Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive151

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Book/Magazine cover fair use change?[edit]

In perusing all of the related policies, I can find no mention of the previous community rule that book/magazine covers are only acceptable fair use in articles about that book/magazine issue and are not allowed to be in other articles since that is merely decoration. Has this policy been changed? I know that when working on one (never-completed sadly) FA a while back, all the pictures of book covers/magazines that were referenced (and discussed) in the article were disallowed since the article was not specifically about them, and this amounted to "decoration."

Could someone please clarify the current thinking about this? The related noticeboard has been ignored for quite a while and no one seems to know for sure. Thanks, breathe | inhale 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FU#Images_2 paragraph 8 hasn't changed. Corvus cornixtalk 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
All that says is "it MAY be appropriate" if it doesn't have it's own article. Not terribly clear. That's also a very large departure from the former thinking that that never was appropriate. Now it's just a weasel statement.breathe | inhale 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it the only part that's set-in-stone is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."; paragraph 8 is part of the "this is a guideline, not policy" section of WP:FU. I'd suggest asking Carcharoth or Giggy who are both pretty well-versed in the intricacies of fair-use & copyright. – iridescent 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That's directly below the section heading labeled "Unacceptable use". Corvus cornixtalk 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I know - what I'm saying is that "Unacceptable use" section is in the "guideline not policy" part of WP:FU. – iridescent 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:WIKILAWYERING. Corvus cornixtalk 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok stop it you guys, perhaps a more concrete example would help. At the end of an article is a list of related books. An image of a book cover of one of them is next to the list. Is this acceptable? And my god are you telling me there are only 2 users who know what is going on with this policy? Eeek. breathe | inhale 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends, Depends, Depends. Strictness of enforcement on WP:NFC has definitely stepped up, but book covers may be acceptable depending on context. An article on a guy who's fame comes from illustrating book covers, for instance, could almost certainly justify one or two book covers. A guy who merely writes novels is less like to be able to, and an article on HD189733b probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. WilyD 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Your list of related books example is arguably a fair use in terms of US fair use provisions, but IMO clearly fails wikipedia's policy, specifically "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, no, Dr. Seuss could reasonably use a book cover to discuss his artist style, since he drew his own book covers. Or maybe the inside art, or art from somewhere else. All his art is likely to be copyrighted, though, and if that article plans to make FA status, it'll need extensive discussion of his artistic style. WilyD 22:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Which would fall outside the "list of related books" example, non? You are, in short, talking about a completely different use of an image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you're saying. User:breathe made a funny (read:wrong) choice for indenting his second question - I was responding to the original question. Yeah, it's hard to imagine how a "list of related books" could justify using a cover ... WilyD 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to stop the arguing :) Sry. breathe | inhale 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries eh? A contentious area, but asking is always the right choice. WilyD 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. breathe | inhale 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I will note that Wikinews has successfully driven out the anti-fairuse crowd recently. Perhaps we should do the same? According to Anthere, even using fairuse in buildings and biographies is possible and would not violate foundation policy. The only reason we do it is to pacify free-culture extremists. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban this user[edit]

I'm here to ask of the administrator's to impose a ban on a user named mcelite. This person adds data that are from his or her point-of-view or opinion. This person is also a vandal. I would like for all of you to ban this person. Thanks. Fclass (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. It would be helpful if you included links to DIFFs so we can perhaps see what the problem is. seicer | talk | contribs 02:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
After only a few seconds of looking I found this strong personal attack by Fclass. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, after looking at the talk pages of the two it's clear that Fclass needs to tone down the attacks. Wizardman 02:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget I asked. I have another question. How do I archive my talk page? The archiving the talk page article is vague and confusing. Fclass (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. You want your hand held? Here is a step by step guide for you. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being followed up at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete[edit]

I've just requested speedy deletion of Hot 30 Countdown since it's a recreation of a previously deleted article (see discussion above about this article as well). Somehow, this was sent to AFD, consensus was "delete", yet it was overlooked for three years [1]. Then someone changed the AFD summary on the talk page from "delete" to "keep". Not too sure what that's all about. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how it went unnoticed back in 2005, but the recent article (admin only) was substantially different from the previous version (again, admin only). I don't think it met G4, which only applies to: "a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." - auburnpilot talk 05:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Book/Magazine cover fair use change?[edit]

In perusing all of the related policies, I can find no mention of the previous community rule that book/magazine covers are only acceptable fair use in articles about that book/magazine issue and are not allowed to be in other articles since that is merely decoration. Has this policy been changed? I know that when working on one (never-completed sadly) FA a while back, all the pictures of book covers/magazines that were referenced (and discussed) in the article were disallowed since the article was not specifically about them, and this amounted to "decoration."

Could someone please clarify the current thinking about this? The related noticeboard has been ignored for quite a while and no one seems to know for sure. Thanks, breathe | inhale 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FU#Images_2 paragraph 8 hasn't changed. Corvus cornixtalk 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
All that says is "it MAY be appropriate" if it doesn't have it's own article. Not terribly clear. That's also a very large departure from the former thinking that that never was appropriate. Now it's just a weasel statement.breathe | inhale 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it the only part that's set-in-stone is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."; paragraph 8 is part of the "this is a guideline, not policy" section of WP:FU. I'd suggest asking Carcharoth or Giggy who are both pretty well-versed in the intricacies of fair-use & copyright. – iridescent 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That's directly below the section heading labeled "Unacceptable use". Corvus cornixtalk 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I know - what I'm saying is that "Unacceptable use" section is in the "guideline not policy" part of WP:FU. – iridescent 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:WIKILAWYERING. Corvus cornixtalk 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok stop it you guys, perhaps a more concrete example would help. At the end of an article is a list of related books. An image of a book cover of one of them is next to the list. Is this acceptable? And my god are you telling me there are only 2 users who know what is going on with this policy? Eeek. breathe | inhale 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends, Depends, Depends. Strictness of enforcement on WP:NFC has definitely stepped up, but book covers may be acceptable depending on context. An article on a guy who's fame comes from illustrating book covers, for instance, could almost certainly justify one or two book covers. A guy who merely writes novels is less like to be able to, and an article on HD189733b probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. WilyD 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Your list of related books example is arguably a fair use in terms of US fair use provisions, but IMO clearly fails wikipedia's policy, specifically "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, no, Dr. Seuss could reasonably use a book cover to discuss his artist style, since he drew his own book covers. Or maybe the inside art, or art from somewhere else. All his art is likely to be copyrighted, though, and if that article plans to make FA status, it'll need extensive discussion of his artistic style. WilyD 22:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Which would fall outside the "list of related books" example, non? You are, in short, talking about a completely different use of an image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you're saying. User:breathe made a funny (read:wrong) choice for indenting his second question - I was responding to the original question. Yeah, it's hard to imagine how a "list of related books" could justify using a cover ... WilyD 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to stop the arguing :) Sry. breathe | inhale 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries eh? A contentious area, but asking is always the right choice. WilyD 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. breathe | inhale 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I will note that Wikinews has successfully driven out the anti-fairuse crowd recently. Perhaps we should do the same? According to Anthere, even using fairuse in buildings and biographies is possible and would not violate foundation policy. The only reason we do it is to pacify free-culture extremists. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban this user[edit]

I'm here to ask of the administrator's to impose a ban on a user named mcelite. This person adds data that are from his or her point-of-view or opinion. This person is also a vandal. I would like for all of you to ban this person. Thanks. Fclass (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. It would be helpful if you included links to DIFFs so we can perhaps see what the problem is. seicer | talk | contribs 02:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
After only a few seconds of looking I found this strong personal attack by Fclass. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, after looking at the talk pages of the two it's clear that Fclass needs to tone down the attacks. Wizardman 02:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget I asked. I have another question. How do I archive my talk page? The archiving the talk page article is vague and confusing. Fclass (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. You want your hand held? Here is a step by step guide for you. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being followed up at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete[edit]

I've just requested speedy deletion of Hot 30 Countdown since it's a recreation of a previously deleted article (see discussion above about this article as well). Somehow, this was sent to AFD, consensus was "delete", yet it was overlooked for three years [2]. Then someone changed the AFD summary on the talk page from "delete" to "keep". Not too sure what that's all about. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how it went unnoticed back in 2005, but the recent article (admin only) was substantially different from the previous version (again, admin only). I don't think it met G4, which only applies to: "a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." - auburnpilot talk 05:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the full final decision is available here. In short, the remedies passed were:

  • Special enforcement on biographies of living persons: a special enforcement on biography of living persons (BLP) articles is authorised, whereby administrators uninvolved with an article may, for that BLP, "use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy". Administrators are authorised to utilise their protection and blocking tools as necessary to ensure that the article complies with Wikipedia's BLP policy, and are also directed to actively counsel any editors whos actions fail to comply with the BLP policy. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so; appeals against restrictions put in place may be made to either: the relevant administrators' noticeboard; or, the arbitration committee directly. Before any article-based restrictions are extended to an individual editor, this counselling must take place: restrictions put in place should be logged at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log, with relevant links to attempts to counsel the editor. The full text of this special enforcement is available here.
  • Alansohn restricted: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year, whereby he may be blocked for making any edits judged by an administrator to be be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, for "up to a week in the event of repeated violations". The full text is available here.

The final decision and remedies should be reviewed in full, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 22:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Per that decision Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log is now "live". Remember to be specific when logging! MBisanz talk 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision this close has ongoing problems. Until such a time as there can be demonstrated consensus among the community the will enforce the decision "imposed" here, the "Special enforcement on biographies of living persons" section cannot be considered remotely enforceable. - brenneman 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is clear consensus by the community or authorization by the Committee, modifying any sanctions imposed under this remedy may result in suspension or revocation of admin privilleges by the Committee. Arbitration decisions are binding - this remedy is therefore enforcible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you speaking for the arbitration committee, Ncmvocalist? Arbitration is not legislation, not is it administration or policing. It is actually meant to be a part of dispute resolution. I shouldn't actually have to say that, but hey. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It may not be exactly those things, but it's a distinction without a difference. It's binding, per the foundation principles. Why is it binding? Because it gets enforced. How? It gets enforced by admins who carry out the enforcement. If no admin can be found to carry out the enforcement, it won't be enforced. There are a lot of admins, so it is hard to imagine a situation in which things would go unenforced. Further, any admin who actively works against (by undoing or wheelwarring) enforcement is liable to find an ArbCom member asking a steward to remove their bit in fairly short order. No particular steward has to do so, (stewards are volunteers too) so if no steward did then the removal wouldn't happen. But there are a lot of stewards. I think it's no secret that not everyone agrees with ArbCom completely on every matter, but they are, after all, ArbCom. We elected them, for the most part, or acquiesed to their appointment. Things would have to go pretty far downhill, I would think, before you would see a situation in which no admin would enforce remedies, most admins would undo them, and no steward would remove the bits of admins who undid them. It could happen, and it's the ultimate check, the consent of the governed withdrawn, yes. But I don't see it. I think it's no secret that I myself have some issues with the current ArbCom, some things I think they could do better/differently/more promptly/whatever, but I've removed the bit of an admin at ArbCom request before and I'd do it again if asked. If I ever got to the point where I wouldn't, you'll know about it, believe me. Everyone will. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The remedy has passed, and until such a time that the committee removes or alters the remedy, BLP articles are subject to special enforcement, and should be logged at the appropriate place as stated by the committee. Arbitration decisions are binding and administrators that take actions that are based on the decision are not in any position to be sanctioned, unlike administrators that reverse the action without consensus who will be sumarily desysopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that admins that consistently take inappropriate BLP actions under the shelter of this remedy, will also end up desysopped. That is my interpretation of what ArbCom are saying. Enforce BLP more as both editors and admins, but arbcom will be watching and taking action (following appeals) if there is consistent abuse of the remedy. Nothing so far prevents people following the process outlined, getting in with "their" actions first, and then logging "their" actions in an attempt to prevent reversal of those actions. My views remain the same: admins should remove material that is problematic, and should then advise and guide, but should not try and directly influence or take part in discussions on the talk pages. They should also abide by any consensus that results from any discussion on the talk page. It boils down to whether admins should be mediators or enforcers. Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What if there is a consensus to violate BLP? Should an admin abide by that? 1 != 2 15:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There may be an apparent, temporary, local "consensus" to violate BLP, but such "consensus" cannot be allowed to stand. BLP (whether you call it foundational, core, derived from foundational, whatever you like) is so fundamental that no consensus can override it. Where there is difficulty is not with the idea of overriding BLP, but with whether a particular matter is within scope of the policy and how the policy applies. There is room for disagreement there, yes, and those of good faith may well disagree, but not room for disagreement about whether we should abide by BLP. It's just not debateable. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Lar, I am very disappointed that you keep repeating this forced meme. Yes, WP:BLP can be overturned. Any time WP:BLP removals violate WP:NPOV or any other core foundation principles, WP:BLP must yield. Again, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, it is a suicide pact that we must live with. WP:BLP is nice when possible, but it is not essential. Furthermore, there is significant disagreement on what that policy means and how it is applied. Attempts to POV-push through use of this policy will be met with great resistance and hostility. Attempts to create SPOV (sympathetic point of view) will be similarly met. And no, not all ArbCom remedies work. If you recall, the MONGO external links remedy was an utter disaster for the same reason this one will be -- it allows far too much discretionary action. We cannot allow subjects of BLPs to treat us as a spin machine, there will be no memory holes for their personal convenience. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree fully, which is why I don't think this finding is such a radical departure from what we already do. 1 != 2 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course BLP should not be over-ridden. But who can reliably judge whether local consensus is correct or not? It boils down to telling people they are wrong. Which is fine as long as you are not wrong yourself. It requires high levels of confidence in your own opinion, the skills to back up your own opinion, and the knowledge that others will back your actions up. And even then, you might still be wrong. The classic BLP problem is the removal of "negative material". Judging whether negative material should be removed or not, there are a range of possible responses. Safest is to remove the material and direct discussion to the talk page. But if consensus emerges for a wording that (say) the subject of the article objects to, what then? Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong! :) ... no, actually, you're correct. Not sure how to resolve interpretation issues easily, tis not an easy problem. But still BLP itself can't be overturned by consensus, just like NPOV can't. Only interpretation of it is amenable to debate. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, and the community may after all interpret the ruling by deciding its unworkable and divisive, and has a tendency to encourage the POV deletion of well sourced material. The community will in that case make its views known at the next arb com election. DGG (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that it takes two or three years to effectively change things through arbcom elections. The tranche system was put in place in order to keep an institutional memory, but I think that it is now contributing to inertia. Three years is an eternity on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The last time I checked, there is nothing to say we must honor the subject's wishes unconditionally. If there is a debate and the general consensus is that well-sourced, NPOV material is pertinent, then in it goes. Again, BLP musn't be used as a spin mechanism. Otherwise, we'll have every whiner from around the globe wanting to POV slant their article in the best possible light. That is unacceptable. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The trick is to try and distinguish from those who want material removed because they think they can game the system, and those who are genuinely upset and concerned about the material and don't want it in the article. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the two (though sometimes it does seem obvious). People say that "reliable sources" is an objective way to resolve that conundrum, but the trouble there is that many people point to newspapers as reliable sources, but then you have to distinguish between responsible newspaper coverage, investigative journalism (which can go either way), and tabloid journalism (reporting stories just to sell papers). Newspapers are reliable sources for news, but not always for encyclopedias. The trouble is that articles on living people often rely on newspaper reports and articles. See below for my evolving views on this, and a possible "meta" solution for certain types of BLP problem. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No. The trick is to handle all BLPs fairly, neutrally, accurately, and verifiably, regardless of what the subjects thereof may or may not request. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you could move your reply to the thread I started at WT:BLP? Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Externalise the debate[edit]

My view is that one way to tackle the problem of BLP material that is reliably sourced, is to push the issue one stage further back. If external entities (be that businesses or the subject of an article) want to challenge the insertion of a particular piece of information that is sourced to a reliable source, then instead of challenging this on Wikipedia, the entity concerned needs to go on the public record (a press release on their website, newspaper interview, book, blog, and so on) and refute what that reliable source has said. This moves the conflict from Wikipedia, back out to the media "out there". Wikipedia can then continue to document and report both sides of the controversy, while still weighing the pros and cons of each source. Eg. A blog post by subject Y refuting what author X said in a book, or what journalist Z said in a newspaper article, might carry less weight than subject Y successfully getting a retraction or letter printed by the newspaper, or subject Y writing a book that include a refutation of what Wikipedia has been including using the other book as a source. Unless this is done, then Wikipedia becomes part of the problem of media bias, instead of standing outside things and documenting and synthesising the sources to produce an encyclopedia article. Anyway, this is way off-topic now. The debate should move to WT:BLP. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Template Help[edit]

Hi. Can an Admin please add “flag alias-naval = Naval Jack of the Netherlands.svg” to Template:Country data Netherlands please? Thanks. Red4tribe (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

 Declined The consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships is to use naval ensigns, not naval jacks for articles that use {{navy}}. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. And there are several better places to make this kind of request than here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you please tell me where those other places are instead of just leaving me hanging? Red4tribe (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Help desk is probably appropriate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I would say that putting {{editprotected}} on Template talk:Country data Netherlands would have been the most direct course of action for this kind of request. But I would have still answered the same way—the WikiProjects use naval ensigns, not naval jacks, for infobox identification. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
ok. But I already did ask this on the help page, and they told me to contact an dmin, so I thought this would be the best spot. Red4tribe (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but the top of this page has a big "Are you in the right place?" section to find better subpages, and that would have led you to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which would have led you to use {{editprotected}}. Anyway, no harm! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the top of the page does not say anything about where to go to request edits to protected pages. As far as I know, Red4tribe posted his request in a reasonable place. {{editprotected}} isn't suggested at the top of this page; perhaps it should be. Neıl 08:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Grawp Eradication Program[edit]

Hi. Please see this proposal at the Village pump for proposals. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. So far, two main ideas have aquired some support from the community:
  • Edit summary blacklist
  • Rollback all contributions
Any further input is welcome. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I like both, but it's worth noting that our boring-but-inventive friend tends to make 10 good, correct, useful edits before s/he/it goes on a spree. Reverting all (typically) 20 edits undoes the 10 pieces of crap, but also 10 things we like. Grawp is actually providing a net benefit at the moment, AFAICT. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. What about [rollback all moves] instead? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If only he'd give up the HAGGER???? vandalism then we'd have a productive editor...RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ *** 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Rollback all is an extraordinary move and its use should be limited to only a few select admins for use is obvious, blatant, and harmful vandalism. Such a command would cause massive issues with articles and discussion pages if used on a non vandal account. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Its not very difficult to write a script to click all the rollback links on a user contribs page (its not very hard to just click them all manually either with tabbed browsing). Pagemoves are a little trickier, but not hard. Mr.Z-man 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into that. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There's already a script. See User:Voice_of_All/Specialadmin/monobook.js. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but blacklisting edit summaries is not possible ..--Cometstyles 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not? We can do it with links...there's got to be a hook, it'd be a fairly simple extension. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
We tried to get the devs to do this in April, but it never eventuated, but there is a bug which was started then, you could comment on it ...--Cometstyles 02:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever patterns for the edit summaries we would blacklist he would work around it quite soon. The same as with the articles titles blacklist. I suggest making move protected all the established articles (say more than 6 month old with more than one contributor to them). There is no reason to move say Sun to anything else and moves, like say, Kiev to Kyiv while may have valid reasons should go via WP:RM anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggested this a while ago (permanent move protection), people were pretty opposed. John Reaves 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
While we certainly can't stop Grawp copycats by banning their favorite edit summaries, we at least could block summaries with links to shock sites faster than GNAA registers new domains, if we make some kind of summary blacklist. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless we'd block any kind of URL to be displayed in edit summaries, I'm not sure how we're supposed to be able to block all shock sites from being mentioned. --Conti| 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It costs a few bucks to register a domain. If each new domain can only be used once, sooner or later people will decide it's not worth the effort. --Carnildo (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually not opposed to blocking URLs in edit summaries... seems to me a fairly sensible thing to do, unless I'm missing something... - Philippe 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that being able to blacklist URLs in edit summaries is an excellent idea. And not just to combat Grawp. J.delanoygabsadds 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There are certainly excellent reasons for being able to include them in deletion summaries, though; I'd be very opposed if any change meant losing that. There are legit reasons for having at least partial URLs in edit summaries, such as "www.whoevers-blog.com is not a reliable source", but I'd say it's worth the loss.
Uh oh, what have I done? There are countless reasons to have URLs in edit summaries (linking to diffs or log entries, to sources we use, to non-notable sources as part of an argument, etc.), and I'd strongly oppose to block all URLs in edit summaries. --Conti| 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should eradicate URLs from edit summaries. What I am saying is that we should be able to blacklist them just as we do in articles. J.delanoygabsadds 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That might be useful, but I'm afraid we'll end up playing the same game that's played at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist right now: A URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it. Another URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it. Another URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it, and so on. I'm not sure if that's useful. --Conti| 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
True, but the only other alternative I see is to do something similar to what Moreschi suggested below. J.delanoygabsadds 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The obvious thing to do is to restrict page-moves to rollbackers. That would end all our page-move vandalism problems. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Enigma message 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It makes sense until you consider the amount of work that would be cropping up on requested moves, the cut and paste move repair holding pen, and Category:History merge for speedy deletion. We already have enough trouble with people moving things improperly, and so far as I know not an abundance of admins willing and able to repair them.--Dycedarg ж 23:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Rollbackers are too few, and a lot of editors have to move pages for valid reasons not knowing anything about rollback. Aside of the basic ways to deal with this, i.e. to watch Special:Log/move and move-protect pages with no reason to be moved unilaterally, the adminscripts blocking page move vandals on sight coupled with the quick reverts of ClueBot are very efficient. Cenarium (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

writing about yourself[edit]

What should we do if a person starts an article about their company and makes the vast majority of the edits?

The above is 100% true. I also think the article is biased but that is hard to prove 100%. The person who did this acts like a jerk. Ban them or let them go? Pachette (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's written in a clearly promotional tone, it should be tagged for speedy deletion using criterion G11. If it's neutrally-written but lacks any claim of importance (i.e. doesn't give evidence of coverage by third party reliable sources or otherwise explain why the company is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia), it should be tagged for speedy deletion using criterion A7. If it makes a claim of importance but you don't think it's enough to clear Wikipedia's notability guideline, you should nominate it for deletion. If none of the above is the case, you should just keep an eye on it and make sure it continues to abide by all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What article do you think is biased? The359 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Pachette is up to no good (likely SPA or other troll). He added sock templates to his own userpage. Now what kind of legit editor does that? [3]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis[edit]

Any admin daring enough to wade through this proposal and close it with an outcome? (Proposal currently accounts for approximately EIGHTY of the 150 move proposals found in CAT:RM.) Thanks~ JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not look to me like discussion is finished. Naerii - Talk 23:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are my eyes deceiving me?[edit]

How on earth has this article been allowed to remain on Wikipedia for just over a year now? Doesn't it totally fail WP:BIO ten times over? Am I missing something here? I just thought I'd bring it to the noticeboard so others can look at it too. Lradrama 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's true, there's almost certainly some press coverage of it (for the benefit of US editors, Football Manager/Championship Manager is right up there with Halo and GTA at the top of the gaming pile in Europe). I certainly don't think it's a speedy candidate; send it over to WPF and see if they can source it. – iridescent 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've done some wider research and this name is not notable in the slightest I don't think. Try Google and Yahoo for starters... Lradrama 19:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouts out hoax to me. Speedy? Or do we have to do through AFD? D.M.N. (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Dropped a note down at WPF. Lradrama 19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If there's any credence at all to it, it should be merged into the vg article. xenocidic (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've marked it as a speedy, CSD.A7. Conning a software company does not make you notable beyond your local pub (or 21st century equivalent). --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've declined it. "Zlatko Kartal is a Bosnian born Scot, who managed to convince Football Manager 2008 creators SI Games that he played for Celtic" There is the assertion of notability, and therefore it can't be speedied. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2) Someone's declined the A7 speedy, so I've prodded it. For most of this article's existence it asserted the subject played for Celtic FC, which certainly is an assertion of significance. Hut 8.5 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Managed to convince... - i.e. didn't play for Celtic. Lradrama 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the article originally said otherwise. It wasn't rewritten to say that he didn't play for Celtic until May 2008, which is why nobody nominated it for deletion - they thought it was legitimate. Hut 8.5 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Under 21 team? Rather than the actual team? Lradrama 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Some more on this here: [4] Wikipedia may have been the bootstrap, who knows. According to the researchers, it's a true fact that he made it in there, but he's queued for deletion. xenocidic (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I dropped a note at WT:WPVG (since it is now more of a vg-related article than a football related article). xenocidic (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
According to Dreaded Walrus, this is not even a notable hoax, and is quite a common occurence.
Speedy even if it's not a hoax. Tan | 39 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if that's a hoax, or an insult to a real player, or a well-intentioned article about a non-notable person, but I just nuked it per WP:BLP. Never had a real source. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.". If someone finds real sourcing, the article can be recreated, but for BLP's, the order is: sources, then article, not article, then sources. --barneca (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, you misunderstand that quote. It says remove the offending material, it does not say delete the entire article. The article itself needs to go through proper deletion process. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs - it doesn't. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No U! Here is an excerpt from that decision: if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates [BLP]. I didn't get to see the article in question, but the deletion of the entire article is only for extreme circumstances. Given the discussion above, this doesn't seem to be the case. Was every single version of the article bad? --Dragon695 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Process wonkery is frowned upon (by policy no less, oh the irony). Why would we put a hoax through an AfD when its an obvious... hoax? Process for the sake of process is a Bad Thing. --Mask? 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Francis Yiu Cheong Chin[edit]

Could someone take a look at this one for me please? It looks like the person that put the copyvio tag removed the copyvio...no problem....but there's a problem with the dates...if you look at edit the date is properly 19 May, but the template appears to be trying to make it for 19 June? Halp? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Kalaallisut language->Greenlandic language[edit]

There is a clear consensus among the few editors on the talk page of Kalaallisut language that it should be moved to Greenlandic language, although there is a page there so no basic editor can take action. ALTON .ıl 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It should go to Wikipedia:Requested moves, and be allowed to run for five days. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice please (User:KingsleyMiller and dispute)[edit]

I have been trying to mediate a dispute, which you can see here. Unfortunately, the party who asked for mediation, KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs), subsequently decided he didn't want mediation - and without both sides of a party agreeing, mediation is pretty much useless. He pulled out of mediation because one of the participants used a mild swear word in an edit summary (not directed at anyone, actually themselves). The dispute is around a number of pages, chiefly Attachment theory, Maternal deprivation, Attachment in children, John Bowlby, and Michael Rutter. All these articles are a mess, and if you look at their histories and talk pages, you can see most of this is due to KingsleyMiller, who has a very definite point of view on these articles, and neither our NPOV policy or the MOS can get in his way. With mediation having failed, I'm not sure of the next step to take. The dispute was sent to WP:3O twice with no luck (one of the 3O regulars, HelloAnnyong, had as little luck with Kingsley as anyone else). A message to the Psychology wikiproject had no responses; all the psychology people who want to be involved already are, and have had no luck. Traditionally, RFCs on obscure psychology topics get no response. I am running out of options - as best I can see it, there are three. 1) Leave it to sort out itself (this is unlikely), 2) Take to Arbcom (huge administrative effort and a possibility they won't actually accept it, as it's quite complicated and is a combination of content and conduct issues) or 3) Block Kingsley indefinitely, for extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others, on the condition that if he swears to stop edit-warring he can be unblocked. I am inclined towards three, but I've never really blocked for this sort of thing in over two years as an admin, so I could really do with someone else (ideally, a couple of others) taking half an hour to look at things and see what they think. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Attachment_theory#Closed and sections above it for the background. If nobody is willing to take a look, then I am probably going to go with my own judgment and block Kingsley. Neıl 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingsley, in his "withdrawal" contribution to the mediation page, links to a website providing the text and some dialogue of a number of County Court and Court of Appeal judgments. These judgments pertain to the attempts by a Mr Miller to secure various rights as a parent (from what I can see). I've asked Kingsley if he is the same Mr Miller on his talk page. Past versions of this user's page may provide another insight for anybody interested. Now, for my part, I feel that I agree most closely with Neil's third point. From what I can see, Kingsley is a user with an agenda to get his viewpoint into the relevant articles at any cost. He ignores sourcing guidelines and verifiability, and suggests that sources which he disagrees with should be ignored. This is in fact a common basis of disputes onwiki, but Kingsley's refusal to give up or make any concessions in his fight makes his relationship with this project, in my view, for the moment untenable. I think that he is determined to take "his case" to the "highest court" in wiki-land - the ArbCom, and he used my moment of madness using the word "fuck" in an edit summary (as Neil notes, though I should say I'm not a participant in the psych dispute) to drag the case up to ArbCom from which is was promptly thrown out. Attempts have been made at 3O. This only works if the parties are happy to accept the opinion of the third party, but Kingsley seems to refuse to accept this fact. Any attempt at dispute resolution around this user is a total failure. The only other possible option open that I can see is a block-enforceable topic ban from all Psychology related articles. Kingsley has become too much of a burden for the Project, and especially so for some of the members of the Psych wikiproject who have had to put up with him for so long. Thanks, Martinp23 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Assuming your summary of "extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others" is accurate, then I think a block (or series of escalating blocks leading up to an indefinite block if he doesn't get the message) wouldn't be inappropriate. I'll take a look at the referenced pages and weigh in again after. As a note, I've notified KingsleyMiller of this discussion (as should have been done before) and refactored the header to describe the thread. AvruchT * ER 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say you hit the nail on the head with that description just based on the mediation pages. One person with a personal stake who refuses to adhere to policies can't be allowed to turn a number of articles into wreckage and then refuse mediation. Its obvious he sees Wikipedia as a battleground where he can push his point of view, and is not willing to even consider that the content of articles should be based only on reliable sources. If he refuses to cooperate and continues to make tendentious edits and reverts to various articles in the scope of child psych/parenting (essentially, anything related to his court case) then there may be no way around an indefinite block. AvruchT * ER 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef block, and quickly! I haven't taken the time to review the links, but am responding to the last sentence by Avruch above - this person has an ongoing court case and is altering a public knowledge resource base on subjects relating to the case. It would not be good publicity for WP if this person was to refer to articles in court they have themselves have edited, and it wouldn't be very good for law generally if this were allowed. I shall enact the block immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What is it called when an admin tries to block someone who is already blocked? Not an edit conflict - maybe a block conflict? Either way, I just had that happen to me. Good block. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the notice I placed on User:KingsleyMiller's talkpage. It spells out my concerns, but I would welcome any other editors amendment of same in case I have been a little OTT. Regarding that, does anyone think that running this matter past Mike Godwin is of any benefit? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If indeed Kingsley is the same Mr Miller as in the cases (likely, yes, but it's an assumption I attempted to avoid above - the existence of a brother is a distinct possibility), then this block for "ongoing court case" has no basis at all, in that the last time the Mr Miller referenced on that website appeared in court was in 2004. I'd suggest that he's simply trying to get his favoured theory a wider audience.. I don't honestly think there's anything malicious behind it. That's not to say that a topic ban or block/ban is inappropriate though - see my comments above. Martinp23 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
He did refer on the mediation page (in his withdrawal notice, I think) to his personal involvement in the court proceedings, so based on that I assume its him. No reason at the moment to believe the case(s) might be ongoing, his description of final orders and links to the documents suggest otherwise. AvruchT * ER 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmmhm I'm being perhaps overly cautious given my past run-in with the user :) His user page does confirm that he is the person in the cases. Martinp23 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Under the circumstances I think the block should remain until the editor promises to contribute per WP:NPOV, WP:MoS, and consensually with other parties. I think they might need pointing toward WP:COI, as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Sounds ok. The difficulty here is that he wants to insert "The Truth" into articles. By all means if he'll agree to the conditions we can give it a go, but I hold out little hope. Would a topic ban work, or is it something for a later date? Martinp23 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the editors contributions does not indicate an interest outside of these related subjects, so a topic ban may only be a block with a serious temptation to game/avoid. I think a straight block is "cleanest" and fairest (and one which can be challenged). I have amended the original block reasons per the discussion above but I think this is as far as dispute resolution can go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I seem to be little late coming into this discussion but as one of the mediators listed i wanted to give my view. Personally my first thoughts are that a topic ban would be the best approach in conjunction with enforcing blocks if the ban isn't complied with. It may not be the "cleanest" method, topic bans rarely are, but it would allow him to improve issues and in my opinion the slim possibilty of getting a good converted editor rather than possible future sock puppeteering is worth it. I would would even offer myself to keep an eye on the situation. I don't contest the indef block but i do feel that perhaps a topic ban could be a better way out. Seddσn talk Editor Review 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at this case last night (took a lot longer than half an hour, Neil!) and I endorse this block. Leaving aside the legal concerns, this is a tendentious editor who appears to be trying to use Wikipedia to push a very specific POV. I think he should remain blocked until he indicates he has read, understands and agrees to comply with our policies and guidelines and then once unblocked kept an eye on to ensure he doesn't backslide. The various talk pages, the mediation and ArbCom requests and so forth show someone who is pushing a barrow with a singular focus. The fact he withdrew his participation in a mediation case he requested because someone swore in an edit summary, the long screeds and bureaucratic nonsense (like complaints over the use of the word "editor" and this [5] kind of nonsense that is surely intended to tie other editors up in knots until they give up in frustration) gave me the impression of someone using obstructionist tactics to outlast (outwit, outplay?) their opponents, rather than someone genuinely coming to the table to reach a consensus. So I endorse the block and I think he should remain blocked until he agrees to edit within our policies and guidelines. Sarah 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have issue with deleting the userpage as a soapbox? That's what it is, and I'm going to do so. Prostylitizing and self-victimizing, with delusions of grandeur thrown in for fun. Keegantalk 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for helping - I am quite glad to see my initial instinct was right, although disappointed Kingsley's conduct led to this. Neıl 10:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I have come to this matter extremely late, though I did give an external (informed) view to User:Fainites about any relationships there might be between maternal deprivation and attachment theory just over a month ago as a result of one aspect of a dispute in this area. Although I worked extensively with child psychologists and child psychiatrists up to retirement, and I am a psychologist, I have never joined the psychology project nor really edited any psychology articles, because of my impression of them being that they would be "too hard a job" to counteract idiosyncratic viewpoints expressed in them. I've glanced through the details of this dispute, and think that the block is the best option. My reason for posting this message is to state that if any opinion is needed from a professional psychologist who has extensive professional experience of research into topics within child psychology and psychiatry (as a research critiquer, designer, advisor, and interpretor), including publishing research articles and books in this area, though not as a practising child psychologist or child psychiatrist, then I could have the time to help out in any related tricky cases.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I also concur that indef is best here. — Athaenara 23:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
As do I. I was honestly surprised Kingsley has avoided a block as long as he has due to his constant PoV pushing. Good job handling this, Neil. ~ mazca talk 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class to be added to the assessment scale[edit]

As a result of a "ratification vote" that took place at WT:ASSESS, the C-Class will now be added to the Version 1.0 Assessment scale. Please see this for further details. All comments are welcome. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits of Magibon[edit]

A newbie user (Arguecat4 (talk · contribs)) is editing the article Magibon; his edits do more harm than good (adding nonexistent entries to infobox, and a trivia setion to the article). I tried explaining why the content he added to the article was inappropriate, but he just continues editing. Could an uninvolved user have a look at the article and talk to the user? (I have done everything I could, including spending my three reverts.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are BLP violations, on first glance, I wouldn't worry about the 3RR when protecting it, but it's good you came here. Info about a girl's body measurements and where she lives and works need to be zapped quickly. I'll warn Argue on his talk, although if this continues a preventative block would be in order. Gwynand | TalkContribs 17:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd add that Arguecat4 is also apparently a sock of User:Arguecat3, perhaps created to avoid 3RR. Dppowell (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Given this editor's contribution history and particularly such edits as this, assuming good faith here would be naive. The duck test suggests some connection to this user, who has received a final warning for vandalism, here. Sockpuppeting to continue vandalism to avoid that block? In any event, I think it's reasonable not to tolerate unsourced additions to this article from this user. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Now after further look, and edits like this, I've issued a final warning myself. However, a block may already be in order based on the magnitude of the vandalism, along with BLP issues. The page history needs to be reviewed for private, personal information, although I'm not sure how much of is simply fake. Might be real info, and would need to be deleted. Gwynand | TalkContribs 17:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I suspect its garbage information, given such hidden vandalism as here with [[Georgia,_USA|Pennsylvania]]. I would tend to agree though that a block is not inappropriate based on behavior already displayed. I have notified the user of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

not all of it is garbage information. I am looking at it and weeding out inaccuracies. Also I changed user names cause I gave up on outright vandalism and was just trying to add info to a crap page. I will delete where she works etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguecat4 (talkcontribs) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you add unsourced information to this article one more time, I am going to block you for vandalism. Your history gives us no reason to believe that your edits are made constructively, and rather every reason to presume that you are attempting to be more subtle with your vandalism. Given that your first edit under this "new" name was the same as your last under the former, your statement here is demonstrably false. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ok I wil source it then re-add it. quit deleting it! also some of my info was sourced. And I was working on sourcing others D:< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguecat4 (talkcontribs) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated in my response to your note at my talk page, if you want to add information to the article, be prepared to provide reliable sources to validate it when you do. Again, given your history, there is no reason for us to make special allowances on a presumption of good faith. If you really want to contribute constructively, given that you started off vandalizing the article and admit as much, you should be more than willing to demonstrate that you intend to comply with guidelines now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to point out to those who arrive late to this conversation that this user's vandalism has included such charming racism as "[[Spic|minimum wage]] , here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the sockpuppet account Arguecat3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and gave Arguecat4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) a final warning. I still believe that he is not acting out of malice - he just refuses to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps he isn't old or mature enough to take it seriously. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I half hope you're right, but, on the other hand, I'd hate to think the user could be immature enough to think tucking "Spic" behind "minimum wage" is funny. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have cleaned the rest and removed the term "wapanese" and personal name (because it is unsourced) from the infobox. I want to add that this Arguecat3 or 4 or whatever number, comes with high probability from a trollsite called "Encyclopedia dramatica" because their Magibon article has a co-author with exactly the same name (registered on ED as: Arguecat3) and I don't think that this is a coincidence because he tried to copy text from there.--Firithfenion (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. :) I'd agree with your reasoning there; again, the duck test applies. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised noone wanted to be the first ever person to use {{BLP Spec Warn}} ... Neıl 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You are being ironic. Most admins do realise we had (and continue to have) perfectly adequate remedies without it--as shown here. DGG (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ready for that indef block? Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

user showing disregard for 3RR rule and edit warring[edit]

Resolved

user blocked for spamming Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This User:Carl.bunderson is showing a total disregard for the 3RR rule and a short block might teach him a lesson so that he does not edit war like this in the future.



  • Diffs of 3RR warnings and previous blocks for 3RR violations:


He was already blocked actually. Carl.bunderson for some reason was not blocked even though he was engaged in this ridiculous edit warring and 3RR violations. Something needs to be done to prevent this type of behaviour from Carl.bunderson. Certainly, he should not be exempted from the 3RR rule as he is a regular user like others. StevenHarrisonJr (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The brand new editor StevenHarrisonJr already knows how to forum shop. The identical case was submitted and closed at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I being blacklisted[edit]

Resolved: Naerii - Talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is a concerted effort to not acknowledge my work. See the following odd coincidences:

  1. After 127 WP:DYKs in which approximately 123 (97%) were properly recorded at WP:DYKA, the most recent thirteen of my DYK nominations have not been recorded in the archives. This is a bit much to be a coincidence. (Note the statistical odds of this happening as a matter of coincidence seems to be (4/127)^13=3x10-20.)
  2. When I became next in line for the Editorial Triple Crown, User:Durova went on hiatus from awarding them.
  3. Suddenly, none of my WP:FC nominations can get enough support for promotion (see User:TonyTheTiger/Reviews).
    The recent inability to get any support votes for Cscr-candidate.pngPortal:Chicago, Cscr-candidate.pngTrump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Cscr-former.svgGermany Schulz, Cscr-former.svgWalter O'Malley are suspicious. These along with the consecutive fails of Cscr-former.svgRush Street (Chicago), Cscr-former.svgBob Chappuis, Cscr-former.svgMarshall Field and Company Building, Cscr-former.svgJack Kemp when added to the mix is highly suspicious. It seems that the consistent theme of all the feedback is instructions to remove information. I am not necessarily suspicious of Cscr-former.svgDick Rifenburg or Cscr-former.svgCrown Fountain at the stages they were at, although Crown Fountain has been revised and will be a major part of WP:CHIFTD.
  4. The sudden absence of nominees for the WP:LOTM process is also curious.
  5. User:SatyrTN retired leaving WP:CHICAGO without a bot to add {{ChicagoWikiProject}} and WP:BOTREQ has been unable to get a working bot to replace the services of User:SatyrBot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has archived DYKs in weeks. Nobody has been awarded triple crowns in quite a while. All articles at FAC are suffering from a lack of reviewers. The world isn't out to get you. Maralia (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
DYK has been archived quite consistently since during my last thirteen noms. In fact, four new archives exist where my articles should be included (Wikipedia:Recent_additions_215, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_216, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_217, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_218). Please become acquainted with both the archiving process and my statistical argument before sweeping my complaint under the rug. My point is that it seems to be among the many coincidences that Triple Crown awarding has stopped since I became next in line. FAC reviewer paucity does not come close to explaining the sudden absence of support from anyone for any nomination I make.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
With regards to Satyr, editors leave all the time and he left a large number of projects with a big hole to fill, not just your fiefdoms. In terms of LOTM, perhaps editors have become bored with the excessive bureaucracy there or are actially using their time to write some articles, because they certainly aren't reviewing any. Every review process is suffering from a chronic shortage of reviews, not just the ones that you have nominated. I think you need to put the tin-hat back in the cupboard and move on. Woody (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand people leave. His absence is not curious in isolation. My first two complaints I am making are actually extremely curious in isolation. Let's start with the first of my complaints. Can anyone who understands statistics and the archive process explain a 10^-20 event to me as a coincidence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
SatyrTN, god love him, also left WP:LGBT botless. I should claim homophobia, but I think Satyr's bot was as gay as he was. There is a bot request forum, which I employed while trying to get out the newsletter for WP:LGBT. WP:Florida is also silent. I don't know who to blame for that...someone who's not in the room will do... All groups go through phases of fierce productivity, lulls, patterns as members join and leave. --Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit to add: I left comments for the FAC of Walter O'Malley. I remember reviewing it and the state of the article during FAC. Please feel free to ask me questions about those comments. --Moni3 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable work. But, if you expect recognition, Wikipedia isn't really much for that. We're volunteers, and the pay we get for our efforts is just as often abuse as it is thanks. That's life. Give yourself a couple barnstars if it makes you feel better. Friday (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I could go on about this, but I won't, other than to say I see nothing for an admin to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is where an investigation would start if you were investigatively inclined: First determine the thirteen individuals who each curiously omitted archiving my DYK in proper sequence. That would lead to clues for an investigatively inclined admin.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
So that would imply some sort of conspiracy? Also, can't you archive them yourself? Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The point is I am not suppose to have to run around behind every archiver. I added the four that were mistakenly omitted. However, if every single one is going to be omitted something should be done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that you are being blacklisted, in addition to the absence of SatyrTN I have noticed a sharp decline in several areas of WP including edits in general. It seems that people just aren't participating as much lately. I for one have drastically reduced the amount of time I spend editing and creating articles because my RFA and other RFA's have shown me that the general feeling within the established community seems to be that participating in wikispace and non article pages are more important when striving to become an admin and get the mop. So although I no longer desire the admin bit the unnecessary buearocracy and drama that has been prevailing on WP of late also caused me a lack of edit-drive and thus reduced editing. Perhaps others have the same feelings. Good Luck.--Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Again no explanation that seems feasible for a 10-20 event.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You will likely not find a feasible on on WP. All you can do is keep editing and accept that eventually (hopefully) your edits will be recognozed.--Kumioko (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You are failing to understand both the archive process and the statistical argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand the argument I just think that its WP in general and not you or the edits your making. Moral seems to be low lately and less editors are participating in things like reviews and archiving. It could also be that whomever is doing the DYK's wanted to use some from other editors instead of the bulk coming from 1 or 2 users as they have in the past. I looked at the DYK's and there are a lot of different users DYK's instead of a lot of DYK's from a few editors. I think Satyr had so many things going on they went for the easy win and used submissions from editors they were familiar with and trusted (IE you) and now someone else is trying to spread that out and give more edits a shot at getting a DYK. I have no explanation for the featured articles or lists other than the reviews have been slower and slower lately.--Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You now seem to be confused on my complaint. It has nothing to do with which DYKs are selected. I am talking about archiving which is a matter of process not choice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony, it seems as if you won't be satisfied until someone creates a reason to fit into your calculation. "Everyone is slacking" seems to fit, as well as the fact that it's summer, no school, vacations, wikidrama, people will stay in a group for a few months and years and move on. We all will sooner or later. (Though we know it will all fall apart without us, no?) --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that slacking explains why the archivers are archiving all the DYKs but mine?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't know. My explanation was more about the larger picture, which it seemed you were trying to make with the inclusion of many facets of Wikipedia. Don't leave out the cause that, were I involved in DYK, would be the reason your contributions would not be archived: incompetence. --Moni3 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you want? People who aren't archiving DYK properly to be blocked? Some sort of wiki-investigation into a massive conspiracy? Based on what you've presented, it looks like people are just tiring of some processes. The solution is to advertise them and get new editors involved rather than claiming a conspiracy against you. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are all DYKs bar yours being archived? You have not, in fact, produced any evidence to support the assertion that you are the only one affected by the archiving issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dammit Tony, you caught us! Come on guys, let's just admit it. Wikipedia is trying to blacklist you Tony. First we started by suspiciously not adding your dyk's to archives, then we moved on to shunning any of your noms, and then, as icing on the cake, we stopped submitting lists to List of the day, list of the month, list of the fortnight, List of the every third Wednesday, whatever it is today. We also have a secret page at WP:TONY (mysteriously red-linked) where we can conceive all of our ideas to blacklist you. Seriously, when I log-in, that's the first and only thing I think about. How can I destroy Tony's Wiki-carer? And see, SatyrTN's little diatribe about taking a Wiki-break cuz he is building a new house is fake (can you believe the audacity of some people, actually doing things in RL...), it was just a cover so we could stop helping you. I am sorry Tony, but for some reason everyone's goal on Wikipedia isnt writing articles (pssshh who would even believe that's what we are here for?), it is to do everything we can to blacklist you! Guys next time we just have to be a little more secretive, Tony caught on pretty quick. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 20:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to antagonize him. There is also not much need for administrator assistance, so I can't see why this is here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Tagishsimon has made the most relevant point here. Tony, you need to look at all DYKs for the period covering the 13 that weren't archived, and see how many were not archived, and then take things from there. What I will say, thought, is that if anyone wanted to blacklist you, then "not archiving DYKs" would come pretty low down the list. It doesn't actually affect anyone whether DYKs are archived or not. The DYKs appeared on the main page, the templates were put on the article talk page, and the template was put on your page, right? Those are the important things. The archiving is nice, but not essential. I don't have any comments on the other points. Carcharoth (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If not archiving DYKs is low on the list where would coordinating failing WP:FC rank?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm' not sure I understand your question, Tony. Here's what I was writing when we ECd.
Indeed, and to emphasize Carcharoth's point, were you being blacklisted, then I think it unlikely that your articles would have been chosen for DYK. Surely your nominations would have been ignored? Absent the DYK issue, and issues 2 - 5 look less compelling. I can see why 2 would add to the paranoia. 3 is surely well enough explained by apathy. 4 is a much better example of apathy ... seriously, what is the connection between your blacklist and the whole community becoming disinterested in adding nominations to LOTM? How exactly does that slight you, anyway? And 5 - another personal retirement. Surely, as someone claiming a grasp of statistics, you can see that you are selecting evidence to suit your predisposition, that you are being blacklisted. How on earth do you reconcile your blacklisted status with the fact that 13, no less, of your articles were DYKd. And please answer, and do not duck, the significant question about whether or not the failure to archive DYKs applied to others. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Tagging this as resolved as nothing is going to happen but not-entirely-unjustified snipes against Tony. Nothing to see here. Naerii - Talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think I withdraw 1 due to a misunderstanding of whether they have gotten to my dates. It seems they have stopped or slowed the DYK archiving and may just be way behind. I still contest the support blanking of all my featured content. It is extremely curious.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is SandyGeorgia lamenting about the lack of reviewers throughout FAC. It's not just you who is being affected. The reviewers who are replying, though, are giving good suggestions, so their objections (or comments, rather) are actionable. I'm not sure I see any problem here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this harassment?[edit]

WillyJulia (talk · contribs) is continuing to target myself over Chris Crocker a WP:BLP. At first they were trying to introduce identifying information on the subject against policy and consensus and when I intervened they copied my userpage, annoying but apparently allowable. Lately they have been posting on my talk with pronouncements and dictates for article changes (here, here and now here) despite my encouragement to use the article talk page for discussing changes. I see this as generally harassing me and this user's sole contributions here have been to disparage the subject of the article in various ways and then target other editors who have intervened. As I seem to be the focus of this attention I would appreciate other's take on this as I feel any warning or words from myself may not be seen in a neutral way. Thank you for any advice and assistance. Banjeboi 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a bit of a warning, and watchlisted the relevant talk pages. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
And there's the response. I consider the warning read and understood, and will go forward on that basis. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Willy requests that three sources be provided for analysis, then retorts with this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the user's history of personal attacks, I take it as a kind of baiting. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess I forgot that I gave notice to Willy only two days ago, so this is his leash being tightened. If there are anymore, please let me know and I'll do a lengthy block. We don't need abusive "editors" like this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This relates to a BLP, so why don't we just ban him/her from the article and its talk page for six months per this? They could possibly become a good editor if they focused on another topic. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked him 24 hours for this edit (coming back to the user's talk page after being warned not to). This short block was meant only to stop the current disruption. A lengthening or an article ban are worth thinking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(De indent, replying to WP:BLPBAN proposal) What possible reason would we have for bringing out the "special" big stick here? Just because a new hammer exists, please do not go looking for nails. My disagreements with it aside, this ruling is explicitly for the worst most intractable cases. If we normalise extreme action by applying it whenever we feel like squashing someone extra hard then the potential for abuse goes up by orders of magnitude. - brenneman 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The other option is to block the user from editing the site. Surely it's better to restrict them from editing the problem area and see if they'll contribute constructively in another topic area, rather than just to block them totally? The only difference between a community topic ban on Chris Crocker and using the enforcement is one requires a consensus pre-action, whereas the other doesn't. That's the only difference. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth I see this editor as having the potential to be a good editor just having a rather confrontational style which isn't often helpful. They have made some valid insights that have helped improve the article but the drama and excess energy of others to deal with the related problems is problematic. Wikipedia isn't a blog or chatroom but it is an online universe so I understand when users behave in a manner that would fit in better at other online communities. I wouldn't recommend a topic-ban as much as some version of schooling that WP:Civility is a core concern and improving articles requires working with other editors towards improving articles. Banjeboi 02:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To comment, it is worth some thought regarding a topic ban regarding Chris Crocker, but an equal amount of thought should be devoted to reviewing actions that transcend the article. There are many instances of gross incivility and personal attacks, for example, that no topic ban would be able to cover. I am suggesting in short, a topic ban from Chris Crocker, and an immediate block for any personal tirades and attacks. seicer | talk | contribs 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Amandapanda1989[edit]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. First edit right out of the chute was a fully formed and wikied article on a completely NN band. Edit summaries were self-congratulatory, as in "hooray, I just edited Wikipedia!" I tagged it as a speedy and sho' nuff, she's found the hangon key and is in a bit of a panic on the article talk page, claiming that she doesn't know what to do to the article to get it to stay. Strange, considering the skill level of wiki editing this individual shows. I'm not trying to bite a new user, but this is just, well, strange and I thought I should alert someone to it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say that's a handily done page. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it, though? That's why I raised the concern. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, anyone who can code up an article like that in one edit has got to be at least somewhat ok :) I've waived the speedy and put on a prod instead. Let's see if she knows (or reads) she can rm it straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK by me. I'd rather see it stay if the band really is notable. With all the "Myspace bands" we get clobbered with, it's too easy to pick off a possibly notable one. Good call. :) Gotta call it a night. Thnaks for looking into this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

She rm'd it and added a cite, cheers to that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Undelete requested[edit]

Resolved

The article on Doualy Xaykaothao was deleted about one month ago at the subjects request. The reason for the delete has expired now so it should be undeleted. - Icewedge (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhh.. it was deleted citing some OTRS ticket. I imagine the folks who handle such stuff would be the ones to know when/if it should be undeleted. I recommend nobody touch this one without further information. Friday (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, your best bet is to email the guy who deleted and ask if it's OK. (See [[WP:OTRS for more info.) giggy (:O) 14:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I talked with her over e-mail when the article was first deleted. She had the article deleted because she needed to get into Myanmar to do some journalism and prominent web mentions could have jeopardized that. She just sent an e-mail saying that her trip was over. Check the history of the deleted page as well, I believe one edit summary contains a request to have the article deleted for a month; a month has expired. See the original AN thread here. - Icewedge (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Restored (bar one edit) Happymelon 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed a couple more edits, as I figured it would be best not to have the journalist's personal email in the history. - auburnpilot talk 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection Policy clarification[edit]

If an admin and another user get in an edit war/dispute, and a non-involved admin (never edited the article) protects it and asks for dispute resolution on the talk page, I assume it is a no-no for the edit warring admin to lift the page protection arbitrarily, without asking the protecting admin and without any consensus to do so on the talk page. Is this correct? pschemp | talk 15:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. That's wheel-warring. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but other than wheel warring, it violates the protection policy, correct? pschemp | talk 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not really an abuse of the protection policy per se, it's an abuse of the admin protection tool because an involved administrator has undone an uninvolved admin without consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the part that says, "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute."? pschemp | talk 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well yeah then, it is against the protection policy - there are more warnings against doing things like that in the admin policy, hence why I said it was more abuse of tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for response. pschemp | talk 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... a one-side discussion, I take it. Thanks for informing me of this. To start, the said discussion above involves urban exploration to which I have edited for several years now. It should be noted that there was no edit war at the article; it involved two reverts by Papa Lima Whiskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who continued to insert a POV tag without discussion, and one by myself due to a lack of discussion regarding the tag. That's not an edit war. If you followed up on the talk page, you would note that there seems to have been consensus towards removing the POV tag on the basis that it was unwarranted. Various citations provided by Papa Lima Whiskey that would have validated the use of the POV tag proved to be worthless; the citations were in no way related to urban exploration and its subtopics in the context of the original discussion.

Which was, urban exploration poses an undue financial burden for the owners of the property. The article did not mention that. Or that urban exploration involved illicit activities, which it does not always. There was much discussion and there seems to be a consensus towards removing the POV tag on the basis that no credible sources were found to validate the above claims. Since you were not actively monitoring the article and clearly did not read any of the involved discussions, and that there were changes needed to be made involving more than the POV tag... The tag was up for a week with faulty reasoning, hence its removal (6 June to 13 June).

If I was in error, then I apologise, but you could have handled this far better than leaving this nonsense and opened up a more reasonable discussion on my talk page (rather than leaving me out of the loop). seicer | talk | contribs 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist[edit]

Didn't want to announce this before (in case I was reverted), but Brion just sync'd the code live. Just wanted to let other sysops know that the Spam blacklist now applies to edit summaries. Have a good day. ^demon[omg plz] 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

\o/ Great work. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

request to delete a template[edit]

Could someone please delete the template below? Editors are starting to use it again.

--Rockfang (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, just to check first: Have they all been replaced as per the discussion? PeterSymonds (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Anything that wasn't set to 100% was swapped with {{reflist}} and everything else was switched to <references/>--Rockfang (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Viktor Rydberg and Lotte Motz[edit]

These two articles are currently the subject of an edit war largely relating to rsradford (talk · contribs) (who is apparently behind this site:[6] and is currently blocked) and the users Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs). Administrator Dbachmann (talk · contribs) has been here now and then, but I don't believe his involvement has helped the situation at all. I'd like to request another uninvolved administrator with no relationship with any of these editors to come in and take a look at what's going on. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look. It appears to me that the involvement of rsdadford is very different in the two articles. In the case of Rydberg, he does seem to be removing relevant well-sourced information of the subject's sexuality. In the case of Metz, he is trying to insert appropriate sourced quotations about her biography. There are many specifics I have not fully gone into yet. In terms of manner and argument, his style of discussion is not compatible with proper collaborative editing--but neither is that of some of the people who oppose him. I'm not trying to give a judgment here, just put the matter in perspective from someone looking at it afresh. DGG (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have given a final warning to one of the eds. involved about NPA, continuing after this matter has been raised here. DGG (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:AnotherSolipsist[edit]

I don't know where to report this or if this is even the right place for it but another user has been aggressively harrassing me to no end despite that we never had any communication directly to each other. The only basis for his action is that I joined a controversial article page and he happened to be on the "other side" as he sees it because I added to the article things that he didn't like which is addressing my interest in child abuse concerns, which is part of my larger interest in social concerns, welfare etc. I didn't know that the page would be such a hornet nest and since I have no interest in making enemies especially with people I don't know.

First he accused me of being someone else and now he is endlessly "stalking" me on whatever page I go and using specious reasons for undoing almost everything I do. For example, there is are pages that list the age of consents for states or countries in a certain part of the world. To help make things clear, I added the range of age of consents (like 16 to 18) based on the ages listed in the article. He keeps deleting this because there is "no source."

Another example of him taking away my contribution with a specious reason is on the child abuse page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_abuse&diff=219981130&oldid=219861014 where he says "poor title". If you look at the section you can easily see the change from "Effects" to "Psychological Damage" that I did was really a *better* title. The whole section talks about anxiety, psychiatric problems, etc. I'm coping the paragraph below so you can see exactly what I mean.

"Children with a history of neglect or physical abuse are at risk of developing psychiatric problems,[14][15] including a disorganized attachment style.[16][17][18] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,[19] as well as anxiety, depressive, and acting-out symptoms.[20][21] A study by Dante Cicchetti found that 80% of abused and maltreated infants exhibited symptoms of disorganized attachment.[22][23]

The effects of child abuse vary, depending on its type. A 2006 study found that childhood emotional and sexual abuse were strongly related to adult depressive symptoms, while exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence had a moderately strong association, and physical abuse a moderate one. For depression, experiencing more than two kinds of abuse exerted synergetically stronger symptoms. Sexual abuse was particularly deleterious in its intrafamilial form, for symptoms of depression, anxiety, dissociation, and limbic irritability. Childhood verbal abuse had a stronger association with anger-hostility than any other type of abuse studied, and was second only to emotional abuse in its relationship with dissociative symptoms.[24]"

Is there anyway to get him to stop? Otherwise I see no end to this. I cannot imagine anything that could cause such an extreme reaction especially from someone I've never talked to. This is unbelievable. --Burrburr (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the preliminary CU findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox which do have a bearing on this user's credibility. MBisanz