Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive79

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

Noticeboard archives


Abuse of admin privileges by JzG[edit]

Screamers (1995 film) was protected here by User:Majorly and User:JzG modified the page here 13 hours after the protection. JzG has participated in an edit war over the inclusion of an amazon link as a reference and his edit was to once again remove the link. I find an administrator abusing his privileges to edit a protected page due to his participation in an edit war unacceptable.

To be upfront: I have reverted twice prior to protection and I reverted JzG's post-protected edit on principle of his abuse (I'd do it even if someone added the amazon link back). However, I have also been the sole initiator in discussion on both JzG's talk page and on Talk:Screamers (1995 film).

You tell me what's worse: a link to amazon because I can't find another reference or an administrator whom abuses his privileges to continue an edit war? To me, the question is so obvious it's absurd... Cburnett 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, Guy answered you several minutes ago, and said that his edit was inadvertent. (He didn't notice the page was protected).[1] For what it's worth, (1) I think the "remove the link" camp is right - Amazon is a great website, but for Wikipedia purposes, it manages to combine the reliability of IMDB with the commercialism of E-bay; (2) the original edit of a protected page is probably not as bad as an intentional reversion, which starts to edge towards wheel warring; and (3) surely this isn't so vital an issue that you couldn't have waited a day or two to talk it out. Thanks, TheronJ 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
So we need something bigger and better than a red "WARNING: This page has been protected..." notice if an admin doesn't notice it. And you will excuse me if me composing my post overlapped Guy's response. Cburnett 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we need something bigger? No. It's not a problem that crops up often enough to need fixing. But it is quite easy to scroll it off the top, and the eye does tend to get a bit inclined not to see the red stuff when one spends a lot of time with WP:PT, the currency of red is somewhat debased these days.
I hold to my view that we are both taking this way too seriously. I come to this from a position of spending a lot of my Wikitime dealing with spammers, and seriously I find it really hard to believe that the date of release on an obsolete format is really so vital and so controversial as to require a link to a "Buy it here! Buy it now!" advert page on Amazon, but at least I have opened the debate and there are some thoughtful inputs above. Your view seems to be that it's a fact, therefore it must be included, therefore it must be cited, and if nobody can be arsed to find a more authoritative source than an advert then so be it. Which is another way of looking at it, not necessarily wrong, either, but again probably not worth the effort of a lame edit war. Me, I'm ashamed of both of us. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If I let the reference be removed then someone will come along and remove the whole bit as unsourced. I chose policy over guideline. Sorry that you don't agree. Cburnett 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A link to that discussion on Talk:Screamers (1995 film) or User talk:JzG or my talk page would have been nice. Cburnett 14:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think TheronJ summed it up well. Before Cburnett starts casting stones, perhaps he should ask himself if he could have handled this situation a little better. My involvement with this was to remove the Amazon link (once) and received a sarcastic and condescending note from Cburnett. I'm baffled that he's so concerned about this link that he was willing to intentionally revert a protected page and risk initiating a wheel war. What a terribly absurd matter this has become... ChazBeckett 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Amazon is a valid tertiary/possibly secondary source, it's inappropriate of JzG to abuse his administrator abilities to edit war. Another user has however found two other possible sources, that's good. --Matthew
      • Please read what's already been written above. Guy already remarked that he didn't realize he was editing a protected page. Cburnett did realize he was editing a protected page and proceeded to make a revert. ChazBeckett 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Cburnett was very correct in proceeding to revert such a heinous edit, I'm flabbergasted at how one would go about not noticing it was protected, to be honest, firstly it would of show in history and watch list this edit: "21:14, 18 March 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) m ({{protect}})", secondly there's a big honking "{{protect}}". However, I will observe WP:AGF and assume he just happened to scroll really quickly, miss the big honking box.. notice Amazon was there.. edit.. forget that it states the page is protected and put the edit through and still miss the protected box.. --Matthew
          • You're making the mistake of thinking that everyone has their user preferences set the way that you happen to have them set. Uncle G 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And all I asked for was to maintain a reference per policy (WP:EL and WP:SPAM are both guidelines). Two have been found and suggested above in #Amazon. Cburnett 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine, I'm glad another link has been found. The point remains that you should be concerned and ashamed of the manner in which you conducted yourself in this whole affair. ChazBeckett 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • And despite finding other sources, JzG has unprotected the page and deleted the whole bit. *sigh* Cburnett 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have unprotected because I have no intention of making further edits, this I made clear on the article's Talk page. I removed the factoid because we have two low-reliability sources which say one date, 23 July 1996, a more relibale source which supports that date but does not confirm it (a review dated after the first but before the second date, note it says Columbia Tristar Home Video - what it was on Betamax? a year ealier than VHS?), and the Amazon date which is dated a year later than three separate reviews explicitly of the video - in other words, a classic case for taking it to Talk. Which is, amazingly, precisely what I did, and explained why. I suggest you have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, I think you are much too worked up about this. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The talk page seems to have a consensus against the source, there are concerns about contradicions. JzG is acting properly from what I can see, the page is unprotected, so his edit is as a regular user, and he is discussing it on the talk page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It was an accident, let it go. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
but we wantz teh lynch mob! admins dont gets to make dem mistakes, nope. -Amarkov moo! 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Request review of my block of User:RayTomes[edit]

I have blocked User:RayTomes for one week after recreating Category:Cycle for the third time (deletion discussion 1 and 2.) User:SilkTork, RayTomes' advocate, requested me to unblock him which I would do under the condition he mentored RayTomes. However, he does not see any problem with Ray's behaviour and, in fact, is encouraging it, therefore I declined (full discussion). I request other administrators to review my action. —Ruud 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this, and thank Ruud for posting this thread. I would add this is the message I left on Ruud's talk page which prompted this request: "My advise to Ray Tomes is on his talk pageUser_talk:RayTomes#Wikipedia:Association_of_Members.27_Advocates.2FRequests.2FFebruary_2007.2FRayTomes: "My suggestion now will be that we hold any action on the Category:Cycles until The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and List of cycles have both been through a discussion and survived. With support and credibility from consensus we will better able to proceed. SilkTork 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)" Clearly there is no provocation to disruption, instead there is a decision to go through consensus. Your refusal to unblock is becoming very contentious. Ray Tomes is not disruptive. Your initial decision to block him was unsound, and your continued refusal to unblock him is provocative. I would, at the very least, like to see you consult with another Admin about this as I suspect you've allowed personal feelings cloud your judgment. SilkTork 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)" User_talk:Ruud_Koot#Unblocking_of_User:RayTomes. SilkTork 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated recreation of deleted-by-process material is disruptive, pure and simple. Wikilawyering to the contrary provided in the links is precisely why I think advocacy is a really awful idea that should be shut down. Don't think I can see too much wrong with the block. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It was not "recreation of deleted-by-process material". Fistly the original deletion did not follow process. There was a majority for keep, an incorrect count and I was falsely accussed of voting more than once. It was my complaint about this that lead to the appointment of SilkTork who has been ensuring that proper steps have been taken. Ray Tomes 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A) Ray Tomes was blocked for following my advise. He was blocked without discussion. He has followed Wiki procedure. If anyone is at fault here it is me rather than Ray. B) At 18:26, on 17 March 2007 I gave Ray the advise that "My suggestion now will be that we hold any action on the Category:Cycles until The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and List of cycles have both been through a discussion and survived.". Ruud later stated that he would unblock Ray if I advised him not to create that category again. I pointed out that is what I have done. The procedure now is to look for consensus on other areas of cycle theory, if that consensus is not found then there is nothing more that can be done. Having fulfilled that requirement there seems no continued reason to block Ray Tomes. SilkTork 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ray Tomes was blocked for following my advise" so are you saying you advised him to ignore the outcome of the deletion and recreate it, rather than engaging in discussion with the deleting admin or taking it to deletion review? Yes you've now advised him not to do it, but from reading his talk page, I can't say it seems he agrees with you. Can I ask a question about what you believe the role of an advocate is? You seem to basically be supporting him however ill-advised his actions, rather than pointing him the right direction to resolve any issues. --pgk 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my above comment that the original vote was not to delete, procedure was faulty. Ray Tomes 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To answer the first question. I understood the category in question to have been deleted in Sept 2005. Enough time to have passed to have another go. I have since learned of the more recent deletion. My advise has changed. To answer the second question. I believe my role is to support editors to resolve conflict through discussion. I will confess I am not making the best out of this case, but I still fail to see where Ray himself has gone so wrong as to justify a block. I have been engaging in some dialogue regarding this case, and I would have thought some contact with either myself or Ray about his recent actions - a warning, perhaps - might have been more useful than a block. It has never been my policy to be confrontational or to deliberately abuse Wiki. But mistakes may occur. However, discussion usefully resolves errors. Things like blocks seem harsh in the circumstances. SilkTork 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Dammned if I can make much sense out of that, but I'll try. Blocked for following your advice? He re-created a twice-deleted category, which is disruptive: you surely didn't advise that? The article/list on which the category might rest are now at AfD: under those circumstances I can see nothing wrong with the block. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This is encouraging, but at the same you denied that recreating deleted articles is disruptive and you even restored The Foundation for the Study of Cycles yourself. Not realizing that this is problematic behaviour, makes me doubt you are fit to mentor Ray (my condition for unblocking him earlier.) —Ruud 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It was not a twice deleted category. The first category was a wider one including many articles relating to cycles. The second one was a much narrower one. The original one did not follow procedure and the majority vote was actually to keep the category. It was my complaint about this that led to SilkTork getting involved. Please read all the material that he has and you will find no fault on his part. The new category that I created is a narrow one - simply articles that are very specifically about particular cycles. There can be no reasonable objection to this. People like Christopher Thomas who maintain that I am pushing something that has nothing at all to do with this are constantly muddying the waters. I will not answer his lies because for every lie I answer he adds three more. This has NOTHING to do with Harmonics Theory. Ray Tomes 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation for the Study of Cycles was never deleted under consensus. The result of the discussion was no-consensus. While researching into Ray's case I found a link to the article which was a redirect to another article. At the same time I saw that an article with the title Foundation for the Study of Cycles had also been redirected. Looking at the edit summaries it appeared initially that someone had attempted to merge the two articles but instead created a redirect to another article. I undid that. Upon further investigation I realised that the article had been subjected to that discussion, and despite the non-consensus, the article had been merged, so I stood by my undoing of the redirect. I left messages on the talk pages of those involved, and suggested a new Afd take place on that article as there is doubt about it. So. In short. I did not recreate a deleted article. Also, I have previously advised you of this situation as recorded in the links above. Would you please strike out the accusation I restored a deleted article. SilkTork 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Looking at the comments on his talk such as "I complained about a vote for category cycle (or cycles) deletion and asked for a case to be heard.". SilkTork was assigned to the case." seems to indicate he thinks you are some sort of authority who could rule on the dispute. Further "SilkTork re-established the article on FSC...", Although you may not have been aware of the apparent confusion as to your role, and the subsequent misunderstanding concerning the deletion of the category, it looks to me like you've got far too involved in this. --pgk 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Add to that I notice you've voted to keep in the other AFD hanging off this, It seems hard to portray you as a neutral advocate helping someone through a dispute. --pgk 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
AfD for the FSC page is here. The votes were 6 delete, 3 merge to Edward R. Dewey, and 4 continent keep votes (2 contingent on a rewrite satisfying WP:NPOV, and 2 contingent on establishing notability). Neither occurred, so it ended up getting merged to ERD (counting the contingencies, that's 6 delete, 3 merge, 0 keep; not counting contingencies, it's still 9:4 against keeping as a separate article). Portraying this AfD as an endorsement of the page, as SilkTork appears to be doing, is very misleading. --Christopher Thomasun 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am becoming aware that my actions in this case could have been better. I have not researched enough, and I have not consulted enough with other people. There appears to be greater history to Ray's involvement with Wiki than appears from the available records. I am not, however, convinced that all my actions were bad, nor that Ray should have been banned without a warning. In retrospect my advise to go ahead and recreate the category was unsound, as I hadn't looked enough into it. I still, however, defend my action in undiverting the Foundation article and suggesting it be put to the test of another discussion. And I still feel that Ray is currently being punished incorrectly. He will not recreate the category, and only did so under my guidance. His previous attempt at creating the category occurred over a year after the original one was deleted, and it was done slightly differently. His record on Wiki doesn't show him to be a disruptive person. He seeks out advise and acts accordingly. My own record on Wiki also shows me to be a not disruptive person who follows advise. Under these circumstances - would Ruud please reconsider the block. SilkTork 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unhappy that you are backing off here SilkTork. You have acted quite properly at all times as far as I am concerned. You have looked into things thoroughly whereas Ruud has not. He acted without looking at the background. Ray Tomes 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked Ray. Please keep in mind that a number of the articles he has created have been deleted and that his contributions are therefore more extensive than those that will be revealed to you. While mentoring him please point him to WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:EL (do not link to your own website) and WP:NPOV (especially the part of not giving undue weight to non-mainstream points of view.) Having mostly ignored those policies the past 3 year will likely mean the community is not going to be very tolerant if he continues to do so in the future. —Ruud 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The study of cycles is not non-mainstream, although several people active in trying to delete cycles material have tried to maintain that it is so. Cycles research is done in every field of science by main-steam researchers. Even the collection together of cycles material is not properly described as non-mainstream, it is just less well known. The list of people involved in FSC that I put there and was immediately deleted by you shows quite clearly that those active in FSC included a nobel lauriet, a vice president of the US, a number or Sirs and many university professors, some quite famous ones. The collection of cycles reports put together by Dewey and FSC numbers well over a thousand, many from peer reviewed journals. To those that say there is no such thing as cycle studies I say try google [2] and find 153,000,000 pages. Of course many of these are on different meanings of cycles, but you might note that the top article is the wikipedia article on Dewey and that CRI and my home page (old version) are in the first 10 of these 153,000,000. Ray Tomes 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. SilkTork 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Woolmer[edit]

Famous Cricket Coach (not an oxymoron in the Commonwealth) died today. His article is the number 2 link on google and I'm sure his friends and family will be seeing the article as they search for news. I just revered an anon-IP who inserted unsourced speculation that he committed suicide and left a message on their talk. I'm a little concerned that there may be other unsourced nonsense added and I'm away to my bed shortly. One edit does not a semi protection make so could I ask a couple of editors to keep an eye on the article to make sure that no other unpleasantness gets added? Thanks --Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, its been semi-protected now. Probably a good idea. Do we need one of those resolved stickers on this now?--Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Never mind ? What do you mean ? I semi-protected the article as a direct result of your note here. But semi-protection will only prevent anonymous and brand new users from causing problems. It will have no effect on "sleeper" accounts or on misguided long-term users so I would recommend that you keep on watching the article for the next couple of weeks. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant that your semi-protecting it would probably be enough - all the problems had come from ip editors. Thanks for helping with this one. I'll continue to watch the page like a hawk. --Spartaz Humbug! 05:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Good man! Cheers! -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Two-week long edit war on Tiberium[edit]

To bring everyone up to speed...

There's an article about the fictional substance, Tiberium. For about 4 years, the article has been relatively stable. Then, on March 4, 2007, AMiB decided to purge the entire article. For the last, say, 14 days, there's been edit wars over the topic. I've been involved in it, but others have as well: AMiB purges the content, people revert it, people begin citing / improving the article, and AMiB purges it again. If you'd look at the article's talk page, one can see that it's generally AMiB versus Everyone. I'm getting sick of seeing this happen over and over, so I decided to put this here and see what'll happen. This is especially important, as it's only going to get worse when the next game in this series comes out. I'm not saying the article is perfect, but purging the entire article over and over and over again isn't the way to go about it. Scumbag 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the article in the version without the paragraphs upon paragraphs of original research and unverifiable info. Picaroon 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse Picaroon's actions. We regularly stub articles which are hopelessly outside of policy to allow for a full rewrite. Indeed, Scumbag's sequence of events isn't entirely accurate. Looking at the history, it appears to go: AMIB removes tonnes of in-universe and unattributed material, AMIB and others begin to rewrite it, Scumbag or someone else blanket reverts the entire thing, rince & repeat. – Steel 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect - AMIB has done exactly no writing to the article in question. None at all. He has done nothing but remove content that was properly cited, by a source that can be confirmed by anyone. Look at his last ten edits, and you'll find no content additions, only purgings. [3], [4] [5] [6] [7] [ttp://] [8] [9] [10] [11] Scumbag 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just rebuild content from AMIB's purged version as opposed to rv'ing and trying to cite all of that? I presume that AMIB is purging it again because there the article is being written in an in-universe style (or has a lot of in-universe info that isn't needed), which can't be fixed by just merely citing it. Hbdragon88 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I will note one thing: The next game in the series IS coming out soon, and Tiberium as well as the rest of the Command and Conquer series should be watched closely. SWATJester On Belay! 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well volunteered. – Steel 03:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Everything was cited, which is why reverting this purge was rebuilding content. There was no original research in the article, only facts important to the game series.Scumbag 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
When will the page in question be unprotected? The minute it is, it will be restored to proper status. Not a threat, but a inevitability. It's one of the things I wanted to point out that you guys haven't understood - Tiberium is a major character in the C&C franchise, and deserves an article written like Anakin Skywalker - an article, I point out, that is written entirely in-universe. I posted this thing because I felt that any reasonable person can see that the article in question is being damaged by a single user, and that there's already considerable amount of people that disagree with his actions. It's only going to get worse, if the page remains as it is. Scumbag 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps, you know, you're wrong. – Steel 11:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hard to feel that way when I'm not the only one doing the reverting. I'd feel differently if I was, but given that other people are repairing the damage as well... well, it's hard to see how I'm wrong. Scumbag 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Ingsoc has been convinced to AMIB's views, so it isn't a single-user dispute. Policy is greater than what the normal editors think: policy has been decided on by everybody, and everybody must follow it for all articles. The minority of those who disagree do not overrule the majority that formed the policy in the first place. And please, Anakin Skywalker (or kyptonite, as brought up on the page) is not at issue: this is. Hbdragon88 07:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They aren't an issue - it's only the same type of article, written in the same way. Scumbag 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that editors, when faced with the challenge laid down by one editor to cite secondary sources and demonstrate that the content of an article conforms to our content policies, instead of looking for such sources and citing them, as encyclopadists are supposed to do, wasted all of their effort for two weeks in edit warring, and trying to argue that content that requires readers to duplicate primary research at length, in order to check that content, isn't original research. I've edited the article whilst it is under protection to make a point. I've added some material to the article that is based upon secondary sources. This material took me all of 10 minutes with Google Books to find. I strongly suggest that Scumbag and others learn from this. This is what we want you to do. It's easy, it's entirely defensible against charges of unverifiability and original research, and it took approximately of the time of your foolish edit war and lengthy attempts to defend your performing primary research. Now stop this sort of silly behaviour and go and do likewise! It is your own lack of proper action, in finding and citing sources that have already analyzed the game and its features, that lost you the content, not other editors. Uncle G 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • {Applause}. Absolutely on the money, as ever. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Only problem is, he didn't find any sources for anything. All he did was cite things like "If you don't have Tiberium you lose the game". Scumbag 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Source it or lose it, I'd say, based on other discussions on this page :o) Guy (Help!) 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, we had a sourced article, but it got purged. Scumbag 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
For some values of sourced, anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW redirects reminder[edit]


Just a reminder for the strawpoll on WP:UW about redirecting the old user warnings templates to the new system which closes tomorrow. If you have any interest in this issue please leave your comments here. Original message. Cheers Khukri 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe Khukri's lies! He or she has closed the straw poll early. :) --ElKevbo 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK icon Template[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:32Z

I copied code from {{FA}} to create {{DYKicon}}. I accidentally included {{protected template}}, which as a non-admin, I am not authorized to do. However, if this page ends up being used in a similar manner to FA it may be appropriate.

P.S. I am not sure what category to put this template in. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, anybody can edit: I just removed the protected template. As for my thoughts, the icon is quite small, a bit hard to see. Honestly...I don't see a need for a DYK icon. There isn't any standard for it; your article just happens to appear on the front page, as opposed to getting GA or an FA status. FA is exemplory, while GA is somewhat dubious (process it not as rigorous). Hbdragon88 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin closing discussions proposal[edit]

There presently is a discussion here related to a notification proposed to be added to the Non-admin closing discussions. Doug Bell indicated that admins might desire such a change. The proposal needs more voices added to the developing consensus. Thanks. -- Jreferee 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Looking through another user's contributions is allowed. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:31Z

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I've recently removed User_talk:Milaneus from my watchlist. The reason is, he claimed (offline from wikipedia) that monitoring his talk page and contributions were an

"invasion of privacy"

, even if your contributions or talkpage can be checked by almost anyone with internet access. He also requested that other people with that page on their watchlist take it off as well. The reason that I put his page on my watchlist, is because I was notifying him of vandalism to my userspace, and it automaticly adds to my watchist. He also called reverting the blanking of his talkpage to be "annoying" (outside of wiki). The main reason why I occasionally check his contribs is because I wanted to see when he has vandalized my pages, and also if he has made constructive edits, and how often. I usually keep track of most vandals I encounter, especially if that user has vandalised a page I frequently monitor, such as my userspace, and if it's an edit I find highly disruptive. In this case however, I am going to make an exception per a request. another user, this time an anon, possibly the same person as that user, because of similar editing patterns, has also vandalized my userspace. I might also take that talkpage off my watchlist. Basicly, I added this section because he requested (outside of wiki) that everyone take his talkpage off your watchlist. Whether or not you do this is not up to me. Any comments/suggestions/etc? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The contribution record is there for a reason. Without breaching AGF, I think it is entirely OK to check the contribs of people whose editing pattern suggests that they may be vandals, POV-pushers, careless editors, or whatever. The logged changes someone makes here are not in any way 'private'. What counts as wikistalking is when someone turns up on pages that they have never before shown an interest in, just because an editor they dislike has edited them, with edits that look like they are just done to annoy the stalkee. There's a guideline at WP:HARASS. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Contribution data is in the public domain for a reason. Per the Privacy policy: "Data on users, such as the times at which they edited and the number of edits they have made are publicly available via "user contributions" lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users." Monitoring users' contributions has legitimate uses, and is not a violation of privacy. In fact, more than one user watches mine... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with monitoring the talk page/contributions of a problematic editor - if that's the situation. Metamagician3000 07:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing SSP:Telogen[edit]

No one has reviewed a case I opened against Telogen and affiliated parties for SSP [12]]. I have discussed this with the users, and while their behavior is suspect, I believe per AGF, these users are sharing an IP address (via home-based NATting router) and are separate people. They have agreed in principle to my request to stay away from the same articles. I ask someone to second this notion and to close/archive this case. --Otheus 09:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (PS: non-admin)

Invalid Sockpupperty Decision[edit]

User:Jpgordon has declared that user:sundaram7 has many sockpuppet and I am one of them. This is not a legitimate decision. Based on this declaration,user:Aksi_great has blocked my id indefinitely.

Reasons for my arguments:

  1. Based on the check user, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn,the User:Jpgordon found sockpuppetry for user in different countries!! check the IP addresses in the argument and my IP address. He didn't put any reasons for it. Instead he put a odd statement[13] on the IP address.
  2. user:Aksi_great is biased on this case. When User:Jpgordon first declined the case, he forced him to block the ids:[14].
  3. user:Aksi_great is taking this in a very unprofessional way. see his odd comments [15] and [16].He has started putting unrelated users [17] under user:sundaram7.
  4. Check the talk pages User_talk:Jpgordon, User_talk:Fear_the_Fire, [18].

I request you to remove all the sockpuppetry items from the user user:sundaram7 and unlock the users. Also I suggest you to check the nutrality of the admins who made the decisions.

If user:aksi_great was truthful and trying to resolve the issue[19], he might have taken a neutral descision checking all the users involved in vandalism and 3RR, instead he has taken a biased decision which is narrated in the user page [20]. Similarly, the administrator was not patiant to read all the arguments and counter arguments in the page. He put a odd statement[21] instead of a neutral descision. __ 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And you are claiming to be who, Fear the Fire (talk · contribs)? --kingboyk 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
my user id is user:truehindu. I have noticed that the IP address change when i connect the net again, because of service provider IP range ___ 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's Page recreation.[edit]

Resolved: Listed on Wikipedia:Protected titles/March 2007. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-22 06:16Z

User:Jpmr182 has recreated the above page on two/three occasions and delete the db- tag despite being given a final warning. It looks like he's trying to create a personal page in article space, but is messing it up. Could someone keep an eye on it please, as I have to bail. Khukri 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If it happens again, somebody could just redirect it to his User page. Corvus cornix 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No, cross-space redirections aren't done. I'll watch it and salt if he creates it one more time. Veinor (talk to me) 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect, then delete the original space if you're an admin, or list it for deletion if you're not. Pages get userfied all the time. Corvus cornix 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review[edit]

The reviewing of the RfAr for Waldorf education has concluded. The Arbitration Committee has banned User:Pete K from editing Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and related pages or their talk pages.

This notice is given by an informal helper on the behalf of the Arbitration Committee. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


This is going to be a long job. we have many thousands of links to, a lot of whihc are either links to the Amazon product page, clearly inappropriate, or to Amazon customer reviews, which fail WP:ATT. I have already found the first individual to resist removal of such a link, insisting that we need a link to the Amazon sales page for Screamers (1995 film) to support the vital data of its VHS release date (not clear whether that's NTSC, PAL or both). Now, I could be wrong. Maybe the VHS release date really is' terribly important, and we really can't include it without linking to the Amazon sales page because it really is the only source for that data and it really must be attributed (unlike most of the rest of the article). Or I might be right, and we should not be linking to off-the-page sales pages. More input, please. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've delinked hundreds of "informational" Amazon links in the past - ie just to the product page - though I've not previously seen any used as a reference per se. In this case I'd leave it, but wouldn't drop any tears to see it go, and would rather like to see the data wind up on IMDB so we can cite that... Shimgray | talk | 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, my opinion is simple: isn't there a better source than Amazon? About the only links I'd leave would be those on Talk pages: it preserves context & allows you to evaluate an editor's judgement in useful ways. -- llywrch 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If IMDB isn't considered a reliable source, why is Amazon? I wouldn't ask my local branch of WHSmith to confirm information although I might go and look it up in an actual book there and refer to that as the source. Spartaz Humbug! 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
In terms of ISBN and release date information, it's super-reliable for books, and even more reliable for music and movies. Often, for older things, it's the best available reference and is completely appropriate to use, like in JzG's Screamers example. "Links to avoid" isn't "Links never to use at any point whatsoever," it takes a wee bit of thought rather than a blind massive delinking. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Forgive my scepticism but on what do you base the assertion that Amazon is super reliable? Also, I rather resent the tone of your response. Do you really need to use such stark language to get your point across? You have heard that you catch more flies with honey? --Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I rarely see Amazon get anything wrong? I use it as a reference for basic information often, as it's easy to read, informative, and has traditionally given a good track record for accuracy. As for my tone, I'm no longer interested in catching flies, but simply having the proper thing occur. Considering the scare tactics involved in getting us to the point of nofollowing any links that don't make money for the Foundation and how we're "inundated with spam" to the point of making a oft-abused CSD out of it, I automatically blanche at even considering this sort of action without some more thought than "clearly inappropriate" when no such clarity exists. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, if you click an ISBN in Wikipedia, you have the option of checking the validity... by visiting the Amazon site. I'm guessing this because the Amazon site is... well... super reliable. Addhoc 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you should reach a page that gives you the option to check against many, many online libraries, not only Amazon. We are independent of the store. -- ReyBrujo 22:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, but if you're lacking an ISBN because you don't actually have the book in front of you, it's certainly the quickest and best source out there for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A way, yes. A quick way even. Quickest? Not important. Most reliable? No. The most reliable way of getting an ISBN is probably the Library of Congress or some other authoritative reference. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking from personal, professional, and Wikipedial experience, I'm not convinced that's true in the least. The LOC doesn't even have multiple versions or ISBN information for an edition you may be using. Example a) The Stinky Cheese Man, an award-winning book: One ISBN reference, and nothing about the 10th anniversary edition that has new stories, let alone paperback editions. Example b) A Nightmare in Ecstacy, an oral history of sorts about Ed Wood that I'm using for research here right now: no listing. Both of these titles in all their editions are easily found on Amazon, reliably so. So no, LOC is certainly not nearly as reliable as the retail site of record with the largest title base in the world, and that's just talking books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
nothing about the 10th anniversary edition that has new stories, let alone paperback editions You mean LCCN 2003-265351and ISBN 0670035696? Huh. Looks like a listing to me.
...A Nightmare in Ecstacy, an oral history of sorts about Ed Wood that I'm using for research here right now: no listing You mean LCCN 93-169383 and LC Classification PN1998.3.W66 G74 1992? Huh. Looks like a listing to me.
So, any others? It took me a minute or so, so I think I can spare the time. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is personal experience a suitable way of judging the reliability of a source? How would you know if they were wrong? You are effectively arguing that they are reliable because because you said so! Surely you can do better then that? Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly a way, given their track record. You trust a source more and more by using it and relying on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So, why not, or any other seller? -- ReyBrujo 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You won't hear me complain. Different strokes for different folks. All I know is that, given there's no real policy reason to outright remove them or forbid their use as citations, I'd rather not have people jump through hoops. Want to remove random external links that don't add anything to the article? Be my guest. Want to start removing citations? I have a problem with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the information appearing there is updated by users. We can't use wikis as reliable sources, so we should not depend on IMDB or Amazon. -- ReyBrujo 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Tracklisting, ISBN, publisher info? No, they aren't user-created. Also, IMDb is a reliable source for casting and such, those aren't the user-created content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, you can update the cast and tracklisting, but I can be wrong. By the way, why is this discussion here instead of WP:ATT? -- ReyBrujo 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of the apparent clarion call for people to start doing something about this, probably. We got off track, but it's not a useless discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuke 'em. Amazon's info isn't really mediated, it's supplied by the publishers themselves, so not really reliable, no matter how much faith you have in them. There's also the most obvious problem of their being a purely commercial site, which Wikipedia has no business favoring over any other online bookseller, AND that the {{ISBN}} pages already handle the the job of locating copies of the books, if anyone wants to find them, making Amazon links unnecessary, to boot. As for video release dates: who cares? --Calton | Talk 00:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Experience trying to replace invalid ISBNs suggests that *no* potential source of information should be ruled out, when trying to find correct book details or movie details. The submitter of this complaint, User:JzG, picked a case of the American VHS release date of the movie Screamers (1995 film), that might appear trivial since who cares about the exact release date, but we might have to undo some fairly sacred policies in WP:ATT if we want to place obstacles against using a correct source of information. Note that the fair-use publicity photo used to illustrate the Screamers article came from the very Amazon entry that Guy proposes we disallow the use of.
An {{ASIN}} template was created specifically to simplify making valid Amazon references in case this was the only way to provide online-checkable book details. This template is now in use for about fifty main-space articles, for example ASIN B00086U61Y, now validly used (in my opinion) for a rare out-of-print book cited in our Dartmouth College article and published in 1932. Without this reference there would be no way to tell that the book even exists, or to verify the spelling of the title, the author, or the publisher. (ISBNs came into use about 1970, so it has no ISBN). Nothing is more frustrating than to find an entry in a reference list that you know is wrong and have *no* online source of information for fixing it. If Amazon is the only thing available, we should use it. This doesn't replace ISBN references, of which there are about 70,000 in WP, and there is almost never a valid reason to use an ASIN when an ISBN is available. The need for ISBN-fixing, and the use of ASINs, is explained at CT:INV. EdJohnston 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Using Amazon -- one specific commercial bookseller -- as a reliable source for a rare and out-of-print books borders on the ridiculous. The Library of Congress -- perhaps you've heard of them? -- has a catalog, is actually official and reliable, and has been around a lot longer that 1970, and they catalog using their own system -- here -- with their own cataloging number system (for the example, LCCN 32011910 and LCC call number LD1438 .R5) used by libraries in cataloging their holdings. Where, exactly, do you think Amazon got their data from in the first place?
Frankly, {{ASIN}} ought to be nuked, ASAP. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Although WP has 70,000 ISBNs it has only about 100 LCCNs, for whatever reason. Actually, your LCCN link (marked 'here' in your comment) doesn't work for me, because of the session timeout in the LOC computer system (just one of the problems in using that approach). If you don't think we knew about the Library of Congress, you're welcome to peruse the lengthy Talk page at CT:INV, and its archive. And, before you nuke Amazon, would you please be kind enough to go to all fifty current uses of {{ASIN}} and replace all those valid references, including many to films, with valid LCCN numbers. (The films will usually not be in LOC, and many foreign books will not). Then, will you also research the validly-issued LCCN numbers that for some reason are not recognized by its computer system. (Examples provided on request). In answer to your question, where did Amazon get their data from, I think they got it from the publishers. Publishers are not 100% reliable, neither is Amazon nor the Library of Congress. We need to use whatever information we can get, and fact-check it as thoroughly as possible. The Library of Congress is not a magic bullet. EdJohnston 05:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The Library of Congress is not a magic bullet. Nor is it a dessert topping or floor wax -- relevant, since all three are things I never claimed the Library of Congress to be. And neither is Amazon a "magic bullet", and, in fact, isn't really acceptable at all, period/full-stop.
(just one of the problems in using that approach). {{sofixit}}.
And, before you nuke Amazon, would you please be kind enough to go to all fifty current uses of {{ASIN}} and replace all those valid references, including many to films, with valid LCCN numbers. Nope. The burden is those providing the sources, not on those who are removing bad ones. Amazon is a bad source for a variety of reasons, and if that's the best you can do or the only thing you can do, any reference relying on it probably doesn't belong in the first place. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please enumerate those reasons? I find it very useful when people leave an ASIN or link to amazon behind; it makes it much easier to fill in the rest of the citation data. Before you nuke any amazon link or ASIN, it would be more appropriate to go through and remove all references that do not list any catalog number (be that ISBN,OCLC/LCC or ASIN), as they are far more difficult to figure out. John Vandenberg 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As for Amazon being the only online source for data for the example EdJohnston gave... what about this? Library catalog data, vetted by people who are supposed to know what they're doing, and it will tell you the closest library to you that owns a copy. More helpful than "you can buy it for $175", in my opinion. -- phoebe (brassratgirl) /(talk) 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The ISBN fixing project has only used ASINs as a last resort, reluctantly, and at least cites them properly (you would be suprised how many "ISBN B001100XX" we find). Certainly we could consider searching out all ASIN/Amazon references and ISBN/OCLC/LCC/BL-ing them wherever possible. Incidently one advantage of the ASIN template is that it makes uses of Amazon more controllable. Rich Farmbrough, 09:43 19 March 2007 (GMT).

And incidentally, I have found and fixed at least one error in the BL catalogue so I'm fairly sure that LoC is not totally free of errors, and as for "official" what does that mean in the context of a world wide publishing industry that goes back before the LoC (or even the U.S.) were thought of? Rich Farmbrough, 09:50 19 March 2007 (GMT).
Oh god. Amazon ASINs as stable identifiers for rare books? This is just bordering on insane. Once Amazon (or their affiliate) sell that book, the Amazon listing is liable to vanish - I've seen it happen before - and there's absolutely no control over them, no indication they won't be reused. An Amazon ASIN is - simply put - as useful and as helpful as listing the accession number for a single specific public library with an online catalogue, except it (might) let you buy the book.
Frankly, catalogue numbers are helpful but by no means essential; you should take the ASIN, replace it with the normal bibliographic data, and leave it at that. There's no decent, usable, standard identifier codes for pre-1960s books, and we're just faffing pointlessly if we try to insist we use one of the several potential ones.
I hashed out a long debate on this two years ago - have a look at User:Shimgray/ASIN. Shimgray | talk | 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've forwarded Jimbo's 2005 comments re/ removal of ASINs, which had fallen through a hole in the archives, to wikien-l. He was strongly in favour of removal, FWIW. [22]. Shimgray | talk | 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy, a similar task has been undertaken by Rich/SmackBot with fixing ISBNs. The bot tagged all invalid ISBNs and people manually found the appropriate ISBN, OCLC, LOC or ASIN (in that order). Getting rid of all unnecessary amazon links sounds like another maintenance task that the same team would enjoy completing. There are a lot of special cases, and as these amazon links often contain a lot of the clues to identify the precise work that was referenced by the contributor, and manual processing is the best approach to ensure the citations end up accurate without putting noses out of joint -- this then demonstrates to other Wikipedians how to properly cite their sources. The team that worked on the invalid ISBNs and ISSNs started discussing what catalog schemes would be appropriate for videos, cds and dvds (see CAT:INVALID#Universal IDs for DVDs?), however we didn't encounter those items often enough to take it further. I'm quite sure the same team would be happy to manually tackle each article if a bot can apply a tag to all articles that have a link to amazon. Many would be books, so having the same team work on them would be beneficial. The WikiProject Librarians would no doubt be able to give us a hand working out what non-commercial resources we can use. The benefit of this approach is that once we are on top of the problem, there is a team ready to address any new occurrences that appear as a result of subsequent runs of the bot. And we can be sure that new links to amazon will continue to appear regularly. John Vandenberg 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Good info. I will find them and see if I can recruit their interest, thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
With reference to Amazon being a reliable source for the VHS release date of Screamers, I think not. Both this site and this site have the release date of 23 July 1996, and Gray Areas magazine reviewed the VHS version in the November 1996 edition. One Night In Hackney303 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in that 11/96 review says the VHS has been released or anything of the sort. All it says is "Columbia Tristar Home Video". I find no grounds to remove the whole bit as JzG has done. Cburnett 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying the magazine saw the film in the cinema and decided to add "Columbia Tristar Home Video" to the review for some reason? The review doesn't mean much on its own anyway, but combined with two other sources that say a release date of July 1996, I'd say it's enough evidence to say the Amazon date isn't correct? One Night In Hackney303 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL! Well that put us all in our places didn't it? Well done. I think we can safely nuke that particular factoid, unprotect the article and move on. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I added some comments in regards to this on the article's Talk page. - David Oberst 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we please get a written policy drafted and approved on not allowing links to online sales pages (Amazon isn't the only one) if there isn't one already. If there isn't a clearly written Wikipedia policy against it, then I don't see how we can enforce it. Cla68 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
There's ALREADY a written policy, in that they fall squarely under this heading, specifically number 4, Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Note that last clause. You could also toss in numbers 1, 2, 5, and maybe 13, too. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Links to online sales pages as external links are in general contraindicated. References to commercial sites are not so contraindicated. If someone puts something into a Wikipedia article, I want them to say where they got it from. IMO, you should never remove a reference without either removing the information that reference supports or finding a better source. While Amazon isn't by any means a perfect reference, there are cases in which it is better than nothing. I'd rather at least be able to find out where information came from, and I think for uncontroversial information an Amazon sales page is better than nothing. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The policy appears to be clear- no external links to sales sites. The policy, however, doesn't say that an online retailer can't be used as a reference source. Thus, editors should be able to use commercial sites as sources, as long as they don't add an embedded external link to the site in question in the article. Delete away on those links and let people who object know about the policy. Cla68 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, it's getting a bit literalistic saying that our anti-spamming policy means that we can't link to Amazon for uncontroversial information about a book. It's not as if people are unaware that Amazon exists. A purge of this kind would be disruptive unless some other source were found every single time, and I really think it would be a waste of energy better expended elsewhere. Metamagician3000 07:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We give preference to non-commercial references. That's fine. If you want to replace a link to Amazon which is serving as a reference for some fact with an equally reliable non-commercial site citing the same info then by all means go ahead. Ditto things which are just 'external link' entries not backing up any facts cited in the article. However, deleting valid references without replacing them? No. If the information is widely available then cite it from another source. If you can't find another source, then leave the Amazon (or whatever) reference in place. --CBD 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone seen this vandalism pattern before?[edit]

I've been noticing an interesting (and quite devious) vandalism pattern over the last hour. Basically, vandal creates account, adds userbox to user page, adds userbox to user talk page, makes a sneaky vandal edit with a devious, and then stops. Examples:

I've started blocking these, so it should hopefully disable this person's ability to create accounts for a bit, but I'd like to know if this looks familiar to anyone. If not, try to keep a look out for it, because they obviously know what they are doing.

Natalie 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange. Adding infoboxes in both pages remove the red links from the contributions, so that others don't immediately recognize it as a new account. As to why, I have no idea. Maybe a legitimate account would be used to revert those modifications (I think we have seen one where he vandalized with an account and reverted with another), it is some kind of "test" (some journalist or student researching our revertion speeds). I guess it may be useful to do a checkuser on them, in case this continues. -- ReyBrujo 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It must be a troll. Just see NAMBLA (the changed acronym) and Special:Undelete/Image:Sarahvulva_crop.jpg. A random newbie doesn't know that kind of stuff. Checkuser? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely someone with Wikipedia experience (whether any of that experience was legit or not I have no idea). The account creation, at least, has stopped since I blocked one of them, so it's only one person. Natalie 02:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon about the account creation stopping: Ascolichenesb59 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) just showed up and followed the exact same pattern. Dynamic IP, perhaps. Natalie 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the penis vandal, or an impersonator, has returned. --BigDT 05:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I need to go to sleep, but can someone keep on eye on the user creation log? Normal RC patrolling will probably miss most of this. I'm working on compiling everything for Checkuser, but it's late here and I work tomorrow, so I won't finish tonight. Natalie 05:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Another for your collection if you do the checkuser - Hypostomidesb72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) --BigDT 05:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. checkuser filed and full dossier available here. Natalie 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this kind of sneaky vandalism is still going on. He's still following the same pattern:
They're pretty easy to spot on the User ceation log: they're basically the only ones who have both the user and talk page blue... Lupo 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
And three more (checked the most recent 500 user names):
Now off to check the next 500... :-( Lupo 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably also Steffoxp69 (talk · contribs), who added a userbox to their talk page and then copied the whole grid of barnstars to my talk page. While I'd like to think I could deserve a page full of barn stars, somehow I doubt it... Especially since I got the photographer's barnstar (never uploaded a single photo, ever) and the graphic designer's barnstar (ditto). :) Natalie 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

I have just downgraded protection of Almeda University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I think that most of the problems will be new or anonymous users, so we'll wait and see, but the more eyes on it the better - we don't want this kind of shit thank you very much. In case you're not aware, they are advertising for paid authors to come and whitewash balance the article with material which is rather more flattering. Nothing to do with trying to sell the business, of course, perish the thought. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why downgrade the protection? DurovaCharge! 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I was asked to, and because I can up it again if the worst happens, and because protection is seen by some as a big deal, and because some editors want to make changes, and I assumed good faith. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I have indefinitely blocked Herkelthebrave (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as an account that has only been used for trolling and vandalism. I'm mentioning it here so other admins can review the block if they so choose. Nandesuka 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Good block. Wikipedia will not miss him. IrishGuy talk 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

dishonourable behaviour of user:Darwinek against user:mt7[edit]

thread merged with duplicate thread on WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. 12:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Suspicious edit history for a new user. I wonder if anyone recognises the style. Tyrenius 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for help on spamblock dispute[edit]

Some of you may have seen my post at the Village Pump about adding a website to the spam black list. Some may even know about the passionate dispute about this website over on meta. Now it's reached a new low: in responding to a complaint about this dispute, Betacommand has decided to (1) intimidate the editor by dropping names about who he rubs elbows with, as well as (2) a gratuitous f-bomb.

I'd hit him with at least a warning about WP:CIVIL, but I am not impartial in this matter. I would appreciate it if some uninvolved Admins could monitor this situation, though. I have a feeling that tempers are only going to go higher. -- llywrch 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. While it wasn't the nicest way of saying it, how on EARTH is this useful for writing an encyclopedia? Sites that are selling you something typically aren't good sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't find a single fact on that page that I could source to it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is not a useful page -- I assume both of you are referring to the same page. I am puzzled why you picked that one; which one of the almost 300 links from Wikipedia led you there? However, there are several useful pages on that website; here's one -- -- & this is another -- -- a Wikipedia article had linked to. Both have only a small advertisement at the top of each. The links that were disabled were added by a number of different Wikipedians & many have been around as long as 3 years -- so they've been frequently reviewed. But why are we talking about the content of a webpage here? -- llywrch 06:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I left Betacommand a message. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:52Z
Beta has decided to revert my administrative decision to whitelist a single link to this domain. You can follow the conversation here. Admittedly I was on the fence on this request... but the link was being used as a source so I felt it would be useful to let the editors of the article make the call as to if it was a reliable source or not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Which is all what the editors involved really want: a chance to discuss the content of the website. However, Betacommand has shown a stunning lack of tact & flexibility here even before I came into this, which is in marked contrast to the civil behavior of the others who support the blacklisting. None of them have resorted to obscenities or arrogance, & if provoked ... simply ignore the person. I'm beginning to wonder if the problem here is mostly Beta. -- llywrch 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my post at meta, Forking discussions over four pages is not good, I tried to have the discussion at one place, meta. Llywrch proceeds to spread and fork the issue over many pages and tries to bypass the blacklisting of a site (yes I requested it be SBL'ed) instead of attempting to address issues questions were raised of where the request was made and not on the validity of our reasoning. I cannot add things to the SBL as I am not a meta admin. the attempts to fork the discussion and bypass an ongoing discussion frustrated me, as i have been unable to sit down and address the issues, due to being in meetings all weekend. please see my most recent post to m:Spam talk. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 05:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Your response is disingenuous, Beta: there is no "forking discussions" here. I am responsible for starting only three related conversations: one on Wikipedia: Village pump (policy) about the manner this website was placed on the spam blacklist; a second on meta arguing to remove the website from that list; & this one, asking that some of my fellow Admins monitor those two conversations because tempers were growing heated. Using your reasoning, this conversation has been "forked" to two other venues: KyraVixen's talk page, and to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist here on en; I have not participated in either of those related conversations.
Again, I would like to observe that other participants opposing me in this discussion -- for example, KyraVixen & Beetstra -- have been able to discuss this matter in a civil & productive manner, unlike Betacommand. I honestly don't know what his problem is, but Betacommand's unhelpful attitude began before I raised my concerns, & has been expressed to other Wikipedians. At this writing, he has continued to use abusive language towards other editors & failed to apologize for his earlier mistakes. I'm close to the point of having no more good faith to extend to him, & have begun to wonder if it would be appropriate for me to move this discussion to WP:AN/I or WP:RFC. -- llywrch 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Let it be noted that I have made several attempts to discuss the issue especially on meta. I and other users have repeatedly pointed out that touregpyt is a poor site (limited text, high rates of advertising, and that it is primarily a site designed to sell stuff). there have been repeated attempts to point out better sources that are not primarily commercial. instead of addressing the issue in question llywrch makes statements that do not address the issues raised., instead the comments do very little to address the issue. When I called him out on that he basically asked for me to be blocked on meta so that he could get the site off the SBL. (Yes I did use some strong language but in cretin situations there is a need at no point have I broken policy remember wikipedia and meta are not censored thus "my language" did not break policy) I have pointed out and requested Multiple times that instead of fighting for a poor site to be removed from the SBL we work together and find better sources that incorporate the mission of wikipedia and the WikiMedia foundation Free non commercial content. Instead of taking my offer to help llywrch continues to push for links to this site. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It took me a while to respond to this because Betacommand's response has left me speechless by its cluelessness. Yes, you responded to arguments on meta about this out-of-process block. (Ugh -- I never thought I'd use that phrase.) Yes, Wikipedia is not censored; yes, you can use obscene words in the proper context. But there is guideline about civility all of us must follow -- even Admins, but especially people working with the WMF. Calling another editor's arguments "bullshit" is not civil; justifying "strong language" in "cretin situations" is not civil; failing to apologize for using offensive language is not civil. You have made no offer to help that I have seen: you only ceaselessly repeat on meta is that we cannot link to the website at all, suck it up & move on -- with the occasional obscenity thrown in. Is it truly a surprise that I am angry about this? -- llywrch 20:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have offered to help no less than three times you repeatedly fail to address the questions that are raised, and ignore users who have issues. you keep bringing up trivial issues. 3 different admins over 2 separate projects have denied your request. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What about that other admin whose whitelisting action you overruled without discussion? Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:44Z
Betacommand, would you list those instances, please?. I am unaware that anyone has ruled on this matter, let alone one of my fellow Admins; but I admit that I'm ignorant about most of the discussions in every Wikimedia project. I know of only two requests, & neither have been rejected. The one on meta was still open, when I looked a few minutes ago. The request that Quarl refers to below, here on en.wikipedia, was granted by one Admin, but reversed by you. -- llywrch 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


The recurring argument over the badly phrased definition of WP:BIO has appeared in another AfD. My interpretation may be right or wrong, but it needs clarifying, because at the moment, as User:Oakshade is claiming, it is easy to infer that anyone who has appeared in a notable TV program, however minor, is notable. As a relative newbie, where's the best place to bring this up? EliminatorJR Talk 09:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO is only part of the equation. As User:JzG points out in the AFD, there has to be sources too. A person can have a claim to notability per WP:BIO and yet not be entitled to an article because the sources simply aren't available. --kingboyk 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I quite agree - it's just that it seems that WP:BIO could be written less ambiguously, as at the moment it seems to imply that simply appearing in a notable programme negates the requirement for sources, and it is leading to the same arguments on AfD over and over. EliminatorJR Talk 15:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Then by all means propose alterations at WT:BIO :) I don't imagine there would be much resistance to beefing up the wording a little. It's not an issue which needs admin attention though :) --kingboyk 15:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I wasn't sure where to mention it. EliminatorJR Talk 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
EliminatorJR, try Wikipedia:Village pump in the future. -- llywrch 18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Solved case of community banned User:SndrAndrss evading ban[edit]

I just wanted to make an announcement here rather than posting only to involved users talk pages as this might be of interrest to uninvolved administrators and users as well. As some of you might know, the disrupting edits (although he had usefull contributions as well) and behaviour (use of sockpuppets to evade blocks, failure to communicate with others) of SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) led to him being community banned last week (decision). He did not take notice of this but continued to edit with newly created accounts and as an IP. Since he had a dynamic IP, there was some in trouble preventing him from editing, and since his IP range was quite large, I hesitated to rangeblock.

After correspondence with User:Rdsmith4 on IRC, we decided that a rangeblock was the only possible solution anyway, and I was adviced to send an email to the abuse department of the ISP, Telenor, as well. I told them the story and that I had rangeblocked 65 536 of their IPs ( from editing the English Wikipedia for a week. I did not expect the quick answer I got from them. Less than two hours after I sent my email, they answered and would appreciate if I sent them logs of his edits, which I did. Today I got an email from them where they told me that they had closed the account of the user. The closing of the account was nothing that I ever suggested that they should do (I did not suggest anything actually, I just told the story), they did it on their own initiative.

I've unblocked the range again, and hopefully this will end the problems with the user, and we will be able to move on to contributing to Wikipedia rather than keeping SndrAndrss under control. – Elisson • T • C • 13:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone would like to take a look at the email correspondence between me and the abuse department of the ISP, send me an email, and if you feel I did something wrong or that I could have done something better, tell me so. – Elisson • T • C • 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV backed up[edit]

Resolved: Not anymore! – Luna Santin (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Very backed up at the moment... - Denny 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Watchtower Sentinel[edit]

I have to take a break now so could someone else keep a watch on this user. He is trying to force User:Hamsacharya dan to keep certain comments on his current talk page rather than in an archive, as can be seen by his contibutions. On top of that he left vandalism warnings on the talk page and the archive page. I reverted the archive, the talk page and warned Watchtower Sentinel. I of course ended up with two warnings which of course I removed. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a stern note. Jkelly 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I need help from other admins[edit]

Hi, everyone. I'm an administrator and I'm confused by something. Could someone take a fresh look at this and work out what I should do?

The article Khachkar_destruction, which started life being called Status of Armenian cultural monuments in Nakhichevan, has been the focus of much heated edit-warring. It was nominated for deletion once, which it survived, then it was nominated a second time within a week of the first AfD close. I closed the second AfD as 'keep'. Now Grandmaster, Aivazovsky and Dacy69 have all agreed to delete the content of this article and either salt the earth or redirect the article to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city), which is an apolitical article.

I don't doubt that the edit-warriors have reached agreement to delete/redirect, but I am befuddled that we could delete/redirect an article that has been given 'keep' endorsement twice in the last month on AfD.

I'm not sure how to proceed. Could I get some experienced admins to offer an opinion? - Richard Cavell 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that they don't want to deal with the hassle of the article any more and have simply redirected it despite it being patently independently notable for a possible substantial encyclopedia article, that's probably not appropriate. If the issue is that the article, as a matter of encyclopedic importance, content consolidation, sourcing, etc. should be merged into the other article, then that's probably alright regardless of the AfD being a keep. In any case, if there is contentwise objection to the actual merge/redirect, then there should be discussion about it on the talk page. If the issue is that some AfD process is not being followed, at most what would need to be done to ameliorate that is to notify the AfD participants of the merge discussion. This is not exhaustive of all the possibilities here—these Eastern European conflicts are wild—but this should give some idea. —Centrxtalk • 04:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No one has proposed a merge. They have all agreed to delete the content of the article, by redirecting the article to an apolitical article on the city that is the focus of the ethnic tension. I think there are two possible outcomes: Keep the redirect or else I restore the original content and protect the page temporarily. - Richard Cavell 04:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

They just want to redirect the page to the article on the city, which will cover the subject apolitically? This is good, and requires no admin intervention. I'll demonstrate right now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Or, um, Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) did that already. There's nothing wrong with deleting all of the text of an article, if everyone agrees, regardless of older AFD discussions. In the strictest sense, AFD only regulates the use of the delete button at the top of the page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, but I see no problem with how things have been resolved. It seems that the edit history of the original Status of Armenian cultural monuments in Nakhichevan, which was later called Khachkar destruction, is still being preserved under the redirect called Khachkar destruction that points to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city). It was an editorial decision to make that change, and there seems to be a consensus for it on Talk:Khachkar destruction. The editors can later choose, if they wish, to resurrect the temporarily obscured material and merge it somewhere reasonable. Since there was *no* AfD that closed with 'Delete' there should not be any issue about process being ignored. Of course, since there are some mutterings about a deletion review, there could be more chapters in this exciting saga.. (A deletion review of a Keep, now that gets even more twisted..) EdJohnston 04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think there was agreement to make this a direct. Grandmaster indicated otherwise on the recent Afd, and sensibly hasn't edited WP since that point. The parties (not Khoikhoi) that are involved in this "consensus" to redirect are involved in an ongoing RfA, and are on 1RR parole. There appears to be accusations that both countries have engaged in the destructions[23], and Old Jugha in Azerbaijan is only the largest of the cemeteries where the khachkar are found. John Vandenberg 05:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does there always seem to be so much conflict regarding Armenian related articles? I'd never heard of it before Wikipedia but judging from the amount of edit wars it seems like it's on the same level of vitriol as the arab-israeli conflicts. SWATJester On Belay! 10:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See Nagorno-Karabakh War. Khoikhoi 19:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*Sigh* I made that article Khackkar destruction everything on the article was based on Naxcivean so the move is definitely justified and is appropriate since it is based on there. Artaxiad 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all those who contributed to this discussion. Please see Talk:Khachkar destruction#This_article. - Richard Cavell 04:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)



There are many contributions here that need to be reverted: Special:Contributions/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Looks like they've all been reverted or said user has already self-reverted. Hbdragon88 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish prayers and blessings[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-22 06:15Z

Hello, I'm getting a Meta:Spam blacklist block attempting to revert a vandalism edit to this article. I'm wondering if some transliteration of a Hebrew word is tripping some recent addition to the spam filter. Could someone undo the vandalism edit to the article in the meanwhile? Best, --Shirahadasha 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. IrishGuy talk 03:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For light entertainment[edit]

See the conscientious Bot. Tyrenius 07:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the signing bot should give a little longer before signing, in order that the edits can be reverted if they are vandalism.
In addition, the signing bot should look for certain bad words (Lupin has a list of them), and not sign any messages which contain them. Od Mishehu 08:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I can one-up that. [24] As for the lack of signing delay, that's because the delay led to edit conflicts and caused problems. --tjstrf talk 08:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Er, what exactly is wrong with hagerman bot signing vandalism? I'd want it to sign vandalism on me, saves me a click through the history to find out who the vandal was. SWATJester On Belay! 08:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't rollback vandalism that's been signed by the bot. You have to revert it the slow way. --Carnildo 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't see the problem here. It's just as easy to revert two edits as it is to revert one. Especially for you admins who have rollback. So what's wrong with it signing vandle messages? (i have to add that bot scares me sometimes. I forget to sign a message and by the time i click the edit button again, the unsigned message is already there... -.-) --`/aksha 11:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Rollback only reverts edits that are by the same account. Uncle G 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ...and as long as no one else has changed the page. Otherwise, "Undo" it is. Teke 07:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
To suppliment: this was Carnildo's point above. The IP makes the vandal edit, and it is the last edit to the page, rollback appears. If the IP makes the vandal edit, then it is followed by "bot signing vandal edit", my rollback appears for the bot edit. It only works for the most recent edit to the page. This is why the bot signing gets in the way the rollback function. Teke 07:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This absolutely made my day. Natalie 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I just can't wait for the bot to add its own signature to one of those comments. Now that would make my day. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And I thought the bot signing {{afd bottom}} tags was funny. --Coredesat 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Will this become a sub-page of WP:BJAODN -- Wikipedia: Silly edits and other embarassing mistakes? My contributions might just get the attention they deserve. -- llywrch 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think that that's a problem with that 'bot that needs addressing. Currently it signs edits to AFD discussions indiscriminately, resulting in signatures being erroneously appended to edits that fix headings, add cross-links to past and related discussions, and so forth. Uncle G 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to change. Even if it's a trolling comment it makes sense to know who said it. Especially on high-traffic pages where other people might make unrelated post and you have to look around in the history to find out who wrote that. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:30Z

Bot Proposal To Help Out With IP Vandalism[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.png Relevant discussion atWikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/StewieBot

I am trying to determine if administrators would like a bot that would automatically add consistent IP vandals to a list for blocking. The details to the proposal can be found here. Please leave comments in the "New Discussion" section of the proposal page. Thank you. --D 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Last chance notification. If nobody speaks up in favour soon I'll decline the request as lacking community approval. --kingboyk 13:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability is a commodity? (Warning, long winded message)[edit]

In the wake of certain recent events, it has become clear that this man named Daniel Brandt is trying to get his page deleted. But one can't help but ask the question, "Are we keeping this page just to piss him off, because he's an activist against our website which we put so much time and effort into?" I don't think this is true, but I think that this raises a more important issue. Wikipedians who have been even remotely involved with the DB fiasco last February know who he is at least, and most know quite a bit about him. But, does the general public know? Do they care?

I think that we need to keep in mind that we are creating this encyclopedia for the world. When it is all said and done, is the general public going to care about this person named Daniel Brandt and his vendetta against Wikipedia? I think that almost every single user on Wikipedia has a conflict of interest in this article. It is eventually going to shift to a pro-Wikipedia, pro-Internet point of view, because that is the view that virtually ALL editors at Wikipedia share. We don't have the right to judge this man's notability. You can't see a whole picture when you're inside the frame.

Almost every single one of us resents this guy for threatening to strike down the entity that we have put so much time and effort into. Maybe we ought to come up with a different idea for this one, instead of repeatedly nominating it for deletion, citing WP:BIO. Maybe we should just bite the bullet and take it down. Mr. Brandt doesn't want it there because he thinks that it misrepresents him. Some of us don't want it here anymore because it's a MAJOR pain in the ass to keep clean, and often spawns deep-but-pointless philosophical discussions. Maybe it would be best for all of us to just delete it and put this dark chapter in Wikipedia history behind us. This issue will not be solved by AfDs, where every editor is forced to take a stand on one side of the keep/delete line.

Mr. Brandt has trolled us into doing this, yes. But maybe, just maybe, Wikipedia might recognize that standing up to this troll has wasted much more time than if we just deleted the page in the first place at the very first AfD. Instead of wasting our time arguing over a barely-notable man, let's try to write on the more important topics on Wikipedia such as History, Philosophy, Religion, those pages that we have forgotten about in favor of pages about the latest episode of Lost.

TLDR version: It's a pain in the ass, and isn't helping anybody on both sides of the battlefield. Let's delete it once and for all, and get to work on the real encyclopedia. Once again, if needed, please move this to the right place. Oh, and you don't like the idea, don't make it personal. I'm being really bold putting my ideas out here, and I don't want to ruin my wiki-life because of it. PTO 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

...And in doing so, send a clear message that anyone willing to bitch, troll, rant, harass, and abuse the system long enough can get exactly what they want? NO. --tjstrf talk 04:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
But that misses the point. Are we really keeping the article because it should be kept? Or are we just keeping it so that we can do the opposite of what he wants? Letting a troll have power over Wikipedia by causing the opposite of what he wants is no better than just giving them what they want. -Amarkov moo! 04:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As regards that, the 13 AfD's where he was determined to be notable speak for themselves. (And unlike the GNAA, his article can be sourced.) If we start giving breaks in policy to people for being spiteful, we will simply encourage them. --tjstrf talk 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly... as long as there is nothing libelous or attacking about the article, the subject's wishes... I don't think they should matter for the simple existence of an article. If a newspaper (say, the NY Times) were to publish a full biographical article on Brandt and leave it on their site forever and in print, would he fight them? Would the NYT back down? Why should we over something silly for any person who asks? We'd be flooded with people who for whatever reason don't want a page. Giving one that precedent would I imagine legally give it to them all. - Denny 05:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
We're keeping it because it should be kept. He's clearly notable, IMO. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and even paper encyclopedias don't limit themselves to things people are already likely to know about (except maybe in Orwell's 1984). Anchoress 04:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't a question, and we proved that 101% in the last (hopefully final) AfD. Also... on what grounds would we just arbitrarily delete an article? do we need another wheel war and arbcom mess? Further... WP:FORTHEPEOPLE: Saying that we should "delete this article, to stave off future disruption," isn't valid--and it assumes supreme bad faith of your peers, because it assumes that a minority of your peers will practice disruption later on Wikipedia to get their way later. If such a thing happens, it's a problem with those editors that don't conform to the community standards--not a problem with the article itself.

Last, if you honestly think no one cares about this guy, who has been constantly quoted in the media since the year 2000 or so (7+ years), why don't we delete stuff others don't care about like Francis, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld? No one could likely be interested there... no? - Denny 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't delete or keep because other crap exists. SWATJester On Belay! 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe we delete on the possibility that some people have may have an inability to edit like adults later on given articles, either... and my point was that we shouldn't delete based on possible disruption from an article. Which is impossible--how can an article disrupt? Dramamongering users disrupt by attacking articles. - Denny 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for deletion because other crap exists. Or, because the guy has harassed us so much that we just should take it down. None of us can write a neutral article on him, because we've all got a negative viewpoint on him. All of us. We've wasted enough time on this sad article, with its record number of AfDs. PTO 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'd say you should AfD it again then... with the new rationale (I don't think I saw that one in the previous ones) and see what the collective community decides based on your idea. - Denny 13:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Interesting thought:

- Denny 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Also related: reality is a commodity :o) Guy (Help!) 11:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Heh, I just *had* to do that. PTO 12:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    ok, that was pretty funny. :) - Denny 13:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it rest![edit]

The 13th AfD nomination was the first one that was finally allowed to run its course until the end (and then some) without any early closures that plagued all previous AfD/DRVs. The result was keep. The community has spoken. Live with it. --Edokter (Talk) 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium[edit]

M. Brandt has now been joined by Archimedes Plutonium (AfD discussion) who, editing as Superdeterminism (talk · contribs) as well as several IP address accounts, also wishes the article on him to be deleted. One difficulty of this situation is that the most in-depth reliable independent source on the subject of M. Plutonium, a book by Eric Francis that devotes several pages to M. Plutonium and his interactions with others on Usenet, is about the murder of Half and Susanne Zantop, for which M. Plutonium was one of several people briefly suspected and then eliminated from the inquiry. (The book documents how he was eliminated from the inquiry, but also provides extensive background information on him to explain who he is in the first place.) Another difficulty of the situation is that whilst it would be good to allow M. Plutonium to participate in the discussion, he has brought his Usenet behaviour here, including legal threats of libel claims against M. Francis. A third difficulty of the situation is that the only article that M. Plutonium will apparently accept is one that basically parrots his own uncorroborated autobiography and scientific theories verbatim.

Please let's not be like Usenet in our response to this, by the way. Wikipedia is not Usenet. Uncle G 13:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/, which shows that somebody, claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium, vandalised the Jimmy Wales article several times, by inserting into it (instead of to User talk:Jimbo Wales) a request to have his article corrected. See also this section of my talk page. ElinorD (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Help closing RFC: Talk:Cow tipping[edit]

Hi. I'm requesting for someone uninvolved to review this RFC and determine if consensus has been reached and/or it should otherwise be closed: Talk:Cow_tipping#Request_for_Comment:_Inclusion_of_image_of_cow_.26_related_caption. It has been open for over 10 days, and the last comment was a few days ago. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I closed it. Mangojuicetalk

Complex investigations get interesting again[edit]

I have implemented an indefinite block on Dustbunniesmultiply (talk · contribs) as an obvious sockpuppet per this edit, which was the account's second edit ever at Wikipedia. Although I'd hoped to keep quiet about the associated topic until after my appeal at WP:RFCU#Otheus got addressed and my investigative report was completed, I'm near the end of an investigation on a vandal who has been damaging Wikipedia since July 2005. I'm putting my indef block up here for review. Follow the links to see where this rabbit hole goes. And BTW, please WP:AGF for Otheus. I don't think that editor is our problem. DurovaCharge! 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Has BenH been banned by the community?[edit]

I was wondering--has User:BenH been hit by a community ban? He's had an RfC pending on him for almost a year and hasn't bothered to respond. Moreover, he's been suspected of using numerous sockpuppets. An administrator mentioned that he'd blocked one of them since BenH was permanently banned--can someone confirm this so he can be listed on the banned users page? Blueboy96 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at BenH's block log, it doesn't appear so (although discussion could have taken place afterwards and not been noted in the log). His user page also reflects an indefinite block, not a ban. Not familiar with the case, but I imagine it wouldn't be an issue to formalize a ban at the CN. —bbatsell ¿?