Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive184

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

WP:AIV needs attention[edit]

Resolved: Xeno took care of it Enigmamsg 20:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Enigmamsg 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

i r the banninator!!!!111one –xeno (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia. Hermione1980 20:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone has a spare cluestick...[edit]

...please hit me with it now. I noticed 70.50.10.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) adding this to Jean Chrétien and this to Paul Martin. I reverted and left them a set of warnings about adding BLP material. In response I got this followed by this along with a lot of other rather cryptic messages. It took me most of the afternoon (it's −30 °C (−22 °F) here and my brain don't work so fast) to figure out what they are probably trying to say. As far as I can tell they appear to be saying that they have sent the article to some department in Ottawa and are going to try and claim copyright on it. That is what I assumed from the stub reference. No action required, just a heads up in case there are claims of copyright on those articles. And CRWD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same person as the IP. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well ... none of his POV was backed by any references, so nothing wrong in the revert. Some thinly disguised claim/threat maybe - designed to rattle your cage in retaliation for you reverting him? I wouldn't lose sleep over it, bookmark, and keep a mental note of the whole thing in case you need to refer to it in the future. (doubtful) — Ched (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

History merge now needed at Bandit[edit]

Stadler981 (talk · contribs) is having difficulty moving Bandit and now won't be able to move it where he wants. A history merge will likely be needed.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  01:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Move and history sorting done. Cenarium (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of advanced permissions[edit]

PROPOSAL TEXT

The Committee has drafted a proposed set of procedures governing the removal of advanced permissions; these are now posted for community feedback at the link above. The discussion will remain open until 28 February 2009.

For the Committee, Kirill [pf] 04:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For those left wondering by this announcement, the committee in question appears to be the arbitration committee. - Nunh-huh 04:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Central Notice[edit]

I apologize, but the top of every page I read states "<centralnotice-template-plain_text_election_notice>"; I don't know if this is intended, but it appears to be in error. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's the same problem on every WM projects, I expect they're trying to fix it on meta. :) -- lucasbfr talk 10:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be Fixed -- lucasbfr talk 10:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I notified the developers mailing list and this has been temporarily disabled until one of the shell users investigate the problem. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 10:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Cohen (British journalist)[edit]

Cohen has just published an article detailing alleged inaccuracies on his Wikipedia article. (With no knowledge of the subject, I can't say whether the accusations are valid.) As he's a fairly significant figure in technology journalism, the article is likely to come under quite heavy scrutiny, particularly if it makes the TV news; as many eyes as possible would probably be useful, as would correcting any inaccuracies and/or rebutting incorrect allegations of inaccuracy, should anyone be in a position to do so. – iridescent 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the disputed paragraphs, however I think more work is needed. PhilKnight (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
And I was in the middle of doing that when my connection went down. That's why it's tagged. D'oh! --Rodhullandemu 14:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mini RFC opened on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections[edit]

Please see here. I've opened a mini-RFC for sitting Arbs and current CU/OS operators to give feedback to the community on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections in regards to the elections and sitting CU/OS operators from before the elections. rootology (C)(T) 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors are removing external links[edit]

Resolved: No admin intervention needed--user blocked. Blueboy96 18:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi I posted some links for few artists and your editors are removing the links. They say it comes under advertisement. The site links i put is a small website that features the indie and unsigned artists to promote them. Obviously evry website runs with ads or donations. I linked to Katy and jennifer paige and few other artists i like. ex http://www.tunesbaby.com/jennifrepaige . Your editors just removed them and said its spam. Im mkaing it clear that its not spam. When you have an article on certian artists you can add links here. Its not come under advertising or spamming. If its spam then why do you keep links to youtube.com,myspace.com, imdb.com soundclick.com and many more websites? Many of these sites have google ads you know they put cookies and do so called collection of your information and use for business purpose. when you can gie big support to these corporate websites, whats wrong if i add link to a site that has only information related to an artist? By adding links they don't get so many hits and make a million dollar by tomorrow or next week. We are just providing a link to give some basic information to contact with those artists. What i say is adding link to that website is completely fair. In case if its against your policies adding any link that has an advertisement or sell something on the website is even not fair. So please support the small websites and let the visitors on wiki check some related websites. Sure Your policies making injustice to people or the editors are doing it on purpose. These are two editors (Tabercil ,JBsupreme) doing it please undo their actions. I don't no much about wiki so if i post at wrong place please excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jag666 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin issue ... and at any rate, nearly all of this user's contribs have consisted of spamlinks. Blocked indef ... not exactly smart for a linkspammer to come to this board, IMO. Blueboy96 18:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CofJ[edit]

The user CofJ, affiliated to the controversial Community of Jesus, is adding factually wrong original research and deleting sourced material on the Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox article (including her prominent role in the Geert Wilders#Ban on entering the UK controversy and her anti-Islam activities) without explanation. --84.64.103.36 (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This would appear to be a content dispute not requiring admin intervention at present, although some adherence to communication protocols would be useful. --Rodhullandemu 16:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

CofJ here, I am not affiliated with the Community of Jesus. It is irony that my user name is CofJ. I agree with the American and Canadian media articles that state that the Community of Jesus is a cult and I gave evidence to the journalists in question. I should also add that the non-registered user has removed factual information and inserted unsourced and defamitory information to the Baroness Cox page. Such non-registered users have are no longer permitted to make changes to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CofJ (talkcontribs) 16:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not inserted any "unsourced and defamatory information" and I have not deleted any sourced material from the article. Please stop making false claims and stop whitewashing Baroness Cox's well-publicised activities. --84.69.58.145 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with this subject but it seems to me that both sides have actually provided what would normally be regarded as reliable sources for their claims. It seems to be a content dispute which could do with a helpful mediator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
For a start, Baroness Cox is not Vice-President of the Royal College of Nursing, as CofJ claims. CofJ has not provided any sources for his/her puff piece. --84.69.58.145 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
CofJ has edited the article Community of Jesus numerous times (Special:Contributions/CofJ) and is now deleting sourced material, without explanation, on the controversial activities of Baroness Cox. This is an unacceptable situation. --84.69.58.145 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK needs to be updated![edit]

Resolved: By User:Rootology. Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The DYK bot is malfunctioning and apparently has stopped updating the DYK template. The update is over an hour late now. Can an admin please push the update? Instructions are at Wikipedia:DYK#Process. The update should be from queue 5. Shubinator (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong is misusing rollback[edit]

Resolved: WP:DEADHORSE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently, I have been warning Ryulong about his misuse of rollback, but yet he keeps misusing it. Most of my warnings were undone by him. I have been giving him explicit warnings (or shall I say reminders) but he keeps misusing it. Here is the sequence of the diffs I am about to provide:

The diffs of the rollbacks are within the diffs of my warnings. I'm asking that the community investigates this issue. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 01:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, could somebody please notify Ryulong of this thread as I don't feel like doing it right now. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 01:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I posted the notice to Ryulong about this thread. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 14, 2009 @ 01:41
However, then this means Ryulong would lose his sysop position as well. Versus22 talk 01:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, if you want to read a previous discussion about Ryulong that went on about a couple weeks ago, click here. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to revert messages on their talk space without comment. Please ensure that your summary includes actual diffs of misuse of WP:ROLLBACK, and not diffs of you warning him and him reverting the warnings. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say it was a violation of policy to revert messages on their talk page without comment. Also, please be aware that I am using the diffs in the warning diffs as diffs. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 02:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here are the diffs of his misuse of rollback [1][2][3][4]. This post is for easy reference. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 02:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So how are these misused of rollback? Guettarda (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
If you read the warnings in the above diffs in my first post on this thread, then you'll know the story. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression that you are saying he misused rollback on those diffs because of the rationales you listed in warnings. That raises the question as to whether the rationales in the warnings are correct in the first place. —kurykh 03:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think Ryulong should use Twinkle's rollback (AGF) button for reverting good faith edits. Powergate92Talk 03:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly Mythodon once again picking on things that do not need to be picked upon on. Rollback isn't be misused in any situation here, where the quality of the encyclopedia has been harmed, or there was serious admin abuse. You are simply trying to find fault in Ryulong because you don't agree with his ideals. He tries his very best to actually IMPROVE the encyclopedia, instead of simply stripping content, spouting policy, slapping tags, and overall degrading the quality of the encyclopedia in the name of your "rules." Please reassess your priorities, focus your efforts on IMPROVING, not degrading the encyclopedia, and get over whatever it is you have with Ryulong. Floria L (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
[[5]] does not appear to be a proper use of rollback, as it's not blatant vandalism. it looks more like a content dispute. what is the point of having rollback rules if some people are allowed to break them? why not just amend the rules to say that admins can use rollback as they please? i have no problem with that. as it stands now, selectively enforcing rollback rules is just arbitrary. either follow policy or change the policy, but don't be arbitrary about its enforcement. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you even looked at all the diffs, Floria L?. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 03:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
OH goodness gracious. Why do we have this giant mess over rollback all the frigging time. If Ryulong had used the "two mouse click rollback" (i.e. undo, save page) instead of the "one mouse click rollback" we wouldn't be having this discussion. He's not using rollback to perpetuate edit wars, he's not using it to gain the upper hand in content disputes; any edit which could be made to happen without comment using non-rollback methods should be allowed with rollback. I see nothing here worth dragging Ryulong (or ANYONE for that matter) over the coals over. If the edits themselves are a problem, then the edits themselves need to be discussed. If they aren't, then just because he used rollback rather than "undo-save page" to make them happen is a waste of AN discussion space... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The rollback method is disruptive if you are reverting edits that are not vandalism, nonsense, etc... He could have went all the way back to a certain revision, provide an edit summary and save the revision, and for single revision reverts, he could have used the "undo" feature by providing an informative edit summary as to why the revision was reverting. Likewise, if the editor whose revision was undone by Ryulong with rollback, they should either revert and ask him why in the edit summary or leave him a message on his talk page. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 04:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you stating that you think any of the actual results of his rollbacks should be undone, or are you just upset at the specific set of mouse clicks and/or key strokes that resulted in them? At worse, you seem to be asking that he be sanctioned for not using edit summaries? What is actually wrong with the specific ends of the edits he made? If nothing, I don't think we need to care how he ends up effecting them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
His uses of rollback are not warranted as they do not meet the needs stated at WP:ROLLBACK. I have explicitly told him to stop the misuse, but he will not stop, and he likely wont stop. I am not saying his rollbacks should be undone. I'm just saying that his method was inappropriate. Like I have been saying to him as well as on this discussion, he could have pick an alternative method. It is plain and simple, and he still doesn't get it. Read every diff I have provided and then tell me whether he misused the function or not. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 04:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Such blind adhearance to a few words on a policy page seems inane and picayune and pedantic beyond belief. It isn't abuse if nothing wrong happened! Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we don;t force blind adherance to random procedures merely for the sake of doing so. If the use of rollback produces bad results, then we can sanction someone for using it. If there's no problem at all with the results, who cares how he got there? There's no abuse if no one gets hurt! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
There are users getting hurt as they are not getting an understanding and he is not telling them what they did wrong let alone not give a reason in the edit summaries. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Please provide difs showing "users getting hurt." JPG-GR (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
After reading through the diffs (and talk page comments), this appears to be more of a content issue than an admin misusing tools. The statement in rollback guideline being "These should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism;...", the key phrases I think being "unproductive" and "such as". Since my daughter's friends were Power Ranger fans some 15 years ago, I freely admit that I've lost track of actual current state of the topic. However, in looking at the rollbacks in question, I just don't see any "misuse" going on. sorry — Ched (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This is in no way a content issue. This is a admin abuse issue. He can pick the simplest alternatives, which I have been explicitly telling him, but he will not listen to me at all. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 04:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
He's not listening to you because he's not doing anything wrong. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the February 13 diffs?. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
So what is the real issue here? And before you ask, yes I read the diffs. I also read Much Ado About Nothing too. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that he is misusing rollback when he can pick alternatives. I have been explicitly warning him and providing help to him so that he will not misuse the function. He explicitly refuses to listen to me, and I keep warning him time and time again. He is wasting the rollback feature on things he shouldn't be using it for and I have effectively seen no justification to warrant such rollbacks. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Wasting, like its going to run out if he uses it too much? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated to the merits of this specific complaint, the insinuation that because rollback may not be devolved from the rest of the tools we should be permissive towards abuse of rollback by administrators has it totally backwards. Because we cannot easily remove rollback from an administrator, we should be absolutely intolerant of abuse of that particular tool. And yeah, reverting good faith edits without an edit summary is an abuse of the tool. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you like at this and this, you can see some clear implication that Ryulong intends to ignore my warnings. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Good decision on his part, if so.
You've gotten your answer. That it's not to your liking can't be helped, so I suggest you not keep persisting in hopes of getting a different answer. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
it appears that your answer is either: (1) ryulong is not accountable for misusing the tools because you're the one reporting him, or because he's admin, or both. or (2) ryulong is not misusing the tools. i'm leaning more towards (1) from how i interpret the rules of rollback, but the rest of the people here seem to be leaning towards (2). personally, i've always thought of rollback as only to be used for blatant vandalism, and specifically not content disputes, but i guess that is a versatile interpretation of the rules Theserialcomma (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I propose that Mythdon be enjoined to cease commenting on the actions of Ryulong. This report is somewhat disingenuous in that it is an extension of the previous complaint, not a separate complaint, and the "abuse" identified by Mythdon is actually not abusive; it is clearly not appropriate for Mythdon to "warn" a user with whom he is in dispute in this way, and certainly not appropriate to canvass for sanctions based on the fact that the user he targets has decided not to be drawn in. There is no suggestion that Ryulong's removal of Mythdon's "warnings" serves to obscure or conceal sanctionable behaviour, and actually I don't think the community supports sanctions for removal of comments from talk pages in almost any circumstances these days; we had that fight last year or the year before and it descended into farce, so we decided to stop trying to force people to display warnings, vexatious or otherwise. Maybe that has changed again since, but I don't think so. Consensus is that removal implies it's been read, which is all that's required, there is no requirement to leave warnings, genuine or not.
A case in point: Mythdon identifies this [6] as "abuse" of rollback. The edit removed the closing }}> from a template, breaking it and leaving a mess of wikicode on the page. Sure, you could fix that. But rolling it back is also perfectly acceptable especially since the edit is uncited. This would definitely be a case of "nothing to see here, move along please" if anyone reported it here. It seems to me that Mythdon is engaged in a content dispute with Ryulong and is canvassing to try to get Ryulong sanctioned in furtherance of that dispute. Not good. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Guy summed it up very well, despite what Mythdon may try to convince you to think that he is doing this to protect the users. This is simply an attack on Ryulong, with Mythdon not caring about the encyclopedia itself, only the content and issue disputes with Ryulong. Floria L (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Guy here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Also filing in support of Guy's summary. JPG-GR (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with Guy. Powergate92Talk 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this looks like a legitimate complain strained past reasonable limits in order to get Ryulong desysoped. Clearly nothing to do with improving the wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. There's nothing here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to Guy's summary. Guy's summary is only full of accusations and assumptions with absolutely no reasonable evidence to support them. "This report is somewhat disingenuous in that it is an extension of the previous complaint, not a separate complaint, and the 'abuse' identified by Mythdon is actually not abusive; it is clearly not appropriate for Mythdon to "warn" a user with whom he is in dispute in this way, and certainly not appropriate to canvass for sanctions based on the fact that the user he targets has decided not to be drawn in." - And exactly when did I try canvassing? There's no forum shopping or anything like that involved here. Exactly how would this thread canvassing? The "abuse" you say that is not abuse is abuse as he is neither providing an edit summary nor warning the users not to do that again. And, this is a totally separate complaint as it covers a separate issue. The previous complaint which was about a block threat against me which was controversial which was filled by another editor. Sure that discussion had a brief conversation about his misuse of rollback, but the main part of that complaint was an innapropriate block threat. "There is no suggestion that Ryulong's removal of Mythdon's 'warnings' serves to obscure or conceal sanctionable behaviour,..." - I have in no way attempted to suggest anything like that. I was just using those kind of diffs to show editors that they were removed. However, this is what got me to make this complaint in the first place as that removal made an implication of deliberate violation of the guideline if you look at his edit summary. "A case in point: Mythdon identifies this [7] as "abuse" of rollback. The edit removed the closing }}> from a template, breaking it and leaving a mess of wikicode on the page. Sure, you could fix that. But rolling it back is also perfectly acceptable especially since the edit is uncited. This would definitely be a case of 'nothing to see here, move along please' if anyone reported it here." - Rolling back edits that are not blatantly disruptive is direct abuse of rollback as he could have either used "undo" to give his reason. Furthermore, he could have left the editor a message which he didn't bother to do. After a while of having experience with rollback, you'll know that it is a feature that is only used when there is no alternative. Rollback is a last resort, and use of it in a situation like that is unacceptable. Uncited information is not a rollbackable offense despite the fact that edits like that are unproductive in that respect. "It seems to me that Mythdon is engaged in a content dispute with Ryulong and is canvassing to try to get Ryulong sanctioned in furtherance of that dispute." - While I had only just gotten out of a content dispute, this report is based on user conduct. Not, content disputes or anything. The fact that Ryulong used the edit summary "Clearly I don't care" in his most recent removal of my warning which was in a content dispute implied intent to violation the rollback guideline, which I mentioned earlier in this reply. I was just going to my watchlist and suddenly found an abuse of rollback, so I brought it up to him as a warning, and he removed it with an edit summary that I find hard to interpret in any other way. However, I could have started a new section with the warning, but then again, having the warning in the dispute section serves convenience. I'm sorry that you think I'm only doing this to win a dispute but that is not the case. Maybe the section where I last warned him made you accuse me of this. As for you Floria, "Guy summed it up very well, despite what Mythdon may try to convince you to think that he is doing this to protect the users. This is simply an attack on Ryulong, with Mythdon not caring about the encyclopedia itself, only the content and issue disputes with Ryulong." - This was in no way an attack. This is an attempt to get Ryulong to comply more to guidelines and not do what he wants to do. Rollback is a sensitive tool if you read its guideline. Sure it may not explicitly say that in the guideline, but once you read it, you'll know what I mean. I do indeed care about this encyclopedia and have tried to improve it. The "content and issue" disputes with Ryulong are not the only things that I care about in any means. It just happens that we get into arguments often as we do have differing viewpoints quite often. Floria L, if you want evidence to support what I just said to you, feel more than welcome to look at my contributions. It may well change the way you stand. This response is also to all those others who support Guy's summary. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the whole other issues I just want to make a note on the Template:Interwikis. They are very beneficial to users who work in translating or proofreading between various languages. If Ryulong had rollbacked such link I would have considered it abuse of rollback. As it turns out he did not. this edit is a talkpage entry which an anon put there as the template itself was semiprotected. This sould have been acted upon as a "editprotected" request even though the editor did not make that totally clear. This should not have been reverted either but with it being slightly unclear it is understandable. Agathoclea (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong did abuse rollback at that time. This is a rollback with no excuses whatsoever. I do not understand why Ryulong uses rollback to revert good faith edits, but regardless, he has been abusing the tool. When I am doing my fighting against vandalism, if I find that I used the tool wrongly, I undo the rollback. I've been telling him explicitly to stop, but he clearly does not listen. This is an implication that he is intentionally violating the guideline based on the edit summary he gave for the removal. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I would say that it looks like he thought that it was vandalism, and that it doesn't matter at all if he used rollback or not, because in an undo action he would said nothing or said simply "vandalism" --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To quote from WP:ROLLBACK

The 'rollback' links provided by Wikipedia's interface provide a standard edit summary of the form "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y". These should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method.

This is what Ryulong has been blatantly violating. This is the statement I've been refering to but I've only just found it. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 23:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Email[edit]

Resolved: Aitias // discussion 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there an admin available that I could contact by email?--The Jazz Thief (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have email-user enabled?. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Special:Emailuser/Xeno. –xeno (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Most administrators have their email enabled, or listed on their user page. As long as you've confirmed your email address, you should see an "Email this user" link along the left side of your screen when viewing their userpage. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Special:EmailUser/Aitias. — Aitias // discussion 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sent an email to Aitias. Thanks.--The Jazz Thief (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Steward election notice screwed up[edit]

Resolved

The top of every page has <centralnotice-template-plain_text_election_notice>

I think it takes an administrator to fix this. Fg2 (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm getting this too in Firefox, under Linux. Alatteofwisdom (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It's hosed, but the problem isn't here, as it's affecting all the wikimedia sites. From m:Special:NoticeTemplate the notices themselves look normal, it's whatever's displaying them that's gone funky. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears the election notice is broken. At the top of every page, I see <centralnotice-template-plain_text_election_notice>. Am I correct in assuming this a MediaWiki issue, or that something handled through Meta? TNXMan 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it on every page I visit in en.wikipedia.org...any ideas? Alatteofwisdom (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

. DuncanHill (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

m:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-summary. Weird. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody fixed it -- thanks Fg2 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CREATE vandalism[edit]

WP:CREATE#Wikipedia-specific help has been vandalized. Tried to undo, ran into problems.Vulture19 (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I don't see it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't find that in the history either. Versus22 talk 06:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Bottom of the page reads:

Wikipedia-specific help

Hurricane Camille is one of the biggest and strongest hurricane recorded. It happened on august 17,1969.It ran right through the middle of Mexico and Florida.So it went through New Orleans and the area there.If you want to know more visit google and type in Camille hurricane.Here are some other hurricanes. Andrew,Liza,and Agnes.

Vulture19 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not on mine it doesn't. I don't see that at all... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird. I see the stuff about Hurricane Camille when I look at the page. When I try to edit the whole page, I see (not in the edit box, on the bottom of the page) -- some specific help. dougweller (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it too. I believe it's because the vandalized text was on a template. Sometimes when you update a template, the page the template is transcluded on doesn't update itself right away. It should work through the job queue eventually though.--Dycedarg ж 06:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just check related changes and see if templates have been messed with. It was Template:Ph:Starting a new page by the way. It seems like an odd thing to translucate on just one page though. I wonder about subst it and removing the template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There was a recent discussion related to the help: namespace and how it is implemented; Unconventional's comment there is particularly relevant to this discussion. Graham87 12:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

my edits[edit]

forgive me for posting hear if im not ment to but this is the closest i could find to a chat room

i edited a page "livescribe" and had information on the company... history,products...ext i had sources and all but my edit was removed i cannot find any messages on why nor can i find my edit i did. id like to think my work is of value to the site.

pls help (still kinda new) contact me [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0times6 (talkcontribs) 12:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean Livescribe? You haven't edited it under your current username, so we can't really help you. By the way, there's something fishy about that article. MER-C 12:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS Elections are ending tonight![edit]

The historic first-ever checkuser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee is due to close at 23:50 (UTC) today! If you wish to vote, you need to do so soon. Your participation here is important to make the election a success! Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon Dagalea[edit]

Resolved

Could an admin more experienced in Afd matters take a look at this afd? I find it a little odd that a lot of newbies have a very good knowledge of the wiki and headed straight into an afd.--Lenticel (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've refactored the AfD to make it readable and tagged the comments with {{spa}}, but, well, honestly, never have I seen such a drawer of obvious socks - all created at the same time, all formatting in exactly the same way, all making the same formatting and spelling mistakes, all bluelinking their userpages with variants of the same message... so obviously Angdl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in disguise. Tsk. ➨ ЯEDVERS dedicated to making a happy man very old 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help.--Lenticel (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Ooh! Tagging them as {{SPA}}s is now a personal attack, according to the IP editor who just turned up to complain. I love Wikipedia - it gets more insane by the day. ➨ ЯEDVERS dedicated to making a happy man very old 12:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of Angdl's post here wins the "thing that made me laugh most on Wikipedia for a long time" award. Honestly, if you're going to recruit meatpuppets, at least get them to vote the right way... Black Kite 13:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
If the outcome of the AfD is affected by the sockfest that is going on there, don't hesitate to request a CheckUser. -- lucasbfr talk 10:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I've closed the AfD; there were no guideline/policy based arguments for keeping or new citations provided, so there's no need. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)[edit]

Resolved

Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
  4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! (talk)

The bots...they are taking over... –xeno (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Where is Sarah Connor when you need her? — Ched (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC) (sorry - forumish - I'll pick up my wiki-demerit on the way out)
She had to get to the choppa!! How's that for forum-ish? Protonk (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all under control folks, there are four updates in the slot and one on the mainpage which will keep things running another 30 hours or more. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)[edit]

The edits of the following users have been deleted BEFORE having any consensus, by a single user [8]

The reason given by this user [9] is " an edit by to a precised Arab-country-issued IP range "[10]


Users: Michael Hardy, Elehack , Robinh , Mazca , Troogleplex , Reyk ,VolkovBot, Jkasd and Asenine (They should, at least be informed, and express their agreement)

How to engage a WP:request for re-establishing these users deleted edits ??Hilberts (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is part of the ongoing controversy over the Boubaker polynomials. Any follow-up should probably occur in the ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Boubaker sockpuppets, which is still open. I shortened the header of this section for ease of linking to it from elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

user:TEDLEVITT[edit]

Resolved: Blocked indefinitely by Martinp23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 15:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

TEDLEVITT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), removing speedy delete tags after final warning. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting a bit concerned[edit]

I need some admin advice. I do not wish to "tell on anyone" and am posting this here just to get more eyes on this and not to get another user into trouble. The matter has been confined to myself and another user without much interest by anyone else. Anyway, there appears to be a private version of the SS article being built up on a user page and I believe it may contain copyrighted information and also that the user who wrote it may be planning to blank the existing SS article and replace it with his/her version. My concerns are voiced here. I could really use someone else taking a look at this. I am not saying that this user has done anything wrong, I am just getting very concerned about where this leading, most important of which that this could easily develop into a WP:OWN situaton if the user does in fact eventually replace the existing article with the version now stored on the user page. Other opinions are needed and I'll accept whatever they are. -OberRanks (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first, he blanked it. Second, I see that you are already speaking with him at User_talk:Mtsmallwood#Please_clarify_your_intentions and at Talk:Schutzstaffel#Private_version_of_this_article_on_a_user_page, so I honestly think you could have just waited a little more but fine. Third, if he just blanked a former FAC without explanation, I think (a) someone else may notice and (b) you would have a better point mentioning it here. Fourth, after notifying him, I really don't think there's anything more you need here, but you can always consider emailing an admin if you want privacy. Me for example. Fifth, I don't mean to be rude, but assume good faith. He could just as easily have copied and pasted that into notepad and dumped it on a day's notice. What difference does the user subpage really make? I mean, I see some editing at Schutzstaffel going on but is there a problem at this point? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it got the attention it deserves. I was trying to be polite and not accuse that user of anything. I just personally think it somewhat strange that someone wrote an entire "replacement" article in the back corner of a a user page. I just didn't like where any of that was headed and there were no other editors chiming in on the discussion. The matter appears resolved, so I will follow AGF as you suggested. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it that unusual. It's usually a good plan to work out major chances on your own, without messing with the "live" article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee vs. Hans Adler on homeopathy talk page[edit]

Green Arrow Up(new).png Informal mediation in progress.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin who is prepared to wade through a lot of text on two talk pages could look at the following places:

My reading of the situation is that Fyslee has been engaged in well-poisoning and trying to bully me away from the homeopathy article for the crime of being one of the last few editors left who are not debunking fanatics. (With Eubulides and JamesStewart7, two new moderate editors have appeared recently, but it's not clear that they will stay. Basically this leaves only Colonel Warden and me as regular editors who are trying to counterbalance the debunking crowd. The real-life homeopaths who used to edit the article were either banned (User:DanaUllman) or have given up (User:Peter morrell).

I was completely amazed when Fyslee started associating me with User:Dr.Jhingaadey, but after some research I found out that this user appeared at the article shortly before I found it, and it was in fact one of his sockpuppets who first brought up the "quackery" matter. See Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 34#Is this article really NPOV?. Apparently Fyslee believes that an issue first brought up by a banned user automatically becomes taboo.

Fyslee's misrepresentations of my beliefs are completely unacceptable for me. I am editing under my real name and cannot accept being associated repeatedly and after I protested with a belief that I do not hold.

If this deeply unfair and unconstructive behaviour is allowed to continue the bullying will be successful and I will withdraw completely from the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The way I read it, he was talking about the IP (the one now blocked as a sockpuppet of Jhingaadey), not you. Are you sure you've read things correctly? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Reading your comment, I immediately checked. It would make me look like a big fool, but a straightforward misunderstanding like this would be a fantastic resolution of the problem, as it would allow me to keep my previously good opinion of him. It seemed plausible since around the time of Fyslee's comment I was travelling back from a conference in Canada to the UK, and I missed most things that happened on the Homeopathy page. Unfortunately this explanation doesn't fly. Neither the IP nor the new(?) user JeanandJane had participated in the thread before Fyslee's offending comment, which moreover was explicitly addressed to "Hans". Which statement in this thread do you think was addressed to the IP? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait, you are comparing the word "quackery" with the "n"-word? Seriously, you want to go there? That's like "PETA uses KKK imagery at dog show protest". You are belittling actual and historical racism. Very poor analogy, in terrible taste. Sorry, I didn't read anything past that. -Andrew c [talk] 16:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I respect your feelings, and I assure you that racism is just about the last thing I wanted to belittle. Perhaps I am having a real handicap here as a non-native speaker, but my sense of language says that being called a "quack" hurts the target just as much as being called the n word. After thinking a bit about the preceding sentence and trying to put myself in the two situations, I no longer believe it. Sometimes it's hard to come up with a good analogy, and while I still think that this one was valid to the extent that I wanted to draw it, I now see the potential for unintended offense and am sorry for that. Please accept my apology. I will certainly try to be more careful in the future when trying to draw analogies and examples from a cultural background that is not mine and which I therefore don't fully understand.
(This doesn't belong here because it's really a content question, but I think your reaction is an example of the same kind of problem that I wanted to fix in the article: If we use offensive words in the lede, we can easily lose a large part of our readers right away.) --Hans Adler (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Rather than attempt to defend myself, I suggest the use of a large salt shaker when reading Adler's comments. Then apply the salt to his numerous straw men, and you'll discover a rather confused picture which even I have a hard time understanding. My most charitable interpretation has to do with the fact that Adler is a German speaking editor and that difficulties in understanding nuances of the English language may be part of the problem. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the points made by Hans. User:Fyslee's comments have been unpleasantly threatening and are ad hominen rather than constructive comments upon the article's development. Hans seems an editor of the highest quality. As he does not conceal his identity, he should be protected from unwarranted smears and personal attacks. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The best thing here would be to not escalate the situation, and CWs fanning the flames isn't helpful. This appears to be based largely on a misunderstanding, and does not warrant this level of attention. Verbal chat 17:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to believe that it is a mere misunderstanding, and the fact that both Fyslee and I are using the word "straw man" to describe the other's comments indicates this might be true. Only – I just can't see what the misunderstanding might be. I know it's a lot of unpleasant work, but could you please look at Fyslee's first contribution to the thread in question, as well as my first comment and my last comment on Fyslee's talk page, and help to clear up the misunderstanding? I believe that could be very helpful since you are more on Fyslee's side in the content question and not prone to assuming bad faith about me. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
PS: Actually, I do have an idea what the misunderstanding might be. Perhaps he thinks that I am personally offended by the word "quackery" in the article (hint: no text in the article that does not – implausibly – mention me personally will ever offend me), and that the points that I am still awaiting meaningful responses to are mere smoke grenades (hint: these points really offended me). (I was shocked that he took this from a content dispute in which I was mildly interested to a discussion of myself that seemed to be bizarre.) But then it's exactly what I said on his talk page before: That he is replying, not to me, but to his projection of me. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hans: I respect you, if I don't always agree with you. Would you mind if we de-escalated this situation, close this thread, and I'll have a few words with Fyslee? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the initiative, I am willing to try this approach. And I have no trouble returning the compliment. However, I am generally proud of my ability to detect all sorts of misunderstandings. If I have been spectacularly wrong here by misidentifying one and completely overlooking another, then I really want to know how so I can learn from the experience. And if I was right, I would like to get clear signals from Fyslee that he has learned something about himself, and perhaps about the deeper meaning of WP:AGF. Either way, we need to get at the root of this and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Closing this for now, but should be reopened if necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block of User:Asgardian[edit]

Resolved: Unblocked after discussion. Mangojuicetalk 13:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 has asked that I request uninvolved administrators to review my block of Asgardian, his fifth block. Although Asgardian is known as a strong editor for the comic book-related articles he has edited, he also exhibits an unfortunate problem with respect to certain aspects of Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:Civility, WP:OWN and WP:Consensus. He is often very rude and insulting to editors whose edits he reverts, either in his Edit Summaries, or in his messages on those editors Talk Pages.[11][12] He often speaks as if his edits epitomize "encyclopedic standards", whereas others are "badly written", "sloppy", "fancruft", etc. He has more than once referred to edits he disagrees with as "vandalism"[13][14]. He argues that substandard writing is actually a warnable offense, etc.

When I and others attempt to explain to him that this poor writing is not vandalism, that terms like "sloppy", "crufty", etc. are not in keeping with WP:Civility, he is dismissive and condescending, makes personal comments and false accusations (he once falsely accused me of sockpuppetry), and relies on non sequiturs and other logical fallacies to support his positions. When these arguments are rebutted and refuted, he does not respond, but simply repeats them over and over. He argues, for example, that whether referring to an editor's work as "sloppy" is uncivil depends on the quality of that editor's work, arguing that because the editor "undid a great deal of good work", that addressing him the way he did was somehow not uncivil. When I try to point out that this is a non sequitur, in that whether the edit was not helpful and whether the comment by him was rude are two separate things, he does not respond. He just repeats the assertion. He justifies another personal comment directed at an editor by saying that it was "clinical". When I point out that this is a personal comment, he again suggests that the other editor's edits mitigate this. When I respond that one does not justify the other, he says nothing.

Because I've closely monitored his behavior and across several articles since last year, naturally, he sees me as a threat, and enjoys making personal comments. When I first placed polite warnings on his Talk Page for his rude comments to others, he referred to the warnings as "ultimatums" and "silly threats". When I tried to point out to him that issuing warnings for people violating policy was one of the legitimate duties of administrators, he did not respond. He argues that for me to monitor his activity indicates some type of obsession or inappropriate behavior on his part, when in fact, monitoring someone who's been blocked multiple times is perfectly reasonable. He insists that for me to point out these things, that I am too "emotional", though he never points out any passage or quote to that effect, nor does he explain how he has excluded the possibility that my position and statements cannot be held dispassionately. These are simply personal comments that he insists on making, because he either doesn't understand WP:Civility and WP:No Personal Attacks, or doesn't care. He simply assumes the worst possible motives and cast such aspersions upon people who criticize his behavior. I don't have the diffs for all of this on hand, because Asgardian regularly deletes material from his Talk Page, rather than archive them, claiming them to be "nothing of note", even though they include multiple instances admonishments by others for his behavior[15][16], and even his fourth block. This is nothing of note? How?

When I first blocked Asgardian last year, other administrators told me that it would be better if in the future, an uninvolved admin did this, though they all upheld the block. Asgardian is quick to point out the former point, but consistently omits the latter. For my part, I immediately agreed to their suggestion without argument, as it seemed reasonable.

Asgardian's last block was for editing disputed content, without discussion, despite the fact that a discussion was ongoing at the time. The issue was that he wanted to delete book titles, storylines and dates from the text of the Fictional Character Biographies of comic book characters in favor of merely citing those things as sources with ref tags. My position was that this made the section read poorly, as there was not historical context for the events described. I responded to each of Asgardian's points on the Black Bolt Talk Page. Rather than respond, he said he would get a Third Opinion. Instead, he abandoned the discussion, and proceeded to revert the article. It is for this, and his repeated incivility, that User:Daniel Case blocked him for a week. Asgardian responded by lashing out, claiming that because I suggested the block, that the block was weak, as if Daniel Case is somehow unable to make responsible decisions himself. His conduct in the section created as a result of his last block provides a fairly good idea of the incivility, logical fallacies, personal comments, make statements listed under WP:OWN, and intellectual dishonesty that characterizes his behavior. Not surprisingly, this fourth block was also upheld by all administrators who reviewed it, a point that doesn't seem to faze Asgardian. His rude behavior did not change subsequent to this block, either.

Now, he's up to his old behavior again, deleting book and story names from the Black Bolt article, and speaking disrespectfully to others. I tried to remind him that the previous discussion on the BB Talk Page was not resolved, and that if he wanted to bring up that disagreement again, we should discuss it. He deleted my message, and left one on my Talk Page, directing me to two other Talk Pages, and claiming his comments [17][18] were not uncivil because "The editor undid a great deal of good work and reinserted work with all the problems previously mentioned." He genuinely does not seem to understand that whether the editors' work was not to his liking, or even non-constructive, does not justify these comments, and that he can address the problem without such rudeness. He proceeded to revert the article again, without discussion, the exact thing for which he was last blocked. It is for that reason that I felt that a longer block is required.

It's been opined that an "uninvolved" admin would've been better to impose the block. The reason I chose to block Asgardian myself is because after my last block of him, I tried to utilize other resources and suggestions by other admins, to little or no avail, and there does not seem to be a very strong network in place to deal with people like this. For example, one admin told me to keep trying to talk to Asgardian. When I tried to tell him that I tried this repeatedly, and that Asgardian just ignored me, this admin insisted that I simply "keep trying". Another admin, I believer User:Emperor, suggested starting a discussion on the Comics Project page, but as I recall, no one responded to the thread. Another suggestion was to start a consensus discussion on such matter. I tried contacting close to 50 other editors, but only a few responded. Of those few, a couple refused to post in the relevant section on Asgardian's block because they felt they didn't know enough about the matter, even though the relevant Diffs were made available to them. One refused to comment because his experiences with Asgardian were negative, and was apparently bitter over his own past personal dealings with admins. User:Hiding was also not very helpful, IMO. Even Daniel Case himself, who initiated the last block, told me subsequent to his block that he was now "involved", and didn't want to deal with Asgardian any more. It is for this reason that I felt that blocking him myself was necessary, as did User:Emperor and User:Hiding, who have affirmed the validity of this block. I'm going to address the issue of objectivity, and other points that Asgardian has raised in response to this newest block here. Quotes of Asgardian's statements are in bold, followed by my responses:

Points of contention over current block[edit]

"As can be seen here, he been counselled by two very experienced editors 3" I'm not sure to what this link was supposed to direct us, but it shows all the sections and posts of my Talk Page from Sept - Oct 2008, regarding his last block. I notice his use of the word "counseled", as if to imply that the other editors were somehow address some problem on my part, but keep in mind that all the administrators who chimed in over that block upheld it. So I'm not sure what he's getting at here.

"and again offered a gentle warning regarding this recent block here 4" The linked page shows no such thing. It shows User:Hiding reacting in anger to a comment I made recently on User:Emperor's Talk Page in which I stated that I did not wish to discuss the current matter with Hiding because our previous discussion last year was not constructive. Thus, Asgardian's statement is false on two counts: It pertains to last year's block, not the recent one, and contains no "warning" by Hiding. Please take note of this mendacious tendency on Asgardian's part to use deceptive, euphemistic language to distort things like this.

"What concerns me is that because Nightscream is involved, he cannot possibly be objective." Of course I can. The fact that two people have had past dealings with one another may at best raise a question of objectivity in theory, but in practice, it's hardly impossible. I'm rather dispassionate about my Wikipedia work, and don't let things get to me emotionally. If you want examples, here are a few:

  • I endured an enormous amount of vitriol and abuse, and even repeated vandalism to my Talk Page over my responses to User:Liaishard's extra-policy edits on the Corey Clark page. The manner in which I was able to keep cool in the face of that abuse, and cite policy to her, is the reason why Administrator Geniac voted to support my nomination for admin.
  • Here's another example of a rather abusive editor attacking me on my Talk Page for upholding policy, and here's my completely assertive but polite response to him, in which I cite policy, admonish him not to threaten anyone, and even offer to help him learn more about editing WP. Nightscream (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In this section, User:David A contacted me regarding problems he was having with Asgardian. Here is my response, in which I tell David A that he has not illustrated any behavior on Asgardian's part that I could see that violated policy. What? I sided against taking any action against Asgardian in a conflict? Well, yes. David A did not make his case, and I wasn't going to arbitrarily side against Asgardian simply because of past conflicts. Granted, I had to change the section title on David's talk page because the one Asgardian chose was clearly uncivil, and I warned Asgardian about that, which Asgardian presumably ignored as usual, but I took no further action against him.

This shows lack of objectivity? Hardly. Ultimately, all you have to do is look at the validity of the block at hand on the basis of its own merits. Given that User:Emperor and User:Hiding support the block, that should tell you something. But if anyone reviewing this block feels that subsequent blocks of Asgardian should never been enacted by me, then I would request that some uninvolved admins make themselves available to review future infractions by him, without the rubber stamping and walking on eggshells exhibiting in the past by others, and I will be more than happy to agree to that.

"He also seems to be using the power of adminship as a gentle threat and ultimatum, as can be seen here 5." A legitimate administrative warning to cease violating policy lest one be blocked, is not an "ultimatum", or a "threat", gentle or otherwise. Again, what part of Wikipedia policy pertaining to such warnings is not being followed here? Am I not an admin? Is giving such warnings not a part of admin duties, which is why we have entire groups of templates for them? If Asgardian wants to argue that the warning was not justified, that's fine, but that's not what he does. He simply uses propagandistic labeling of such things as "threats" and "ultimatums", as if doing so will change the nature of their legitimacy. I've pointed out this to him before, and naturally, he is never able to refute or rebut this.

"As I said, I do not see this as fair. This entry 6 also shows that his last block of my account was inappropriate." No, it shows the other editors/admins upholding the block, and agreeing that Asgardian's behavior merited it. One editor, Jc37, opined that I was not uninvolved, but neither he nor any of the other participants argued against the block itself. Another mendacity noted.

"As to the material itself, I see this as a misunderstanding. When Nightscream posted his warning of a block, I offered up the following 7, which linked to discussions that have been in play for a time prior to my recent edits of Black Bolt. It basically shows that there is now a new article format emerging, which focuses on being out-of-universe. There is considerable discussion here 8..." First of all, out-universe has always been Wikipedia's guideline when writing about fiction, so this is not new. In fact, during our October discussion on the Black Bolt Talk Page, it was I who had to point out to Asgardian that keeping explicit book and story titles and dates was consistent with this, and that Asgardian's removal of them was not, and Asgardian who responded that "Guidelines are just that, guidelines", as seen here. Second, neither of these discussions Asgardian links to make any mention of books titles, storyline names or publications dates being removed from the text in favor of keeping them exclusively in the references. They appear to concern the reformatting of the Fictional character biography and Publication History sections. Nothing having to do with whether to mention titles.

"What is ironic is that I did insert dates and titles when trialling this format 9 [19]..." These links are merely to the Abomination article and the Rhino article, and not to any Diffs. But to just to double check, I checked the Edit Histories, just to see if I could find these edits Asgardian mentions. My check of the Rhino history showed no apparent inclusion of dates that I could see. My check of the Abomination history did turn up this inclusion of dates on his part (note the "objectivity" in which I confirm his assertion, even though the diff he provided did not), but what does this mean? Because he included publication dates in Artcile A, that allows him to delete them from Article B? No, I'm sorry, but it does not. He was not blocked because of what he did on the Abomination article, he was blocked for reverting the Black Bolt article, without discussion, and for incivility. That he can point to an example of a valid edit does not excuse the behavior that is not valid.

"...but at the suggestion of a very experienced editor 11 actually changed my style to have all titles etc exist outside the article as references 12 and was thanked for this." The first link does not link to any post by this "very experienced editor" but to Asgardian's Talk Page, on which there are a group of posts in several different sections by four different editors, none of whom make any mention of titles and dates, or provide diffs to any relevant edits to that effect. The second link is simply another link to Peregrine Fisher's Talk Page, on which no mention of these things is made.

"All this I linked for Nightscream but he didn't seem to realize these changes were all post-October 2008, which is when the last discussion occurred." Well no, quite the opposite is true. It appears that Asgardian abandoned the October Black Bolt discussion, even though he stated he would go and get a Third Opinion, and when he instead went and reverted, he was blocked, and then backed off the matter. His attempt to again delete the titles and dates from that article without discussion, appears to me to be a case of his having bided his time, waiting to enact those edits in the hopes of escaping notice, which is entirely predicated on the passage of time. Where he gets the idea that the opposite is true, that I am unaware that the discussions are post-October 2008 (what, is he under the impression that I think they're from three years ago?), I have no idea.

"The only reply on this front that I received was a block for a month, for the simple fact that I removed the titles and dates and directed them to a Reference section. I did not delete them entirely..." First of all, the edit in question does not show Asgardian "directing" anything into a Reference section, with the exception of dates of a "Secret Invasion" story and The Last Fantastic Four story. All of the other formatted references were already in the article, and had nothing to do with this particular edit. Indeed, the point of contention of editorial aspect of this conflict is my position that titles and dates should be in the explicit text as well as in the references, as the latter serves WP:V, but the former serves better reading and historical context. If Asgardian, or hell, even a majority, disagree with this, that's fine, but that's why there has to be a discussion on it. Asgardian refuses to engage in it, preferring to revert without one, and point to discussions in which he claims these matters were discussed, when in fact, they were not.

"...and Nightscream actually retained all my other edits even after restoring the titles and dates." Yes, that's correct. Instead of blindly reverting, I looked closely at his edit, and noticed that while some of it violated the discuss-before-reverting policy, other parts of it were good, and so, instead of just pressing "Undo" and "Save", I went through the article, distinguishing between the two, so as to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Is this a bad thing? Because it sounds like yet another example of the objectivity on my part that Asgardian insists I do not have.

"As to the charge of breaching WP:Civility, I disagree. This edit is referenced 13 but the worst of it is using the term "sloppy" for one sentence, which was said with no venom, and in the overall context of the article it was considerably improved." The use of the word is inherently venomous. There is no such thing as "saying it without venom", and this is in line with his long history of rudeness to others. The fact that Asgardian used this language in the Summary of an edit that improved the article has nothing to do with this, a non sequitur that I pointed out above, but which he continues to repeat without responding to this rebuttal.

"The second allegation concerns this 14 which I find to also be unfair, given that I actually used the term "please" twice and even after giving a brief explanation of what was incorrect with the style, actually provided a link to the discussion on how the articles were changing. I do not believe this to be abusive or counter productive. I think this is simply a question of intepretation and point of view by Nightscream." The use of the word "please" does not mitigate the use of statements like "you reinserted badly written material with poor grammar" and "no one will defend material that is sub-standard." Criticism can be more constructive than that. Citing incorrect grammar isn't unreasonable but "bad" and "sub-standard" are needlessly pejorative.

"There is, unfortunately, also an accusation by Nightscream present - "You're just trying to once again sneak your personal aesthetics regarding book titles into articles without discussion." - from 15 which I suppose breaches WP:Civility." I find it interesting that Asgardian is able to rationalize or ignore his entire history of rudeness, personal attacks, false accusations and insults, but somehow, he is able to find a comment that actually offends the Civility policy.

Legitimate criticism of one's behavior is not a violation of Civility. It's part of what the editors and admins on this site must do with an editor who routinely violates policy. With respect to accusations like the one above that go to a person's motive, they should not be made unless the accuser can illustrate how he/she has excluded other possible, less nefarious motives. This is not a distinction often made by others. When someone accused me on the Sicko Talk Page of making edits to push a POV, I asked him how he excluded the possibility that the edits were not made in good faith, even if in his opinion, they appeared to be POV. Not surprisingly, he refused to answer this, even though I asked him this repeatedly. By contrast, I have shown how Asgardian's motive is clear. He has a history of violating policy pertaining to WP:OWN, WP:Consensus, and being blocked for it, repeatedly, by multiple administrators. When he is unable to respond to rebuttals in a discussion, says he'll get a Third Opinion, but then abandons the discussion, reverts, gets blocked, and then waits four months before reverting that particular type of edit again, and then rationalizes by linking to discussions that he says explain this, but which in truth contain no mention of the particular issue in conflict, it is not unreasonable to see what he's doing. Thus, there is no "breach". Just noting a habitual policy violator.

Keep in mind that he falsely accused me a couple of months ago of IP sock puppetry, simply because the IP editor criticized his lack of civility, without providing any evidence or reasoning that this person was me, as if he's unaware that other people have criticized his incivility. I pointed out that I've never been to California, where the IP was traced to, but live in New Jersey, which a check could verify, but he never acknowledged or apologized for this. But despite that fact that I illustrate the motive for his behavior here, suddenly it's a breach of Civility.

"To conclude, I find this block on one month to be excessive. I am a strong contributor to Wikipedia, and am actively trying to better the articles, which has been acknowledged by others on many occasions, such as here 16. If some fault is still perceived on the issue of civility then I am happy to wait out a 7-day block." Putting aside the fact that many, if not most people here, are strong contributors who better articles, that this does not justify Asgardian's behavior, and that it's hardly his place to decide how long his blocks should be, he was already blocked last time for two weeks, and went right back to making obnoxious comments to the admin who blocked him. So if a two-week, fourth block is not enough to get him to understand not to behave this way, who is he to dictate that he should now be blocked for only one week?

"I would, however, be very grateful if I could join a group discussion in the near future which finalizes a format, and then continue editing from there, as I believe no one has issue with my content contributions." Asgardian has been given numerous opportunities to join group discussions to discuss such things, and he typically stonewalls when his fallacies are refuted. As for no one having an issue with his content contributions, the various administrators who have blocked him and upheld all of his blocks, including the three who agree upon this current one, all have issue with him, as have others. Nightscream (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

and there does not seem to be a very strong network in place to deal with people like this. This to me has been and continues to be a massive problem on wikipedia. Regardless of what some people say there seems to be an unspoken system in place where if someone has made X good edits, certain individuals and groups of individuals will rise to their defense no matter what they've done. Frankly it needs to stop because it is bad for the community. it is probably the worst thing for the community that can happen. Some editor with a chip on his shoulder who thinks he is lord and master of an article who treats others like crap creates many issues. First he discourages editors on that particular article. They feel like wikipedia is a closed community and they're not welcome so they leave. In addition to that outside editors not involved in the situation see what happens. Some of them might just get disgusted that someone has chased away one or more editors and try to do something about it. But then they get a lesson in wikidrama 101. You have admins afraid to start wheel wars over blocking an obviously problem editor because they feel someone will just unblock him. People start long sub-pages, committees, someone calls the president, etc and after hundreds of thousands of bytes, nothing is solved, everybody is pissed off and because this editor didn't face any repercussions, he feels like its license to continue to act this way. This continues on and on and on until at some point this person pisses on enough of his supporters that eventually they're blocked. Something that probably should have be done months and years earlier. In the meantime some editors may become disillusioned with the process and decide wikipedia isn't worth the hassle. Some admins might be frustrated by the inability to do what is right and they all leave. In the end the person finally ends up blocked and told to shape up or get out but because of these people who are willing to basically excuse anything because of a few good contributions, the person has managed to leave a path of destruction in their wake. you might think "Oh I know who he is talking about" but you don't. Because I can think of half a dozen examples of this completed saga, and I can think of several more that are on-going. Each one of them is one case too much. p.s. I'm still reading the rest--Crossmr (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tl;dr. If you know enough about a user to write all this, you probably shouldn't be pulling the trigger. I'll try to read this and get some traction...but it really is just too long. Protonk (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User Hiding's thoughts[edit]

Given my name's mentioned up there and I'm described as being unhelpful, I'll chuck in my two cents. User:Asgardian does not contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner. While he/she makes useful edits, the user ignores many of the behaviourial policies, specifically WP:OWN, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Regarding User:Nightscream, I firmly believe that due to the fact that Nightscream is involved in editorial disputes with User:Asgardian, User:Nightscream should not be blocking User:Asgardian. That User:Nightscream finds that opinion unhelpful is perhaps suggestive of a deeper issue. I'm fairly involved in the issue myself, so I know the ins and outs of it, and I honestly think that pretty much sums it all up. User:Asgardian should likely have been blocked, USer:Nightscream should not have been the one placing the block. Both users need to modify their behaviour accordingly. Hiding T 10:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I note that it is alleged above that I have reacted in anger. I have not reacted in anger, I have attempted to clarify the actual position in a level-headed manner. That Nightscream chooses to portray this as anger is somewhat ironic, given the accusations the user has levelled at Asgardian. Hiding T 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
To any admins reviewing this, I offer the following quote by myself above: "But if anyone reviewing this block feels that subsequent blocks of Asgardian should never been enacted by me, then I would request that some uninvolved admins make themselves available to review future infractions by him, without the rubber stamping and walking on eggshells exhibiting in the past by others, and I will be more than happy to agree to that." Thus, I not only do not find the opinion that involved admins are preferred not to be the blocking admins in such disputes, but I explicitly stated that I agree with it, provided that others are willing to get involved. I normally would not respond to this, but since Hiding has a habit of deliberately distorting my words, and attributing statement to me that I did not make (he did this twice in this post on my Talk Page) it is unfortunately necessary to clarify for reviewers what my position actually is. Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
If you feel I have distorted your words, I apologise. I'm a little puzzled at how I have done so, but I certainly apologise. Let me know how I have done it and I will gladly re-factor my comments accordingly to mutual agreement. Hiding T 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think admins in general are always willing to do this. All you would have to do is post at WP:ANI when you want someone independent to have a look. I don't think anyone needs to agree to WP:MENTOR Asgardian. But finding an independent admin to act when necessary should be easy. Mangojuicetalk 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I concur with this suggestion, and was what I tried to convey after the previous block, albeit in my ham-fisted manner. Hiding T 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevent ArbCom case[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Asgardian was sanctioned for incivility and edit warring, and placed on 1RR for 1 year. The sanctioned expired in December 2008. Just for context. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My experience with Asgardian[edit]

I have, in the past, been inovlved with this since, having had no involvement until I declined one of his unblock requests, I was asked to intervene and make a few of the blocks as an uninvolved admin.

I cannot consider myself uninvolved now. Last November, while Asgardian's probation was still on, I decided to gently warn him about some of his sarcastic edit summaries instead of blocking him outright, thinking that might work better.

This was the response I got. If that doesn't count as having tried and failed to deal with the problem through user-to-user interaction, I don't know what does. I do see this block as justified, given the context. However, someone else (no longer me, alas), should probably have made it. But that is ultimately secondary to the fact that the block should have been made. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that response was totally uncalled for and if it were me I would have blocked for those comments. Why do we even keep this person around? -MBK004 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That's the magic question a number of us who have dealt with Asgardian would perhaps like answered. We tried arb-com, we tried the community noticeboard, we tried the administrator's noticeboard. To be fair to Asgardian, he has come a long way. But whether that is far enough is for others to decide. I crossed out of impartiality in this one ages ago. Hiding T 15:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the block[edit]

I think this block was inappropriate. I see a combination of several factors that led to this block: first, Asgardian has not been incivil in the comments that led up to this block. He has clearly been incivil in the past (the "Mr. Clean-up" comment, for instance, and there are probably worse). But the edit summary where he referred to removing "sloppy game content" is civil: (1) it's a comment on content, not on a contributor or even a specific contribution, and (2) while "sloppy" is a negative term, it's not an inflammatory one. Nor is his civil though possibly pushy request to another editor to desist from certain edits, and his criticism of those edits problematic. Second, I note that Nightscream gave a warning on February 10, and only issued a block on February 11 after Asgardian's response [20], in which Asgardian politely referred Nightscream to a discussion he felt was behind the edits Nightscream was concerned about, and also said he didn't think his comments were incivil. Even if Nightscream disagreed with that, I can't understand why this block was placed, unless it was to punish Asgardian for disagreement or disobedience regarding Nightscream's own civility warning. Third, Nightscream is not being independent here, and even worse, he thinks he is. This can be seen from, among several factors, Nightscream's response to Asgardian's unblock request with opinions about article content, the extreme length of Nightscream's reply, and the fact that Nightscream has been warned before that he is too involved in this dispute. Additionally, in Nightscream's original February 10th warning, he takes a position on a content dispute in the same message as he threatens a block. To be clear, I'm saying that to me, there's more than the mere appearance of a conflict of interest, one actually exists here. Now, maybe Asgardian's contributions before should have led us to show him the door permanently, but they didn't. If he behaves that badly, fine, I wouldn't defend it. But he didn't this time. Mangojuicetalk 16:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Respectfully disagree with Mangojuice. Occasionally saying 'no' is an administrative duty. There's a game that disruptive editors play: misconstruing our recusal standards in attempt to politically disarm any admin who tells them 'no' (but never demanding recusal of any admin who supports the disruptive editor). We don't hold it aginst administrators when they write a thorough report. I'll withhold opinion about this particular block, but note that past experience with content contributors who exhibit habitual incivility is that--when given lenient treatment in the hope that their behavior would improve--they tend instead to get worse and to tie up a lot of administrative time. DurovaCharge! 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Asgardian was blocked because he proceeded to revert the edits in question without discussion, even though the fact that the issue was in conflict was brought to his attention, which is the exact reason he was blocked last time. As is mentioned above copiously, the discussions he linked to had nothing to do whatsoever with the issues of conflict, despite his attempt to portray them as thus. The boldface quote-and-response Exchanges #6-11 above specifically deal with this issue, which you can review yourself. Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Durova, with due respect, you do not disagree with me if you aren't talking about this case. I am well aware the accusations of administrator involvement are frequently abused, I don't take them at face value, I've looked at the history. (And all I was saying with the length thing is that it goes beyond thorough, to show a level of emotional attachment, and interest in the underlying content disputes, that is troubling.) Nightscream -- even if no discussion took place at all, this block would be inappropriate because at heart it's an editing disagreement between, mainly, you two. It wasn't edit warring, it wasn't disruption, I can't even call it against consensus (and even if it was a change from the old way of doing things, WP:CCC and WP:BOLD still applies). So that doesn't justify the block, and it also leaves the nagging question why you said the block was for incivility when there was no incivility after your warning. Mangojuicetalk 18:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
We're agreed that it's inappropriate to block an editor when the blocking admin is in a content dispute with the person. Nightscream has brought this problem to the community's attention, and with a recently expired arbitration sanction it's reasonable to suppose that the problem may not be just in Nightscream's perception. Perhaps a good faith unblock would be the best solution, with an understanding that the matter is on more people's radar now. DurovaCharge! 22:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"And all I was saying with the length thing is that it goes beyond thorough, to show a level of emotional attachment, and interest in the underlying content disputes, that is troubling." The length of my post is determined by two main factors: 1. The sheer number of examples of his past behavior that contextualize this current situation, which forms the first part of it, and 2. the number of individual statements he made that needed to be responded to so that their fallaciousness and falsehood could be seen by reviewers.

I understand that reading this post may be burdensome to some, but reaction to its length is largely a matter of aesthetics. Arguing an "emotional attachment" (as if "length" = "emotional") is a non sequitur, and to make this statement without providing any evidence or reasoning to illustrate it to the exclusion of other, perfectly dispassionate motives (like perhaps that I'm simply a perfectionist who sometimes makes longer, more comprehensive posts when the situation warrants), is unjustified, and a personal comment, which violates policy. For the record, I've made a number of large posts on this site and on others, as it is part of my style when refuting large collections of statements riddled with logical fallacies or lies. The vast majority of my posts, however, are brief. When they are not, it is because people like Asgardian provide too much material for them to be so. Nightscream (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I would drop this whole abuse-of-admin-tools angle if you would just defer to other admins to handle this and future situations. According to the posts on your talk page from September-October '08, you were counseled even before your previous block of Asgardian that you should consider youself involved and recuse yourself, by Hiding. That was reiterated by Jc37 and Emperor then, and has now been repeated by myself and Jayron now, if I'm not missing anyone else. That's a lot of voices of concern for you to be ignoring. But you didn't recuse yourself, and you effectively continue to not recuse yourself by defending your block rather than deferring to all the admins who have commented on it. Maybe you aren't emotionally involved but it has all the hallmarks of it. Mangojuicetalk 07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR — Werdna • talk 08:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if you have to write a thesis to justify or explain something, it's better to just let another admin handle it. Dayewalker (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a doctrine called the "Appearance of Fairness" (I can't find it here) that states that a good decision is not only a decision that is fair, but also a decision that has all the necessary decorum to prevent outsiders to feel it wasn't. I must agree with Mangojuice here, this was a bad block on these grounds. If it's not the first time that happens to Nightscream, this is a serious source of concern. -- lucasbfr talk 10:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've explained why I felt that deferring to another admin, while ideal, was no longer an option here, and I explained why the level of detail here became necessary. I also pointed out that two other admins--Emperor and Hiding, also supported this block. Also note below that Jc37 also concedes that Asgardian has problems with civility. I have no problem with oversight as to my admin duties, but given that Asgardian has a history of this sort of thing, was blocked last time by someone else for doing the exact thing he did this time, and lied repeatedly about the record, I think making comments about "emotion" on my part and about knowing what being an admin means smacks of the same sort of personal comments that Asgardian himself likes to engage in. Let's see how this unblock works out. If you want, I'll contact those of you who have spoken here on future incidents. Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:jc37 thoughts[edit]

For transparency, Asgardian apparently left me a couple notices on my talk page (as an IP?).

I'm on semi-wikibreak, but I've in the past been a WP:3PO for situations involving Asgardian. I even started the discussion page (a sort of an RfC) so that those with concerns could discuss.

Asgardian definitely has interpersonal communication skill issues. And while on one hand I want to say (as I have in the past) "but he's much better than he used to be", there have been occaisions of late in which "better" still hasn't quite been "civil".

Emperor offered to mentor him, and (imo) has been doing a good job. And from what I can tell, Asgardian listens to Emperor. If that has changed in the recent past, then perhaps further sanction should be discussed.

(Short form: I agree with Hiding's statement above.)

As for Nightscream, he's rather clearly an "involved editor", who has blocked Asgardian more than once. And after several discussions with Nightscream, I have severe concerns that he even understands what being an admin means, not just the circumstances under which we use the "tools". Anyone can quote jargon about being a janitor, etc., but after several lengthy attempts at discussion with Nightscream, I stronly feel that they should have an admin mentor/coach of some kind. (I'll spare all of you the "tldr" explanations and diffs. Anyone interested can look at the talk page archives of Nightscream (and Asgardian, Daniel Case, Emperor, J Greb, and Hiding, at least - notices and follow up discussion was scattered somewhat).

Short form: Again, I agree with Hiding's statement above.

At this point, to avoid further conflict, I would suggest that should Nightscream find a situation in which they feel Asgardian should be blocked (noting of course that blocks should be preventative, and not punitive), that they post here, and not be the blocking admin.

As for Asgardian, I think Emperor's doing a great job as far as that situation goes, and I'll happily defer to his opinion. - jc37 08:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, based on the above discussion, and the rough consensus among admins that there are big concerns regarding this block, I've unblocked. I am also still concerned about Nightscream's conduct here as an admin: I think this should serve as a final warning to Nightscream about blocking users he is engaged with. Mangojuicetalk 13:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think the consensus is that he should have been blocked just not by nightscream. In that case you should have unblocked and reblocked if you felt that kind of process was absolutely necessary.--Crossmr (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected page edit request[edit]

Hi, would an admin please add a few words to the description at tomorrow's Picture of the Day crediting photographer Jerry Avenaim for the portrait? Template:POTD protected/2009-02-17 I've blogged about Mr. Avenaim's generous donation of his work under free license.[21] He's a notable photographer so a link to his article would be appropriate. DurovaCharge! 06:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check to see if that is to your taste. ViridaeTalk 07:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 16:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Help wanted[edit]

OTRS ticket # 2008100910051663 has been hanging around for a while. The Hunger Project has been subject to an extended campaign of vilification, often tied to opposition to Werner Erhard, who has not been associated with the project for 18 years or so (I see the reason for the issues, because of course Erhard is Mr. Landmark Education, and we have had several bites of that particular shit sandwich in recent years). A big chunk of the article is a laundry list of kvetches from Rick Ross and the like. I don't know a lot about this subject, but it's pretty clear that someone has been soapboxing. The group's letter is polite but not sufficiently specific for me to pick up individual items. Ideally I would like to recruit an admin or two who has knowledge of this subject area and can pick through the past problems. Any volunteers would be much appreciated. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/nominations/Jarry1250[edit]

Hi, just a quick note to let you know that User:Jarry1250 is up for BAG membership (click the above link for the discussion). Richard0612 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN[edit]

Hi. Occasionally, it is nice to remind admins that ITN team would be happy to have more people involved in the process. Besides, it we feel it is neccessary to have a link to WP:ITN/C on the main page in order to direct users with comments/suggestions to the discussion page. Thanks for consideration. --Tone 14:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeating my post from that page for wider consideration Exxolon (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This has just occurred to me. The initials for "In The News" are the same as a very well known television news organisation. We should probably discourage the use of the initials for this reason - we could be opening ourself up for accusations of trademark infringement under the grounds of confusion - we absolutely do not want people thinking this section is endorsed/created by the organisation in question - someone should probably run this past WP:OFFICE ASAP. Exxolon (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I always read "ITN" as "Independent Television News" whenever I see it on my watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a big problem here. We don't have the acronym on the main page and we use it only as an abbreviation in communications. Besides, I somehow doubt that a three-letter combination is copyright protected. And one more, I guess that noone beside people from the country where ITN is the TV makes the connection. On the other hand, there have been some initiatives to change the name of the feature but nothing really happened. --Tone 10:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to dig out a source for a case I remember, where the MGM film studios tried to stop a small UK garage calling itself MGM Motors or something, even though they'd registered first. So I think it is at least a possibility. Anyone want to chuck at our legal counsel? Exxolon (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alkaline Lakes VS Alkali Lakes[edit]

I have noticed that under Alkaline there is a section called [Alkali Lakes]. However some people have linked them under the heading Alkaline Lake on pages such as Lake Turkana. Upon trying to create a redirect from Alkaline Lake to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline#Lakes, I was told that this action had been blocked. Is the term "Alkaline Lake" entirely incorrect? Should they all be changed to Alkali or is a redirect allowable? -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It was probably blocked because of the title blacklist, or maybe a server glitch. In any case I have created the redirect for you. I know nothing about the subject, but if people have been linking to that title which seems to be the case, that means a redirect is warranted. Graham87 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

WP:RM currently has a backlog stretching back to February 3. Any help clearing the backlog will be appreciated. JPG-GR (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot[edit]

Just wondering, so I thought I would post it here. I maintain a small watchlist. I've seen Addbot here and of course with articles that I haven't created. It's probably just my aesthetic view, and for that I apologize. I just find this tag as arbitrary and as a blight. I'm not a big proponent of this type of tagging because although it is correct, it seems odd that an article, that is notable, is tagged where there is little recourse. I can't synthesize linkage, nor would I want to. Is this a good bot? I have a thick skin, so if I am out of line, I don't mind any input. I just find it an eyesore (not a great reason) for articles that really won't link to anything else. Thanks. Law shoot! 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since there are orphaned tagging from as far back as Category:Orphaned articles from July 2006, I really don't think it's a concern. I do sometimes find it useful, both from a perspective of "if there's little internal linking, is it really notable?" and honestly, it's possibly through the search engine to find links. It just depends on the topic. That one might be a little silly but there's plenty of articles with that issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this tag should be moved from the article page. It is not necessary to the reader, and is just for Wikipedia maintenance purposes. Certain articles should be checked if they have links, but that's not something thta has to be called to he attention of everyone who sees the article. 99% of the use isjust reading. But the request to remove it change it should probably go elsewhere than here. DGG (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I did find one of Addbot's orphan tags useful today — it was for a bio of an academic who was referenced in about five other articles here, and by making the appropriate authorlinks I was able to remove the tag. But I don't see a lot of point in keeping that tag on articles where someone has made a serious effort to find incoming links and still hasn't found any. Sometimes that happens for legit subjects and we should just accept it and not keep a permanent ugly tag on the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this tagging needs human input, not maniacal bot editing. It's useful on some organism articles, naely higher taxa which should be linked from lower taxa pages, but tagging species stubs as orphans is not useful, and the tag takes up more space than the text. So, it's just make-work for humans. In addition, the bot just keeps retagging, so I'm going to get blocked from editing for revert warring with a bot, and its owner is not open to discussing the issue or changing the bot. Off with its head as far as I am concerned--okay, off with its ability to continue tagging once it's owner has been told to stay out of an area. The tag on article space is not useful for the reader of the article, which is what article space tags should be. It's an editing tag, and that should be a category, not a blot on the article.

Yes, it's an eyesore and a blot that wasn't well thought out. --KP Botany (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about this property of this bot Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 16. --KP Botany (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate as much input the the new BRFA as i can have. Alsoo maybe moving all maintenance tags to the article talk pages wouldnt be such a bad idea? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No, some maintenance tags (like orphan, wikify, ...) may be moved, but other (like unsourced) should stay on the article page, since they are an indication for the reader that the article is not up to our standards at all. By the way, a "citation needed" tag is also a maintenance tag, but it would be hard to move these to the talk page anyway. In general, tags that have top do with the reliability and neutrality of the article should stay: tags that have more to do with the layout and navigation should move to the talk page. Fram (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Review requested for Ved Mehta[edit]

I'd like another admin to review my work at Ved Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and consider protecting the article, as the result of a multiple-account conflict-of-interest problem. It is thoroughly described at WP:COIN#Ved Mehta. I will not protect it myself, since I'm obviously involved, but I strongly think it should be. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:EdJohnston and will comment there, but it seems like the arguing has stopped, at least for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks & COI, LOTRrules[edit]

Is a long standing Muslim user who has a history of editing Islamic related articles and censoring controversial material they don't like or are in conflict with their religious beliefs. A few examples:

  1. Reword of Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006 to remove notable quotes which were fully sourced[22] Also kept removing images citing WP:NFC[23] instead of dealing with the images themselves
    Many Muslim people don't agree with or find that these things cast a bad light on Muslims, which is why LOTRrules attempted to censor it.
  2. Suggested deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (2nd nomination)[24]
    Read Islam and antisemitism, If I had an article that was a long list of incidents against a certain group of people I dislike which were closely related to my faith, of course I would want to delete it, but that's because of my religious stand point.
    Are you seriously suggesting I'm anti-semite? LOTRrules Talk Contribs 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    Well after reading Islam and antisemitism and seeing as you feel very strongly about your religion, it would seem so. Or just a co-incidence?--Otterathome (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    So you're just building a perception from that article about me? I do not feel strongly about my religion, you on the other hand seem to think so. Just because I edit articles that are off interest to me doesn't mean they are related to my faith. Now you're acting like a troll. Seeing that you act really anti-Muslim to me I think you are Islamophobic. How dare you suggest I'm an anti-semite. Editors like you are what make Wikipedia awful. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 16:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    No, I'm talking about your faith. You don't feel strongly about your religion despite plastering it all over your user page, signature and the edits I've listed here? What? I'm also confused how you can accuse me of being a troll when you get blocked for gross incivility, thencontinue to tell me to fuck off after your block has expired. You have an obvious conflict of interest, and react very badly when anyone suggests it.--Otterathome (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    I'm very proud of my culture and people NOT my faith. There is a difference. You think accusing me of being anti-semetic is not uncivil? Frankly I'm just goingto leave this argument now and put it behind me. You ARE acting like a troll and you do not know how to communicate to people properly. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    You can be as proud as you want about your culture/religion, but when it disrupts articles and Wikipedia in general it's not welcome. And repeatedly calling me a troll amongst other things instead of discussing the issue at hand isn't progressing the problem.--Otterathome (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Bogus removals of images of Prophet Muhammed from user pages, again citing WP:NFC[25][26][27][28].
    See Depictions of Muhammad, anyone familiar with the image incidents at Muhammad will be fully aware of this.
  4. Mass deletion and addition of multiple maintenance tags at Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries[29][30], whilst Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventions in the modern Islamic world was active.
    Looks like an anti-american revenge edit due to the impending deletion of Inventions in the modern Islamic world.
    No it doesn't, my edit summaries seem to justify my arguments. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    If this were true, then I would have expected at least one comment at Talk:Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries, but maybe because it was also an edit to annoy the main contributor to the article User:Yoganate79 who you insulted numerous times.
    That's because he threatened me when I opened up to him. He has a history of censuring discussion talk pages. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  5. Votes delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorists, Killers and Middle-East Wackos[31].
    Relates terrorism and middle east together, and as the Islam is by far the largest religion in the Middle East, so it's not suprising LOTRrules didn't like the article.
    Clearly other editors did not like it either, gonna call them "anti-American?" LOTRrules Talk Contribs 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, but other editors don't have a history of censorship of this type of material.--Otterathome (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    Neither do I. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  6. Used the following signature which was changed after many complaints: STOPkillingMuslims Talk Contribs 00:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    You mean apart from all the ones here and ones I haven't found?--Otterathome (