to cause alarm. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I do this as well. Once way to avoid people questioning the speed of the edits is to add to the edit summaries a link to a user subpage explaining this. But that shouldn't be required. Simply asking the user should get an explanation. Having said that, controversial edits should be spread out. No need to overwhelm the system with those. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. That's why I asked for additional comment. Looks like there was nothing to be worried about. 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 3RR warning by User:Appletrees[edit]

Appletrees (talk · contribs) has removed my {{3RR}} warning from User talk:, accusing me of "deliberate factual errors" [11].

For the record, the warned user (talk · contribs) reverted 2 times in the last 24 hours in Sea of Japan, and 3 times in the last 48 hours (+ 2 min.), as follows...

Appletrees is an involved party in the revert wars, as his following edit seems to show...

Please verify if my warning to the anon. user was warranted, and restore the warning if appropriate. I appoligize in advance if I was in error. Thank you very much.--Endroit (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Appletress has no right to remove warnings from other people's pages. If the IP address in question contests the warning you have given, let them do it. 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I knew it you would do this kind of thing without notifying me per your contribution history. Well, the warning is not warranted because you, Endroit falsely accused the anon who reverted 3 times within 48hours is not in danger of the 3rr violation. The policy clearly is effective in 24 hours not 48 hours. That is not a good-faith edit and your warning is regarded as an offensive insult for the anon. You're the main involved party on edit warring with the other party. You can't accuse anyone by your "own" standard.

Besides, you label some user, with sockpuppetry before making an official file. You're not an authority so please stop the disruptive behaviors. --Appletrees (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that he mentioned it, Appletrees also removed a {{sockpuppet}} tag [12] from Water Bear 87 (talk · contribs). I'd appreciate if the admins review that case as well. After that incident, I requested RFCU here.--Endroit (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the report below on your disruptive accusation before making an official file. You cann't accuse anyone without any report or evidence. You're the one playing the false rule. --Appletrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Appletrees, being the good Wikilawyer that he is, should also note that WP:3RR states clearly "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Also, it should be noted for Appletrees that Endroit did not initiate any block of the IP inquestion, he left a warning, which needs to be left so that the IP user in question has the opportunity to read it. Finally, the major problem is that it is not Appletree's right to remove comments made by one user to third user. If the user in question has a problem, they can raise their own objections. Appletrees should not be removing or altering discussions between two other people that do not concern him/her. 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the 3RR waring is issued mainly for precaution in danger of violating impending 3RR. You, administrator of course, know well about the wiki rules than me. However, I've seen his parade of accusing somebody without proof but with his strong belief, so the warning sign doesn't seem to be appropriate and be from good faith. As far as I've known, Endroit is not a good wikilaywer because he take an important role in the center of nationalistic edit warrings between Japan and Korea. If he really wanted to warn him for possible edit conflicts, he could've talked to him in a civil way not with the warning. It is so funny, he accused me of sending "bogus sign" as removed the warning sign and my comment.
Rv bogus warning by an involved party in the revert wars[13]

If he is right on sending the 3RR warning to the editor, he might have not deleted my comment and warnings. Or he is also a main involved party, so his warning is not warranted or because he is the most notable edit warrior on the article. --Appletrees (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No one appears to have violated the 3RR rule here, and everyone appears to know about it, so you can cease arguing about whether or not a warning was useful or not. Since this article includes the word "Japan" in the title, I reckon this is some more asinine Korean/Japanese/Chinese nationalistic edit warring. Since there's clearly a dispute, I've protected the article until you all can decide whether or not it should be called the "Sea of Japan", "East Sea", "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sea", "Chinese Sea Near Korea", "International Sea with No Nationalistic Affiliation (Especially not Japanese)", or whatever you end up deciding. --Haemo (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing and false accusation by User:Endroit[edit]

I should've reported his disruptive POV earlier but I didn't. Because I believe that before making a report, trying to converse with editors on the other party is way better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talkcontribs) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sea of Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Endroit's revert warring with the other party.

How many revert warring have you ever made since 2008? 5 cases!!! And you totally reverted 10 times as you have pushed your POV to the other party. I reverted one time in partial of your edit which is a compromised version. Besides, I suggested twice that we can make a new poll for the matter due to this Wikipedia:tendentious editing.

Endroit, you are the one to get the 3RR warning per this evidence. Besides, as I said before on your talk page, you're violating WP:OWN. You can't own the article and force to follow your "own" rule if there occurs a conflict of interest. You didn't even notify me to this wrong report.

User:DrinkNaval (edit | [[Talk:User:DrinkNaval|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Water Bear 87 (edit | [[Talk:User:Water Bear 87|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per your false accusation without any proof or official report to SSP and RFCU on two editors who disagree with your opinion is just disruptive. As I've watched your behaviors, this accusation is out of line. After my suggestion[14], you made a RFCU file.[15] But you even included me in your report without making differs but just from your belief. You should look yourself before making another mistake --Appletrees (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All my reverts this year in Sea of Japan were against SPA's and anon's, except the one against Appletrees. And ALL those reverts were against undiscussed edits. There were no rules broken.--Endroit (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That is just what you or your party are thinking. You haven't suggested to the other party to engage in the discussion before I reverted your edit in partial one time. The naming convention was set two and half years ago, and is not set on stone. That's why many editors have reverted what they want. Along with them, you also continuously just reverted!!!. You can't own the article at all and accused somebody unless they violated distinctive disruptions or vandalism. Your accusation of sockepuppetry on the two editors is just disruptive. --Appletrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently started a discussion at Talk:Sea of Japan#"often refered to as East Sea". All parties are welcome to comment there. Appletrees' party has repeatedly tried to insert the phrase "often refered to as East Sea", and that was the reason I initiated the discussion.--Endroit (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That was after my suggestion for a new poll at the edit summary, so I can say I'm the one who suggested the discussion. Didn't I answer you about your unilateral 'fixing' on your talk page and the article page? Your party is not showing either except you. --Appletrees (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
See my comment above. These tit-for-tat "reports" to WP:ANI are totally unproductive. There appears to be no need for admin intervention here, beyond the protection. --Haemo (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the this tit-for-tat reports but I feel annoyed at his describe as him as a victim. "We" will of course discuss the matter at the talk page.--Appletrees (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if Appletrees was User:Appleby reincarnated. The pattern of editing and the articles edited are uncannily similar. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not surprised at your rude defamation because you're the main one of the party. You have to apology to me due to your public defamation after User:Endroit]'s accusation on my possible sockpuppetry RFCU comes out. --Appletrees (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What does "the main one of the party" mean? Your comment makes no sense. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Anyone noticed that protecting a page has two expiries?? Is this an error??

I noticed it when I used the latest version, 1.34.0-wmf.19 (efab97f), as used here.

Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the protection page and can only see one. You may want to check out WP:VPT. Nakon 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, on the SVN downloaded version, it showed two! --Solumeiras (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What Nakon meant to say was that issues of a technical nature are not really the specialty of admins; since this seems to be a software-related issue, the appropriate place to ask this question would be at the Technical page at the Village Pump. Someone there will be able to understand what is going on, and may be able to answer your question, and possibly fix the problem. 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Or you don't want to confuse Wikipedia with the software it uses. I suggest you head over to The mediawiki website and ask question about the software there. -- (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

bogus nom[edit]

I think young Agentperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is playing games here - and see his edit history. He's had a few warnings about other vandalisms - might be time for something stronger. And while we're at it, isn't "USERNAME" a problematic username? Tvoz |talk 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If he was, he played the game in SEPTEMBER 2006!!! Look at the dates. The recent heath ledger vandalism is bothersome, but the test RFA page is so old it's collecting dust. I will delete it presently. 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess I didn't look at the dates. Sorry.... but at least it's one less page. Tvoz |talk 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like another bad RfA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Burner0718. Tiptoety talk 22:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that is a joke, I think it is a new user who is does not understand the ways of Wikipedia. Rgoodermote  00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, i never said it was a joke, but i don't think it is doing any good sitting as a archive. Tiptoety talk 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wonder. See this one by the same Pookeo9 who started Burner0718, now starting one for himself. At the least, some counseling might be in order. Tvoz |talk 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Maybe all he needs is a little directing and guidance. Tiptoety talk 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, anyways I will leave a note on the user's talk page. As I am not an administrator I can not do anything about those noms...but I would suggest keeping them as an example of What Not To Do. Rgoodermote  00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Database glitch, vandalism, or am I going mad?[edit]

Pardon me if this is the wrong place to ask this question, but I'm seeing the weirdest thing on Robert Jarvik: at the end of the article, the complete text from another article on Terrell Croft is somehow being appended. But I can't find anything in the code that's making it happen -- it's as if it came out of thin air. Even weirder, if I look at the current revision [16] directly, via the history page, it's fine.

I also tried making a minor edit to the Terrell Croft page to see if the link between the two was dynamic; it isn't -- the content appended to the Robert Jarvik article stayed the same.

Is this a database glitch, some sort of really weird vandalism, or am I just being dumb about something? Goldenband (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there was a problem with {{US-engineer-stub}} that appears to have been fixed. -- Flyguy649 talk 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It needed a WP:PURGE. Gimmetrow 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the info and help! Goldenband (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing or removing another editor's comments from a talk page[edit]

I asked for a third opinion regarding an incident at Talk:Politicization of science where my attempts at civil discussion were classified as WP:SOAP by User:Hrafn and removed [17][18][19][20][21] from the talk page. A third opinion was rendered by User:Vassyana who suggested that the matter of the deleted text be brought before a sysop and that the disagreement about the article's title and content be brought before WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFC. I have lost any desire to edit this article based on the treatment I received from User:Hrafn and User:Athene cunicularia, but I would still like to see an admin weigh in on the issue of the deleted text. Please note that User:Hrafn added the {{notaforum}} after I objected to the removal of the comments. MoodyGroove (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Even if one's comments may be most appropriate for a forum, it's (in my opinion) absolutely improper and incorrect to remove another's comments from an article's talk page. If you believe one is using an article's talk page as a forum then kindly bring it up on the user's talk page. Removing the comments from the article's talk page is wrong. Bstone (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is real incivility or libelous material, or over the top stuff, user comments on talk page should be left, IMHO. A REAL quick scan of the edits don't look that bad/harmful ect so I would leave, but I didn't dig too deep. This is also after I have had to remove a bunch of stuff from some talk pages so I guess..."It depends" Anyways, --Tom 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, unless restricted by an arb ruling, may participate in the article talk page. Removing comments of others, or changing them is disruption. I gave a final warning. RlevseTalk 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I direct Rlevse's attention to WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." I also direct Rlevse's attention to template:notaforum: "This is not a forum for general discussion of [article topic]. Any such messages will be deleted." I would suggest that Rlevse's "final warning" is in error. HrafnTalkStalk 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What Hrafn says is correct. Our talk pages are not forums for off-topic jabber. Talk pages for Politicization of science and other articles like it (which tend to attract much disinformation, and about which people may hold strange, unreal ideas) tend to attract lots of off-topic discussion. It's not the job of the people keeping up these articles to debunk every crackpot that comes along; if they want to delete what's not related to the article at hand, they are most certainly allowed to do so. Raul654 (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I commented there. See that talk page. Raul, the danger therein re what you're saying is who defines what is off topic and is it really off topic. Unless the issue is getting out of hand, I feel it's better to just leave it there, otherwise you'd likely start another unneeded dispute. The template Hrafn points to is for "large amounts of" discusion. Here, we're talking about one short edit. As for W:TALK, very few edits will qualify for it. RlevseTalk 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the same problem we have with everything on this project, and the answer is WP:CONSENSUS. It's usually clear when a lone crackpot is relentlessly on a soapbox, and we should feel free to remove such comments. If other users think the topic is legitimately important to the article, they should certainly feel free to restore the material. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I find it useful to put such comments under a {{hat}} with the caption "Off-topic discussion about [whatever issue]." Contentious editors are more likely to accept archiving than outright removal, and it spurs the talk page away from feeding the trolls. Cool Hand Luke 00:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to do that in threads involving several editors going off-topic. When the thread involves only one editor I prefer to 'userfy' the thread to the user in question's talkpage, which is fairly standard practice on such pages, and is what I did on this occasion. I only delete outright obvious nonsense and blatant trolling. HrafnTalkStalk 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask for some sysops to review the deleted material and User:Hrafn's demeanor on the talk page to determine if this was a simple case of a well-meaning editor removing the outright nonsense of a troll? MoodyGroove (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Read more carefully: I "'userf[ied]' the thread to the user in question's talkpage", I did not "delete outright". Therefore I was not inferring that your comments were "the outright nonsense of a troll" (merely that it was an impermissible "general conversation" on the topic of 'the politicisation of science'). HrafnTalkStalk 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems like an essay directed more toward society than the article. We're not a forum for such things. Try to make comments that directly relate to problems you perceive in the article. Talk pages are solely for the improvement of articles, not society. My own preference would have been to place it under a hat, but userfication is also valid here, I think. Cool Hand Luke 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

American Journal Experts[edit]

Other administrators may be interested in the discussion on my talk page at User talk:Bduke#Regarding deleting of American Journal Experts. It appears that User:Blue1, an employee or manager of American Journal Experts, wants to track down whether the user who wrote the article, now deleted, is an ex-employee of theirs. I have no intention of having any further correspondence with him. --Bduke (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've suggested they contact the Foundation. Individual admins should never consider disclosing information like this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Journal Experts. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated tagging of Shared IP Addresses[edit]

Betacommand has requested that I post for community discussion about a bot that I just proposed, called IPTaggerBot. If you are interested in commenting on the subject, please review the bot approval request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/IPTaggerBot as well as the bot's userpage at User:IPTaggerBot. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely this should also be somewhere like the village pump if you want broader community input? -- (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps so; I will post it there as well. Thank you for the input. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I know there was at some point a bot which would tag IP talk pages it recognized as being attached to schools; seemed quite helpful, and worked off WHOIS information in such a way that I don't recall ever seeing a false positive. Not sure who ran it or much about how, unfortunately. Would this be checking each time an IP edits, each time an IP gets a talk page message, each time a new IP talk page is created, each time an IP is blocked, run in batches, or some such? Major concern is probably accuracy, but provided that can be resolved pretty well, this seems like a generally good idea to me. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Page histories after a split[edit]

I was wondering if there was any way to restore the page histories to The AFL Footy Show and The NRL Footy Show after they were - probably rightly - split from The Footy Show. It may not be obvious to new users to look to the disambiguation page history to find the development of the (now) two articles. Guest9999 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible (but sometimes very difficult) to split a page history; there's no easy way to duplicate history, however. It's probably significantly easier to post a link on each article's talk page, linking back to the original page history -- this should be required for GFDL compliance, in any case. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I've linked both talk pages to the history. Guest9999 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Petition and emails[edit]

A user created a petition here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Hi.21_dear_Wikipedia_Management. with many emails listed. Ignoring the petition issue, are there any privacy/spam concerns to so many emails being listed on a high-traffic site? MBisanz talk 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've mangled the emails slightly (to hopefully reduce spam concerns) and slipped them into a navframe (to hopefully avoid cluttering the visible page). Feel free to tinker beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the whole post, it's unverifiable anyway so means nothing, plus with privacy concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request User blocking form using Twinkle[edit]

Please see here; [[22]]. My comment, here; [23]

The Wikipedia needs to ask itself whether this is rally the sort of behaviour it wishes to condone and whether it is conducive to encouraging collaboration. Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of this user misusing TWINKLE in order that we may investigate. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 13:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Old MFD[edit]

We have an item relating to Current Events subportals on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion that was started on January 13, almost two weeks ago. Anyone want to close it? Shalom (HelloPeace) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bishonen's two accounts.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Because of the situation above, I took a look at User:Gurch's contrib history and I found another similar case:

It was proposed last December that the alternate account be deleted, when Bishonen apparently reacted similarly the way that Gurch just did. However, she was allowed to keep her extra account because of favoritism. (See here) As an outsider to the situation, I have to say that doesn't seem appropriate and I'd like you to review this decision, since she doesn't appear to be using it for any valid reason other than "dinospeak." This seems like trolling, since it often involves making rude remarks, like this. [24] Then, after attacking someone for being unable to count, she goes back to editing under her normal account. This is allowed, why...?

I don't know what others said or did to her in the past, and it seems totally irrelevant to the actual policy. If users are sometimes allowed exceptions to Wikipedia:User account policy#Using multiple accounts, then it should be noted on that page.   Zenwhat (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, aren't there better things we could be getting on with? I'm not sure Bishonen ever went on a pointy rampage like Gurch did before leaving. The Bishzilla account has been around for ages without bothering anybody. Moreover, Bishonen was one of our most productive editors and we should be trying to coax her back not nailing up the door to make sure she never returns. --Folantin (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Zenwhat. IMHO, Bishzilla and Gurchzilla don't violate any policy, are completely transparent, aren't hurting anything, are rare examples of people not taking things too seriously, are accounts of well established editors that have done a lot for Wikipedia in the past, and the consensus seems to be that these completely harmless alt accounts are not worth wasting time and bandwidth worrying about. I think they probably met the letter, and definitely meet the spirit, of the policy you linked. Nobody is hiding anything, nobody is gaming anything, what benefit would there be to try to force them to drop the zilla's? Plus, if they ever got really mad and teamed up, they could destroy Tokyo, and no one wants that. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Zenwhat, this request says much more about you than it does about Bishonen. Thatcher 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And that's not a good thing. El_C 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point I should note that this discussion has stemmed from this ongoing discussion started by an IP at WP:VPP. D.M.N. (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as Bishonen is kept as the serious account and Bishzilla the silly account, I'm fine with it. As long as only one of the accounts is used in a dispute, there's nothing wrong with it. Will (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing going on here but stirring of the proverbial pot. east.718 at 20:59, January 27, 2008

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Silly rabbit[edit]

User:Silly rabbit is presently behaving as a disruptive editor at Human rights and the United States. After lengthy dialogue, Silly rabbit has decided that my pov is not "normal" and that we may be approaching a permenent lack of consensus. What is meant is that Silly rabbit is no longer willing to discuss the article or work for consensus. Silly rabbit agreed to mediation, but has since been unwilling to participate. I percieve the reluctance to be pov-based. Silly rabbit (on my discussion page) today suggested that I outline my concerns here

Today Silly rabbit reverted a Capital Punishment block of text that had been challenged as violating WP:OR WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. The central contentious issue is if there are reliable sources that support allegations of human rights denial within the US. Editors insist that human rights are universal (which is true philosophically if not legally) and for this reason no sources are necessary. There likely is consensus as claimed (except for me) that reliable sources are not required because human rights are universal. They incorrectly state that I insist on limiting sources to US court decisions. While these would be excellent sources that I have encouraged, I would accept any reliable source. One that stated that universal human rights apply to the US would work. Anyway, enough about the content issues.

I have tried to make diffs, but cannot find any "radio buttons". The revert page history and the talk on Capital Punishment, and Silly rabbit's discussion page (including material deleted today) are relevant.

I claim that Silly rabbit has repeatedly violated policy, is engaged in disruptive behavior, and should be banned from that article for one day. Silly rabbit is an excellent editor that apparently does not believe that material challenged as OR can only be restored if a reliable source is provided. Hopefully some minimal administrative signal will persuade Silly rabbit to resume productive editing for this article. Raggz (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is at least the third time this month that Raggz has made a spurious complaint here. He falsely claimed that Luke0101 was editing without communicating,[25] then he told a bunch of outright lies about me.[26]
Raggz is a shameless liar and I'm astounded that he's still allowed to edit here. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:DR is that-a-way. Please lleave the rethoric behind when you leave. ViridaeTalk 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, User:Silly rabbit is not disruptive and User:Sideshow Bob Roberts is correct in labeling Raggz's complaints as spurious. —Viriditas | Talk 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Silly rabbit and I have engaged in a productive dialogue (on my discussion page) that leads me to believe that we will soon commit to the WP:DR dispute process. I have a lot of respect for Silly rabbit and would not have been here if we were engaged in the WP:DR. Although Silly rabbit has yet to agree to use this process, I now believe that any further time and energy on the part of Administrators might be best conserved for other issues. There is a lot of frustration involved, I am likely responsible for some of this. We seem to be past the point where these frustrations are impeding progress for dispute resolution. Thank you for what has already been invested for reviewing our issues. Raggz (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is for deletion[edit]

I've explained our dispute resolution processes at length to Trialsanderrors (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) three times, now, once in the discussion closure, and twice on my talk page. They were also outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 25, by an editor that grasped them correctly and that not only wasn't even an administrator but that wasn't even an editor with an account. Full marks go to (talk · contribs). Somone else please explain Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the differences between protection and deletion, The Wrong Version, and taking editing disputes to article talk pages, and how protection is involved in that, to Trialsanderrors, and re-close the wholly inappropriate AFD discussion once more. I'm obviously not getting through on my own. Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Could you provide more background. I'd like to help out, but the AFD noted above, while his editorializing on said page seems a bit annoying, I don't see anything further. Could you provide additional difs, since this seems like a problem with some history. 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • See the discussion at User talk:Uncle G#Bulbasaur closure. I'd appreciate the input of other administrators. I'm now up to five explanations of what our editing dispute resolution processes are. Ironically, I'm actually exemplifying the dispute resolution step of requesting outside editors to review and give input to a talk page discussion, the very processes for which I'm trying to point out, right here. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems like there was wheel warring on multiple sides on this. IMO, Trialsanderrors should not have edited any closure for a discussion which they started. It would have been better to contact the closing admin. The problem stems from a DRV closure that Trialsanderrors closed as "Content discussion moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (2nd nomination)". So this issue is a bit complicated, in that Uncle G's speedy closure of the AFD is going against Trialsanderrors' admin action of DRV closure (and Trialsanderrors' revert of the closure went against