Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive25

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

Noticeboard archives


He has been put here for making personal attacks on me, especially in relation to my use of the common term British Commonwealth. He then went ahead and called me a bigot. What a cheek! I have posted a message telling him that his attacks on me has plunged to new depths such as that as Sinn Fein/I.R.A.. I am sick of his persistant vandalism of my British Commonwealth-related articles. - (Aidan Work 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

Complete garbage. Mr Work's major contributions to WP have been
  • attacks on his talk page - see his 'people I hate' attacks
  • doctoring articles to add in his personal version of names, irrespective of how inaccurate or outdated they are (eg, the "British Commonwealth" as a name has long been abandoned and is not used, even by Queen Elizabeth. But Mr Work is determined to force its usage.);
  • pushing extreme right wing political agendas;
  • moving articles to his preferred version of a name, ie including a full stop at the end of article names despite repeated appeals to stop.

Kiand along with others has just been engaged in stopping Mr. Work's endless POVs and abuse of people in articles with whom he disagrees. Wikipedia has been extremely tolerant of Mr Work's behaviour and edits, some of whom could be described as POV vandalism. Others have been blocked repeatedly for less. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Mr. Work has placed a bogus notice on this board, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], as well as wholesale deletions from the noticeboard, [6], and the reasons have been the same, his exaggerated offense at the reversion of the Brit-o-phile non-Neutral PoV term British Commonwealth or being upset for being called on his homophobic or anti-republican agendas. He himself was put on notice for his potentially litigiously injurious remarks, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive19#User:Aidan_Work, where user Chris O said prophetically in closing on Dec. 12 that "no doubt we'll be hearing more of Mr Work in due course".

Despite much reversion, and notes on his talk page, and blockings, and notes in the history summaries of pages he has worked on, Aidan Work persists in 1) violating Wikipedia Style guidelines such as placing links in section headers, 2) mis-using the English written language in an encyclopediac context ("&", "2" instead of "two", semicolons in place of colons), 3) The term British Commonwealth has not been the official term since 1946 and therefore is not applicable to periods or entities since then, 4) Pushing the name Ulster beyond the proper bounds of its use, 5) Pushing the term "Dominion" in contexts where it has been abandoned, 6) pushing a monarchist agenda by introducing and over-emphasizing references to royalty and peerage even where un-warranted, 7) making vicious homophobic remarks on talk pages, 8) equating the Sinn Fein (and by extension any republicans) to "sub-humans", hence his attempt to insult Kiand that way in this very notice, 9) abusing the notice board process with bogus notices because he is upset his agendas are being thwarted on Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, it often happens that this type of personality maintains a high degree of anger and grievance at the world until possibly, but not even then necessarily, old age brings a small measure of wisdom. I move that his note here be ignored and that special attention be focused on his edits, in an effort to get Mr. Work to understand that pushing an agenda uphill doesn't work and that cooperation is much more effective. Hu 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work. User:Kiand has been doing a lot of work to clean up after Aidan Work, who does not (yet) understand Wikipedia conventions and styles. Aidan Work reacts very badly to these changes, with anger and spurious charges of vandalism. And the vitriol he spews against homosexuals and Sinn Fein (for instance) are not acceptable here. FreplySpang (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden Work has created a lot of work for editors and administrators on wikipedia by persisting in not following conventions and policies, for instance the rfc stated previously details some of them. Many people had in the early stages realised he was a new contributor and deserved some consideration as is usually given, however he has repeatedly insisted on not following conventions and policies (using outdated and pov terms, and ignoring the manual of style - for instance using the period for article titles) and theirfore I would have to conclude that any complaint against Kiand is unfounded. Djegan 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have temp. blocked Aidan Work (talkcontribs) for recurrent personal attacks: block log, last straw FreplySpang (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with this. I've also seen Aidan's POV-pushing on various Irish republican-related pages, his bizarre attempt to label Sinn Fein a fascist organisation, and his refusal to cite sources (e.g. "You don't need sources, as Gerry Adams' bigoted views are common knowledge anyway"). See some discussion on my talk page. I think Aidan is fundamentally missing the point that this is an encyclopaedia. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Talrias; mr. Work seems to be of the opinion that he somehow has ownership regarding articles he's started, and generally disregarding (ignoring?) the whole concept of Wikipedia by refering to Kiand and Hu as vandals when they corrected/edited some of his articles. I've also tried to contact him via his talkpage on a few occasions, to offer any advice on where to find guidelines, but have not recieved any answer from him. Bjelleklang - talk 03:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Had I not been so close to the action I'd have blocked Work indefinitely a long time ago. How many more times will good editors be subjected to his abuse before he gets his just desserts? Abuse like the following -- "as seen as you had the cheek to make a personal attack on me,I will be putting your name at the top of the 'Bigoted Wikipedians' list. As far as I can see,you're a low-life scumbag! Do you know why? Firstly, because you've admitted to being a Commie,a republican pig who supports Sinn Fein/I.R.A. terrorism,&,of course,you've admitted to being a pro-faggot,which in itself means that you will burn up in the Lake of Fire in Hell along with the Nazi Pope of Rome! There is one good faggot - a dead one! One which has either been shot or blown up!". Yeah, that's typical Work.Moriori 03:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that crosses a line. I've looked through his edits of late. He has

  • consistently ignored WP rules to move articles to the incorrect article titles he demands, and attacked users who dare return pages to their consensus location here's just one of the moves
  • demanded that users seek his permission to edit his articles [7]
  • posted homophobic and other attacks against users [8] [9]
  • posted personal abuse about a number of users on this page [10]
  • posted abusive comments on various users' pages attacking named figures [11]

That is just a small selection of his antics in January 2006!!!

He has also set up phoney redirect pages in ludicrous forms (eg, all in capitals but with no links, articles including a period at the end of the title, etc). He has posted large amounts of garbage, made rascist attacks, pushed blatently POV agendas in articles, tried to turn pages into propaganda, etc etc.

Given the abuse, the attacks, the breaking of Wikipedia policy, the demands that users seek his permission to edit "his" articles, and now above a phrase against gay people that would lead to his presecution in many jurisdictions over "incitement to hatred" I have blocked him indefinitely from the site. We have enough to be dealing without having users constantly abused by a rascist homophobic bigot day after day. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 04:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Larry H. Miller[edit]

I just removed some vandalism from this page. Among the additions was a suggestion that Miller has fathered a couple of his own grandkids. I'd suggest deleting it would be a good idea. James James 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Physchim62 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated deletion[edit]

I just deleted the article Puh. This is the fourth time this month that someone has deleted it - for the same content. I known that there is a procedure for these cases to prevent it being recreated but can't find it in the guidelines. Rmhermen 03:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

{{deletedpage}} and protect. Essjay TalkContact 03:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If there is something remotely suitable to redirect to, you can do that and protect that too. The policy on the deletedpage template seems to imply it should only be used temporarily, which I find a bit odd. Either way if a really good reason comes up to have the article it can still be discussed on the talk page so there's no major problem. - Taxman Talk 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think {{deletedpage}} should be used indefinitely. It's not like any admin should be arsed to come back in a week and remove the template from GEORGE BUSH SUCKS DICKS because someone might have a good reason to create an article with that title, and most of the time someone used the template, it was on an article that should never be created in any form. Maybe we need to revise the policy. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think obviously. I guess the downside is it makes a blue link, but that's not really a problem for readers of Wikipedia because they should never see a link to an article with deletedpage on it. I can't really find where I saw that it was supposed to temporary so maybe I just made that up? I suppose we can discuss it on the template talk page. - Taxman Talk 16:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Rubython / legal chill[edit]

Could someone with knowledge of Wikipedia legal issues check out Talk:Tom Rubython? An edit war (well-referenced hatchet job vs. unreferenced whitewash posted by Tom Rubython himself) has got into legal threats. Tearlach 15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is another Wikipedia user which posted that legal threat, then by all means provide us that person's user name and they will be blocked. If however, it is an outsifde party simply saying they will sue us, there is not much we can do since they wouldnt have an account here. That really just looks like big talk, though, nothing serious yet. -Husnock 15:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should specified: yes, it's (talk · contribs), with probable sockpuppets including (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs). The whole article history is largely an anonymous edit war. Tearlach 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we ban (talk · contribs) for legal threats. The article needs cutting down into something referenced and neutral. Secretlondon 16:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree, I'd also revert the page now as it's currently the unformatted unreferenced version. Would that be the right thing to do? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
He just violated WP:3RR. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've banned for a week - mainly because of the legal threats, but also for 3RR. Also serious Wikipedia:Autobiography problems. Secretlondon 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it seems nobody had formally warned him about conduct at all; I have now done so. I suspect that if we can engage him we will end up in a better position than if we lock him out, so you might want to reconsider on the sole grounds that no warning was issued on his Talk page and he wasn't properly warned on the article's page either. I suspect that he may have the smarts to play nice. But I'll leave it to your judgment. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
He's been involved in actual legal cases regarding libel etc. This gives his legal threats more weight in my mind. It's not just a freak with an internet connection. He's only edited the article on himself, and has threatened to sue over content. He should have been warned (and welcomed for that matter) but I can't not take threats to censor us seriously. Secretlondon 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I will see what I can do to find out the facts. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Great Secretlondon 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Outdenting again for clarity. I have had an email from him: it does seem that he knows (or knew) pretty much nothing about policy, and is in a blind panic about the article because of the timing, which may have been deliberate on the part of person who posted it. Here is his email:

Most of this stuff is total nonsence. There are references to it but not

genuine ones. It is being put up by a character called Richard Woods who

originally used the identity of a photographer who works for me to post it.

The original posting was put on Wikipedia on 6th January. It was then edited

and then sent out separately by e mail to 3,000 readers and cutomers at a crucial time for our business when we are trying to renew subscriptions. The impression was that this was an independent biography published by


This is turning into a disaster and if you leave this up we will go out of business and ten people will lose their jobs.

The people who have done it have also managed to move it up the Google search list so when people are googling the first thing they see is this.

If this was a genuine biography the people who posted it would not need to

steal someone else's identity to post it. And they would be open with their

own identity.

Can you please do something about and put the stub up until this is investigated. I don't mind a fair biography but this is hurtful rubbish.

Now, I'm not suggesting that ten jobs outweighs policy - if the man is a shit, we should say so, in neutral terms of course, but this does highlight that he saw a pressing need to fix the problem. It is also largely my fault that he violated 3RR because I rolled back when I should have reverted to Tearlach's stub - Tearlach was absolutely right to do that, I have seen Jimbo do the same and I have been there before so I should have known and have now fixed it. So I think the 3RR could legitimately be put down to a combination of clueless newbieism and me inadvertently pouring petrol on the flames. I have advised him that debate is best conducted on talk pages, and that WP:AUTO is not there for fun, so I'll see how he responds. Meantime, I'm trying to get some neutral biographies (profiles from business papers etc.) It is undoubtedly the case that he has been sued, but so have Richard Ingrams and Ian Hislop (many times), and I note that his travails were at least partly at the hands of Carter-FRuck and partners ([12]) so I am almost sympathetic; the phrase "his legal costs, which are likely to be substantial" is a masterpiece of understatement where Carter-Ruck is concerned :-)

Anyway, I'd like to suggest that at least the block be shortened to the original 24h, since I am to blame for the escalation. But I will not get into a wheel war, it's your call. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suport a reduction of the block in this case, if he violates again then reinstate a serious block. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've reduced the block to 3 hours which hopefully will make it approx 24 hours. Left him a message on his talk page . I also had emails threatening to sue us for libel fwiw. Secretlondon 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see Google now shows the stub version. Worth putting a block on the article itself for the moment? (I'm also partly to blame, by temporarily restoring a slightly toned-down version of the "bad" one because it looked superficially OK as references had been cited).

This is a pretty nasty attack, as it was obviously professionally written. As I've said to JzG, the details, individually, mostly check out; a skim of the NewsBank newspaper archive shows these legal cases aren't made up. However, with the "bad version" it looks well likely that they're cherry-picked to give a uniformly negative impression, and there's a lot of weasel phraseology. For instance, you don't get "prosecuted" (terminology from criminal law) for civil cases. Tearlach 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an attack - but if it's factual I don't think we should whitewash. Secretlondon 15:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

One to check over.[edit]

I have just speedied British Republican Party; I would have tagged it as nn-group and let it pass by a second set of eyes but for the fact that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Republican Party the article's author states: "we have just started up, and this is one of the only notable mentions of the party on the net. Currently we are creating a manifesto and bringing togther our viewpoints"; they don't even have a website. Now I am, of course, wracked with guilt, but frankly this didn't stand a snowball's chance at AfD, numerous others endorsed the idea it should go, and I couldn't see any point in wasting yet more people's time on it. But now I am having second thoughts so I'd like to just check that I did the right thing, more or less. And I probably didn't, so if I didn't I won't do it again. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's vanity to be honest. We're not good PR, sorry. Secretlondon 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If it is "one of the only notable mentions" then its unlikely to pass WP:V as well... --Syrthiss 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you did the right thing, people make up groups all the time, and if the only notable mention of the party is the article it self, then keeping this article means we keep ALL articles regardless, your decision was right dont worry. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 03:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL: Ain't what it used to be[edit]

Okay, it's official, Wikipedia now has a higher Alexa rank than AOL [13].

So can we block them all now... pretty please?? Dragons flight 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. -Splashtalk 03:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Old grey mare she ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be.... :p--Shanel 04:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this sing-along time with Shanel? :-D — Moe ε 04:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well... I hope that at least comes with some added weight to complaints Wikimedia decides to lodge with AOL in the future, if they decide to do so... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't necessarily avoid meta-templates[edit]

By the way, for those not watching WP:AUM or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), Brion says there is no server based justification for avoiding meta-templates and more generally "'Policy' shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job." Please see his statement at the top of AUM. Dragons flight 04:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Does that mean we don't have to substitute code for userbox templates w0000000t!!!!!!!!!!!--God of War 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion[edit]

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) openly uses the sock account Big Lover (talk · contribs). The edit history of Wiggins2 (talk · contribs) is also highly suggestive (look at all the talk page edits). This [14] shows a rapid series of edits by Gastrich, Wiggins2 and (talk · contribs) all of which are, to my mind, unmistakably Gastrich. If these are one and the same then the period between 06:10 UTC, January 21, 2006 and 08:33 UTC January 21, 2006 shows four reverts to one article by one user. I am sure it is Gastrich because a neutral editor would simply have removed both the disputed articles in References rather than playing ping-pong with them. Comments? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

We to have to find a way to stop him from continually using socks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this has got to the stage of a user RfC, since there are several people unhappy about that. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Paolo Fontaine[edit]

I suspect I'm coming into something halfway through here. Paulo_Fontaine (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has added nonsense claims to several articles, and appears to be using sockpuppet accounts (e.g. Barbara_Osgood (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Baron_von_Economo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Deborahdare (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Five_O'clock_Dog (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Articles include

  • Dog Standard, linked here
  • Hoots mon, linked here and here
  • Yes, cheese
  • Noel's Things, hoax / attack on Noel Edmonds
  • Added fictitious data here [15]
  • Semi-fictional article for Simon Woodroffe (nearly bankrupt? Excessive generosity? Not the show I've been watching!) also includes this [16] linking to...
  • Hummingbird (TV), a completely fictitous programme based on a book by...
  • Roy Silk, a hoax.
  • This [17] questionable edit
  • This[18] may be true but "Pete Burns" "facial augmentation" does not Google, which would be unusual for a "leading exponent" in whom such obsessive interest is shown
  • This [19] is, at least according to my friends in the States of Jersey, complete bollocks
  • Edits like this [20] slipstream bogus content by including a "genuine" edit
  • Others like this [21] are simply nonsense.

I am still working through the edit histories, this is a somewhat tedious job.

Various (low) levels of warnings have been added to the talk pages of these socks, but I suspect that I should be taking stronger action. My current thought is to leave a strong warning on every one of the linked talk pages, but others may support an immediate block. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:[edit]

This user has vandalised several times Olympiacos

  • The first time instead of the usual page he wrote "Ηλίθιοι και αργόσχολοι γαύροι "which means: Stupid Olympiacos Fans"
  • The second time and after User:Quaque reverted the page, he again vandalised the page by writing "...Vlaka" which means Stupid.
  • The third time and after User:Quaque reverted the page, he wrote "..Ilithie.." which also means dtupid.

I have already warned him, but he continues to vandalise the page. Please help

Blocking over fair-use image disputes[edit]

Input would be appreciated regarding when it's appropriate to block over a fair-use copyright disagreement (text or images).

On January 11, Alkivar added to Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Jimbo has stated that any user with a repeat history of copyright violation can and should be blocked. The blocking admin should use their best judgement regarding the prior giving and heeding of warnings as appropriate."

Some admins have interpreted this to mean that they're allowed to block an editor who restores an image that they have removed, which is getting close to using admin powers over a content dispute. I would therefore like to word the section so that it offers more protection to editors who are acting in good faith, where the copyright status of the material has not been established. The suggested compromise on the talk page is:

Editors who repeatedly add to articles text that has been plagiarized, or images the use of which would clearly amount to a copyright violation — or where a formal complaint from the copyright holder has been received by the Wikimedia Foundation — may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy. In cases where an editor is acting in good faith and the copyright status is unclear, the editor should not be blocked. However, when a formal complaint has been received by the Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, the editor's attempts to re-insert the material shall not be considered 'in good faith' even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable.

The above is being resisted by Kelly Martin, Gmaxwell, and Tony Sidaway, who argue that it would give too much leeway to copyright offenders. Comments would be appreciated either here or at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone's acting in good faith, they shouldn't be blocked except in the most extreme circumstances. I believe this applies to all policies, from Wikipedia:blocking policy to WP:3RR. There's no need to block unless someone's acting in bad faith. [[Sam Korn]] 21:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The above version seems fair, I would add that an emphasis on the word clearly is put in the first sentence. Copyright law is filled with grey areas, and I don't trust any grey areas to the current state of mob rule many editors try to impose on others around here, good faith or not. Karmafist 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would attempt a block where the user was acting in good faith. You can't act in good faith and knowingly upload a suspect copyright violation at the same time. They're mutually exclusive. [[Sam Korn]] 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. You can easily be acting in perfectly good faith and be blatantly violating copyright. Believe it or not, most people don't know the first thing about copyright law. Also, in many cultures copyright is so diminished that no one even thinks about it (say, in China). You would have these people blocked because they're ignorant of our laws regarding copyright? I think that's a bit extreme. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
No-one should ever be blocked without a warning first. If someone is warned that they're breaking copyright rules, then continue, they're acting in bad faith. Hence my word "knowingly" above. [[Sam Korn]] 14:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The compromise passage seems reasonable to me as well. FeloniousMonk 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's been a good chunk of discussion at the talk page, but we're mostly going in circles- new comments would be appreciated. Thanks.--Sean|Black 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that everyone is in agreement above! --Rebroad 15:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Blocking should clearly be used exclusively in cases of bad faith editing or uploading. If the actions are in good faith, just undo them and explain why. They should get the point. If they disagree, well, they're entitled to voice their opinion at every deletion vote for their images. Deco 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Deco -- unless the actions become truly disruptive -- in whcih case they are n't really in good faith anymore. DES (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to add here (as I did there) that the suggested text looks good, and that what's currently at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Copyright infringement is embarrassing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the suggested text. Ive seen and been involved in cases where the admin threatened to block me for images where not only the copyright status was not "unknown", but was in fact clearly known, and the admin resisted accepting the status, dismissing the abundant evidence provided.--Zereshk 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I hate to parrot, but support. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If we're voting, put me down for support, with a side of fries. Tomertalk 10:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the blockquoted text above. --Rebroad 15:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone. There's a version on the page now that's a mixture of the above and a version written by Fubar, but both contain the qualification that editors acting in good faith where the copyright status is uncertain (i.e. where it's uncertain whether there's a violation and there's a good-faith dispute) shouldn't be blocked. Many thanks for all the comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated[edit]

Irismeister (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Hello all. Sorry to have to call in the cavalry, but (pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 3) I thought I’d point out the following diff. [22] Assuming I am reading the ruling correctly, if an admin believes I am being legally threatened or personally attacked by this comment, the AC authorizes a ban of between one month and one year, at your discretion. If you don’t, that’s fine: we can try waiting and see if he’s learned his lesson. Given the diff is one of his first ten edits back after a year’s ban (and I’d encourage you to review the others if you want to see how else he’s spending his time), I feel as though his meaning is pretty clear. Thanks in advance for any help you care to offer (and any advice you may offer, if you think I’m overreacting—I would be open to hearing such an argument). Unless/Until he's banned, I'd humbly suggest somebody keep an eye on Irismeister's contributions: having played that role twice to the limits of my ability to handle stress, I doubt I'll be as proactive this go-round. Jwrosenzweig 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find that statement "And you thought you can spread lies and libel endlessly, without yet another judicial procedure and without your being personally and financially accountable in a court of law..." a blatant threat. I have blocked for three days, to give us time to discuss block duration here (meaning I'm not saying I think it should necessarily be three days). I have a further question though, and it's this: why is Irismeister back? This case is from a while back, but looking at the history of User:Irismeister, where the log of ban resets was being recorded, I find that the ban was reset in March of this year [23] by Theresa Knott, and as such Irismeister should still be banned. In fact, any of these edits he's been making may as well reset the ban another year, and considering the immediate legal threat, I don't see a great reason why not to. Thoughts? Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well earliest should be 5th March 06 as that's when the ban was last reset. However considering his behaviour I'd have no objects to extending it further, if not indefinitely. Secretlondon 11:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a blatant legal threat and seems clear grounds for another reset of the ban for a year from now at least. - Taxman Talk 16:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. As an administrator I consider that to be a legal threat. I also believe that he is currently banned from editing Wikipedia until 5 March, 2006 as his ban was last reset on 5 March, 2005. I am therefore resetting his ban from today for a year. Secretlondon 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He should be blocked indefinitely, until he disassociates himself from User:Zoe|(talk) 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him with an expiry time of indefinite (blocked, not for a period of time, but rather until legal threats resolved). ➥the Epopt 16:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this an error?[edit]

I just noticed -- on this page [24], when you hit edit there is some nice red text on the top which says the article can only be edited by admins. But this isn't true! I just edited the page. Unless I have been promoted without anyone telling me -- looks like there is something wrong with the wiki softare/ page. Could someone check it out novacatz 10:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be semi-protected, which means that anonymous and very new users can't edit it, while everyone else can. --Carnildo 10:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that too. Might MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning be modified to cover sprotect as well as full protection? (or otherwise make the message less confusing?) --Interiot 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it'd be better if we had a seperate warning for semi-protection. For what it's worth, I've made the same suggestion (as well as suggested messages in the event a semi-protection warning message is added) at MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagewarning. —Locke Coletc 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is related to bugzilla:4667. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo on userboxes[edit]

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes and various userpages:

Note from Jimbo

I wonder if you might consider...

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad Jtdoesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In three years I have found the people who are easiest to work with, and most honest to deal with, are those who are totally open about their viewpoints. It didn't matter whether they were liberal or conservative, Catholic of Jew, pro-life or pro-choice, being open about who they are and their viewpoint enabled a reasoned, intelligent debate to ensue and meant people knew what viewpoints x or y would add into an article. I have found userboxes a godsend in that regard. Rather than having to write a long explanation of who they are, they can communicative their viewpoint quickly and effectively using a userbox. Others can use them to A line has to be drawn but most user boxes IMHO are perfectly valid. The genie is out of the bottle on userboxes. They cannot now be deleted without provoking a Wikipedia civil war. All we can do is try to ensure extremely offensive users (eg, This user hates queers, This user wants Israel wiped out, This user hates blacks) aren't used. The last thing WP needs is about outbreak of political correctness on WP, whereby users are banned from saying what their political or religious identity is. Allowing people to state their preferences also would enable WP to disprove claims of bias by showing that it has conservative users and liberal users, pro-israel and pro-palestinian users, pro-life and pro-choice, etc. Imposing censorship would frankly be a disaster that would drive many users away. Already the forced deletion by a cabal of a reference to a pro-life group on users has offended many and driven away some of our best contributors. People should be entitled as of right under free speech to say who they are and what their views are. Either user pages are deleted altogether or people should be given the right to reveal as much as they wish about their views. Free speech in a free encyclopaedia demands no less.

FSThis user is believes in FREE SPEECH

FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 20:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why presume that people only edit to add their POV? I know userboxes make me feel hostility to some users - I'd rather deal with their behaviour rather than their support for things that I hate. I see a userbox and I think POV warrior. Secretlondon 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It you feel hostility because of a box, then you have the issue. People are perfectly entitled in an open society to express their opinion. Saying you oppose Bush, the House of Saud, abortion, Scientology, or whatever is your right. Saying Bush should be killed, the House of Saud all massacred, that pro-choice people are child killers, that scientologists are a threat to mankind, etc moves from free speech to incitement to hatred. That is unacceptable. Most of us much prefer knowing that 'User:v' is right wing, 'w' is left wing, 'x' is pro-life, that 'y' is pro-Bush and 'z' is anti-Bush, to not knowing. Professional editors can factor in a sensitivity based on knowledge. It is harder to do if they don't know the legitimate viewpoint of the person they are debating with. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 20:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree as a general rule it's not the editors with an admited POV who are the problem. It's those who claim the be neutral.Geni 20:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well put, its a recurring theme on Intelligent design. Jimbo seems to have uncharacteristically missed the mark, userboxes haven't changed the culture... it merely more clearly labels the pre-existing (sub) cultures in Wikipedia. Thus it encourages summary (encyclopedic?) transparency, which is the core of Wikipedia culture. - RoyBoy 800 21:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To give a practical example, three editors I can think of hold strongly republican viewpoints on Northern Ireland. One is up front and honest and is respected by all sides for his honesty he strives to use neutral language in all his edits. Two others never declared their POV but spend their time sneaking into articles to change NPOV language to pro-republican language, deleting links that don't support their agenda, all while pretending to be neutral. So while when the first guy enters, Irish users (a) know his viewpoint, and (b) know his trustworthiness, when either of the other two edit the edits have to be checked line by line to see what little barbs and POVs have they sneaked in this time. The first guy has never been involved in an edit war, even though he holds strong views. The other two, who feign neutrality, provoke edit wars everywhere they go. I am always happy to see POV userboxes on pages because it tells me the person is being upfront and honest about any agendas or viewpoints they have. It is when I see no userbox explaining their views, yet find they are engaged in heavy POVing, that I get suspicious about what is going on. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 21:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't users just tell people about themselves on their talk pages, without having to use userboxes? Do we need such rapid characterization of users, or are users so lazy that they can't write a little about themselves and have to resort to userboxes? "I'd like to tell other editors I hate Eskimos, but I'm just too lazy." ;-) But seriously, you'll be able to tell whether they are biased by their edits. Having a userbox just tells you their beliefs or where they're from, not whether they will add NNPOV content. All content should be checked, regardless of who it comes from. Userboxes should not be used to identify which users may be biased (by their presence or absence). Who the content comes from does not matter. What matters is the content and whether it is verifiable.

WP:AGF means that if someone claims to be neutral at least intialy you have to act as if you think their claim might be true. Someone who doesn't admit thier POV is a pain to deal with since they can of course point blank deny that they are pushing thie POV.Geni 03:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, userboxes make it look like Wikipedia supports the user's beliefs because the template makes it "official looking". If someone just stated their beliefs on their user page in text, it would seem more like their individual beliefs. -- Kjkolb 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with this. When I first created my userpage, I thought I had too many userboxes as it was, but I've seen other users just go overboard with them. It reminds me of those cars that just have way too many bumper stickers. — TheKMantalk 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has replied on his talk page with this edit - [25].--God of War 03:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon problem[edit]

There has been a very disruptive vandal IP Address, He has been repeatedly readding personal attacks/nonsense on his talk page and yet he has not yet been blocked. — Moe ε 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon for 24 hours and sprotected the talk page. Canderson7 (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

user:Iron Jew[edit]

Iron_Jew (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) created a nonsense article, father mcginnisberg. When I listed it for speedy delete, he removed the speedy delete tag twice without comment. He then removed two afd tags and vandalised my user page twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaly620 (talkcontribs)

This sounds like an imposter/sockpuppet account of User:Ironbrew. Not only did he vandalize and possibly create a imposter account, but it looks like apossible usernameblock could be in store for "Iron Jew". — Moe ε 03:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see on the user contribution pages about deleting the AFD, maybe becuase the article's gone now. He has an apology posted on his page after two warnings. Further vandalism should be dealth with swiftly, without a doubt. -Husnock 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Curps blocked him indefiently for vandalism, well, I guess the apology was no good. :-D — Moe ε 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think his apology was an idle one, since I think he kept vandalizing after he posted it. Anyway, he kept removing several speedy tags and AfD tags that were posted on the patent nonsense/attack page he created. — TheKMantalk 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Living people[edit]

Ok, I just stubbled upon this category. This is probably the most broad category ever made on Wikipedia. Do you know how much of a hassle it's going to be to list EVERY single person who's alive. That's a pretty useless, if you ask me. I don't think we need a category to help us divide the people who are alive. I think Categories should group people/things that are unique. Unique in bieng able to list a few people/things into a category of something specific that not everyone has. Something that broad like if their alive or not is hardly useful. IMHO, I think this should be deleted, but I wasn't sure if everyone would agree with me or not so I posted the message here. — Moe ε 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Related discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disrespect of community opinion from an admin. — TheKMantalk 06:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The category will exist, by fiat from Jimbo, as a way to avoid another Seigenthaler incident. I think the idea is to form a "bio patrol" to ensure that living peoples' WP entries are up to snuff. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Also see discussion on wikien-l here. --Interiot 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
But listing people who are alive is useless and time consuming. Placing all of those categories by hand is just wasting time. I think users can keep articles up-to-date without the use of a mass category. — Moe ε 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but what can we do about it, the almighty Jimbo has spoken. The best thing to do is just ignore it and ignore articles in it. That's what i plan on doing to show my opposition to it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
How very mature and helpful of you. — Dan | talk 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, what I did about it was send Jimbo a message and see if he will respond. I proposed deleting the category Living people and expanding on Category:Births by year. I don't think avoiding the articles are going to help Jtkiefer because it basically is every article. :-D — Moe ε 15:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it has to do with automation. A number of tech geeks have spoken up and noted that the catagory is the best way to handle it.--Tznkai 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There is also the (vague, rumoured) possibility of providing an optional filter for RC. Bios of living people account for less than 10% of our articles but much more of our legal risk. Physchim62 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Need my user pages rescued[edit]

My user and user talk pages were moved around by Voterrightsparty (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log), I could use come assistance getting them back in the right places. Thanks! — TheKMantalk 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think I fixed it. android79 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


I think everyone might think I'm paranoid or something but I think: (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

is Mcfly85. Evidence may prove in the last few edits by the anon linking my less than popular rant about Wikipedia to his talk page (if you look through the history you should see it). I don't how an random anon IP address would know about that if he wasn't involved in the earlier mishap. It's nothing really but it does show similar connections, don't you think? — Moe ε 22:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible admin meeting and mailing list[edit]

User:Danny has been kicking around ideas on the wikien mailing list about an IRC meeting for admins and a mailing list for admins. [26] [27] - Haukur 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, admin behavior needs to have greater transparency to regular users, not less. Why isn't this page, communication on talk, and the existing IRC channel if necessary, sufficient? Superm401 - Talk 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear. My sentiments exactly. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Hey everybody, please look the other way for a moment, we're trying to form a cabal here. Radiant_>|< 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ugh, not more mail. The stuff I get from the vandals is bad enough. Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. I'd rather spend the time editing than reading through yet more emails, and I don't like the hysteria that seems to come from the current IRC channel. Secretlondon 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer that all Wikipedia "business" take place on Wikipedia, it is public, open and accessible by all. For that reason I do not participate in IRC or the mailing lists. Paul August 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    I prefer it too, by much, but it seems to me more pious than useful to eschew IRC and the Mailing list to that end, and encourage others to do the same. If there were no IRC and no Mailing List, editors would surely simply e-mail one another through the "E-mail this user" feature even more than they do now, and they would continue to discuss Wikipedia business in these mails. Would you disable the e-mail feature? And also, how hard would it be for users to find other real-time internet venues? I don't believe it's anyways possible to stop Wikipedians from talking Wikipedia business privately. IMO it's a little better that they do so on IRC and the ML, where there is at least continual open discussion which reminds people of the ethical issues involved, than to be driven wholly underground (or into venues that only the techiest among us can find). Let's avoid separating the admins off into special channels, let's keep them visible to at least those non-admin who do choose to frequent the same spaces; I think that's the best we can do. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
    Well, I disagree. I'd blow up the IRC channel in a minute, if I had the chance. For every piece of business done there that couldn't be done on the project (VIP, DR, AN, AN/I), there are ten pieces of distortion, chat, and piling on. If I go to IRC, I chat, as, other than emergency issues, it's fairly useless to actually unlimber an argument. Geogre 14:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    Which is exactly why I created WP:AN. Apparently this isn't enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bishonen. It's too cabal-ous to form communication channels that are solely for the use of admins. Joyous | Talk 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, the only possible reason to do something like this is to have a page protected so that only admins can discuss (still readable to public) is to help reduce the signal to noise ratio (if there is any). — Ambush Commander(Talk) 04:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • -I have access problems with IRC so i never use it. I strongly object to policy discussion taking palce ther unless it is at least copied to the wiki. I alo think this is mostly a better forum than the amiling list, to which i don't plan to subscribe, but at least the archives are avaialble via a web link. DES (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


I and several other people have posted comments to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights only to have them be totally ignored by administrators. You mustn't forget that only you have the ability to edit protected pages. Superm401 - Talk 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You must not assume that every talk page is actually watched and read by anyone. That's what we have public noticeboards for. Radiant_>|< 23:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I added the shortcut, the other things probably should be breached in a more public forum. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 04:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view recent edits[edit]

All -- there have been some questionable edits going on recently at WP:NPOV, with some concomitant edit warring. I'd encourage everybody to stop by the page and weigh in on the debate over these changes. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 01:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Messing around like this with the key Wikipedia policy is blatant disruption. I've blocked Bensaccount for 48 hours and locked the page; experienced admins are invited to try to fix the page. If any admin feels this is an egregious block or protection, you childmind him - David Gerard 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Since I suggested that admins wishing to make changed to Mediawiki: space pages should run them through here, I thought I'd do so.

All of a sudden, a couple of days ago, MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning began being very confusingly displayed on semi-protected pages, which people can and are encouraged to edit. Presumably the devs tweaked something for us. Anyway, it needs rephrasing until the problem is fixed. So I'd suggest some phrasing like:

Note: Editing of this page is currently restricted. If you are an administrator and this page is fully protected, please be sure you are following the protected pages policy.

I'd also suggest it no longer be coloured red. It's longer than ideal, but then it's not our fault that the message has come to be used in this way. I think this should be changed post-haste given that I've now seen at least a handful of confused editors around, particularly on George W. Bush. -Splashtalk 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, with no responses despite activity elsewhere above and below my post here, I'll go and make the change. I hope that we don't need a massive to-and-fro over the exact words that are used. This should be temporary anyway, I hope. -Splashtalk 22:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Norum[edit]

I suspect that all images uploaded by this user (see [28]) are copyright violations of one sort or another. I've started working my way through the list of about 10 images. I've completed 4, but would like help with the remaining images. Note that the user removed a nosource tag from an image [29] without providing a source. --Durin 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think they're all taken care of now and tagged as no source or no license where appropriate. --GraemeL (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection tags[edit]

On semi protected pages, when I click on edit this page, as a non-admin it says WARNING: This page has been locked so that only administrators can edit it. Be sure you are following the protected page guidelines. Any way to fix this? Its VERY misleading, and some editors wont edit the page because they dont think they can. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Look two threads up... let's get discussion going in one place please. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mass PDF upload[edit]

Somebody should check what Rajasuap (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is doing. It seems like he's using Wikipedia as his personal fileserver. He uploaded about a hundred apparently copyrighted PDFs. bogdan 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The one or two that I checked weren't used in an article, so they can be put up for deletion as orphans. --Syrthiss 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no kind of option to speedy them? Hmmm... this may be something to look at. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of a speedy criteria that applies. The person who uploaded them marked them as GFDL so they aren't "unused copyrighted images"... they aren't nonsense, or broken. --Syrthiss 18:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, common sense would be that they are all going to be deleted, so why not just speedy them, perhaps under the "Improper license" clause, as I am not sure they are his/hers to release into the GFDL? And my comment was that maybe we need to draft some kind of policy about stuff like this being speedyable. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If they're fair use images that are still orphaned after 7 days, they can be speedied (I5). · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an article from a newspaper, which most likely is copyrighted. bogdan 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of them look like magazine articles, newspaper articles, and government documents (?), which might not be fair use. They may be copyvios, so should probably be deleted even if they aren't orphaned. The tags he/she used specify that they are the creator of the work. We need some explanation from Rajasuap. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. If he tagged the one that Bogdan noted above as gfdl-self, then I'd say the rest of his gfdl-self tags are definitely suspect. Articles are almost certainly copyrighted; not necessarily true of government documents -- however that's better in Wikisource anyway. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ask Bogdan for details. Also, blindly speeding stuff which seems OK just because it is orphaned will also remove material being uploaded to support a new article. Is it proper to require creation of an unsupported article (violating WP:V) as opposed to uploading supporting material for a new article before creating the article? (SEWilco 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC))
They were uploaded two weeks ago and the user had no activity before or after that. bogdan 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

These should be mass deleted. The user in question has not responded to inquiries on the talk page as to what the point of these images are. It seems pretty clear that these are being uploaded for the purpose of using Wikipedia as a file server. I also noticed a lot fo the images are identical, and can be deleted as duplicates. -Husnock 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We may also want to ask User: Special:Contributions/ since he/she appears to have changed many of Rajasuap's files. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for rollback privileges[edit]

Please vote on the requests for rollback proposal, a proposal which would give good contributors, who are not admins, access to the rollback privilege. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

<s>Official</s> complaint to the BBC[edit]

I have made the following official complaint (this is somewhat misleading... what I really meant here is that I made a formal complaint. It's been pointed out my sig maybe somewhat misleading, however it is not: I am a Wikipedia admin) to the BBC (form can be found here, I recomend that as many people as possible fill this out so they will know our disgust at such irresponsible behaviour: UK people are especially encouraged to fill this out):

I wish to make a formal complaint in regards to your radio show "The Scott Mills Show". On January 19 they made various edits to the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia that were false and/or ridiculous (for instance, they wrote "Edith has been romanticly linked with an ironing board." on the Edith Bowman article).
I can provide exact links of where they did this, we maintain an audit log of every change that we make. They also had to create an account "Joshworkinghard". When they log in to the site, they are expected to follow certain site policies: these can be found at One of the policies is our policy on adding absurd or ridiculous information, which we class as a form of vandalism. They appear not to have followed this policy.
My complaint is that a media organisation appears to have decided that it is OK to vandalise our website, with the participants seemingly paying no thought to the consequences of their actions, or the reputation of the BBC. After all, I was not aware that the BBC, a respectable institution, condoned and encouraged vandalism!
Would Scott Mills and Mark Chapman create an account on Kuro5hin or slashdot and then proceed to add malicious or ridiculous information? There are similarly easy ways of gaining accounts on these websites, methods in which you will not be identified. The point that Scott and Mark were apparently trying to make was that anyone can edit the website with impunity.
Perhaps I should put this a different way. You can go to a public space where there is no surveillance underway, grab a can of spraypaint and then vandalise the wall. You would do this with impunity. Does this mean that the DJs of radio shows should broadcast that they are vandalising public property because they can get away with it? I think that the answer here is fairly clear.
So, to summarise: I would like to make a complaint about the conduct of your employees, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman when they vandalised various pages, of which I can provide detailed evidence. I would like to know what the BBC's position is on the deliberate vandalising of Wikipedia, or of any other website that are publicly available. Does the BBC encourage or condone such actions?
Finally, I would like to request that you cease and desist from such actions. We provide a valuable service to the public, and while we have some issues of vandalism from individuals, we NEVER expected to see such an august institution as the BBC participating in such petty and irresponsible actions.
Chris Sherlock
Wikipedia Administrator

I was not aware that the BBC condone vandalism. Does this mean that Scott Mills and Mark Chapman will be creating a slashdot or kuro5hin account to deliberately vandalise those websites? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia and the BBC are both in the information industry, this could be seen as anti-competitive behavior on the part of the BBC and might even be illegal in civilized countries like the UK. (It matters not that Wikipedia is non-profit.) Is it more than the miscreant's jobs are worth? Hu 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I am more concerned that the media thinks it's OK for them to vandalise pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That's the point, of course. It doesn't matter much what the motive is. Not much excuse for it. Hu 07:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide some more details? If, on the one hand, journalists were trying a breaching experiment to understand and report on how Wikipedia deals with vandalism, and they repaired everything when they were done, I wouldn't really be bothered by it. But if they were just messing with us for the sake of messing with us and getting some laughs, then I would agree that it was entirely inappropriate. From the summary you give above I can't really tell what they thought the purpose of their actions were. Dragons flight 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks like vandalism to me. [30] If they wanted to understand wiki all they needed to do was watch recent changes, or ask someone. It's not like we don't have enough vandals already. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they continued to vandalize after being reverted several times in the span of a few minutes. I think what's worse is that they (either indirectly or directly) encouraged other anons (and a few users) to vandalize those pages. — TheKMantalk 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think anyone but the Wikipedia board can make an "official" complaint. The BBC's facilities have previously been used to create hoax articles (see Jamie Kane), and the BBC was quick to attempt to dissociate themselves from them. [31] Jimbo seems to have a good relationship with them, and I would suggest that perhaps an approach by Jimbo might be a more productive avenue to pursue. - Nunh-huh 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think writing as "Wikipedia Administrator" makes it looks like you are writing on behalf of Wikipedia, when you are not. It's not up to you to complain to large outside organisations, seemingly on our behalf, without discussing it first. Secretlondon 07:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
What are you on about? I am a Wikipedia administrator, and that is how I will continue to sign my emails. It does NOT mean that I am a paid employee of the site, but nonetheless I am still an administrator, and will continue to be an administrator doing admin tasks for the foreseeable future. My admin status is not in dispute, and in fact never has been. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
When you sign a letter Wikipedia Administrator you are writing on behalf of the organisation, or so it appears. Offline, Administrator can be the title of the senior member of staff, certainly in the voluntary sector. No-one is denying that you have the post of administrator within Wikipedia, what you don't have is the authority to speak for Wikipedia. I'll try and give an example to make things clearer. If one is elected as an officer of a trade union for example - you can support a campaign without the permission of the Union by signing it (Personal Capacity). If you'd signed your email Chris Sherlock, Wikipedia Administrator (Personal Capacity) I would have no problems with your conduct. Secretlondon 15:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, point taken. Apologies for getting snippy, there probably wasn't an excuse but rather my over defensiveness (I can be a spiky bastard sometimes). I will do that in future. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Are we 100% sure that Joshworkinghard was from the BBC? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If we need to, we can request that the IP address of this user be cross referenced to the BBC netblock. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. But what I meant was how do we know that they did it? Did they admit to it on air? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
See  — TheKMantalk 06:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess that's good enough to proceed on. I won't do it now, but something like "Dear Mr BBC, I am a volunteer at wikipedia. I believe that on <date> two of your announcers commited deliberate vandalism at wikipedia <details> and encouraged other people to do likewise. Thanks to considerable effort by other volunteers here this damage has been undone. Does the BBC acknowledge that the vandalism occured? Does the BBC condone vandalism? Will SM & MC apologise to wikipedia readers and volunteers? Regards, Ben Aveling" Having just seen An Inspector Calls, I'm not of a mind to call for anyone to be sacked, but I think that mainstream media organisations ought to be discouraged from this sort of stunt. Has anyone had a response yet? If not, how many complaints do you think we'll need to raise for them to understand that this is not a good thing for them to be doing? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish to make a formal complaint regarding your radio show 'The Scott Mills Show'. On the 19th January, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman made various edits to the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia that were false and/or ridiculous. For instance, they wrote 'Edith has been romantically linked with an ironing board.' in the article regarding Edith Bowman). The Wikipedia has a number of policies to help guide people towards producing a better encyclopaedia, when logging in it is assumed that these will be followed. A copy of these policies and guidelines can be found at this url: One of the policies relates to adding plainly ridiculous, insulting or obscene material to articles. This is described as vandalism and is not allowed. In the process of their editing they ignored this rule. Logs are kept of every change made and details can be provided of exactly when, where and from which IP the vandalism was made. Presumably if they are editing the encyclopaedia whilst working at the BBC, they are editing it in a professional capacity. I would assume that you have some clause in their contract which explicitly forbids them from certain actions while working as they are your representatives. I would like to know what the BBC's position is on the deliberate vandalising of Wikipedia, or of any other website that are publicly available. Does the BBC encourage or condone such actions? I'm sure that the BBC would not be particularly impressed if a 'hacker' were to vandalise the BBC home page to make a point. While editing false, misleading or obscene content into Wikipedia is not illegal in the same way as 'hacking', the principle is the same, disrupting a website in order to make a point. I would appreciate it if the stars of your radio show would refrain from vandalising the Wikipedia and also refrain from inciting others to vandalism.


Francis Tyers Wikipedia Administrator (writing in a personal capacity)

Questionable user creations[edit]

WOW: User:WhiteOwlWho ??? Just thought I'd mention it. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Highly doubt it's Willy on Wheels since his only edit lists his e-mail address at the bottom of his contribution. Since Willy is known for high-speed page moves, it's probable that it's not him. Willy would have vandalized by now. :-P — Moe ε 04:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Except moves are restricted when the name is first created. And I wasn't saying for sure it was Willy, but I think we need to be aware of WoW names. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- WOW! I didn't think Willy On Wheels actually existed until I saw this post. I thought it was merely a John Doe type example. The things one leasrns on Wikipedia. Pattersonc(Talk) 9:39 PM, Sunday; January 29 2006 (EST)

Yeah, the name means that this user's contribs should undergo some scrutiny, but let's be careful not to give this user the same welcome we gave to WoWjUnKiE7290. :-P --Deathphoenix 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't advocating anything but a watchful eye. Doesn't hurt to be alert. Wow, I just frickin' rhymed. Awful. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Tis a danger to rhyme when on wheels
for one might become someone who feels
so overwhelmed by the power
that it all might go sour
Playing tactics like a card-player who deals.

FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 06:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • If that's supposed to be a limerick, you seriously need to work on your meter :) Radiant_>|< 12:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I dropped what I intended to be a friendly greeting on the userpage, so if it isn't Willy on Wheels at least he'll know why people are giving him funny looksTeeth.png. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Most Noble[edit]

Please note that discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble

Is this the right place to have a moan? I keep being reverted here. [32] Is it really true that Wikipedia policy says all articles about British Dukes dead and alive have to begin "The Most Noble" Tarquin Chinless-Wonder? as most of them recently seem to do. Because in 2006 it does sound (to my ears) really rather silly. For example Andrew Russell, 15th Duke of Bedford , Murray Beauclerk, 14th Duke of St Albans and David Somerset, 11th Duke of Beaufort. What about Spanish and Italian dukes can they be noble too? Thinking about this matter some more are any of the above (live) dukes notable anyway, apart from possessing their own names the same as anyone else. what have they done to be here? - but just for the moment let's consider "The Most Noble" Giano | talk 17:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You're being reverted because you're acting against the Manual of Style. Please see here: [33]. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This also covers The Right Honourable for members of the Privy Council, The Most Honourable for Marquesses, and so forth. Mackensen (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I see nowhere there that antiquated terms should be used - are the married females who have an article on Wikipedia to be change to Mrs. John Smith or whatever their husband's were called because that was etiquette some time ago? Giano | talk 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
(sigh) That's because we didn't bother to spell out every single honorific prefix that exists. Honorific prefixes are included in Wikipedia articles, whether they refer to peers, priests, or politicians (with the exception of monarchs and popes, for whom we have different rules). Mackensen (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  •  ::::::(big sigh) you talk to your fellow countrymen in these terms (bigger sigh) that's terrific is it for the tourists? Giano | talk 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm an American, and if I appear short it's because I remember that long weeks of debating which lead to the established of the policy in the first place. I highly encourage you to read the manual of style before making changes which are simply going to be reverted. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd also note that this is a content and policy dispute, which is better suited for the policy pages in question. Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As someone involved in sorting out the mess on royal styling I have to say that Mackensen is correct in interpreting WP policy as regarding peer's styles. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 19:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The complaint about admin behavior is relevant here, though[edit]

I don't understand this reference to MOS at all. Mackensen,have you reviewed the MOS section you link to recently, are you sure you remember it right? As far as I can see, it shows that there is no policy, and no recommendation, for such cases; it says "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial". That's it. How do you figure Giano is "acting against" that? The only actual policy mentioned by the MoS is that for royalty and popes we don't include comparable honorifics. That obviously doesn't mean that we do include them for nobility; theoretically it's not relevant at all, and insofar as it's a hint, it implies the opposite.
OK, this issue should go to the policy pages in question (where, again, are they?), but Giano's "moan" is appropriate on this page in regard to the behavior of User:Proteus, who has been persistently reverting him over many pages. Proteus isn't — just — in breach of the 3RR (it takes 4 reverts within 24 hours to be that) but he's certainly keeping just inside the 3RR[34], reverting the same change persistently on a number of articles, referring bad-temperedly to policy[35] without saying where it's to be found (apparently nowhere, so I can understand that), and some of the time using admin rollback to revert[36], implying that Giano's edits are vandalism. Oh, and I see a strong protest on User talk:Proteus against earlier such misuse of rollback ("at least 19 admin rollbacks to well-meaning edits")[37] — —I can't find any response from Proteus to it. None of these actions are appropriate admin behavior. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

I would disagree with your interpretation. Unexplained deletions from articles, when there is strong consensus that they should remain, is hardly the way to go about things. The manual of style notes that such usage, while not universally accepted, is common. That's pretty solid for the MOS. I would also note that WikiProject Peerage, which does its level best to keep articles on peers, baronets, and British politicians in order, regards the use of honorific prefixes as standard practice. Giano's complaint against these prefixes seems to be that of many Americans; he regards them as antiquated appendages. That may well be, but they're still in use today. If he wants to get ride of The Most Noble then he's going to have to delete The Right Honourable as well. I think Proteus was perfectly justified in reverting these unexplained deletions. Mackensen (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The Manual of Style doesn't force you to do anything, but stand this on its head: nowhere is there justification for just removing honorific prefixes. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm strongly against the use of these prefixes. I have checked all the main encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries and they are not used in these so I don't see why Wikipedia should use them. Arniep 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Because the community reached a consensus on this matter about six months ago. I would stongly advise you against reopening the issue. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no rational reason why we should use the styles for Dukes but not Monarchs, therefore I think this should be reconsidered with wider community involvement. Arniep 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, try to understand that it was considered with wider community involvement, and this was the compromise that was reached. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for responding to me above, Mackensen. I'm glad to see you back-pedalling on the claim that Giano's "acting against the Manual of Style". Looking for the "wider community involvement" you mention: I see a very modest discussion on the Project Peerage talkpage, under "Honorific prefixes", dating from last summer and with four (4) users taking part, wherein Proteus suggests honorifics be used, the others appear well enough pleased, and Proteus dismisses a question from one of them about how/when to decide on this "proposed policy" by saying: "We don't normally have a formal approval process. As it's been here for a while and no one seems to have objected, I suppose it could now be considered an acceptable policy." Is this the consensus you refer to ...? Then perhaps you need to bear in mind that consensus is subject to change, especially if it consists of four users on an, uh, not high-profile talkpage. Style policy, AFAIC, is the MoS.
On the rollback issue: Giano removed the honorific with in every case an at least somewhat explanatory edit summary[38], [39] , [40] (A fuller argument by Giano on talk would have been better, I agree. Note that Proteus, an admin, never once used or suggested using the talkpage either.) Proteus rolled him back without any explanation at all. [41], [42]. [43]. Are you defending the position that Giano's edits were vandalism and therefore rollback was appropriate? I'm not talking merely about reverting them (though I personally have some doubts about that as well, with so much reverting) but using the admin rollback button, which is only to be used to revert vandalism. Do you have any comment on the talkback message that I linked to, protesting Proteus previous misuses of rollback ? Or on the low information content and poor courtesy of Proteus' edit summaries on those occasions that he didn't use rollback? (I won't offer any diffs here, since the histories of the pages I've already linked to are easily viewed). Is this "perfectly justified" admin behavior? I'd be grateful for a bit of feedback from other admins, and other community members, here, if possible. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
Actually, I was referring to this set of archives:[44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. That's by no means everything that was said on the matter, just what I was able to find. Styles have been in the MoS for a long time. They are frequently removed by users who are either unaware of this fact or who do not approve of them. I would note that it is not yet accepted that rollback can only be used for vandalism, and that said discussion is still on-going (I myself try to only use it thusly, but there's no requirement that admins do so). I can say that I would have reverted Giano myself, but Proteus beat me to it. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the general consensus, as well as the general feeling, is that use of rollback ought to be restricted right down to cases where it is obvious as to the reason for the reversion. First of all, rollback is not a simple revert, so you need to understand that it's all too easy to do some serious damage. If you try to revert a single edit with it, depending upon the pattern of edits, you may end up reverting a whole string of them. Second, rollback provides no scope to give a summary, leaving only the daunting X rolled back edits by Y to last version by Z - the preferred option is to use a manual revert and provide at least some sort of summary, if only to avoid being damn rude.
Misuse of administrator-only abilities will lead to their revocation in short order, so please check your facts and make sure you want to continue on that pattern. At the least, I would advocate that you stop using rollback, and avoid any revert warring which may spring up. Rob Church (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah I bet you would strongly advise - Incidentally I am not American, and I may know a great deal more about the peerage than you. so please do not be patronising. British Dukes do not refer to themselves as Most Noble or expect others to do so. Most Noble is only used today in documents issued by Buckingham Palace when conferring even greater honours of chivalry on an existing Duke. Or in the very rarified language of the courts of Heraldry. It was used in the House of Lord's on occassions, but they have now expelled Dukes, si it will not be happening again there. At Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington after being reverted I changed to "The late and most Noble" which incidentally was the correct term for a dead duke when "Most Noble" was in common parlance has again been reverted - very odd. Dukes no longer even have Most Noble placed on their own tombstones. So there is absolutely no reason for an international encyclopedia to use these antiquated and near obsolete terms of deference. If the Pope cannot be His Holiness how come the distant (and sometimes dubious) descendents of British heros and King's bastards can be " Most Noble". Giano | talk 20:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you found my tone patronizing, let me back up and try again. What you are describing here is a content dispute. The issues you have raised were raised six months ago and hashed out in what has become know as the "Style Wars." I'm not sure where the relevant talk page archives have ended, but I'll start looking this evening. Incidentally, the Duke of Montrose still sits in the House of Lords as an elected hereditary peer, and there is no bar on Dukes now entering the House of Commons. If you want to re-ignite the Style Wars, a good place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I remind you again that this would also cover The Right Honourable, which is hardly antiquated and indeed in almost constant use. The Manual of Style, in my view (and I'm not alone in this), as presently written, backs up Proteus's version of the article. Perhaps he could have been friendlier about it, but consider his actions in light of the above. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We are not discussing "Right Honourable" but "Most Noble". Please let me assure you of one thing for dead certain without debate or confusion, the British House of Commons will never, has never and never will refer to any of its members as "Most Noble". The Duke of Montrose may well sit as an elected peer, but I suspect he is not about to begin a campaign for the return of "Most Noble" - not if he wants to remain in the House of Lords. The term is antiquated, it is dead, it is gone, only on Wikipedia does it seem to remain. Giano | talk 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't think we should use Right Honourable either. The only prefix that does seem to be used in mainstream encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries is Sir. I think the point is those styles are only meant to be used when addressing a person formally not in an encyclopedia article. Arniep 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite right! Giano | talk 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a shame that no one (excepting a few individuals) on Wikipedia seem to realise that this is the case. Arniep 21:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It is policy and like other policies remains so until WP users (plural), not just one or two, decide otherwise. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl, it differs from "other policies" in not existing. At least no one has been able to point to this policy, to link to it, or to quote it. Unless you mean to repeat yet again Mackensen's claim that this is a policy in favor of using honorific prefixes? I'm baffled to hear anybody say that their "interpretation" allows for such a random, contrary-to-the-words-on-the-page reading — I don't know how to respond, really. Dear reader, please click on the offered MoS link — here it is again — as Sannse did. Read all about it. It won't be policy until you can show us a policy that says so, Jtdirl; that one ain't it. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
Look, I just don't see what you and Sannse are seeing. I see two groups excluded: royals and popes. They are clearly and explicitly excluded from having styles included in articles. Nobles do not belong to either of those two groups. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

...Abusing admin privileges, such as rollback, for content disputes or edit wars, is not only incredibly wrong, but also just as stupid and immature as edit warring in the first place. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to the discussion above. This is a policy question, as Jtdirl rightly noted. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a settled policy question. Additionally, the use of rollback to revert non-vandalism IMO contravenes our policy on Civility, since it provides no edit summary and implies the user's edit was pure vandalism. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
My two penn'orth: Proteus's position, as a matter of English usage, is ludicrous. However the first of his reverts seems to be this one, which does give a reason for the revert. If you revert for the same reason twenty times, I don't see any need to do it the slow way after giving a reason on the first occasion. Mark1 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy as written does not say what is claimed here. It lists some that are "viewed by many (but not all) as acceptable", and lists some that should not be used. It does not say "these titles must be used". I can see that the dispute over this was heated and can understand that everyone involved is sick of the whole argument - but that doesn't change that the quoted link does not support the change. I've looked at the links provided to old discussion, and it's a complete mess that seems to lead nowhere. Unless there is an agreement to change the Manual of Style, then there are no grounds to insist on one form or the other. Certainly there are no grounds to use rollback - as said above, for a non-vandalism edit, that's just plain rude. -- sannse (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those it lists are royals and popes. Only royals and popes. Those were the only ones excluded. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
However, note that the users above would remove The Right Honourable, which is one of those listed as acceptable to most users. That would definitely be against consensus. Moreover, it's clear from the wording that while you do not have to use styles, there isn't support for going through and taking them out. The peerage project, for one, has a made a point to use them, because it aids in describing historical figures. My impression, unless someone inserts diffs which prove otherwise, is that Proteus didn't use the rollback button until the removals continued. The matter of styles is settled at the present. The usage of The Most Noble and The Most Honourable was never explicity stated because it did not appear necessary to do. The distintinction in the MoS at present is between royal and papal styles on the one hand and all the rest on the other. While examples are cited they are by no means inclusive. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I see you have just reverted again at 1st Duke of Wellington [49] - amazing. Whatever the rights or wrongs of roll back (I don't know what that is incidentally or that he had done it) that if three or four admins can decide on a obscure talk page that a living human being, who has often done nothing more than be born (remember even today a baby can be a duke) has to be referred to in 2006 as The Most Noble, then the whole encyclopedia looks sycophantic and ridiculous - and that definitely should be discussed here. Giano | talk 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's my first revert on any article in this matter, and it was done in response to a revert by Arniep, whose reverts I can't begin to count. If you would please look at the links I posted above, you would see that the style policy was hashed out by dozens of editors, many of whom were not administrators. I would also remind you of WP:NPOV; your personal views on the relative importance of dukes shouldn't enter into this. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I love titled people - quite a few of them. I merely point out that they come in all ages, shapes and sizes. Some even do noble and heroic things, and some lie in their crested cribs and scream but by describing them all in a medieval term in 2006 makes them and more importantly Wikipedia ridiculous, and it should cease now, before the place becomes a laughing stock. Giano | talk 22:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you know that Queen Elizabeth II still styles herself "Duke of Normandy" on her official website? If the title is official, then we should use it in the article. Otherwise, I support Giano in this dispute. A note to admins: please remember that rollback is intended for reverting vandalism. If you enter a content dispute, please revert the ordinary way and explain your changes in edit summaries. Otherwise, your rollbacks may be interpreted as rudeness and arrogance towards other editors. Take care, Ghirla | talk 09:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


I would like to draw everyone's attention to this edit here, [50], in which User:Arniep removes the style from Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington with the edit summary "removed most noble style in keeping with all other modern reference works". Such a justification is neither here nor there. It is done without reference to the manual of style, accepted practice, community consensus, or even the discussion above. Other encyclopedias do not dictate practices here. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I refer you you my edit immediatly above (almost a conflict) Giano | talk 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it. That edit is skating dangerously close, in my view, to disruption. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I only reverted twice, and secondly these prefixes are only meant to be used in formal spoken addresses, not even Burke's Peerage uses them!!! Arniep 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And yet, interestingly, inserting the title isn't part of the Manual of Style, either. Thus, removing it isn't a violation of the Manual of Style, and inserting it isn't a violation of the Manual of Style, and there isn't policy to insert or remove it. How about that? Seems like a content dispute. Also, Arniep is correct that this particular title is spoken, not legal, so perhaps what we can do is have the audio version employ it, in a "Masterpiece Theatre" imitation, and the written version not? Geogre 12:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal[edit]

At this point, what we have is a policy dispute. Policy disputes don't belong here. Before this degenerates into a revert-war (moreso, at any rate), let me try to state the situation as I see it and suggest a way to handle this.

A number of Wikipedians, particularly those active in articles concerning the British peerage or British government (and the two do overlap quite a bit), are in the habit of including styles and honorific prefixes in articles. These range from The Most Noble and The Most Honourable, which designate nobles only, to The Right Honourable, which can refer to both nobles (e.g. Earls) and commoners (members of the privy council). Furthermore, these Wikipedians believe that the Manual of Style backs them up, to say nothing of common practice. Other Wikipedians dispute this interpretation, or, more broadly, do not agree that styles should be included in articles. The Manual of Style does not seem to support their interpretation, but that matter is not entirely clear. The Manual of Style is silent on removing styles, but the which styles are approved may be an open question.

Two things need to happen at this point. One, I think we need to agree that Proteus could have been kinder about his reverts, but that from his point of view they were entirely justified (and he did give reasons in the beginning). We've ceased to discuss him in all of this, at any rate. Two, we may need to re-examine the policy on styles, but that's something that should be done at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter that belongs here because it is making Wikipedia look ridiculous - you want in the civilized western world Wikipedia to call certain human beings Most Noble and such like when even their own stud books do not. The peer project crowd seem to have made a right antiquated hash of it so far - so lets sort it here in public. Giano | talk 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen, your summary is hardly fair. The MoS is silent as to whether these styles should be used. It simply notes that some people consider some of the styles to be acceptable. Mark1 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Nor did I say that it did. I stated that a number of Wikipedians belive that it says that, but the matter is not entirely clear. Therefore, I invited Giano to take the matter up in the proper place. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You also said the MoS "does not seem to support their interpretation". You're entitled to your view, but don't try to pretend it's a neutral summary. Mark1 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
What I mean by that is that it doesn't say that you should remove them, and in fact gives examples of styles that are often used. I've rewritten it a little. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me help you out a little bit here. At the top of the page there is the following clause: Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. This is a content dispute. I suppose we're heading towards mediation if you keep making rather offensive remarks like the one above, but I'm not one to go round quoting WP:NPA at people. I encourage you to read up on how policy is made, and also have a look at WP:NOT, when you get a chance. Thanks in advance, Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (Your helpful representative from those worthless fellows at WP:PEER).
Mackensen, I realize people post in a hurry sometimes, and can feel beleaguered sometimes. May I ask if you stand by the above message with its sarcasm, self-praise, false "helpfulness", and paralipsis ("a rhetorical figure or figure of speech in which one emphasises something by pretending not to mention it") today, after sleeping on it? Bishonen | talk 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC).
Mackensen, where's the best place to discuss this, would you say? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I should think Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) would be a good place, since that's where the disputed words lie. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I can see there's a lot to read. There would be, wouldn't there? ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there any point continuing this discussion anywhere. As far as the noble peer pushers are concerned grey is both black and white, and it does not really matter if it isn't as a noble admin can come along and use magical tools. No where else in Wikipedia would such a ridiculous charade be tolerated. Quite rightly Kings, Queen, religious leaders etc all have no honorifics, (no disrespect intended to them, just a level playing field) yet somehow it seems on Wikipedia the British monarch's "support cast" can have all kinds of Ruritanian prefixes, not given them elsewhere. A limited discussion on the subject seems to have started at this popular debating forum Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. This is an admin or higher administration matter as it makes the whole project look toadying, pretentious and daft.Giano | talk 08:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Mackensen, I know this is completely off topic, but was your section title (A Modest Proposal) a coincidence, or was it an allusion to either the term or the essay A Modest Proposal? Just curious.... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The latter, although it was a serious proposal :) --Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out that our written policy is a crystalisation of community consensus: it is not fixed in stone, and if the consensus changes then the policy needs to be updated. Besides which, one of our most treasured principles is Use common sense (which, you may note, is a redirect to the, IMHO, misleadingly named Ignore all rules). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
One Modest Proposal would, of course, be to eat the peers. However, arguing that "there is no law against calling them by honorifics (where there is for Popes and Kings), so there is a law calling them by honorifics" is the worst kind of offense against logic and common sense (something that Swift's Projector would not do, as he is entirely logical and thoroughly immoral). We call saints saints only if they are known as saints primarily (e.g. if Mother Theresea gets the nod, she won't go in as Saint Theresea of Calcutta, but rather Mother Theresea, saint, as a job title). In the cases of kings and popes, the job title is included ("king" and "pope"), but not an honorific. If the honorific is an indication of job title ("sir" or "knight"), then it should be present. However, an article that honors its subject by using exaltation in its description violates NPOV. I don't get to say that the 3rd Earl of Sandwich was honorable (or honourable) or noble or pure of heart. I get to say that he was an earl. Anything more than that implies my encyclopedic value and my desire to stroke his vanity. Well, he's long dead and has no vanity to satisfy, so there's no need to please him, and NPOV prevents my flattering him. Geogre 12:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, members of the privy council are also styled The Right Honourable. That being said, I've no more desire to flatter the departed duke than the next man, but was concerned to prevent a gigantic revert war from breaking out. That object being achieved, there's a good discussion on the Manual of Style, which I've linked to at the top of all this. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Dyslexic agnostic[edit]

I have blocked him for 24 hours over a dispute over at Talk:Enemies of Batman between him and T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. Benon tried to mediate, and it appeared to be working, but then Dyslexic agnostic personally attacked T-man, calling his T-man edits "a waste of everyone's time." T-man may have been guilty of personal attacks earlier, but to me it seemed that he was trying to be civil and cooperative, so I didn't block him. A review of my actions would be great.--Shanel 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

hi ive been trying to mediate this with some help from shanel, howver im uncovering disturbing evidence of a "stalking" of t-man by dyslexic anyone care to comment??Benon 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA explicitly says that one should comment on the content, and not the individual. I really think that the statement is about the content, not the user. That being said, T-Man and DA have been going at it for a few months now. I would point out [51], [52], [53], [54], etc (I would suggest taking a look at that archive and seeing just how many threads are between DA and T-Man). This is from earlier today...[55]...which caused this [56]. This prompted Hiding (talk · contribs) to suggest an RfC [57]. (I can't say I'd certify it, but I'd certainly endorse one)
I don't think DA is an angel, I've seen him violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before (Just not in this case), on a few pages. I think he was lashing out in frustration, as in addition to the Enemies of Batman article, T-Man was partially responsible for creating a few forks on List of limited series. Unfortunately, it seems like you've hit one of those little feuds that keeps going between everyone.--Toffile 04:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
yes but da seems to be appering on every unique article t-man is editing with a couple of hours, often blind reverting, now that is most defintly not acceptable, ive tried to mediate this dispute out but it seems to have proved rather fruitless :-( Benon 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be because of this. [58]. Not acceptable behavior by any means.--Toffile 04:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
While I do not disagree with the DA block, I think that T-Man should just as equally be blocked for provoking him in a multiplicity of instances. I don't think "stalking" really is made out - it's simply that T-Man and DA both tend to watch the same pages and this almost inevitably puts them in conflict. I've "clashed" with T-Man before over his Bat-Embargo edits, and have tried to give him advice which he ultimately rejetced as unhelpful (which is his right), so he's probably going to say I'm biased, but my assessment of the situation places the cause directly on T-Man. His sub-standard command of English, his verbosity as opposed to encyclopedic style, his insistence (as a self-proclaimed expert) on POV-pushing and speculative info is all producing high levels of tension on the various comic-related pages. It's nearly impossible to sift out and copyedit the good stuff from the dross when sometimes it it hard to tell precisely what he means in the first place. T-Man has also derided, insulted and outright abused people other than DA. By only blocking DA, you're sending the message to T-Man that he has done nothing wrong; and that is a wrong message, not to mention an unfair one. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
t-man has been warned, we havent just let it slide, and i gave a stern warning to both parties during mediation Benon 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I left him a stern warning on his talk page warning him against such behaviour. I did not know the extent of his disruption before, but he's on very thin ice as it is with me.--Shanel 05:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ive requested an rfc, if anone wnats to give there input on how to proceed it would be very welcome Benon 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

T-man, the Wise Scarecrow is now blocked for 24 hours as well.--Shanel 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
this behaviour goes back so far and so deep its been referd to the arbitration comitte Benon 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
While I do forsee an RfArb coming up in future, I don't think an RFC has even been filed yet. The ArbCom traditionally rejects RfArbs that have not at least gone through the RFC stage first, so I think an RfArb is premature, and a user conduct RFC should be filed first. I'll happily endorse it if someone will write it up. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 06:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
rfc had alredy been filed Benon 06:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see you filed a content RFC. I was actually thinking that a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate. In either case, you should let the RFC run its course before filing the RfArb. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 07:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise this was being discussed here as well as at the RFAr. I'll paraphrase my thoughts over:

I would question the block on a couple of grounds. Was dyslexic properly warned that he would be blocked on grounds of personal attacks? I still fail to see evidence of a clear warning that either party would be blocked for personal attacks. The best I can find is from Benon who states it is not nessasry to stoop to the level of a personal attack so please don't do, i dont want to but anymore personal attacks and i will be asking admins to impose sancations on either of you. This prompted the reply from Dyslexic that saw him blocked, namely: Benon, it's not a personal attack to say that T-Man's edits are bad, a waste of everyone's time, and that he only knows the animated series, not the comics. These are obvious facts. They affect our ability to edit and spend time on other important matters.

I've been wary to block either user on grounds of personal attacks because my reading of policy was that it wasn't implicit that such blocks are allowed in said policy. I'm also unclear on which user is stalking which, both having claimed the other as stalker. I also have to question why one user is blocked for a personal attack which comes during a period which the blocker in question agrees has been inflamed by personal attacks from the opposite direction. I certainly agree with Khaosworks that you're sending the message to T-Man that he has done nothing wrong; and that is a wrong message, not to mention an unfair one. It also sends the message to Dyslexic that he is unfairly singled out.

Now, taking all things as even I think this initial block was therefore somewhat ill judged. There should have been at least one more warning stressing that the language Dyslexic had used did indeed constitute a personal attack. Hiding talk 16:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your concerns. Looking back, perhaps I should have given Dyslexic agnostic one more warning before blocking, although in my defence I did not know the extent to which T-man provoked him (at the time). I'm also not sure who is stalking who; they both seem to be following each other. Since blocking them both, they have both emailed me. Dyslexic agnostic, while scarcastic, admitted his frustration. And T-man seems to have realized that he should not respond to personal attacks in kind. I hope they can sort their differences out once their blocks expire.--Shanel 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair play, it has been a hard situation to follow, and I probably should have posted my concerns here, so I'm probably a bit to blame, I was hoping they were going to resolve it amicably, there seemed a period just after New Year when they were treating each other fairly well. I agree it is impossible to tell who is stalking who. I've certainly learnt from this one, and I apologise for being somewhat harder on you in the above text than you deserved. If the case does get accepted by arbcom and resolved, it'll be because you got involved, so that's certainly a plus. Hiding talk 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Continued block of User:[edit] is, it seems, a school IP from which ther has been considerable vandalism, and whcih is currently blocked for 3 months. I received a msg on my user talk page, which, after quoting the contents of User talk: (including the block notices) said: "This is the notice given to my school computers IP. The fact that our school has 4 classes in that room a day, and the fact our school is on a 2 semester block shedulae, means that though 3 warnings were givin out only one ever reached the violater. This message was sent to my friend and me after the vandlizm of the eminem page, not by me, was committed. He nor I was aware of prior offences that had taken place on the computer. For this we got punished by you and the staff of this web site with a 1 month ban from editing. I am pointing out the fact that while you thought 1 person had commited all the vadalization, 2 or more people commited them. I am also pointing out that you are banning a number of inoocent people, including me, from editing for something they never did. I ask you consider the Unbanning of the IP address. Thank you. --User: 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (User:Led-zep)"

  • I responded that the block was protective, not punitivce. but can we reveiw this block, and perhaps reach out to the relevant school authorities? I hate to leave a school IP blocked if we have any choice. DES (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My compassion for this kind of story is growing thinner with time. Primary schools don't make a lot of useful edits because, you know, primary school kids don't know much yet. I'm leaning toward a "fire and forget" policy, explain the situation to the school administrators if they ask about it, and if they can keep their kids in check then they can edit Wikipedia. It's not our responsibility to babysit them on the internet in the meantime. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. However is this a primary school? I had the strong impression, based on the other edits of User:Led-zep, who says that he is a student there, that this is a secondary school, aka high-school or perhaps Junior High-school. School kinds an research and write decent articels on soem topics, although many of them do not do so. Note I did not suggest an unblosck, merely that we contact the school staff and see what their response is. DES (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I just sent the following email msg to the addresses liste in the WHOIS listing for the above IP. We'll see if I get any response.

The IP address, which is registered to the State of Tennessee Department of Education, and which seems to be used for providing network connections to various in-school computers, has been used on a number of occasions to vandalize Wikipedia (the free user-written online encyclopedia). As a result, this address has been blocked from editing wikipedia.

A copy of the contribution logs for this address may be seen at <>, and of the related warning notices can be seen at <>. The relevant block log entries are at <>.

Some examples of the vandalism can bee seen at <>, <>,>, <>, and <>.

The matter has recently been discussed at <>,

I am a volunteer administrator of the english-language wikipedia. (I am not a paid employee or official, and have no more authority than any of the more than 700 other administrators.) I have recently received a request from someone who says that he is a student affected by this block. I would like to be able to unblock this address, but Cannot in good faith suggest unblocking unless there is some indication that relevant school authorities would be taking some measures to prevent or at least deter such vandalism. Is there any chance that such measures could be taken so that this block could be lifted? If you are not the proper person, could you please let me know who is the proper person to contact on this matter?


-David E. Siegel <email removed> Wikipedia user:DESiegel

  • I just recieved a response that suggests a partial solution. I am now posting that response and my further reply (edited to show who is writing by different indent levels, and to snip quoting of text already posted above).