Noticeboard archives

## Killer Kowalski's death

Legendary wrestler Walter "Killer" Kowalski has died earlier today. I'm having a hard time finding references and sources. Can someone help me? Noble12345 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's sources of his death on the page. Am I missing soemthing? D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure this is the best place for your question but have you tried Google News? I found this just now... All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

## Tweak to AOR

I had an idea - does Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall#Proposal_for_changes_to_AOR make the whole AOR process fairer and address both ways it can be rorted then folks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

this is hardly a "tweak" -- you are proposing compulsory recall for all admins. Was that intended as ironic? (I'm not judging the merits)DGG (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess it was a bit of an understatement, but I figured it was a balance - compulsory participation but vetting of recalls by bureaucrats. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is to make recall mandatory for admins. Just thought I'd make that crystal clear for anybody reading this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that there should be an admin recall to all current admins. This has been discussed before, I don't remember a consensus. I think that every admin should have to go through recall at this point as we have many admins, and we can cut back by eliminating the admins that don't need to have the extra tools, or should have them taken away, if you know what I'm saying. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
How many times does this need to be addressed? There is no consensus for this. Corvus cornixtalk 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Um... are you sure you've thought that through? Stifle (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I raised the idea above because of issues with the AOR WRT Elonka and mindful of how it can be gamed in either direction. My proposal was pretty well nixed by everyone (which is fine). I thought about it some more and it really depends on how folks feel the current system is doing. Pretty clear the majority are against AOR, and I too cannot see its value and how it does anything not already covered by RfC, AN/I or arbcom, so it really depends on whether arbcom feel overworked, and my impression from discussion in the proposal to enlarge or devolve arbcom was that jpgordon indicated this was not the case. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## Deleteing talk page comments

There was a bunch of controversial edit's referencing the activist blog Daily Kos made to Sarah Palin article. I made a mention of this and my entire post was deleted - I was referring to a question about information that someone removed. I know general talk is not allowed but I need a second opinion regarding the deletion of my talk page post. Here is the edit he deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&oldid=235231715 --Papajohnin (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The post was specifically directed toward article content. The user was told about this notice on WP:AN through his talk page to give a chance to defend his actions--Papajohnin (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have found out that the activist blog Daily Kos website is hotlinking to the Sarah Palin article. Which would explain the previous 2 post up why a request was put in to semi-protect the article. Seems like one user had a wiki account tho. ${\displaystyle \sim }$   papajohnin (talk)(?)  23:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kos is a well-respected political blog with Democratic Party leanings. "Activist" seems to be a loaded term, unless you consider the Democratic and Republican Parties as "activist" organizations. Corvus cornixtalk 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is the link you wanted. You do use some loaded language, and calling people on Daily Kos "kids" isn't going to win you any points, neither is repeatedly referring to the blog as "activist". Corvus cornixtalk 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your obviously missing the point. This was to address the reason why the article had to get semi-protected(thankfully it has been) and one users concerns over another user(not me) removing a speculative statement from Daily Kos in the article - and shortly thereafter having my reason deleted by a proponent of the blog entries addition to the article. I'll rehash that again: Not the content of the of the blog entry, but the deletion of my rationale for removal of the blog entry. Does that make any sense? =P
Activism is not a "loaded" word, nor is it perjorative, nor was it used as an ad hominem. As you can see from the wiki article I just linked for you. Even the wiki article that you wikilinked for me (Daily Kos) refers to them as netroots activist. I can't possibly imagine someone who is interested a political subject taking offense to being labeled an Activist but If I offended anyone by calling them an Activist I'm truly sorry as it was obviously not my intention to insult. If the page having been locked is any relevance to you I'm sure you would agree with my statement about the said behavior as being considered childish. Hence my reference to them being like "Kids". I don't think I was out of line but maybe you are right, I shouldn't have resulted to calling them "Kos Kids" I just get agitated when people use Wikipedia to peddle propaganda.
Now since you brought up the content I think I should address your statements. The Daily Kos is an extremely slanted political blog with their own version of Wikipedia that they admit is biased. In their forums there are a group of members who take it upon themselves to bring that said information to Wikipedia. In most academic circles it would be considered an outright travesty to do this. I won't address your statement about Daily Kos being considered highly respected as that is one highly debatable position your pushing because I could say the same for any relatively sized Conservative blog and it would be just as valid - but of coarse using either of them for a reference in an encyclopedia for anything other than critical commentary remains against policy. and from what I understand(elaborate if I misread you) your saying that because a blog has a large member base, that it somehow nullifies the fact that the information is biased and should therefore be allowed to Wikipedia? No matter what the source - posting link's and referencing wildly speculative information is considered bad etiquette under any circumstances. ${\displaystyle \sim }$   papajohnin (talk)(?)  23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It's too bad you couldn't have been this eloquent in the talk page comment that I removed. That comment reads like a rant with no particular point. If you had said, "Daily Kos is encouraging people to insert unsourced material into the article," I would have left it alone. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Me too - I used a generalized personal attack but you could have atleast left something in the edit box as to why you removed it other than 'editorilzation' - which would be valid if it was on an article but not a talk page. Or leave me something other than what you left me on my talk page. Very well, I will delete my message and start a new section about abuse of that article from and a warning about unsourced speculation on the talk page. Admin's please consider this resolved. ${\displaystyle \sim }$   papajohnin (talk)(?)  03:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"extremely slanted" is your personal opinion. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the Daily Kos as a source. Corvus cornixtalk 06:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## User:Nathan Jay Williams

Okay, I asked what to do with a situation where User:Nathan Williams redirected his user page and talk page to User:Nathan Jay Williams. Whoever responded told me to ask them what they wanted (name change, or whatever). Now, it has been 8 days since I asked and he hasn't responded. SO, I believe his pages should at least be moved back to their proper places. Thanks. Cavenba (talkcontribs) 01:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the user page back, and merged the histories of the 2 talk pages at the correct location. Kevin (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## Talk:Question Mark (?) and the Mysterians

Not of earth-shattering importance, probably, but it comes up as a redirect page, so it should probably be tagged for {{WikiProject Redirect}}. I tried, & couldn't, thanks to a blacklist.... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## Bongwarrior screwed up again

Resolved: Article resorted minus vandalised revision --Chris 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone try their luck at restoring Newcastle Grammar School please? I mistakenly thought it was a new article and deleted it as nonsense, but it was just a vandalized version that I saw (sorry, tired eyes). I'm getting a "database query syntax error" when I try to restore. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't seem to do it either, I'll bug a dev --Chris 09:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That message has been coming up for a few actions today, I think it is a server capacity problem as I was able to restore the last edit only (and delete it again) but it fails when I try to restore the entire article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Tim has fixed it --Chris 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## Autoblocks

I asked this on WP:VPT with no success so I'll try again here. Would it be possible to make a replacement for the old, non-working autoblock finder or is this something which can't be done? Any volunteers? ;) Thanks, GDonato (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## User:Milosppf

Resolved: Communication with the editor achieved. — Coren (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Milosppf (talk · contribs) has been getting warnings since February about uploading copyrighted images without proper rationales, and yet, he/she continues to do so. Corvus cornixtalk 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From a review of the editors contribs, they edit almost exclusively in Serbian popular/rock music areas. It is possible that their level of English is not sufficient to understand either the policies nor the notices they recieve, so I suggest some good faith toward attempting to achieve an understanding with this editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The lack of acknowledgment or apparent understanding is troublesome. I have blocked them until they acknowledge the problem and assert they will stop posting problematic contents. I understand language might be a barrier, but that simply makes stopping the problem until communication can be attained more important, IMO. — Coren (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
unblocked, per his request. I hope he has understood the lesson. -- lucasbfr talk 14:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## Image whitelist request

Would someone like to volunteer to whitelist Image:Anus of a model by David Shankbone.jpg,Image:Anus 2.jpg, and (for good measure) Image:Anus m.jpg for use in the article Human anus? Recently the human-related content was moved from the old location Anus to the new one. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This does need to be done. Any takers? All you need to do is adjust the corresponding entries at MediaWiki:Bad_image_list. It will only take a minute or two. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Done – iridescent 17:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## Template:Rfcu box and noindex?

Resolved: {{NOINDEX}} has been added to Template:Rfcu box by Rootology. Anthøny 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea for this one template at Template:Rfcu box to be non-indexed with {{NOINDX}}? There are an awful lot of false positives (and hits) mixed into the 1560+ pages that contain it. rootology (C)(T) 08:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no problems with that. It's not something that should be indexable via Google (whyyy??) and there have been quite a number of RL names appearing in there, betimes - Alison 08:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. There's no need to rub people's noses in it. And now we can NOINDEX User:Jon Awbrey as well, which can only be good. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

## Sarah Palin

I tried to fix a broken reference on this article, but some admin has protected both the article and its talk page. Protect the article, fine, but preventing logged out users from even commenting on the talk page is pathetic. Please fix reference 57. It currently reads "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named HiredHelp". 72.147.76.31 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Very_brief_Sprotection and look at the talk history. There are a frightening number of IP BLP vios going nuts there, so a decision was made to protect the page. rootology (C)(T) 16:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Three cheers for censorship! If you're going to prevent the vast majority of editors of this project from editing both the article and its talk page, the least you can do is create a talk page where logged out users can comment. 72.147.76.31 (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an unusual situation. The talk page was being hammered with IP libel spam. If you're just logged out, can't you just log in? Wellspring (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No wai, The Man will get his credit card number and put a microchip in his brain if he does!!!11one JuJube (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Have no fear, the very defenders of free speech have made their feelings quite clear on my talkpage and userpage. I have given their rights due consideration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Blocks. User:John Reaves is threatening to block people who remove the pregnancy information. This should be resolved now. Corvus cornixtalk 21:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth please. The blocks threat was in regard to the removing of one non-contentious section that beginning to be disruptive. John Reaves 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## User:Lilplayboii

Is this kind of stuff allowed? Cheers, sicaruma (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, since it's not actually advertising anything (the bluelinks are all false-positives, and the company info is for Hot Topic), provided at some point they move on to real articles. It's no more disruptive than (for example) this. – iridescent 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the category, though.--MrFishGo Fish 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) may be temporarily inactive

Hi. I noticed that this admin, who is from New Orleans, stopped editing at 12:15 UTC Saturday; this coincides approximately with the announcement of mandatory evacuation of New Orleans; this is just to notify editors that the admin might not respond to queries at the current time. This is admin-related and should probably be left on AN for informational purposes; this is not a general public service announcement regarding Hurricane Gustav. Although likely currently temporarily inactive, I don't think this warrants a list onto inactive admins list unless you feel otherwise because this is most probably only for the time being. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## True or false?

It's not listed on the list of sensitive IP addresses. J.delanoygabsadds 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

False (it's Qatar & Singapore that have the "single IP address" issue). – iridescent 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There is another IP address that is all of the UAE. Maybe this is a new one now? --mboverload@ 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The UAE doesn't have a huge amount of IP addresses, but it definitely doesn't have just one. (I seem to recall 768 /24s being quoted somewhere, but I can't find it now). Black Kite 00:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## Question

At Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 30, I listed Image:Imslayout.PNG for deletion. It was recommended by somebody, but it's not deleted. Can somebody delete this thing? Noble12345 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving, these discussions are designed to get broad consensus over a period of at least 5 days. Since you only listed the image a day or two ago (and listed it twice, I might add, for the benefit of the closing admin) and I don't see it falling into either of those categories, it's still got some time to go. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

## So, did we figure out what to do about Calton?

Did we agree to anything here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 or are we going to? It sounded like we were headed towards some kind of serious sanction against Calton, but we never finalized the decision that I could tell. Leaving this hanging will just make the problem worse.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? What "problem" are you claiming? Missing some opportunity to throw your weight around? Not being able to punish someone who didn't stand up and salute you and other self-assuming authority figures just because you demand it? Or maybe it's that by-God some spam pages might be deleted and spammers blocked without being coddled.
So be specific: what ACTUAL "worse problem" are you talking about? Hint: not saluting when someone cries "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!" is not an actual problem, no matter how you spin it. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That response alone illustrates the problem with how you interact with other editors, Calton. It's already been established that Calton will be blocked for retagging denied speedies, and I'd support a civility restriction. - auburnpilot talk 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked for a substantive reply, not vague handwaving, nose-sniffing, and authoritative threats. Try again. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? Hrm, the constant edit warring with other editors because you think that your judgment is the only one that matters? –xeno (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I just blocked for two weeks for incivility. Tan ǀ 39 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
His comments were apparently a somewhat slow response to my removing his rollbacker privilege. I had given them to him early this year based on his experience but cautioned him about my concerns that I'd seen complaints of possible edit warring. I don't know that he ever used the privilege but I was away for a while and when I came back I noted the 0RR restriction - noted in the recently archived thread I referenced above. I told him that I was revoking his rollbacker simply because it was inconsistent with a 0RR restriction and not because of any misconduct. Everything is on his talk page, and there's plenty there if anyone is interested.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• So, my understanding is that Calton's formal restrictions are as follows:
1. 0RR restriction previously imposed (anyone got a link for that?)
2. Indefinite prohibition on edits to any user pages except his own other than reasonable CSD and MFD nominations. Per the above referenced AN thread, archived yesterday.
3. A two week block for incivility per Tan above.
4. We were discussing whether there should be some sort of civility restriction particularly with respect to user talk pages and/or unreasonable tagging of user or usertalk pages with G11.
We need to give him notice of his editing restrictions so we ought to decide what we're going to do here and I'd like some confirmation of the above restrictions.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• You could always try treating him as an adult, that might help. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tagging a user page as WP:CSD#G11 if it is an advertisement, WP:NOT includes "Wikipedia is not a free web host". Obviously a link or two to people's own projects is not advertising, but several user pages are blatant advertisements either created in userspace or moved there from mainspace. And now I suggest you go and talk to user:Geogre about the utter irredeemable stupidity of issuing two-week retaliatory blocks for "incivility" which is, in fact, merely a spirited defence against what looks suspiciously like pushing a grudge. And I mean that, talk to Geogre and if after a considered exchange of views (i.e. where you listen to him) you still feel that blocking Calton would achieve anything other than drama and making us all look like idiots, feel free to sugfgest it again. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• The problem lies in that he will "spiritly defend" any of his actions, through edit warring or incivility. I don't doubt that he does identify pages that do need to go - but when someone disagrees with his assessment it would be best if he just walked on. I don't see how Doug could be pushing a grudge, because he's the uninvolved admin who granted him rollback a while back. –xeno (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Guy, if you really believe that it would be possible to have a "considered exchange of views" with Calton over issues such as this, you have a very poor sense of pattern recognition. Giving Calton an umpteenth chance and leaving him unblocked is the thing that causes drama and makes us look like idiots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I said Geogre not Calton. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Not that this is going to make much of a difference, but I feel compelled to add my two cents... I haven't had a run in with Calton in over a year, but that run-in, or more correctly his behaviour during that time, is scorched into my memory. Very rarely have I encountered such an abrasive Wikipedian, who enjoyed baiting his "opponents" and in fact blatantly stated that he was doing just that. I obviously have no comment on his recent actions, but perhaps it should be kept in mind that this sort of behaviour has been going on for at least a year (and in terms of full disclosure, I was probably no angel myself, but Calton's uncivil behaviour was honestly quite unlike the vast majority of Wikipedian's I have dealt with). PageantUpdater talkcontribs 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

### Unblock Calton, please

Calton has made exactly three edits today: [2], [3], [4]. For this he was blocked for two weeks for incivility. Sorry, but I don't think that s even remotely proportionate to the offence, if offence it was (which I'd dispute). There's clearly some bad blood here, the best thing would have been for Doug not to even start this conversation, since Calton had not even edited since 17 August, we have a whole host of dispute resolution processes, but here we have blocked someone who's been with the project for over three years, has thousands of edits, and whose only offence appears, at least to some interpretations, to be a refusal to be sufficiently deferential to an admin. Surely we have some real problems to fix here rather than spanking Calton? Guy (Help!) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, sorry to say this, but I don't think you're a very good judge of civility, given your previous use of profanity and blatantly sexist slurs. Kelly hi! 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sexist? When? Guy (Help!) 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just remember evidence of you using the terms "twat" or "cunt" towards other editors. Which was it (or was it both)? Do you really want me to go find the diffs? Kelly hi! 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it took about 30 seconds of searching. "Cunt"[5] and "Twat".[6] Also "Fuck off".[7] Need more? Kelly hi! 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That is not sexist, it is British English invective. And given that the user in question had just taunted me about the then very recent death of my sister, I think that it was if not appropriate then certainly wholly understandable. Do you have any idea just how vile that particular user's behaviour was? To taunt someone who had recently watched a sibling die in agony is not exactly pleasant, as the subsequent arbitration noted. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The British English thing won't cut it (I've lived there and know perfectly well that you don't call people "cunt" in normal discourse), neither will the "victim card". You've explained one instance that I can sympathize with. How about the others? Is it normal in Britain to tell people to fuck off? (Clue - it's not.) Would you like me to bring some more diffs here? There are dozens, if not hundreds, in your RfC and Arbitration cases. You are no judge of civility, Guy, It's best that you go write some article, if you know how, and leave the judging of civility to civil people. With respect - Kelly hi! 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, that particular user was one of the most vile trolls I have ever come across, and I think most of those who remember him would concur with that judgement. See Bainer's evidence in arbitration. I said nothing to him that I would not have said to his face, always assuming I didn't deck him instead. That does not mean I am proud of it, but neither does it make it "sexist". I will put my hands up to being extremely rude on occasion, though not I think recently, but I do not believe I am prone to gender bias. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't buy the whole "not sexist" thing. In African-American culture, it's acceptable to use the term "nigger" to one's peers. A white editor here is not free to call a black editor a "nigger" just because it may be acceptable somewhere. Similarly, just because you may call your friends "cunt" or "twat" does not mean you should feel free to offend women here by throwing those terms around - they are among the most offensive terms you can use in the presence of a woman, and sensible people are perfectly aware of this - even in Britain. That you feel undeterred by this tells me that you are not a very good judge of civility (and possibly reactionary in regards to women's rights, though that is really irrelevant). Kelly hi! 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You have my full permission to consider me sexist, just be aware that I dispute that label and would challenge you to find any credible evidence for it outside of my occasionally ill-judged choice of cuss-words. I'll not link the words in question, but would point out that we discuss them in some detail and don't make any assertion in those articles that their use is considered evidence of sexism. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have, to my knowledge, never been involved with Calton or Doug. I have no grudge, and no prior history with this editor. There was no "bad blood" and the block wasn't simply for his three edits today. A "spanking" would have been the usual 24 hour wristslap (aka "cooldown block"). This one was for two weeks because I will not tolerate his behavior here, and if it occurs again after the block expires, the next block will be for a lot longer. Tan ǀ 39 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't do punishment blocks, we do blocks for prevention. What problem are you preventing by blocking Calton for two weeks? I'm not looking for a fight here, but I think this was not a good idea. And I'd like an answer from Alison to the question above as well, please. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Guy, which question would that be, please? Looks like I'm joining the party late here .... - Alison 09:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I am preventing him from being incivil to editors on Wikipedia. I'm also done arguing with you; your attitude/record predicts your responses. Tan ǀ 39 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, you know, if the editor with whom he is in apparent dispute had not started this thread then I don't believe he'd have said a thing. Doesn't that inform the issue in any way? Did anyone try discussing this with Calton and trying to broker peace or calm him down or get him to disengage or drop it? And since my attitude/record predicts my response, perhaps you could tell me what my next response will be. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Doug is not engaged in a dispute with Calton. All of this could have been completely avoided by Calton agreeing not to edit war (and trying not to be so "spiritful" in defense of his actions). –xeno (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A two week block on the basis of those three edits would have been excissive. A 2 week block on the basis of the recent attitude displayed is reasonable. ViridaeTalk 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the block is reasonable in light of the pattern of behaviour displayed over a sustained period of time. The responses he made in the section above were just the straw that broke the [whatever]'s back. naerii 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

/me wanders off to document the all-new WP:BADATTITUDE policy which allows for two-week blocks for surliness. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Er, have to agree with JzG. The comments seem mildly heated, arguably uncivil but not blockworthy. And a two-week block? C'mon. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
JzG, don't waste your time; we already have that policy. It's called WP:CIVIL. Calton has been an uncivil editor for a very long time. He's received plenty of warning and has been the subject of many AN/ANI discussions. The block duration may be a bit long (no real opinion on that) but the block itself was warranted. - auburnpilot talk 22:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Based on the recent edits and the block history, I am fine with a block that escalates from the past level but 2 weeks is too long - one week at most seems like a fair length. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'd just like to be clear here, I am not saying that he is a saint or that he did nothing wrong, only that the remedy is disproportionate and - more importantly - very unlikely to produce the desired result (unless, I guess, the desired result is to hound him out). I think the problem here for me is that we don't seem to have learned anything from Giano. I really do not think that civility blocks have any positive effect on long-standing contributors with attitude issues. I'm not saying the issues don't need to be fixed somehow, just that this does not seem to be, from past experience, an effective way of going about it. What Calton needs may be a "critical friend" he can trust, or some firm advice from an arbiotrator in private or something, but right now the comments and the block seem calculated to wound his pride, and since it's his pride which seems to be the cause of the problem I don't see how further wounding it is going to help. Sorry, I'm not saying this especially well as it;s much more nuanced than that, and I'm really not having a go at anyone, I just think that we need to find a better (read: effective) way of dealing wiht this kind of thing. Geogre says it far better than I do, which is why I urge people to read his talk page, comments and archives. The Geogre is wise in the ways of human nature. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Support unblocking. Too much emphasis is placed on 'civility', a highly subjective and over used excuse for blocking. --Duk 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

### Block shortened

As said above, there was no call for a two-week block; I shortened it to 72 hours. If consensus develops here to unblock earlier than that, that's fine with me too, but I felt action was necessary on the block length. Chick Bowen 00:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you look over the previous incidents involving Calton before you made this decision? Did you consult the blocking admin? Is it really worth wheel-warring to defend Calton? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clear--I am not defending Calton; I think his comments today were designed to inflame the situation, and that's unacceptable. My shortening the block does not in the least undo it--it merely puts it into the realm supported by the block reason given by the original blocker. To call this wheel-warring is to misunderstand what wheel-warring is. Chick Bowen 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I have a strong urge to be uncivil myself here. That block change was way, way out of line, Chick. Tan ǀ 39 01:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Good change, blocks are not punishment. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A two-week block is more appropriate given Calton's long-term pattern of behavior, but maybe three days will have an effect on him. When the block expires, let's have a clear consensus that future incivility will result in progressively longer blocks. And please, let's not reduce the length of the current block any further. Everyking (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I support this, but it is not going to fix anything without some work in the background. We need to find someone who Calton trusts and is prepared to work with, who can help Calton to curb his aggression. I would really like to hear from anyone who thinks they could fulfil that role. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks was quite disproportionate. 72 hours seems like a reasonable warning shot. Nandesuka (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think he considers himself warned? Right now he's arguing for an even shorter block because admins are "overweening" and "stupid" and because he "did nothing wrong". [8] rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest "shorten to 72 hours" until I saw it had already been done. Blocks are necessary but overly excessive ones do not help the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 06:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

### A little background

It was commented above that I never should have started this thread. I just want to make sure everyone is clear that all I intended was to ask whether we had actually come to any conclusion in the previous thread that archived yesterday. I had made the last comment there in which were discussing significant sanctions and then no one responded so the discussion passed into the black hole that is the AN archive. I am not totally uninvolved in that my name does show up several times on Calton's talk page and in the discussion earlier this year about his use of {{temporary userpage}}, which was solved by other means (deleting the template among other things). --Doug.(talk contribs) 01:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you have a philosophical dispute over whether spam is userspace is speedily deletable as spam under WP:CSD#G11 then I would suggest taking it to WT:CSD, but it has always been my understanding that blatant advertising meant just that: blatant advertising, wherever it appears. Maybe the consensus view these days is that the community wants to spend five days discussing the deletion of pages where Wikipedia is being used for free webhosting to promote commercial entities, that is quite possible, but I'd say that trying to fix it by stopping one person from so tagging userpages is not the best way of dealing with it. Some examples would be good as part of that debate, most of the G11 tagged userpages I've seen have been ones where I completely agree that it's an advert and needs gone, but of course I am a heartless deletionist and my dislike of spammers is well known. There are certainly other issues, but I don't see how they can easily be rolled into one with this specific point, which is a matter for legitimate disagreement between good-faith users. So: separate it out and see what people think? If you like we could use User:SpeakerBoxLLC (edit | [[Talk:User:SpeakerBoxLLC|talk]] | history | links | watch | logs | views) as a case study. Calton is not involved there at all. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• This is not about CSD G11, I am not aware of any issues with Calton misusing CSD G11, if you have read the earlier thread, the consensus seemed to be drifting towards allowing Calton to use CSD rather than simply a community limited ban against any userpage editing (aside from his own). He had been most recently blanking pages. Please read the earlier thread. It's on the most recent archive and it's linked above. If it hadn't archived, my position would be a little clearer maybe. Thanks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• The link again was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 and the mention was of any CSD, the example used there was U2, not G11. The issue is that Calton has shown historically that he just finds another way to do what he wants. After {{temporary userpage}} was eliminated he used the cat, then he was told not to use the cat, I think that was after another AN, and he eventually went away for a while and then came back using PROD, at some point that I wasn't even watching, he got a 0RR restriction, and he most recently has been blanking userpages that he personally believes are either advertising or worse "non-existent" (his shorthand for gone and not coming back) only sometimes they do come back. Read the prior thread and you'll see what I'm talking about. Ryan actually started this thread and I've only revived it since we never settled on the final sanctions (but seemed to settle that there would be sanctions) So I felt we needed to resolve it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's clearer to me now thanks, I can perhaps try to have a discussion offline about this as I think that particular problem is fixable. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

### So the question remains

Have we settled on what we're going to do? Guy wants to try to address the issue offline, but we seemed to have an agreement at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 to sanction Calton in the ways I've noted above. Additionally, we noted an earlier 0RR sanction but there is no mention of it on his talk page. Do we have a link to the earlier discussion that contained this sanction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug (talkcontribs) *** 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The 0RR restriction was never actually decided on because he simply stopped editing during the AN discussion. Someone needs to determine if there was consensus for 0RR and then formally inform him of it. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This is something he has had a tendency to do in each of the prior discussions.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't a party to the 0RR discussion, so I'm not sure what led to it. Can anyone help?--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I was pretty clear at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 that we were at least prohibiting any edits to userpages (other than his own), with the exception of nominations for CSD or MFD. In other words, no more page blanking. The discussion there certainly seemed to suggest an earlier 0RR had been agreed upon.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But that would stop him from tagging blatant spam in user space. I still think that dialogue is likely to be more effective than symptom-fixing. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone wants to stop the good spamfighting work he does, just the edit warring when someone comes along and decides that a particular bit isn't delete-worthy. –xeno (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I feel like I'm in a completely different forum. In the prior discussion one of the big issues, probably the biggest, was his incessant blanking of userpages with an edit summary of "nonexistent user".--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, shouldn't the outcome be :
1. No edits to other users' userpages other than to tag them for CSD or MfD - this allows him to carry on with his G11 work, but stops the "blanking non-user's page" he's engaged in in the past.
2. If CSD is declined, either by another editor removing the tag or an admin declining speedy, his only recourse is to tag it for MfD - retagging it for CSD would be expressly prohibited (although this wouldn't apply if the tag is removed by the user whose userpage it is).
3. If a report to UAA is declined he can discuss it with the declining admin (subject to the below), to outline his reasons, but relisting it at UAA is expressly prohibited.
4. In any discussions with any user he disagrees with, no matter how much he may feel that his intelligence is being insulted, he adheres strictly to WP:CIVIL and acknowledges that there are mechanisms to find a resolution to the dispute (ie. if there's a disputed CSD tag, MfD will resolve whether the page stays or goes) that don't have to involve hectoring and wiki-lawyering with everyone who disagrees with him.
And...forgive me if I'm wrong...but aren't those basically the rules that apply to everyone anyway? GbT/c 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You need to stop making sense right this very minute Gb. You're ruining the drama. I still have half a bowl of popcorn. Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Salt? Or sweet? GbT/c 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Popcorn was never meant to be anything other than salty. Anything else is just unnatural. Keeper ǀ 76 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Support community ban of Calton. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Supporting a community ban without a community ban actually being proposed is prima facie evidence of...oh, forget it. GbT/c 07:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I believe a limited community ban was proposed. That's why I restarted the thread, because we never finished the discussion, at least I didn't think we did.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was being semi-facetious...Kurt didn't make it clear that he was supporting a limited community ban. Anyway, without wishing to repeat myself, 1 - 4 above are the conclusions that I drew out of the previous discussions...
Oh, sorry, I guess I wasn't paying attention. It didn't register that you'd just written that. I agree that those are it and I guess the only thing different from other editors is that these things are expressly stated for Calton and therefore likely won't receive 4 levels of warning before any block, right? Is there something we need to do to notify Calton of this? Lack of notice was mentioned above as a problem with the prior 0RR. Also, is Calton subject to 0RR or not?--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he is subject to 0RR in respect of tagging pages for spam - that's what 2. above is designed to capture - if it's declined he cannot reinsert the tag. As for notification, well, it's pretty unlikely that he's not reading this thread, but once it disappears off to archive someone can post a link to its (unmoving) archived position on his talk page. GbT/c 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, I just thought the earlier 0RR was across the board. There was question as to whether he'd ever been notified of the 0RR. Above Xenocidic says that we never decided whether there was consensus in that earlier discussion and Calton wasn't formally notified he just stopped editing. So, the question is whether Calton is subject to a general 0RR restriction. It would be helpful if we had a link to the earlier discussion where the 0RR was discussed.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see you hand a loaded gun to every spammer and crackpot I ever cross paths with for -- what, exactly? Oh yeah, for being right and not bowing to "I am the Law!" as if it were an actual argument for anything. --Calton | Talk 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

### Response

So much distortions and occasional falsehoods to respond to, it's hard to know where to start. First, let me start with my original unblock message, since Xenocidic couldn't be bothered to actually read it before his knee-jerk upholding of the block:

Exactly as I expected: not for vandalism; not for damaging the encyclopedia; not for disruption; not for impairing in any way the actual work of building and/or improving the encyclopedia; not for attempting to hijack the encyclopedia to promote myself, fringe views, businesses, or a opinions; not for promulgating hate; not even, as the boilerplate text above says falsely in this case, making unconstructive contributions. Nope, as punishment -- not as a preventative measure -- for insufficiently sucking up to the wounded pride of the self-assuming authority figures. For not accepting "Because I'm the boss" as an actual rationale for administrator behavior nor thinking that wielding admin buttons in service of petty vendettas is woth overlooking, and for daring to say that vague handwaving and authoritarian threats are not ACTUAL ways of co-operative editing: actual recourse to actual arguments, actual policy, and actual common sense -- as opposed to to those who've mistaken Wikipedia for social-networking site with themselves as leaders wielding power in some virtual club.
As I've said over and over again, though everyone appears to keep ignoring it, I respond to actual arguments, not "I AM THE LAW."

Meanwhile, as for the comments above, let me pick out a few of the real gems:

Sorry; I read as far as 'stupid' and then stopped reading; you'll have better luck if you can manage a request that doesn't include insults

I'd say that actually reading the unblock reason is what a resonsible admin is supposed to do, especially if it's short, but maybe that's just me.

...leaving him unblocked is the thing that causes drama and makes us look like idiots.

Any appearence of idiocy is certainly not of my making. Am I also responsible for cancer, unemployment, and coreopsis?

Very rarely have I encountered such an abrasive Wikipedian, who enjoyed baiting his "opponents" and in fact blatantly stated that he was doing just that.

Mind-reading followed by borderline libel by someone with her own problems, angry that my nomination a year ago of a slew of non-notable biography pages were blown out of the water at AFD. She's certainly not one to talk about being "abrasive".

Hrm, the constant edit warring with other editors because you think that your judgment is the only one that matters?

I asked for actual examples and/or actionable items, and most every word in that statement is, as the saying goes, Not Even Wrong. I mean "Constant"? Hyperbole much?
Certainly a bad-faith mind-reading at worst and pure projection at best. Other than the fact I don't buy "Because I said so" as an actual argument -- choosing, instead, to rely upon actual policy, actual guidelines, actual practice, and actual common sense -- I'm waiting for an actual explanation.

Right now he's arguing for an even shorter block because admins are "overweening" and "stupid" and because he "did nothing wrong".

See, this is why I have such contempt for some admins, when they tell such blatant falsehoods. Distorting words to change their meaning (Hint 1: what does the adjective "stupid" apply to? Use ordinary rules of English syntax. Hint 2: What does the adjective "some" apply to, versus the claimed "all" of you charge?) and poison the well: classy.

The issue is that Calton has shown historically that he just finds another way to do what he wants.

Oh, that's hilarious coming from Doug, who's decided to do an end-run at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion to get around some very Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox policies because he apparently attributes magic powers to the "User" prefix that circumvent general policy and ordinary common sense. And while he's rewriting policy by the back-door, perhaps he should have consulted with those others, like Template:Spamsearch and others who don't think Wikipedia is free webhost for those who might-maybe-someday-sorta return despite all common sense and evidence to the contrary. Hint: [a page] of those oh-so-valuable editors who left now-deleted MySpace-like pages on Wikipedia before buggering off. What percentage have returned or have contributed further to Wikipedia. Go ahead, click around randomly on the "Contributions" links: how many have even ONE edit to their credit?

Doug is not engaged in a dispute with Calton.

Blatantly and obviously untrue. Or do you have some alternate theory as to what's at issue for Doug? See directly above for a small hint.

I don't think anyone wants to stop the good spamfighting work he does...

Doug seems to, as well as Ned Scott, who seems to believe that every time any page, anywhere, gets deleted on Wikipedia, God kills a kitten.

...just the edit warring when someone comes along and decides that a particular bit isn't delete-worthy.

Speaking of hyperbole. Nice use of "when", implying regular occurrence. Hint: I just checked and Kate's tool says I have nearly 26,000 deleted edits -- and that's not from bad articles I created which have been nuked, it's from tagging and bagging bad pages -- so how much edit-warring, exactly, as a percentage of that do you think has happened? If you've been told once, you've been told a million times, don't exaggerate.

But enough for now. If you think I'm being contemptuous, I'm getting a hell of a lot of raw material to work with here. --Calton | Talk 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, Calton, next time someone removes a tag that you've placed (not counting the creator of the page, they're not allowed to remove tags from their own pages) or declines a report you've made, are you willing to move on? If so, I think we can all live happily ever after. –xeno (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Calton, it's good to see that you decided not to be argumentative anymore. Kudos. Keeper ǀ 76 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And I think it's pretty clear that you are not to blank userpages, since that's what caused this whole fuss. CSD, MfD, civilly discuss with the user, or forget it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Calton, I'm a bit confused at your comment about me. While it is true that I fear kittens being killed because of some random connection to an on-wiki action... what do you expect to gain from insulting someone who supported your block being shortened? -- Ned Scott 02:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

### P.S. on the community culture

Xenocidic was the wrong admin to review the unblock request. How could you not know that, Xeno? On a minor note, Everyking ought to have acknowledged above that he and Calton are ancient, entrenched enemies. Everyking, for the record, I think Calton used to treat you badly when you were the underdog. But you ought nevertheless to have mentioned the old bad blood between you. Your comment obviously flowed out of it. (OMG AGF!) These things may well not have affected the outcome, but you've made yourselves look bad, guys. One of the things that says the most about our community culture is the way we treat blocked users: carefully or carelessly. Oh, and I agree Doug should never have started this thread. OK, everybody sufficiently mad at me now? Between WP:AN and WP:AE, I'm getting amazingly popular. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

## Range Blocks and Col. Damage

Earlier after dealing a ticket I cited on AN/I a range block of 90.200.0.0/16. Now I understand short term (2 weeks or less) range blocks to deter vandals and the such. However, after having the availability of a list of active range blocks (such is available via the logs, this information is publically available) I have a couple of concerns with long term range blocks:

I would present the following to a candid community, in that;

• Large range blocks with long expiry would deny editors the chance to edit anon, as is our goal to permit.
• Revert, block, ignore works just as well as large range blocks, but without the denial of editing.
• The range blocks are geographically biased (unintentionally) and could threaten geographical representation.

Could we review our range blocks and consider altering them, or unblocking them? Also what are the thoughts of putting some guidelines into our blocking policy? Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution of allowing individual articles to be protected against ranges instead of just semi/full/none. With that in place, we could have protected a handful of articles against 4.129.64.0/21 and 4.154.0.0/21, instead of blocking those two ranges for months. It would greatly reduce collateral damage if we were able to do that. Others have proposed similar solutions which differed in details, but most of them would be better than what we have to work with today. I think the current state of affairs is about the best we can do with the tools at hand.Kww (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Except that then, the 4.129.64.0/21 vandal can go on vandalizing other pages. I believe that the current system of page semi-protection + IP range protection probably can't reasonably be improved to prevent vandals from attacking specific articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of these long-term range blocks are designed to prevent socking. The 4.12.64.0/21 block is against Soccermeko, who obsessively edits articles about Kiki Shearer and Nicole Wray. Block the articles dealing with them against his IP ranges, and the problem goes away. I'm aware of similar ranges that are for similar socks: a seeming compulsion to edit a group of articles. No reason to block everyone in their dial-up pool from editing any articles if all you really need to protect is five or six articles.Kww (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Then someone creates a new article about the subject, and he vandalizes that. Alternatively, he defines "articles about Kiki Shearer and Nicole Wray" more broadly than you, and you don't block him from his pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## The admin recall process is dead

This section has been moved to: Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN) - last post over 24 hours ago. Time stamping this so it can be archived in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## Points system for admin recall

This discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#Points system for admin recall (WP:AN) - last post over 24 hours ago. Time stamping this so it can be archived in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## Dutch administrators, bureaucrats and editors handling of D.A. Borgdorff = User:86.83.155.44

• Because of no solution but "Catch 22", I'd repeat fyi attention from AN/I 464:

OK, this is a multi wiki case, and I am getting increasingly annoyed about it. The current part is here, I'll leave the other wikis to themselves (but mention them here to show similarities).

User:86.83.155.44 is an IP mainly/only used by (according to the signing etc.) D.A. Borgdorff. DAB came into problems on the Dutch wikipedia for some conflict of interest edits (don't know the case extensively, I am not a regular on nl.wikipedia, though I am Dutch), and apparently there have been some cases about that. I do see that the user indeed has that tendency of linking to own work/books, but if the reference is OK, and the editor is not only adding that, then it merits discussion, not plain blanking of such edits. I'd like to note at this point that conflict of interest edits here are discouraged, but not forbidden. Still, a couple of editors, as far as I can see all originating from the Dutch wikipedia (there are a few edits from 'locals', but not many), have followed this IP around many wikipedia, erasing his contributions (which are quite often indeed involving himself)

I have blocked and unblocked user:86.83.155.44 twice, in both cases assuming good faith on the user, hoping that he would improve his edits (and I think he is, he seems to stay away from the conflicts that resulted in the blocks). I did however quite strongly warn, also after the unblocks.

For as far as I can see, the involved Dutch editors are:

(there may be more)

I have now given user talk:MoiraMoira a {{uw-vandalism4im}} (yes, I know about not templating regulars), for twice reverting user:86.83.155.44 on user talk:86.83.155.44:

• diff - summary: "please do not remove text of some one else on this talk page" - note that all what was removed was in own comments, and the rest was moved.
• user:86.83.155.44 reverted the edit, and starts discussing on user talk:MoiraMoira.
• diff - redoing revert of the edits; summary: "please do respect other people's contributions on this talk page and be so polite to answer questions asked before deleting them which is rather unpolite" - similar as above, nothing was deleted from others, only moved, and deletions only in own comments.

Other interesting diffs:

• diff - Erik Baas removing a non existing redlink in comments made by user:86.83.155.44 (reverted by me, Erik Baas warned about this)
• diff (to Tram) and diff (to List of town tramway systems), both without explanation. The removed reference on Tram were there for over 10 months, and 400 edits, and does seem to assert the statement (I have now converted into a more conventional reference). 86.83.155.44 reverted the removal, and was then re-reverted by Erik Baas (both 2 times). Information does not have to stay because it is there for a long time, but this unexplained blanking of a probably good reference is strange.

On many other wikis the user is blocked for various times. I saw this yesterday on it.wikipedia, where this user is blocked for a year after a handful of edits to his talkpage (last revert, diff by MoiraMoira: "Linkspam removed again - user does not contribute to wikipedia, only misuses talkpages for nonsense everywhere" and only to his talkpage since the last block finished!). Note, the 'linkspam' are links to some images in the top of his user talk page. I don't know about the Italian rules, but this seems quite strange to me (example contribution, so the user does contribute). Also, linkspam for me is something that is mainly visible in mainspace, or linked to that, and may be a very promoting userpage, but a talkpage which has a sentence (which may be for own convenience or whatever reason) does not need, IMHO, such drastic action. And I can't see that the self-promotion is quite obvious, but I am not happy that Dutch editors, administrators and bureaucrats are doing this, in this way, here.

If looking around on other wikis, the same Dutch users are involved in many of 'discussion' and blocks. To me this seems harassing/stalking, but I'd like some other comments before I go on. Maybe I am missing something crucial here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed references he included to his book in five other articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in July (together with Tram, this makes at least six articles where he included this reference, which seems a bit much for a local, self-published book (published by a club of tram enthusiasts that is). Afterwards, an edit war occurred between the IP doctor and a few Dutch editors (I was not involved in the edit war or the following blocking). I have today removed the reference to his own work again from Tram (while doing some other much needed cleanup on this poor article), together with the example that was referenced by this book. It added no value to the article at all.
As for the rest of this case: yes, Borgdorff is stalked by Dutch editors, which is bad. But on the other hand, Borgdorff has been IMO a nuisance on many Wikipedias, being mainly a dual purpose account, adding references to his own work and to a fringe scientist, while otherwise mainly being busy making tons of extremely small edits to his signature. It would be better for the English Wikipedia if both sides (Borgdorff and the listed Dutch editors) took there efforts elsewhere. Spamming Wikipedia articles with your own work is a bad idea, and following editors around to other Wikipedia versions isn't much better. Fram (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The behavior of the tram editor is so blatant, and the spam has continued for such a long time, that a 3-month block for 86.83.155.44 (talk · contribs) would be well-justified. (Beetstra's previous talk with this editor seems to have made no impression at all). If this were a registered account and not an IP I think an indef block would be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am (not hard) disputing that it does not add .. there now is not a reference for the '150 trams', which is in the book .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have put back the reference that was removed again, by another Dutch user. The book nicely illustrates the fact that trams continue to thrive in the Netherlands, while diminishing elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, does it? It is not only about the GTL8 vehicle, , but suddenly it is about trams in Belgium and the Netherlands in general? And Dirk, there was no longer a reference for the "150 trams" needed, since the whole sentence was removed as excessive detail (we are talking about the general article about trams in the world, with the history and so on: why was this example of one type in one city so important?[9]). This reference was inserted as self promotion and reinserted as a friendly gesture, not because it is in anyway needed in the article. And Guido, I'm Belgian, not DutchFram (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In so far that the remit of en-WP admins is only to the English language Wikipedia, what is it that you are requesting here? From what I can see, there needs only for some advice to those that are removing ip account talkpage comments by that editor from "their" talkpage that this is not permitted on en-WP unless the content violates en-WP policy. You can do this yourself (although you may wish to link to this discussion when you do). Only if this advice is ignored is there a need for admins to be involved. I would further comment that there is nothing that any editor can do here regarding actions on another Wiki, at least not as an en-WP account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Since my name suddenly appears here and my actions are judged and condemned by one of you guys I hope you will take the time to read this conversation here on my talk page archive which might give you more insight in the matter. I wish you all good luck in dealing with this troublesome Dutch person. Be assured I'll leave it up to you all to act wisely especially after what happened today on my talk page. Kind regards and good luck with wikipedia-en since this contribution is my final one here. MoiraMoira (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Re EdJohnston, I think I did make an impression, he has not performed similar edits since my second unblock (he even undid some things on his talkpage after I mentioned something about it on my talkpage). And the self promotion is there, yes, but it was introduced with information, WP:COI does not forbid such edits! We can question if the reference does add or is correct, or if there are better ones, but it does not have to be just removed because he added it (we've been through enough of such cases on WT:WPSPAM, user adding their own external links which were deemed helpful, and hence should not be removed).
Therefor, I feel that I was doing quite well trying to get the edits in line, and he did not do it after the second block. But the edits on his talkpage by the Dutch editors (with twice, IMHO, a false edit summary) does CERTAINLY not help the situation, it only aggravates it further. Therefor, I feel that edits like performed by user:Robotje, user:Erik Baas, user:MoiraMoira (in that way) did not have to be performed, leave the user, and indeed react when the situation gets back to mainspace. There is now for as far as I can see no reason to block him here, he is not performing any questionable edits in a content namespace. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am entirely in agreement with Dirk Beetstra. This is a stalking mob, although I'm inclined to make an exception for Wammes Waggel whose edits seem sincere and not coordinated with those of the others. There are two things I believe should be taken into account here. First, 86.83.155.44 is someone fairly unfamiliar with internet customs who was unaware of relevant guidelines. He is a good-faith user, a gentleman, with some interesting information to share, but not sure of where to add it. All he needed was some friendly advice and guidance, of which these Dutch users offered none. He has shown willingness to learn and stayed remarkably polite during all the harassment. Second, users Robotje and MoiraMoira have a different opinion about self-references. They, and some other Dutch users with them, believe - as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion, that this is about the gravest possible offense on Wikipedia, and that anyone who stoops so low is giving a free pass to get hunted down and chased off the planet. Since earlier this year, they have expanded their terrain to harass such users not only on nl:Wikipedia, where they are part of the ruling incrowd and have absolute power, but also on other Wikipedia projects. Robotje has even gone so far as to falsely accuse 86.83.155.44 of copyright violation on es:Wikipedia, and repeatedly deleted 86.83.155.44's citation of the text on Dutch national monument, which belongs to the public domain. MoiraMoira repeatedly brings up her status as a nl:admin to give undue weight to her side of the argument. Together with Erik Baas, who is not part of the nl:incrowd but is played as a puppet, they have violated WP:3RR and similar rules many times, disregarding all warnings. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Guido, in the text above you make several statements about me that are nonsense and/or very incomplete statements as you did multiple times in the past. For example, can you provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules?

A few months age you wrote here my comment was false and for the same edit you gave me a warning on my talk page. I asked you there to specify what was false. You never even attempted to prove anything was false but about a week later you wrote on my talk page immediately under my question "Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." Well, you did revert it a recent edit of mine, and you even reverted it 4 times within a few hours timespan since I was not the only wikipedian who removed your self reference in an article and as a result you were blocked (see [10]). An independent admin who looked at your unblock request wrote "The edits you were reverting were not vandalism. Period." [11] So you had better given yourself a warning.

Guido himself explained to dAb about the self references on the Spanish Wikipedia:

"A translation of a reference can only be relevant if it helps the reader. So, a translation of a French text into Dutch would typically only be of interest on nl:Wikipedia, but not on es:Wikipedia, while a translation of a Chinese text into English could be worth mentioning here." [12]
So, Guido agrees making a self reference about a translation in Dutch on the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't help the readers. Why then do you think did dAb re-inserted so many times that self reference on the Spanish and so many other non-Dutch Wikipedia's; some kind of self promotion seems to be the first answer that comes up. I never wrote a self reference is automatically self promotion; but in this case it is pretty obvious. You also wrote about me and others in the above edit ".. as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". Please give me a few links or even one link where I openly stated what you claim I have stated.

Besides, once again I ask you, please specify what was false, and please don't forget to also provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules. - Robotje (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a comment from the victim (dAb): that's me. Though very ample explanation in Dutch and English too, about contents etc. of said books, mr. Robotje, being no expert, is neither able to read nor understand the European and probably World première of this LRV series, researched from the late sixties as power electronics to the present state of the art. The same could be remarked of said reference to the works of the Hon. Prof. R.L. Vallée ing.ESE. I'm respecting the rather negative comments of Fram and EdJohnston either, though not being known as experts too, (unlike e.g. user:Slambo c.s.) from which I'm not being impressed at all, 'cause they are rather off the hooks with their more too personal views, and I don't like being talked over not scientifically enough. So: let it be ... remarkable too. Regards D.A. Borgdorff, retired Rail- and Tramway PE 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) → PS: for instance on mentioned Japanese and Spanish wikipedias, the answers were given some times ago ... FYI ... one could research it even out.
AFAIK, he did not add the translation after this was explained to him. Anyway, this is in no way an excuse for your behaviour, which is the topic of this discussion. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 06:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Robotje, please stop vandalizing articles about Dutch people that happen to be Wikipedians as you did on es:Wikipedia.[15] Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Guido. Regarding dAb stopping making references to his translation, as I explained above, on March 4 I already asked him on the Japanese Wikipedia several questions like why should the existence of a Dutch translation be relevant to the readers of a Japanese article. His reply didn't contain any any answer. I can easily find 50+ edits and maybe even 100+ edits where he wiki-wide re-inserted references to that translation in non-Dutch Wikipedia's after he refused to answer that question. Also on the Spanish Wikipedia he refused to answer similar questions about a self reference his was constantly re-inserting until the Spanish article was protected. On most of the Wikipedia's where he tried to get that self reference in an article that article is (semi-)protected and/or he is blocked. That effectively stopped him from trying again.

About the supposed vandalism. The article about Tjako was 'deleted' (only local admins could see it) on zea-wiki by a local admin on July 21 and restored yesterday as can be seen here in the logbook. So when I removed that interwiki on the es-wiki the article on the zea-wiki was not already removed. This is just another case where Guido blames others for vandalism although there is no vandalism at all. Oh, and by the way, I posted some requests for you earlier today on this page. For example you wrote " .. [Robotje and others] have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". I'm still waiting for link because I'm sure I never stated something like that. - Robotje (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your friend Troefkaart removed the article.[16] He is another Dutch user belonging to the same group. A very suspicious one-two. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I was mentioned above, so I'll mention here that I've added a note with diffs to the article's talk page on my own minimal involvement in this dispute. I have not read the reference so I cannot make any statements as to its relevance to the article content. Slambo (Speak) 10:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought to stating it very clear: I don't like to be threatened anymore by anyone, not even by somebody like Fram, Robotje, Johnston or whoever may appear to further harassing me with ridicule questions inquisitioning me too. I already was complaining about this treatments to the board of WMF, and I will persist to formalize if hunting as haunting, or inquisitions persists as well. It's a shame to blame my name as e.g. in Italia, Japan, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Sweden ... and elsewhere on other Wikipedias to persecution and prosecution people like me. I'm only a innocent sheep, not like those hunters from the more lower-lands. - I'll mostly remain with utmost regards being faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff or dAb = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
@ the Dutch editors here (first part bit more specific in answer to some comments from User:Robotje). You state above that you clean cross-wiki when editors are spamming/pushing cross wiki. I know that, I see that around the wikis that I am active on (in my xwiki work and functions), I do encourage that, and I am happy that you help with that. I included your edits above because you did it here IMHO without too much research (though the case was obvious, but it was depriving a sentence from its reference (though unclear it was the reference for the sentence), you could have removed the whole sentence, and said in the edit summary that you did). And it was the first edit that started another edit war with the user. In this case I am inclined to be on the side of DAB, and I explained that (there were 400 edits to the page, and it stood over 10 months without discussion, at least discussion or explanation was at hand there).
The removal resulted in another edit war with DAB, who is there also to blame, and he was blocked for those actions, and I believe that I have given him some strong warnings about that (and seen his edits afterwards, I believe he understands). He should not revert that himself but he should bring it to appropriate venues to discuss (and it is for me not an argument that he does not do that on other wikis either, he should here, and if DAB here fails to do so, then that at least deserves a (final) warning, and maybe blocking, as DAB now should understand that he should stay away from any form of self promotional editing, if the data is appropriate, then others should decide, he can start those discussions). It is this edit warring that gets him blocked on other wikis as well (though lately ..).
But then these three edits:
You (the Dutch editors involved) did indeed not have to bring your cross-wiki cleaning to the higher boards here, though I would have appreciated that you did after the editor persisted, instead of edit warring, and starting more edit warring. That edit warring resulted in a block for DAB, because he was alone in doing so. But I hope that the group of Dutch editors realise that were removing were, as a group, also edit warring at that point, exceeding as a group 3RR. I do find that not acceptable here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am Dutch (that is I have the passsport numbered NF4636861, given to Hendrik Barend Gerhard Warmelink, all my ancestors were "Dutch", at least as far back as there was something like the Netherlands, the kingdom of Holland or the Batavian Republic, the "liberation" by "allied" forces destroyed earlier records), but I strongly oppose to be captured by the the phrase "Dutch editors" if that phrase is used to describe the vandals who control nl.wikipedia.org. D.A. Borgdorff happens to defend some controversial views (which I don't share, BTW), but opposing those views should be done by giving sources (or, lacking that, somewhat coherent arguments stating why the opposition should give sources for alleged "common knowledge"). Slander (D.A. Borgdorff is not anonymous), vandalism (reverting edits which remove spelling errors) and "flashy badges" are not coherent arguments. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And, it isn't only "flashy" badges: http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:Logboeken&type=block&page=Gebruiker%3AErikWarmelink. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• More comments are welcome, for since a month I'm not really able to further significantly contribute anymore without my rehabilitation, solving the -- imho -- wrongly executed deleting by mr. Fram. Most Obligated, I am faithfully Yours D.A. Borgdorff or dAb by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The hunt has started again, now into the direction of deleting the article of mr. Tjako van Schie: Dutch pianist, composer and professor at AHK: conservatory of Amsterdam, by user:MoiraMoira mentioned, and newly user:Jorrit-H, who absurdly placed the WP:AfD-template, .. wherein the still famous pianist is falsly accused too, in the same way as was done to me: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• You seem to be Dutch hunter again too: Robotje.! And for the nominator: it has to be closed: this AfD. Don't nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created; it screams of bad faith. In addition, your rationale, - albeit consisting of only a few words, was weak at best. D.A. Borgdorff by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## Possible spam site masquerading as us?

What on earth is www.wikipedka.org? Doesn't seem to be anything to do with us, except that it's a virtual copy of the entire database from (I think) December 28, 2007. Ideas? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a outdated doppelgänger, it may be used as some sort of experiment, or maybe even as a way to scam e-mail and passwords out of some users. But I don't think there's anything we can do, our content is "free". - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not true that there is nothing we can do. Please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahem, "Wikipedia's license, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) requires that any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license" so there is nothing we can do as long as they copy the GDFL disclaimer, which they do. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see our Wikipedia logo in the top left corner. It is not GFDL, it is copyrighted to WMF. Using a registered logo in such a matter is clearily illegal Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## User:Lunamusik

Resolved

Is this allowed? It's essentially a copy of the text from the now deleted article Luna musik. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, now resolved. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## WP:AIV

The AIV Helper Bots are not working properly. I submitted two IPs, and both were supposedly blocked by User:Spellcast. However, Spellcast didn't block (checked contribs), nor is there a block template on the pages. Also saw this happened to another report filed by another user. I suggest the bots be shut down. It is multiple bots, 3,5 and 7.--LAAFan 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? You re-reported 76.116.153.29 at 02:06UTC and the block log shows the block at 01:53UTC. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That's weird. When I checked Spellcast's contributions, it said there were no edits on September 1st.--LAAFan 03:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Checked again, and I still don't see it. Is that an error on my account, or a system error?--LAAFan 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"01:53, 1 September 2008 Spellcast (Talk | contribs) blocked "76.116.153.29 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Vandalism)" - Fine for me! 86.29.236.115 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
When an admin blocks someone, the block doesn't show up in the admin's contributions list. A block shows up in a user's logs. Try looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Spellcast. J.delanoygabsadds 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining. Cheers.--LAAFan 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## Repeated removal of a fact tag

If I put a citation needed tag on an article, and another user repeatedly removes it without providing a reliable source, is that acceptable? Corvus cornixtalk 06:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with removing the fact tag, it's the edit warring and lack of good communication that brings trouble. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you've problem with an editor, the best thing would be to talk with her. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried. All I get is refusal to source. Corvus cornixtalk 17:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Finally figured out what this was about, and have commented on Talk:Babylon A.D.. IMHO, the other user did provide a source; if you disagree, follow up on the talk page, but it really isn't fair to call their good faith disagreement vandalism. --barneca (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Removal of a request for a reliable source is vandalism, pure and simple. But we can continue this on the Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 18:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

It appears the bot hasn't archived the resolved requests for twelve hours - should it be done manually seeing as the bot hasn't done it? The requests page is getting extremely large. D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be back to normal now, but if not feel free to do it. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about an article which carries the {{Controversy}} tag which requests that editors: "Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."

Unfortunately, this article, being controversial, often attracts editors who are in my opinion obsessed with the idea that they should "be bold". They seem to see the request to discuss changes before making them as:

• contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia
• stifling their creativity
• a sign that some editors of the article are trying to own the article and keep other editors away
• a request that does not apply to them.

On these occasions I, and other editors, have attempted to convince "be bold" editors to work through discussion instead of unilateral edits. This tends to meet with little success, largely (IMO) because the "be bold" editors are very impatient.

Can I please have some guidance about what to do in such a situation? (I have avoided raising the specific article here as I am currently looking for general advice.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, being bold applies once per issue. After that, if you "boldly" insert material that a number of editors have a good faith objection to, it is more like "being a jerk". I would suggest that you try to outline points of contention and see where compromise can occur. Sometimes this isn't going to work because people can't see past their prejudices. Perhaps (I haven't looked at your contribution history) you aren't seeing their whole argument. For most "political" articles, the status quo is a constant fight over wording by two diametrically opposed group of editors, each on the border of established guidelines. In that framework, "discussing changes" is far too broad. Pick (as I said above) points of contention and make specific recommendations on wording. See if you can get editors to agree on wording and sourcing changes, then use that consensus to insert the material into the article. If each question is one of specifics (which can garner agreement) rather than generalities (which will almost always provoke conflict), slow progress can be made. Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
ps my e-mail is enabled if someone has advice they want to give privately. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• If you can't come to agreement, you may try the NPOV noticeboards; they can give some outside views on POV issues. Also, Wikipedia:Third opinion can offer a more complete outside view on a dispute. If that fails to work and significant good faith attempts by both sides do not resolve the problem, there is always Wikipedia:Mediation. Keep in mind that both third opinion and mediation are not first resorts. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## AFD backlog

There's around 200 AFDs waiting to be closed. I've made some inroads, anyone else care to lend a hand? Stifle (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If I had the tools, I would not mind helping. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
If I weren't so abusive, I would not mind helping either. Guess not though. Majorly talk 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that kind of comment helps anyone with anything? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that kind of comment helps anyone with anything? Majorly talk 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You know this whole RFC thing...where people are suggesting that you act more like an adult? Maybe they aren't too far from the mark. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting to be taken to ArbCom. I'm rapidly losing patience, so forgive my childish comments. I'll be very busy in the next few weeks with my grown-up job, so rather it was done ASAP, whilst I'm still here. PS I find it amusing TRM has the time to make rude snipes at me, but can't get stuck into the AfD backlog instead. Obviously I'm so much more important. Majorly talk 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
ATTENTION: The above exchange has been found by one or more editors as being unproductive and a complete waste of time. Do not decide whether or not to continue the above exchange based on the need to make yourself sound smart or to point out the irony of this warning.

kurykh 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice message. Is that a template?--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I stole the format from the hurricane warning thread above. —kurykh 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Might have to turn it into one. That would come into an awful lot of use. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
*cough* {{User:Cyclonenim/WOT}} *cough*, pending no objections. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Already at User:Kurykh/Inane thanks to MBisanz. —kurykh 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There's Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js. WODUP 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js, WODUP (talk · contribs), I think I shall start to do some non-admin closures :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't worked for me since new version of Firefox. 86.132.128.16 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some hacked up bits of the CloseAFD script scattered in my various JS pages, but I never got around to making it fully automatic. Now that we have the write API it should be easier. Maybe I'll work on it later this week. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this commons script on en wiki at the moment? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't we also have a CAT:backlog or something also? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing over 850 CSDs, but the majority are proper talk pages. Apparently, someone recreated {{Spoiler}}, and when it was tagged for G4 it wasn't noincluded - so every page that linked to the deleted template now is in the CSD list. It should purge eventually, but take care when deleting talk pages until then. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

### 3rr

I won't engage this anymore, sorry about the edit conflicts, hat hab, and confusion. Edit warring was not my intent. I did not realize I had removed it so many times. I was only trying to comment. I could not comment cause the software would not save the page with the hab hab addition during my edit/comment. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

## Royce Mathew

I would have left it as was were it not for the fact that he has written personal attacks once again in the last 24 hours, which is why I am bringing him up once more: [18]; [19]; [20]. In addition, he has vandalised/flagged one of my own personal pages as not "neutral" - it was a test page for an entry on a Featured Article log...: [21]. His previous account, User:Disneysuit has been previously indefitnitely blocked due to going against WP:COI, WP:NLT, WP:VAN, WP:ATP, WP:NEU and WP:NPA, having given out repeated advertisements for his case against Disney and continued personal attacks against those who tried to calmly resolve the issue with him (and giving out legal threats against us]]. He has openly stated that my judgement is impaired and that I probably "collect Walt Disney merchandise, sell it" and/or am otherwise affiliated with Walt Disney. On the contrary, I am not, in fact, I am on my way to graduating from college and am no where ready to receive such a job. I am very shocked and hurt to see such immature behaviour from an adult and want to know how this will be stopped. The previous discussion on him, in which he was indefinitely blocked, can be viewed here: [22].

Thank you for your time. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and warned. Any further incidents of this nature should be reported to WP:AIV, noting that they are ip/socks of an indef blocked editor with previous sanctions, for faster responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this. I don't think I'd've been able to go further with all the attacks! For how long approx. will he be blocked? BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
According the block log, 31 hours. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
A sock puppet report has been filed here over edits by 72.189.4.182. The evidence section contains a pretty concise summary of the entire situation, including the recent wikistalking and accusations of conspiracy. &#151;Whoville (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I've filed a formal complaint to User: AGK for harassment, but in addition, right after his block, he's done much more. My comments on Royce Mathew's behaviour:
The IP 72.189.4.182 [23] has continually harassed me, as well as others (including administrators who have blocked him). In addition, he has concocted false claims (look at links; e.g. that I work for Disney when I am clearly not old enough to) and is legally threatening us and others. There are several forms of proof, e.g. here [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]. This user is none other than Royce Mathew (the previously blocked User:Disneysuit, who is continually breaking several Wikipolicies. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE

Attn: Wikipedia community & Mr. Wales - This letter was placed in TALK / Discussion. Through certain editors & administrators, Wikipedia continues to uphold double standards including to not follow it's own policy of communications over issues. Thus the editors/administrators have total control, with a set of ever changing policies and double standards, including deleting anything that challenges their abuse of power and their own violations of wikipedia's written policies. This site continues to solicit itself as a free public forum that anyone can contribute and anyone can communicate as detailed by wikipedia's own written policies. Yet based on the continuing actions of particular editors and administrators, they have made wikipedia their own private forum and have taken away all of those things. Meanwhile Wikipedia is generating hits, ranking status, income and clout from their various statements, and thus wikipedia is committing at the very least fraud upon the public with it's continuous promotions, solicitations and statements.

Dear Lessheard vanU and to Wikipedia including all editors and administrators & Mr. Wales: This is a very serious issue. We contributing writers have attempted to follow wikipedia written polices in contributing and adding to an existing article or creating one. Yet there are double standards beings upheld by wikipedia’s own editors and administrators. As with Blackpearl14, who clearly believes that wikipedias polices don’t apply to her, and with other editors who uphold double standards. Then when challenged to the double standards, including Blackpearl14's violation of wikipedia’s own written polices and reckless authoritarian rule and control, other wikipedia editors and administrators then support each other when one of them continues to violate wikipedia’s own written polices. “Lessheard vanU” had then wrongly and deliberately calls the contributing people who writes back and flags the issue at hand a “harassing the editor”, outright agreeing with Blackpearl14. Then in addition to IP address being blocked, all “talk & discussion” are deleted leaving only one sided bias and reckless claims against the contributing writers. Even though wrongly deleted by wikipedia editors & administrators, all of this has been recorded, including that Blackpearl14 having repeatedly writing in both correspondence and her bio page (copies have been secure) that the articles belong to her and they will continue to be own and controlled by her. These statements alone proves that she is in violation of wikipedia’s own written polices and purpose. Yet you have ignored that.

As previously written in discussion, per wikipedia’s own written polices, but immediately deleted by Blackpearl14 and then sanctioned by “Lessheard vanU”, Blackpearll4. She celebrates on her official wikipedia bio pages that she did many pages and articles on the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean for wikipedia. Why would someone devote so much time to 24/7 check the site and on these pages, and then recklessly calls anyone who doesn’t follow her bias views vandals, attackers and such. Has her judgement become impaired? Her goal to fuse her love and fantasies with the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean is very clear. That is a conflict of interest and that is not being neutral and is against wikipedia’s own written polices. Sorry, but if one purchases products, such as Pirates of the Caribbean posters, toys and Walt Disney merchandise and also using emotional love and fantasies for wikipedia / wikinews articles, doesn’t make the articles neutral and it causes a conflict of interest. As recorded, Blackpearl14's pages regarding this issue are one sided, not neutral, are bias, in conflict of interest and are all promotional tools promoting the causes and products of the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean. Yes, Pirates of the Caribbean and similar wikipedia articles are not neutral, they are a series of one sided promotional pages including links to products and causes of the Walt Disney Company. Following wikipedia’s own written “neutral” policy, entire articles would have to be deleted. Yet Blackpearl14 continues to violate Wikipedia polices and purpose.

Then with IP’s being deliberately blocked and contributing writers having been wrongly accused and falsely called various things, if anyone then attempts to generate a new article related to Pirates of the Caribbean following wikipedia’s own written polices, editors and administrators gang up and generate false reason upon reason, to delete those articles and ban the IP user. They use a countless list of double standards and twisted logic to justify their reckless acts. It’s a total lock out by the editors and administrators, abusing their trust tools, acting like a private monarchy. To date, Blackpearl14's has proven she has ultimate control, has repeatedly stated that is her purpose, and had even sought to have the articles locked. Then you “Lessheard vanU” wrote that you don’t want to lock these articles, stating it goes against company policy, but yet you added that you are preparing to possibly lock the articles in some capacity and do other acts against those who have been falsely branded and wrongly labeled as “vandals” and “harassing the editors” etc...

Other editors and administrators who have proven their practice of bias and manipulative and outright double standards practices include “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” and “Chris Mann”. We have documented that they say one thing, yet practice another. We have documented that they enforce one set of wikipedia polices yet discard and ignore those same policies when it applies to themselves or their selective circle of peers. We contributing writers also wonder just how many editors and administrators have a conflict of interest to various articles. So since you “Lessheard vanU” have personally chosen to block IP addresses and made false allegations against me and other contributing people, we are requesting clarification. When did Blackpearl14 become owner, controller and self judge of certain wikipedia articles? If you believe that Blackpearl14 owns and has absolute control over Pirates of the Caribbean articles, then please state that is the policy. Why is Blackpearl14 allowed to violate wikipedia’s own written polices and purpose? Why are other editors and administrators upholding double standards? For you can’t have double standards, as the wikipedia written policies detail a cooperative community effort for articles and, it’s suppose to be neutral.

Meanwhile like Blackpearl14, Whoville and SVTCobra both continue to delete any critical fact or information, stating that it doesn’t meet their requirements, claiming it’s not newsworthy, not being current, or some other bogus excuse. But these reasons are actually double standards, because other information in the same article which does not meet those always changing requirements are allowed. Even if your contribution is neutral and has been in the news, both Whoville and SVTCobra will generate yet another reason to delete it. Yet they don’t delete other critical facts or information using the same standards. Instead those are allowed. Hence Whoville and SVTCobra continue to apply double standards. When challenged, they bring in their peer who immediately deletes, and bans IP addresses etc..

Furthermore, there is no way to discuss nor talk about the reckless actions of Blackpearl14 without saying and describing what they are. Yet, immediately, Blackpearl14 has wrongly and irresponsibly calls anyone placing anything critical or changes to certain pages she had appointed herself as self controller of, as “vandals” and outright claims that she is being “attacked”, and then goes to her peers with which to delete the talk and discussion, leaving only the editors and administrators’ comments and self bias online, while blocking IP’s. What is shocking that you don’t know who I nor other contributing writers are. Why are Blackpearl14 actions being upheld? Why is her emotional state, calling herself various names in fantasy as she selfishly promotes her personal cause to glorify and promote a cause for her love for Pirates of the Caribbean and it’s people, all to go unquestioned? Blackpearl14 has proven she is not able to be neutral, is completely bias while preventing other contributing writers to adding facts and information to the wikipedia articles she claims she owns and controls. “Whoville” and “SVTCobra” have also proven their bias and double standards practices. If Blackpearl14 owns and controls those articles, then why does editors and administrators prevent and block other contributing writers from creating their own articles of the same subject, and why are we held to different standards than Blackpearl14? Why are double standards being used against contributing writers who follow wikipedia’s own written policies and purposes?