Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive89

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Another one to keep an eye on[edit]

Resolved

User:TheDeciderDecides is "new", but he sure seems to know alot about certain editors, and the goings on in recent and past disputes. No specific violations that I'm aware of, except maybe an unwarranted warning issued. This comment also suggests the user is on the path to WP:POINT abuse, and general disruption. I smell the sock of a banned user, which one I'm not sure. But it could be one of several editors from the Conspiracy Theory disputes, or possibly FAAFA. - Crockspot 01:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much precedent of this user being a sock at this time; unless we can concretely allege so, we should try to assume good faith. Like in the AfD comment, he could simply be a (somewhat) experienced IP. Sr13 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Influential blogger Andrew Sullivan's recent post bringing new light to Michelle Malkin's own 2002 article Just Wondering parroting 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists talking points alleging that Flight 93 was shot down and questioning the Bush administration in general is a major source of embarrasment for her supporters and some conservative Wikipedians who appear to be on a jihad to exclude this documented info and harrass users like me. The editor in question's inflammatory edit summary ' RV POV garbage " was a clear WP NPA violation as well, and I warned him as WP demands. I predict an orchestrated campaign from these well organized editors to exclude this documented, factual info and drive off editors who seek to stop the suppression of interesting, relevent and pertinent aspect of Malkin's 'journalistic' career that they see as a definate black mark. Please keep an eye on them. TheDeciderDecides 07:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Knock it off with the threats of "consequences" and the unwarranted warnings and reversions on my and Jinx's talk pages. We don't have to tolerate your crap in our user spaces. For the record, you are not welcome on my talk page, and anything you post there will be reverted. Got it? If you think you have a case against me to make me face "consequences", take your shot. - Crockspot 00:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"rv POV garbage" is in reference to material, not you, thus it is not a personal attack. Jinxmchue 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Decider, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Wikipedia does not exist to expose The Truth™. AecisBrievenbus 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Tell that to those editing the Malkin article who have used the article not to describe her career and positions, but in a blatant attempt to 'prove' her positions with dozens of links to her original material and other right wing blogs that support her. TheDeciderDecides 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

TheDeciderDecides (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a self-admitted sock account.[1] In my considered opinion, s/he is trolling Talk:Michelle Malkin. I say this because s/he keeps ignoring explanations of Wikipedia policy in an apparent quest to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to discredit Malkin. Cheers, CWC 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand blocked. SWATJester Denny Crane. 12:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

basic question[edit]

I guess I should know this, but I don't and can't find the answer right off in the literature: am I allowed to change a close that I made? WP:DRV strongly implies this ("courteously invite the admin to take a second look") but doesn't outright say it; and after all a closed AfD does say "Please do not modify", and per WP:OWN I'd think a closed AfD belongs to the community, not to the closing admin anymore. So which is it? Herostratus 14:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Have you had a second look and come to a different conclusion to your original one? Yes, changing one's decision is allowed. I strongly recommend that you append a further rationale explaining your reasoning in detail. Show your working, so that other editors can understand. Discussing things with the administrator who made the closure decision is a review option that is not precluded by the request not to modify the discussion. Uncle G 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You still own your decision, so as Uncle G says you can change it. The reason for the exhortation to go chat with the admin is that it might save several editor-days of discussion on DRV if a conclusion can be reached locally. This is particularly the case if there has been some simple error made. Splash - tk 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Doppelgangers[edit]

Please indefinitely block my two doppelgangers User:Salskan and User:Salascan, which I just created. Salaskan 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Grandmasterka 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mull_of_Kintyre_test[edit]

Is this article true? It sounds like nonsense, but it's referenced.

I just looked up "Mull of Kintyre" test, and it appears to be true! [2] SirFozzie 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a well known test, though the BBFC have previously called their involvement in it an urban myth. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
(EC) We need better references. I tagged the article {{db-nonsense}} and deleted the so called reference, which was actually a porn spamlink. --Edokter (Talk) 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy tag, as even without references, it is patently not patent nonsense. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Compare the U.S. equivalent utilized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, discussed in The Brethren and here. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, not porn perse (I only glanced), but still commercial spam. --Edokter (Talk) 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, that was not a reliable reference, but I've found that other one to put in :) SirFozzie 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You deleted two references not one. The other was a newspaper which I've restored. -- JLaTondre 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Funny idea. Should probably be a redirect to an article on British broadcasting standards, though. The concept is only informally known as this, and that mainly by insiders. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
As the person who mentioned this, if you like I'll sort out the redirect/merge <==correct term? tomrrrow 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)~
I must say it is quite well known, not just by industry insiders. How much of the origins or the like are true I don't know, but the concept and the idea that this is what they use as a guideline (true or not) has been around for a long time and is well known. Ben W Bell talk 07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And this is what is wrong with the rush to judgment on deletion that we sometimes see in the project. Just because one small group of people never heard of something is not a reason to delete it - we should err on the side of "keep". Deletion is not a way to create a good encyclopedia. Tvoz |talk 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Silly comment. Lots if us have heard of it, if it had been AfDed then it would likely have been either kept or merged and redirected, unlikely we'd lose good info. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Qasaqsuyu (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved

Weird edits to country infoboxes by a rather new user, including copy-and-pasting articles over redirects and moving infoboxes to article-specific templates like {{Infobox Afghanistan}}, which I've been trying to revert. Can some helpful WikiGnome go over this user's edits, check for any weird edits I've missed, and delete the unnecessary templates? Zetawoof(ζ) 06:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All of Category:Template:Infobox Country and Template:Infobox Corsica would be a place to start. MER-C 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm on it. Shouldn't take too long. J Milburn 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Dealt with. Infoboxes and categories are gone, and I left them a message on their talk page. The rest are editorial issues. Took longer than I expected... J Milburn 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

request for image discussion close[edit]

Resolved

At Image talk:LaToyaJackson.jpg. All details are already on that page. Uninvolved admin needed. ··coelacan 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Clear case of replaceable fair use. WjBscribe 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor[edit]

We have a categorization dispute at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Dynamic IP currently editing as 88.104.33.124 (talk · contribs), but also 88.104.53.2 (talk · contribs), 88.104.81.176 (talk · contribs) 88.104.44.134 (talk · contribs), and maybe Albireo223  (talk · contribs) is removing cats and now recategorizing shedloads of articles. Attempts at reaching consensus were made at the project talk page, but now the user has taken the matter into his own hands, and ignores requests to stop and reach consensus. Advice please. Mr Stephen 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, he was editing from 88.104.34.14 last night where I made numerous requests for him to stop. Pit-yacker 00:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: Editor is also removing Category:People from Greater Manchester saying that the traditional county of Lancashire should be used in some cases. For the record (if you dont know) "traditional counties" are very controversial a large number of editors consider attempts to push "traditional counties" as an attempt at pushing a political agenda (For an example see the talk archives of Template:Infobox UK place which ditched traditional counties that had previously been added to the templates predecessor. Pit-yacker 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I know about the traditional counties row, can't you have categories for both if appropriate, so you can add both to an article? -N 08:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Its a slightly different issue to that. The issue largely surrounds the naming of categories surrounding Oldham. In the early hours of 27 May the user in question decategorised serveral tens of articles relating to the "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" saying that they shouldnt be in the category Oldham - the fact that categories such as Oldham have also held articles relating to the Metropolitan borough is a conevention that has held for some time. The said user ignored repeated requests by myself to stop and discuss what was a fairly controversial change. Later on 27 May/early hours of 28 May the user created a spate of categories for "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" for places in the borough but not in the town of Oldham, and proceeded to move the articles into these categoires despite a large number of editors having serious issues about the new categories. Again the user was requested by other editors to stop these requests were again ignored.
Fianlly as part of these changes categorisation of "People from Greater Manchester" was removed as a parent category of the "People from <town>" categories in Oldham on the basis that "category includes people from lancashire so cannot be subcat of greater manchester" Pit-yacker 13:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

autoreplaceable fair use tag is acting up[edit]

I just noticed that many of the images in Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 18 May 2007 were uploaded on 23 May. I don't have the beginning of a clue how to fix this. In case they are deleted before they can be checked, an example is Image:Rios-Montt.jpg ··coelacan 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See the code for the template [3]. At the bottom, it puts the images in the category for today's date MINUS 5 DAYS. I'm not really sure what the person who wrote that was thinking. In any case, I cannot fix it as it is protected. -N 08:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This template as well [4]. Bizarre. Apparently the template authors thought this was a good idea. I think someone should fix this and then have a word with those template writers. Also, why do we even have multiple templates for this? -N 08:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
the dates are a work around to do with the different length of time an image need be left before it can be deleted. The reason there are multiple templates is there are various different ways the template can end up on an image.Geni 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a less confusing workaround? We have two styles of RFU categories. There's Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 18 May 2007 and Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 18 May 2007. If I understand things, the "to be decided after" category is placed by {{Replaceable fair use}} and that tag is supposed to wait 7 days. The "images as of" category is placed by {{Replaceable fair use 2}} and the multiple "Autoreplaceable fair use" tags, and these tags are supposed to wait 2 days. The "images as of" category is annotated to be deleted after 7 days, and 7 minus 5 gives the 2 days result. So I think I understand the workaround.
But if the "images as of" category is only placed by tags that wait 2 days, then why not just annotate the category to be deleted after 2 days, and set the tags to drop the correct date instead of minus 5? ··coelacan 18:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pipsy the mouse[edit]

User:Pipsy the mouse (talk (check history)|contribs) has engaged in a pattern of bizarre behaviour over the last week or so. It started with the removal (first by a bot) of fair-use images that were wrongly used, from the userpage. The user has repeatedly reverted the images back, despite warnings and explanations. The user has also engaged in unhelpful edits to various articles (and reverting useful edits as "vandalism"), and seems to think they can block people. The user has also uploaded at least one fair-use image exclusively for their userpage and has uploaded two Ogg files of copyrighted game music (actually renamed Mp3s) with length well in excess of fair-use, which are not used anywhere. Today, the user has created fake userpages, redirecting their userpages to one, "blocking" the other for some reason. What can be done about this?--Drat (Talk) 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved fake userpages back. Looking into it. Sandstein 09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that the page move thing is sorted, perhaps a stern admin warning before any blocks are issued. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)t

Rbj blocked[edit]

I have indef blocked User:Rbj per this. He has not edited logged in since then but has been using IPs to continue to harass Orangemarlin. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How unfortunate. I had some hope this editor might be redeemable but using anon IPs to insult and vandalize other users seems to be pretty over the line. This user has exhausted community patience. JoshuaZ 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Rbj took the news that he was near banning, and instead of using it as an opportunity, he decided to abandon the account and get even. It would appear he's chosen to be irrecoverable. The block makes sense. Prepare for a few more weeks of IP whacking, though. ··coelacan 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am reviewing Rbj's unblock request, in which he claims it was not he that committed the alleged IP harrassing. To evaluate these claims, could someone please post some diffs of Rbj's prior harrassments and the new IP harrassments for comparison? Thanks, Sandstein 05:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I need them also. I'll run checkuser if I get them. Fred Bauder 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a couple: this bit of incivility, calling other editors' work "dog-shit", saying "you guys think your own shit don't stink", threatening meatpuppetry, and characterizing another editors' arguments as "bullshit". These are all completely over-the-top and just a sample of what the community had to put up with; his comments to Odd Nature/151. are clear harrassment. There was broad support a full indef ban after several discussions here: [5] and here: [6] If he's unblocked I and a number of his other targets will restart that discussion to secure an indef ban. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had no previous experience with this editor, but it appears clear that he has been highly incivil and disruptive in the past, as per the diffs provided. Now, though, I am reviewing a block based on recent harrassment as an IP. Can someone provide diffs for that, please? Sandstein 06:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought that these comments were characteristically similar. Take these IPs for checkuser: 70.108.92.189 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) 68.100.207.219 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). Also, I suggest establishing contact with Killerchihuahua before making any move. ··coelacan 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've left them a note on their talk page. In case the checkuser is inconclusive, it would help to hear why the blocking admin assumes this IP trolling originates with Rbj, apart from the fact that its target is a user Rbj has apparently previously attacked. Sandstein 09:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I haven't had coffee yet - I will do what I can. Pls be patient. Also mentioning there was no opposition to an indef in this thread unless you count my hesitation in indef blocking without giving him one last chance. EVula took that as sufficient doubt about indef blocking, and reversed his indef of the editor. I state now for the record I personally think he should have been indef'd some time ago, and regret even mentioning a Last Chance, as this editor has been nothing but hateful and disruptive. If your look at the diffs provided in the earlier thread, and the posts on his talk page [[7]], you will see the statement that "i have little respect for the authenticity of Orange's religious sense of offense. <snip> this "offense" he takes here is a pretext." Basically, Rbj edited OM's post on an article talk page in a manner calculated to be a swipe at OM's religious beliefs. He then said he didn't believe OM was actually offended, and made it a case for further attacks on OM, more or less weirdly saying OM was only pretending to be Jewish, so he could pretend to be offended, as some kind of setup for Rbj - completely ignoring that multiple editors were expressing horror at the edit Rbj had made, and an anti-semitic edit is offensive on its own, whether or not the target is a practicing Jew of whatever level of othodoxy. "i have little respect for the authenticity of Orange's religious sense of offense"[8]. He characterized the outrage at his actions "phony" several times[9][10] and showed no appreciation for how unacceptable his actions were. I can dig out more diffs, but most of it is linked in the this thread previous ANI thread, which links an earlier thread, as well as his talk page at the place linked above. Any brief perusal of his contribs will show multiple nasty personal attacks within a few clicks. He's shown no remorse, no intent to even consider being more civil, and I have no idea why anyone would consider unblocking this highly disruptive, anti-semitic, hostile and accusatory troll. But hey, if you decide to unblock I'm not worried. I disagree, strongly, but I'm not worried about much further damage to the project or its volunteers. I'll just keep blocking the IPs when they make their hateful posts, which make the same kinds of attacks Rbj has made against OM, and eventually even the DC area will run out of IPs Rbj can use to continue his hateful harassment of this editor. According to cu, he's always edited from a range of IPs, so cu cannot confirm - but tellingly, cannot clear. A formal cu was not run, feel free to do but you'll get a "likely" or an "unable to deterimine" and not a postive yea or nay. Who else would be making identical attacks to the ones Rbj made, from multiple IPs? this isn't rocket science. Calling OM a fake jew, a POV pusher, and a liar is Rbj right down the line. I will go for coffee now and return once my brain is working: if I've been unclear or more diffs are desired, or there are any questions, I will be happy to address them. Apologies for the pre-coffee disorganized nature of this response. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a girl... I'll blame it on the coffee. :P EVula // talk // // 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
My deepest apologies. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You're not the first person to make that mistake, and sadly, probably not the last... I've been dealing with it for, oh, about nine years now (damn "a" at the end of my name!). Don't worry about it. :) EVula // talk // // 16:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Everyone keeps calling me "he" too - do you think we should switch unames for a week, see how that works out? (This is a joke, for those of you who worry about such things) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the block - it's long overdue. Guettarda 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As suggested checkuser, does not produce useful results. I might support hearing an appeal of his indefinite ban in order to consider an alternative remedy (I favor frequent short blocks rather than indefinite bans for his sort of behavior) but will not unblock him at this time. Fred Bauder 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been enjoying my holiday weekend, so I'm embarrassed that I didn't offer more information. I was attacked by several anonymous editor whom I believe are sockpuppets of RBJ. Here and here, I was attacked by User:70.108.92.189. This was an attack by User:68.100.207.219. And finally, another attack by User:80.213.213.126. Much of what was written fits into Rbj's anti-Semitic rants, rude and profane language, and other activities. Block him forever. Orangemarlin 14:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll refrain from reviewing Rbj's still-open unblock request in favour of an admin with some experience with his user. Lacking that, I can't fairly determine whether it is sufficiently probable that Rbj is behind the IP attacks that have triggered the contested block. Sandstein 15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
They might be meatpuppets rather than Rbj editing anonymously, but Rbj must have had something to do with this, probably making a complaint in a chatroom or forum or something like that. (I tried to google for it, but it's difficult: I keep turning up Wikipedia mirrors but don't want to exclude "Wikipedia" since it may well be mentioned in the thread.) Anyway, I think Rbj has had his share of chances and then some, and we don't need to give him any more. Mangojuicetalk 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
What about excluding "en.wikipedia.org" instead? That might work to take out some of the mirrors, but not exclude a passing reference. EVula // talk // // 16:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Support the block. Considering his 19(!) previous blocks, Guettarda is right, this was long overdue. FeloniousMonk 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
19, eh? I don't recall seeng anything indicating that Wikipedia needs to undertake massive reclamation projects regarding disruptive editors (as seems to have been the case here). The time for an indef passed about 10 blocks ago. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

for your convenience:[edit]

Rbj, in his unblock request, points to an edit he made while evading a previous block: 71.161.209.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP resolves to Verizon in Reston, VA. The IP I noticed, 70.108.92.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), resolves to Verzon in Reston, VA. The posts made by 70.108.92.189 consist of ten attacks on OM, which include:

  • 22:56, 15 May 2007 Replacing page with "What a loser you are"
  • 23:00, 15 May 2007 "Orangemarlin is a sockpuppet of a Wikipedia administrator who pretends to know much more than he actually knows."
  • 10:39, 20 May 2007 Warning. "If you deal with Orangemarlin and his aliases, you're dealing with a liar, a jerk and an imposter."

The edits are all on the dates 15 May 2007, 19 May 2007, and 20 May 2007. 15 May 2007 was when Rbj was blocked and unblocked by EVula, and Rbj was informed he would be indef blocked if he made another personal attack.

68.100.207.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) resolves to COX in Atlanta. Starting on 13 May 2007 a series of attacks were placed on OM's talk page, including three, on 19 May 2007, to the section User:Wendyow) - where 70.108.92.189 also made several posts. The posts were:

  • 68.100.207.219: 13:57, 19 May 2007 "No, people hate you. They think they hate Jews, but they actually hate you. I don't hate you. I pity you and the Jews who are the victim of your intolerant arrogant overbearing attitude. Your actions elicit a reaction in others who wrongly think you are representative of Jews. That's sad. (P) My question is why do you pretend to be something you are not on your user page?"
  • 68.100.207.219: 16:11, 19 May 2007 "Ad hominem attacks are your trademark. Stick to name calling. It's quite amusing because no matter how long you keep up the charade, you can't fool yourself."
  • 68.100.207.219: 17:08, 19 May 2007 "Why don't you just admit you're an imposter?"

19:57, 19 May 2007 Firsfon of Rochester stated that he's blocked 68.100.207.219 for one week.

  • 70.108.92.189: 10:38, 20 May 2007 "This has nothing to do with a Jewish cabal or anti-semitism. It has to do with Orangemarlin being a jerk, an imposter and a sockpuppet."
  • 70.108.92.189: 10:39, 20 May 2007 "Warning. If you deal with Orangemarlin and his aliases, you're dealing with a liar, a jerk and an imposter."
  • 70.108.92.189: 10:42, 20 May 2007 "You're fighting a losing battle. This guy is a raging fanatic who oppresses all viewpoints other than his own. No rational persone questions whether Jesus lived or not. Rather, such talk is just an attempt to diminish the spiritual beliefs of others. His motive is simple and obvious. The dude you are fighting is so devoid of any spiritual life and empty inside that he feels the need to attack others to better convince himself of his own righteousness."

15:55, 20 May 2007 Firsfon of Rochester protected OM's talk page. Looks to me as though it was the same person in the DC area on the 19th, and in Atlanta on the 20th. Compare the insults to those Rbj himself made:

  • 01:33, 26 April 2007 tell the other editors to stop misrepresenting me. tell them to stop lying.
  • 15:49, 2 May 2007 "except for abusive admins and naked POV pushers, i am not too worried about my reputation here." ... " i have little respect for the authenticity of Orange's religious sense of offense. indeed, he makes it pretty clear that he is not. this "offense" he takes here is a pretext. it's as phony as the myriad statements of "fact" he makes (which are just his opinion) and insists on giving the status of fact. he can take refuge in his Mercedes driven by his chaffeur (if that really is the case). in fact, i would expect anyone alledgedly trained in a hard science to have a bit more critical thinking. "
  • 21:46, 2 May 2007 "... i have some serious disrespect for Orange ... he is just one of a bunch of POV-pushing editors that will stoop to any level of misrepresentation to obscure the fact that they want their heavily biased anti-ID POV (which he admits to freely) represented in the article. this is a phony little pretext that i regret offering to this bunch of POV-pushers."

He also states he's going to appeal to Jimbo: " if it were indefinite, i guess i'd have to bug Jimbo again" + " Jimbo has reversed the action of the admin (the count is 3 to 0 now)" this on his previous block, for 24 hours - this would be the one by JoshuaZ, before the indef EVula made and undid.

Hope this helps. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion concern[edit]

Would it be possible to implement the ability for regular users to view the history and past revisions of articles even after they are deleted? I've been frustrated lately at editors for nominating articles like this one for deletion due to a lack of sources, because by deleting them, all that is being done is preventing editors from being able to add reliable sources and improve the article, while destroying editors hard work. If it were possible to view old revisions of the articles, I wouldn't be so against the deletion, because this way, editors would still be able to look over the article's content, make improvements, and eventually recreate it, without just having to start from scratch, when the quality of the content wasn't in question to begin with.--Azer Red Si? 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If all users could see deleted articles, then what would be the point of deleting them? The point of deletion is to hide things, because deletion is literally just flagging revisions to hide them, and undeletion is unflagging them, making them visible again. Plus, those lucky two dozen or so people with oversight would have a lot more work to do: if copyvios were still visible, they might as well have never been deleted, and this would neutralize the deletions of all the tens of thousands of unfree images and articles admins have deleted over the years. All attack pages, too, would need to be oversighted, to assuage libel concerns. To put it simply, letting everybody see deleted articles soundly defeats the purpose of deletion. If you must see things, the Google cache is quite available, and there are admins who will email you copies. Picaroon (Talk) 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There was also a lengthy discussion here as well. Sr13 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Replied on the deletion discussion. What you describe is more like userfying, the article gets restored in user space to be worked on (and it has to be worked on, not just indefinite free web hosting), that way the issues of the AFD can be addressed and potentially moved back to mainspace. Clearly the outcome of the AFD will determine how easy it is going to be to address the issues the AFD raises. --pgk 07:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I note that at the aforelinked AFD discussion Azer Red states that the "majority of [Wikipedia's] articles are made up mostly of OR" and uses that to argue that our Wikipedia:No original research policy should not apply. I also note that sources were requested for this article over 3 months ago, contrary to the assertions that editors have "not had the chance to try" to find sources. It appears that Azer Red's lack of agreement with our fundamental content policies and name-calling of other editors is the actual problem here, not deletion.

    Always work from, and cite, sources. Encyclopaedia content must be verifiable and free from original research. This is not an issue for the administrators' noticeboard. Uncle G 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Deletionist" is a derogatory name. There's a whole category of editors who call themselves "deletionists", but you're right, I agree that I shouldn't be lumping all of the people who support these deletions into the same category. Also, I didn't say that the no OR policy shouldn't apply, but I said that if it does apply, it should apply in full, not just in random cases like this. I personally think that OR alone shouldn't be enough to allow for an article to be deleted, but I don't understand why those who do think so don't enforce the policy consistantly. --Azer Red Si? 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Could it be made so that admins can choose whether or not to allow the history of deleted articles to be viewed by regular users? I understand concerns about seeing past revisions of copyvio stuff, so if admins could choose whether or not to leave the history, this could solve that problem while still solving the problem of editors' work being lost.--Azer Red Si? 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe WP:USERFY does everything you want. ··coelacan 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory Blockage Template[edit]

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me is one of the finest anti-vandalism Admins active today, but I must comment that the account blockage template used on User talk:82.7.200.10 is perhaps amusing, but is inappropriate in tone. Admins should not be mocking vandals -- they should try to educate them, and encourage them to return to the Wikipedia fold post-block as positive contributors. BTW, I am not permitted to leave messages on User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, so I decided to comment here. WikiBully 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a little humor is a good time. The template doesn't bother me.--Alabamaboy 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Of much greater interest to me is why you're not permitted to user CSCWEM's talk page, to be perfectly honest... the template is fine. EVula // talk // // 20:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiBully can't edit that page yet because the account was just registered two days ago, and CSCWEM's talk is semiprotected. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, alrighty. I thought there may have been some sort of history between the two editors, which would suggest that this might be a bad faith post. If we dismiss my paranoid ramblings as just example that I shouldn't go off my meds (*twitch*), my opinion that the template was fine still stands. :) EVula // talk // // 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is zero history. That's why I made sure to say that User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me is a great editor, though I think the blockage template is unwisely provocative. WikiBully 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It harks back to a few years ago when block messages were frequently of that nature. ViridaeTalk 14:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but I had a wikistalker that wouldn't hesitate to publicly praise me, yet still harass me. However, we're going off on a major tangent that is largely my fault, so I'm gonna just drop it... EVula // talk // // 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
<shrug> You know, I'm aware that it doesn't matter much, and it's a bogus argument but... about that template... ILIKEIT. Philippe 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see how that template might be annoying to the person receiving it, but I can also see how it wouldn't be, so I guess I'd have to hear it from one or more of them. It is a little odd, at first glance, to act like we're rewarding people for vandalism...but then, if they thought not editing Wikipedia was such a relief, they could just not do it in the first place. Instead, it may have the effect of instilling in people a sense that Wikipedia is a fun place and rewarding community to be a part of, so it might be a handy reforming tool. Anyway, speculation. I think the template is harmless, even sort of cute, but you don't have to agree with the cute part if you don't want to. --Masamage 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey[edit]

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

Folks, I have blocked Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to prevent further disruption to the project. It is clear from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 that (a) pretty much everyone but Merkey thinks he's a problem and (b) Merkey thinks that's because everyone but him is wrong about that. Points suuch as his claim on the RfC that being a financial contributor to the Foundation gives him special rights, and his ludicrous (now deleted) Wikipedia:Right to Edit make it perfectly plain that anything which conflicts with his belief in his inalienable right to do what he wants, is necessarily wrong. And he will pursue that agenda everywhere he can find an audience - I have rarely seen more blatant forum shopping. So: I have blocked him for the purpose of containing his disruption to a single locus, his talk page, where we can talk to him or ignore him as we each see fit, until such time as he chooses to stop the nonsense. Please don't protect his Talk unless he makes a real nbuisance of himself with {{unblock}}. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, I have to support this, even with the massive shitstorm this could potentially unleash, because it's the right thing to do. He. just. Does. Not. Get. It. He's drifted more and more off the plot with each and every edit he's made. SirFozzie 12:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I state no position on other matters. But I endorse the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Right to Edit. Had it come to MFD, there would have almost certainly been a unanimous chorus of opinions to delete from all experienced Wikipedia editors, with much discussion of why it was wrong. We can do without the additional drain on everyone's time that that would involve. The issues that the editor clearly wanted to raise therein have are already been raised by xem at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 and can be (and are being) discussed by the community there. Uncle G 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Right to Edit was one of funniest things I've read for a long time - please, someone, send it over to Uncyclopedia - but Wikipedia is not solely designed for humour, lamentably. Merkey's edits have become so far divorced from the reality of what you can and cannot do that I don't think we've been left with any option other than ridding ourselves of the disruption he causes. Moreschi Talk 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree the block is necessary to prevent his continued disruption. A corollary is that anyone who has come to Wikipedia to fight with him should be shown the door. Tom Harrison Talk 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As one of the original proponents that he be unblocked, I agree that he should probably be blocked indefinitely again. He deserved the chance he was given, but he was disruptive. I understand that there are other users who have been bothering him; that doesn't excuse his actions and attitude in conflicts. Ral315 » 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • He was given a second chance to be a constructive Wikipedian and has spent almost all his time arguing (badly) rather than actually improving Wikipedia. I support this block and strongly advise against any third chances - it's not worth it. --Tango 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I endorse this block and commend Guy for having the common sense to see that Merkey's presence was much more of a hindrance than a benefit. His comments showed that he had no interest in following policy and was using every possible opportunity for rather incoherent soapboxing. Blocking him again is no loss to the project. --YFB ¿ 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't get a chance to see Wikipedia:Right to Edit. Could someone please undelete it and send it to BJAODN? *** Crotalus *** 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That would just be asking for trouble ... I strongly advise against that. --BigDT 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I personally don't think such trolling should be glorified by BJAODN, though perhaps Uncyclopedia might be interested? Moreschi Talk 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Uncyclopedia does not use a GFDL-compatible license. Copy from Wikipedia cannot be copied there. At any rate, I don't think anything good can come from restoring this page anywhere ... we don't need a "poke fun at a blocked user's idea" forum. --BigDT 16:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Given what Jeffrey has written on his talk page about possible off-wiki actions and his previous agreements with the foundation, perhaps we should just protect his talk page and let him deal with the foundation by private communication from here on out. There is nothing else us mere wiki-mortals can do here. NoSeptember 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protected. Yall can clean up anything you think should not be there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, reading his comments on his talk, I'd say this block was absolutely justified, beyond question. My word. He can talk to the Foundation privately if he so wishes, but until told otherwise, we really don't need him wasting our time here. A couple of real gems: "18 year olds who live in their mom's basement and who are taking a free ride off my money and chat room trolls who talk about inappropriate topics don't tell me when I am right or wrong. In fact, no such concept exists on this site", followed by "community == trolls", and "Never mind, I saw the Noticeboard and the comments from all the trolls and strong arm groups. This block violates just about every assurance from the Foundation. It also interferes with my investments".
Up with this we must not put. For obvious reasons. Moreschi Talk 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we can handle this without actively taking the piss. Merkey is wrong, the problem is that he does not believe it. We need to find a strategy to get him down off the Reichstag so we can let him edit. I don't think anybody here believes he is evil or a troll, just... odd. And that oddness creates a problem. The trouble is, nobody else I can find to talk to about him has the faintest idea how to de-escalate this either. And yes, I have asked Jimmy. Consensus appears to be that we should be nice to him (fine) but not let him bring his battles here (also fine). All suggestions gratefully received. And I think we should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to trolling of Merkey, here or on his Talk as and when we unprotect it. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • While I dont have any solutions myself but I do think that (a) we should unlock his talk page and (b) change the block from indefinite to 24 hours, SqueakBox 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not averse to an expiring block, but 24 hours is way too short. A lot of time has been wasted. Maybe the best thing is just to walk away and come back when he's calmed down - he's in email contact with the foundation guys, we'll know soon enough when he's likely to be productive. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • FWIW I would recommend a fixed block so he knows when he is going to be unblocked (and I speak from an experience (of being blocked) you dont have). It would be nice to see the talk page unlocked so I and others can leave a message there given he isnt being disruptive there from what I can see, SqueakBox 20:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ther,e now you've proved me wrong. I said cooling off blocks don't work - but with you actually they do, don't they? I remember I blocked you a while back, you handled it with remarkable equanimity. The problem with Merkey, though, is that he is much less self-aware than you are. I think you are commendably aware of your own biases and enthusiasms, and I think that you fundamentally accept things about which Merkey is still in denial. Included among these is the fact that editing Wikipedia is just a hobby, and if the power went out the world would continue to turn. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We're probably seeing differently, cuz I see quite a lot of disruption. I can't see any rationale for an unblock. Since being debanned, he has not contributed productively in the slightest, just bounced back and forth between edit wars, ANI, and RFC. Second chances are great, but why a third? Moreschi Talk 20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Has Jeffrey opened any threads at rfc (no) or AN/I? I get the impression Guy wants to see Jeffrey contribute constructively and to that extent I am willing to support Guy's actions, SqueakBox 20:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You know what I mean. In a very short space of time he's been the subject of an RFC and plenty of threads at ANI (always a bad sign). We'd all like to see Merkey contribute productively but is this really likely third time around, and does he want to contribute productively anyway (productively meaning playing by the rules, our rules)? Moreschi Talk 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy -- thanks. The only thing I find more vexing than vandals are editors who come to promote personal agendas. No mere vandal can waste contributors' time on that sort of scale. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Look closely at User:Poindexter Propellerhead's contribution history, created 24 May, with two and only two interests: 1) hundreds of reverts against vandalism, and 2) !voting and commenting against Jeffrey Merkey.[11] Nothing else.Proabivouac 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Look more closely, and you'll find some significant edits. When I'm doing a hundred vandalism reverts a day, I know it's easy for them to get lost in the noise. Also lost in the noise are actions I took against other bad editors, as when I reverted one (now indef blocked) calling their edit "hate speech." I don't single out any editor who has a huge POV axe to grind, and is willing to revert war to get their way. They're all the same to me. I kind of expected this, though, having seen how everyone who ever complained about Merkey's editing was labelled as a bad faith cabal member -- Lulu, Hipocrite, Tom, etc. Think what you will, but I'm going to keep putting in a thousand worthwhile edits a week, and I'm going to keep on complaining when people come here to try and force a POV on the world. Whether Merkey is editing or blocked won't change that a bit. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations[edit]

I recommend the block be changed to a month for a cooling off period and his talk page be unprotected for him to continue his work. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Cooling-off blocks don't work. He's blocked to stop the drama, when we are confident he won't cause more drama we can unblock him. I have no real opinion on protection of his talk page. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Cooling-off blocks have worked in the past for many Wikipedians. You stand corrected. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Many? Which ones? And this is his second time to be banned...for the same exact reason. Are you saying that there is a realistic chance of him to suddenly change his mind? We might give second chances, but that's pretty much it. The policy is assume good faith, not assume blind faith. —Kurykh 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There are literally thousands of editors who have been blocked for various reasons. The blocks were a good cooling-off period. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't work. What in the world do you want him to do? Put something in writing? Make some sort of oath? For some people it takes a little longer for them to understand the rules when no guidance has been given. How much help has he been given? Please provide him with the policies he should read up on and understand. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We're not here to wait for people to grow up. He has been provided with x number of lists of policies he should read up with, and has refuted them all with his dismissive attitude. If he really wants to start editing constructively (and can prove that he can, will, and remain so), then he can e-mail an administrator, ArbCom member, or Jimbo, and maybe have his block overturned. It's indefinite, not infinite. The indefinite block is essentially telling him that we will not accept him back unless he accepts our terms of editing. But right now, he's only disrupting the encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia's existence is more important than keeping trollish editors in the fold. —Kurykh 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide him with the specific, most helpful policies for him to read to be productive here. Lets move forward on this. Lets start somewhere. Please be specific with your terms. What are your terms? Wikipedia has a tradition of an open-arm acceptance. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Easy. For him to unconditionally contribute positively to the encyclopedia and the community, without demands or assertions of nonexistent rights and/or benefits. This is a term that you, me, and every editor in good standing accepts, and the only social condition imposed by Wikipedia and the collective community. —Kurykh 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And you are right on the fact that Wikipedia has a tradition of an open-arm acceptance, but it does not require it to accept those who seek its exploitation and/or destruction. —Kurykh 21:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that it? I recommend for you to transfer that to his talk page and put it in bold and tell him to read it over and over again until he understands it thoroughly. And for him to understand what lessons he has learned. Moving forward, he must understand that this is his last chance. He must also understand even if he is correct in a content dispute he must go by consensus and can request for comment on an article and try other avenues. Tigers are welcomed here but they must not growl. Understanding is the key. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
JzG already posted something similar to the above there. However, I still assert that the indefinite block should remain in place. —Kurykh 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not as if this is only Merkey's second block. It's his second indefinite block. Before he earned his first "indefinite" block, he had already been blocked numerous times for shorter periods because of the same sort of behavior. In fact, he had been blocked under a score of sockpuppet accounts back two years ago when he first began active disruption. I know that editors and admins who weren't watching the first rounds of bad behavior want to assume this is a passing mood; but from what I can see, confrontational trolling and unsubstantiated vehement personal beliefs is Merkey's entire life history, both on and off Wikipedia.
Frankly, even Merkey's allegedly polite request to be unblocked contained exactly the same kind of arrogance his subsequent edits showed: First claiming that he has more money than other editors; then claiming (certainly falsely, as well as irrelevant) that he has contributed some huge money to Wikimedia; and finally advancing the fanciful claim that he has "an IQ of 190" as alleged evidence he should have greater rights (btw. if you know how IQ is defined, you know that fewer than 20 people in the USA are at that +6 sigmas). Please, please, please don't give him an Nth chance to make us go through this ordeal again, with a certainty of the same outcome. LotLE×talk 21:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that this user's very first block was indefinite, I would support changing to a one-month block unless there is a much clearer indication of the nature of the problem in the RfC. This user clearly currently has a beef with the community and is very angry; I wouldn't take into consideration anything the user is saying in the present angry state; the whole point of a block is to enable a cooling down period to get past anger and allow calm to set in before making decisions. For a first block, I would allow time for a cooling-down period -- a month is plenty for this -- and then give the user an opportunity to decide, calmly, to either play by the rules or not play. I wouldn't block for longer than is necessary for this. I wouldn't indefinitely block as a first block. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing this support in light of user's history of blocks and other trouble when editing under prior user names. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking back over the block logs, it's not exactly the second time. Three of his IP addresses had a 24-hour, a 1 month, an indefinite and one other unspecified (temporary) block. His other accounts, Gadugi and Waya Sohoni, had a 1-hour, an 8-hour, three 24-hour, a 14-day, and four indefinite blocks. Other accounts which were almost certainly his (Asgaya Gigigei, Sint Holo and PeyoteMan) were also blocked indefinitely, which gives him grand total of 9 temporary and 10 indefinite blocks (counting the two already mentioned).
    • Regarding LotLE's comment that this user has been blocked before: Could you post links to evidence of this? This makes a big difference. The present block log shows only two blocks, one on May 2 resulting in an unblocking after a few hours, and one today, suggesting a medium-duration block has never been tried. If the reality is that this user has had a long history of past blocks under sockpuppet accounts, would it be possible to post evidence of this here and/or under the RfC? I would agree that if this is true my previous responses would be off the mark. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly with LotLE...enough is enough.--MONGO 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with you completely. MONGO has rewarded an editor who was hounding Mr. Merkey with a barnstar. What is going on here?[12][13] Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sock, get your drawer in order, before coming after mine. I have hounded no one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

I've given this some thought and propose the following as a "strategy" of sorts:

  • Leave the block indefinite for the time being. If we impose a time-specific block and then allow him back with his attitude unchanged, we'll just go through exactly the same palaver in a month or so's time and end up having this debate for a third time.
  • If Mr. Merkey emails an admin expressing a fundamental change in his attitude regarding the assumption of bad faith, caballery, conspiracy theories etc. and avowing an intention to adhere rigidly to Wikipedia policies as written (rather than his own interpretation), he could be unblocked. If that were to happen it should probably be on a zero-tolerance probation basis, i.e. one personal attack, edit war, unwarranted content removal etc. and he's reblocked.
  • In the mean time, he should be allowed to use a section of his talk page as a sandbox for article editing, conditional on the page being re-protected at the first sign of soapboxing. If he makes reasonable edit proposals at his talk page, they can be enacted at the articles themselves, or proposed for further discussion at the relevant talk page with Jeff allowed to take part in the discussion by proxy. I wouldn't be averse to acting as an intermediary there if that was acceptable to Mr. Merkey.
  • I would also suggest that, if they haven't been already, obvious Merkey-baiting accounts such as Al Petrofsky are blocked indef on sight. We do at least owe Jeff the same level of protection from trolling as anyone other editor. That said, we don't need anyone making "troll-watch lists" and Mr. Merkey should be prohibited from making any accusations of trolling whatsoever - established editors should be able to identify troll SPAs without much difficulty, so if a couple of neutral parties are prepared to keep an eyeball out, Jeff should have no need to resort to finger-pointing and personal attacks.
  • There should be (at least while these conditions are in effect) a moratorium on RfC, AN(/I), CSN, ArbCom etc. proposals/threads relating to Mr. Merkey. These only seem to serve as troll magnets or venues for argument, so they might as well be eschewed since while he's blocked and only editing his talk page under probation conditions, Jeff can't really do anything that might warrant recourse to any of these processes anyway.

Comments/suggestions welcome. --YFB ¿ 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page[edit]

Why was Jeff's talk page protected? That strikes me as counter-productive. Chick Bowen 01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now where this is discussed above. Well, it doesn't strike me as a big deal either way, but I'll leave it. Chick Bowen 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The talk page should be unprotected because it was done without any justification. Lack of response by administrators is compelling. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 05:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The justification above was that he was using it to pretty much asail the Foundation for not letting him edit. He has the ability to email the Foundation; so he can ask to have his page unlocked if he agrees to not use the talk page for that purpose. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
He just got blocked. I would be pisted too. The reason to block his talk page is still unjustified. I request his talk page be unblocked right away. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Its unblocked now, SqueakBox 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sophisticated anti-Merkey attack machine[edit]

At least three obvious (obvious when you actually look at contribs) anti-Merkey SPA's participated in the RfC's.

  • User:Kebron is the most obvious. Interests include Groklaw, SCO, Cherokees, and threads against Jeffrey Merkey. Only in the past few days do we see an attempt at camouflage with a number of innocuous but trivial Canada-related edits.[14].
  • User:Nyet is another. See how he blithely pretends not to know what is going on here,[15] but earlier wrote this,[16] which Jimbo called trolling.[17] Even the username Nyet intersects with Merkey, recalling a memorable moment in the now-infamous GNAA call (which happened sometime last year - I'm not certain when.)
  • User:Poindexter Propellerhead as referenced above.

Make no mistake, this is a coordinated - and sophisticated - attack machine. Merkey's not getting away with anything, his problems are all out in the open, but these guys (as Merkey says, you can find them over here) are playing Wikipedia like a cheap flute.
Poindexter and Kebron's userboxes, Poindexter's mission statement, and the vast number of camouflage edits speak to the wikisavvy and determination behind this effort to game and exploit the community's assumption of good faith.
No wonder he's paranoid: people are out to get him. He's done a horrible job of distinguishing good-faith editors with good-faith requests for improvement from the trolls which plague him, but then so have we, for these are still among us, participating in this thread.
If protecting Merkey from being stalked, harassed and trolled is to be more than an empty statement of intent, the assumption of good faith for users we've never seen before may have to be a little less forthcoming in Merkey-related threads than it usually (and rightly) is.Proabivouac 03:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we really need to relax assumptions of good faith at all. There is almost certain to be something up when a new user jumps straight into a user conduct dispute. Whether or not the something justifies blocking varies, but I can't imagine a situation in which someone who truly is new could go straight to railing against another user for their actions. -Amarkov moo! 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree about all three of those users and was somewhat surprised not to have seen any of them blocked already (particularly Kebron, who is blatant). Al Petrofsky is still blockless, too, despite obviously being here only to spam dispute pages with his accounts of Merkey's past conflicts. "Relaxing AGF" might be putting it too strongly, but there's certainly room for a bit of background checking of those who get involved with Merkey issues seemingly out of the blue. --YFB ¿ 03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I gave Al a block last night, but based on an email conversation with him, I decided to unblock. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I quote part of one recent SCO post (the remainder is too vile for this noticeboard):
"PWNED!…How come your named account is indef blocked and my SPA account is stall active? Check out user:CatchFork…"[18]Proabivouac 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sickened to realize that my endorsement of the substantial complaints laid forth in the RfC played a part in this hate-filled fellow's orgasm of sadism.Proabivouac 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Does an 'Anti-Merkey' cabal exist?

The duration of the block is ludicrous. This is totally unacceptable. I recommend to Guy to stop playing with the buttons. Here is a link I find interesting to read.[19] Come to your own conclusions what is really happening here. Was it coordinated? The above new evidence provided makes everything a bit more clear. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • And I recommend to you to read the discussions. Indefinite <> permanent, it means until things have calmed down. I am actively engaging with Mr. Merkey by email, in pursuit of a resolution. There is no point setting an arbitrary expiry date, that would be nonsensical under the circumstances, but I will unblock when I think the time is right, and that judgement is completely dependent on the conversations I am having with Merkey and others right now. If you are hearing a subliminal and not wholly complimentary message underneath that, congratulations on your perspicacity. "Playing with the tools" my arse. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No consensus

There is no consensus for the controversial block. Therefore, the resolution is an unblock. One administrator cannnot overide consensus. The community has spoken on this. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Merkey has posted a request to be unblocked, and the discussion on the unblock request is on ANI. SirFozzie 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete the RfC pages?[edit]

Would there be any objection if we deleted the RfC page relating to Merkey and its talkpage? The initiating party, User:Hipocrite, has said at User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Bye, that he wants nothing further to do with the matter; several of the threads were poisoned by the above-mentioned attack accounts; Merkey's own comments were, to say the least, unhelpful to himself or to the project; and nothing useful was resolved. I suggest that deleting the pages would be a good step for everyone. Newyorkbrad 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to deletion, so long as it doesn't mean that we end up arguing over the extent of Merkey's unhelpfulness at a later date. Archival with an appropriate closing note (much like what you've posted here) might be a more transparent way of bringing an end to the debate, but I don't consider deletion OTT. The RfC quickly got mired in pointless squabbling and personal attacks, so it's hardly going to be very useful to anyone in future. --YFB ¿ 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
We can blank it, but deletion would be a bad idea, I think. There are issues there which remain unaddressed. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Merkey poster claims passed RfA, threatens bio[edit]

The individual behind User:CatchFork claims to have another account which has recently passed RfA, and declares his intent to use this position to harass Merkey:[20] See also this response:[21]
This SCO noticeboard has proven to be a font of frank admissions. The very strongest action is warranted: a logged checkuser involving all the anti-Merkey socks, and if necessary a comparison of User:CatchFork to recent successful RfA candidates.
We also have a threat to attack Merkey's bio: "I think the first thing I'll do is offer to edit your personal bio article under good faith to reflect this last hilarious meltdown and your completely ridiculous history with wikipedia."
As if this all weren't enough, there is the claim that this is being decided on IRC:"Your name is mud there and the admins are circulating reports of your actions on IRC."Proabivouac 07:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that liberal use of checkuser would be an excellent idea. I recall an allegation that the poster who is claiming to have an admin here was identified with an account (now indef blocked) that was blatantly trolling Merkey, and I would not be AT ALL surprised to find out that he's been half a dozen or more other such accounts. We need to clear the air around here, and checkuser is the surest way to do it. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a self request.Proabivouac 08:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
By all means, checkuser me too! I had been wondering what your problem was with my fighting vandalism, but when I read the links you posted I realized that you must be taking me for that poster who said that he'd been doing the same. He also said that he was using IPs he got from his university, so I'd like someone to verify that I'm on private, unproxied DSL connection. The only way to stop the finger-pointing is to weed out the actual bad apples, so let's get it done. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"I had been wondering what your problem was with my fighting vandalism, but when I read the links you posted I realized that you must be taking me for that poster who said that he'd been doing the same."
Please. I have no problem with you fighting vandalism, except that per contribs and context it's obviously camouflage. Come back to me after a month of this and I might apologize. As of now, to put it quite plainly, I think your claim to have been lurking all this time and contributing thousands of useful edits, but just now opening an account, to be a lie. Your actions are designed to deceive the community's standard diagnostics of good-faith editors vs. attack SPAs, and your posts here aim to exploit the community's assumption of good faith.Proabivouac 08:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry that you feel that way, but those posts go a long way towards creating an air of paranoia, so I can understand why you do. And I don't mind waiting a month for my apology. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Has Poindexter Propellerhead broken any WP policies by arguing on a RfC and here? That's all his Merkey related activity so far (and hopefully it will stop here as the Merkey is blocked indefinitely). Please note that even if Poindexter Propellerhead came here because of Merkey, he is doing useful work. This way we may have acquired another productive user. Now when (hopefully) Mekey vanished from our radar screens, Poindexter Propellerhead has an opportunity to do only the anti-vandal job he says he likes. Maybe even start editing the articles? Let's assume good will here. -Friendly Neighbour 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am compelled to observe, Friendly Neighbor, that your very first contributions to Wikipedia were related to Mr. Merkey.[22] I do not presume to judge anything else you've done here, as I've not surveyed the whole of your contributions, but from that fact alone, the appearance of a vigorous and longstanding conspiracy - and I use this term advisedly - against Mr. Merkey becomes stronger and stronger at every turn.Proabivouac 09:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I posted a long reply on your Talk page because this section has been archived just after your edit. A short abstract goes here: you did not get the point. I wrote the above exactly because my account is an example that coming here because of Merkey may lead to productive work. And Merkey tends to create "enemies" on every article he edits so one needs any WP:CABAL to explain why so many users are interested in his future here. Let's stop the witch hunt, especially as the real anti-Merkey trolls (yes, I admit that such do exist) usually stop editing WP when Merkey is not an issue here. -Friendly Neighbour 10:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
So, in short, anti-Merkey attack-only accounts are potentially valuable future contributors who should be encouraged to stay.Proabivouac 10:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, be reasonable. I explicitly wrote about users who are doing useful work. One purpose personal attack accounts are not useful by definition. -Friendly Neighbour 10:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
So you came here to begin with to attack Merkey, and your most recent actions were to endorse the RfC against him, right alongside none other than myself, [23] and now to post here in support of an attack SPA. I don't know what happened between then and now; I suppose I'll have to check.Proabivouac 10:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, not to attack. Rather because I was worried by what he was doing to this open source project (and some other too but this is irrelevant here). I never attacked him, unless by "attack" you mean comments on RfCs or reporting his sockpuppets after he was banned. If you want, please dig to find one personal attack or revert war by me against any of his many accounts. You will not find one. And if you want to continue thi discussion, please take it off WP:AN as it does not belong here. I started a thread on your Talk page. Please reply there if you wish. -Friendly Neighbour 10:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever else happens, I will personally raise an arbcom case against any of those listed above who pursues any kind of harassment against Merkey on Wikipedia. And I have every reason to believe it will be accepted. I strongly advocate a zero-tolerance approach to trolling of Merkey, who handles trolling even worse than I do (which is saying something). If these individuals identified above are serious about contributing to the encylopaedia then that's fine, but leave Jeff Merkey alone. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom should not even be needed. Any account not used to advance the project should be blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 13:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
True and correct. I'm simply afraid that reporting a Merkey sock (if one appears) will now lead to accusations of Merkey trolling. I never trolled him, unless you count commenting on RfCs or reporting some of his multiple socks on ANI (I'm talking of spring 2006) as trolling. I may sit quietly seeing Wikipedia rules broken (being afraid to speak up) but it is not what should happen here according to our own rules. -Friendly Neighbour 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
A report made in good faith, without hyperbole, calmly and with cited diffs, does not constitute trolling. Provided that you are then content to let others make the final call. Like I said above, as long as you are seen to be here to build the encyclopaedia, you should be fine. Just be sure that any personal antipathy you may harbour to any particular editor is not evident in your reports, should such reports become necessary. Thank you for asking for clarification, are we on the same page now? Guy (Help!) 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. We've been for a long time. My "Merkey anger" melted long time ago. Now, I find it simply sad that he cannot grow up. If we could find a way for him to edit here without disrupting the project, I would not mind. However, the recent experiment was not a good portent for his future on Wikipedia. -Friendly Neighbour 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser is here to fail to scatter magic pixie dust over the situation! Poindexter, people look askance at you because you're clearly an experienced Wikipedian who's magically reappeared out of nowhere in a controversy, so people are obviously going to wonder who the hell you are. CatchFork is trolling us, well done. Everyone else, please STOP trying to poke Jeff with sticks. You will not advance discussion in any way - David Gerard 15:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Guy above. I started investigating and collecting information for a dispute resolution case, but was accused of making an "enemy list" of people "whose only offense is disagreeing with me", by an administrator no less. So I stopped. There are a lot more accounts like those mentioned above, including sleepers registered a long time ago with a handful of edits that magically became active when Jeff was unblocked and follow him around. I'm saddened that more admins aren't aware of this, are unwilling to get involved, and actively prevent efforts to address it or prepare dispute resolution cases. --Duk 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'd suggest that Jeff does have a tendency to be involved in conflict. He's famous and controversial, and there are lots of people across the net who are really upset at him for various reasons. (Note that I'm not addressing here whether that's justified or not - only saying that they are sincere.) As such, some are popping up now that it's an issue because they're quite sincere about it. Again, I suggest the best thing to do is to leave it - Jeff will likely stay blocked while the problems persist, and RFCs etc aren't going to help matters for anyone - David Gerard 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree. However, it's these difficult cases where we need to work harder to create a fair atmosphere, no matter which editor happens to be a target. In fact, the more unpopular an editor is, the more we have to be careful that prejudices don't interfere. The easy path is just to let these hoards of angry people post never ending ad homineums, personal attacks and links to unrelated off-site attacks. I've seen a few people with the simple minded and very wrong attitude that protecting Jeff from outrageous attacks equates to supporting his misbehavior, or being "for" him and "against" everyone else. Just because an admin blocks trolls pestering Jeff, or any other editor for that matter, does not mean that that admin is "Jeff's pittbull". --Duk 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed in general with Duk. I would keep in mind that there is a good possibility exists that the user at the top of this section who is blocked for trolling is just trying to make more work for us, and that there is no substance to the threat. Considering the amount of eyes this has generated, I'm fairly sure that any subtle vandalism will be caught. SirFozzie 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    To clarify my earlier statements, they were general comments and not specific to the Anti-Merky RFA claim (thanks noting, SirFozzie). --Duk 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Paul W. Bryant Museum[edit]

Resolved

Paul W. Bryant Museum is up for AfD. Someone removed the AfD template from the page and I then edited to make substantive improvements in hope of saving the article. Is it possible to re-add the AfD template without losing the changes I made and without messing up the pending AfD page? I don't want to foul things up. Thanks! JodyB talk 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just add another AFD template at the top and it'll be fine. Luigi30 (Taλk) 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71[edit]

See User talk:DavidYork71 and this. This user has been banned for about a month and would now like a second (more like final I guess) chance to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. User:Matt57 has suggested a one month probation (I'm not sure that that means...), and has additionally stated that David York says he won't use sockpuppets again. I was inclined to (and did) deny his unblock request but I'm open to suggestions. Thoughts? -- John Reaves (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We caught a DavidYork sock yesterday. If he's trying to get unblocked, he's not going about it the right way. Riana 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that...this is probably a waste of time then. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Posted on his talk page...

I put this for people's info on his talk page...

Admins other editors considering this request may be interested in the following:

--Merbabu 04:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


User:John Reaves, my first suggestion is to sign your posts. (Grinning wickedly!). This user was banned after a discussion at the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. See [24]. According to Wikipedia:Banning policy community bans can be appealed to the arbitration committee. I think the continued sock puppetry makes this a non-starter. Jehochman Talk 05:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didnt know as well that this sock puppetry was still continuing rampantly. I agree, the user should at the least not sock puppet for a good amount of time before an appeal can be made. I'll talk him to him more and maybe we'll reappeal later. Thanks for your attention, John and others. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with everyone. As proven repeatedly by Checkuser, David York has engaged in sockpuppetry and block/ban evasion since before he was first blocked right up until at least as recently as yesterday. For no period of the ban has he actually accepted or respected the ban. Moreover, the edits he has made while banned have been disruptive and abusive and it has wasted an incredible amount of time of numerous admins and editors who have had to clean up and chase after him. As I said on his talk page, I don't think any admin will or should give consideration to his appeal until such time as the sockpuppetry and block evasion has stopped and a reasonable period of time has elapsed where David has honoured the ban and not tried to edit under any account or IP. David needs to understand that he is not merely blocked but community banned and that he has bridges to mend with the community before his request can even be entertained and until that happens, his appeal should be rejected and his ban endorsed. Sarah 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on edits like this, I have protected his talk page again until the 5th. If anyone wants to extend that or take other actions, I have no objection. Metros 01:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I did not know about these editing behaviors of DavidYork and that he would ever edit war with an admin over a Swastika. This is definitely trolling and we're better off without users like him. If he does this while he's already on an indef block, there's no way he'll ever proabbly be reallowed here. I doubt his sock puppets will stop then, he's definitely going to continue that behavior. I will not reappeal his case again, he's on his own. I will join in the hunt to stop his sock puppets wherever I can. Thanks.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what you've just said, Matt, but you should also understand that David isn't just indefinitely blocked, he's community banned for exhausting the community's patience. An indefinite block and a ban are two different things. Also, this isn't the first time he's edit warred with an admin over swastika images. He was doing the exact same thing on Jimbo's talk page the other night. Sarah 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, I didnt know there was a difference between a block and a community ban. I agree this kind of editor deserves the strongest ban/block possible. He just praised Hitler in email to me, which obviously didnt sit well with me. These are the kind of editors against whom the swiftest action should be taken. I'm glad he's out of here. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the community ban. I became even more convinced once I realized he made a sockpuppet entitled User:What Holocaust2. This draws the past what is acceptable in my opinion. This name inplies Holocaust denial, and that, in my opinion is just antisemitic and unacceptable.--Sefringle 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Carswell conflit of interest[edit]

Lately, Douglas Carswell (talk · contribs) has been editing Douglas Carswell. The edits aren't obviously inappropriate, but I'm not sure that they're encyclopedia-grade either. They've been told about the autobiography guidelines on their talk page; they haven't responded. Veinor (talk to me) 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just removed some completely unverified hyperbole.--Isotope23 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Posted at WP:COIN. RJASE1 Talk 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this is a British member of Parliament. RJASE1 Talk 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not very fun TfD/image license request[edit]

Resolved

So, I'm still without AWB. Who would like to remove an image licensing template that's transcluded several hundred times? After the template is removed, I'm sure the images will need a new license or be rendered suitable for speedy deletion, in which case, they should be deleted. The TfD nom is here, if anyone's feeling adventurous. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Finished, who needs AWB to do that kind of work :) — Moe ε 03:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New XFF project[edit]

I've started up Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs. The use is for dealing with ISPs that use only a few IPs but serve thousands of people. The idea is to list the ISP IPs as trusted, which makes the XFF client IP they send count as the user's IP address, allowing for more fine tuned blocks. However not all ISPs may send good/trusted headers, so the point of the page is to have checkusers look over what kind of data it sends to decide whether to list it as trusted or not. Voice-of-All 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer[edit]

This administrator seems to be making statements that contradict current wikipedia policy on Talk:Accelerated Christian Education.--Jorfer 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Diffs, please. If you're wishing to convince people you're right, you'll need to illustrate the particular behavior you disagree with, in the event that someone disagrees with your assessment and sees nothing wrong. EVula // talk // // 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've read the discussion. Rspeer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appears to be right on the money. Further comment on the talk page. Uncle G 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious contributions[edit]

I have my doubts over the legitimacy of the contributions made by Special:Contributions/Belazzur, as he/she is repeatedly cut and pasting page moves, after being warned several times and labelling articles with {{Article probation}}, when quite clearly there is no need to. For example Belazzur inserted the {{Article probation}} template to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, when to the best of my knowledge there was no disruptive editing going on. The fact that the editor has only been making edits for one day does not help the fact either. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages BOLDly guidelined[edit]

Though it clearly already met the WP:POLICY definition of a guideline, I have someone rules-lawyering with me that WP:MERGE wasn't official policy because it didn't have policy or guideline tags.

I believe that it won't be controversial or inappropriate to simply acknowledge its community consensus status and promote it to officially labeled guideline, so I have boldly done so. In the spirit of "BOLD ends where others object loudly", I'm floating it here for feedback, though that probably should go to Wikipedia talk:Merging and moving pages as well. Georgewilliamherbert 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, from reading your comments at User talk:Apostrophe#Undiscussed merges it is not xem who is rules lawyering, but you. You appear to be insisting that all mergers be discussed first, because it is "proper procedure". Proper procedure is that one can boldly perform a merger without discussion — just as WP:MERGE tells you outright, in fact. (A point made on that page that I see Apostrophe has already pointed you to.) Apostrophe's bold merger of a whole load of individual articles on minor characters into List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean is not only wholly in accordance with WP:FICT, it is even in accordance with the "proper procedure" in the "rules" that you keep trying to bash xem over the head with. That you are abusing the vandalism rollback tool to edit war over this (see edit history of Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean)), and have threatened to abuse your other administrator tools to get your own way in an editing dispute, is even worse. Please stop rules lawyering and abusing your tools. Uncle G 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I rolled him back once by accident; I've undone the rest as any user can. Please don't turn a molehill into a mountain. Additionally, while a bold merge (or bold anything, in general) is fine per policy, WP:MERGE rather explicitly says "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, are not sure where or how to merge, or believe it might be controversial, you should propose it on the affected pages." Anyone undoing it and asking you to put it up for comment constitutes controversy, much less an admin. Reverting that without then following the WP:MERGE procedure as listed is disruption. I'm not the only person who's reverted his merges; there's obvious controversy. Failing to discuss it at this point is inappropriate. I would ask on ANI rather than block myself, but it's clearly blockable if he keeps it up (more than that, he's at 3RR on all of them...) Georgewilliamherbert 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You abused the vandalism rollback tool in an edit war more than once: diff diff diff. And your logic is circular. The only reason that you have stated this merger to be controversial is that you object to it; the only reason that you have stated (several times) for your objection is that it didn't follow "proper process", and the only reason that you give for it not having followed "proper process" is that you claim that it is controversial. You have built a circular chain of logic and are beating an editor over the head with administrator tools for no reason. The editor was not being disruptive. It is you causing the problem here, by needlessly making an editor jump through hoops and then wikilawyering over the definitions of policies and guidelines in order to attempt to justify your requirements for jumping through those hoops. And yes, according to the edit history of the article linked to above and of Dauntless (Pirates of the Caribbean), you are the only person to have reverted the mergers. Uncle G 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • See thread on AN/I about editor (and admin) behavior; I am not the only one to have reverted one of the merges, I don't recall the other rollbacks (though the record is what it is), and this is all besides the point for the policy discussion here. Georgewilliamherbert 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Latecomer support for Jeffrey. Sorry, folks, he's absolutely right. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with Uncle G - Let's not turn a molehill into a bureaucracy. Yes, controversial merging should be discussed, but no, following WP:FICT is not controversial. To quote, if your only argument is that something was out of process, you don't have an argument. >Radiant< 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • For the interested parties - WP:MERGE has acquired quite a lot of cruft and creep since I first wrote it, so I'm simplifying and copyediting it. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Be careful what you wish for... EVula // talk // // 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Itham keeps removing a well known fact from the page, despite lot of reverts. Please, someone do something.... --Jollyroger 10:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yup, I did something. I removed the poorly sourced speculative fancruft you insist on adding. Don't edit war about crap. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Review of editor spamming article with irrelevant example[edit]

Mindys12345 is obsessed with repeatedly adding Fatso the Fat-Ass Wombat Fatso the Fat-Arsed Wombat to the article "mascot". He adds both a picture and a see also bullet for this irrelevant piece of social commentary against commercialization. It is really not relevant in the grand scheme of things. If Mindy were writing sourced, full explanations of parody mascots as a trend, then such an addition might be warranted.

But considering no specific characters are highlighted in the see also section, and there is no discussion of the character and the larger trend (if indeed it is one), it's simply flaunting a limited happening that wasn't covered in the mainstream media outside of Australia.

Opinions? -- Zanimum 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert once and then walk away. If it's unworthy, lots of people will do this, and the user will eventually give up, or get blocked for WP:3RR. Jehochman Talk 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It's already happened multiple times. Every time, I not only reverted, but added a bit of relevant extra information.
Ramdrake deleted the image, Evb-wiki brought it back because he feels that there's enough room for everybody. Are Wikipedia articles supposed to be littered with images? Hit bull, win streak deleted the image as "inappropriate", Evb-wiki fired back that "your view of what's appropriat is not a valid reason to remove content". This clearly interprets Hit bull's comments as meaning PG-rated content, when he likely meant not appropriate for an article with so few other examples and so little context for the character's prescence.
There's now suggestion that the article is US-centric, which it isn't: the headless mascot appears to be the lion of SG Kronau-Östringen (Germany), the bug is from Canada, meaning only Clutch and the Pets.com puppet are American. Frankly, the whole concept of non-cartoon mascots is completely ignored, which is much worse. -- Zanimum 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]

I have unblocked jvm. This may prove to be the stupidest thing I ever did. I hope not. Posting from my blackberry so no proper sig, JzG

I hope it turns out to not be the stupidest thing you ever did. At this point though it is really up to Jeff.--Isotope23 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, it's better to have tried and failed in such circumstances then not to have tried. Hope JVM takes your conversations to heart, Guy :) SirFozzie 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2[edit]

I am publicly soliciting, the unbiased and honest opinion of the esteemed members of the community in this case. Some of the ArbCom members seem bent on closing the case prematurely. Please take time to view the on-wiki evidence that was produced by me – [25], and the rest of the pages as well.

Please take time to comment on the pages, your opinion would help avoid a grave and serious miscarriage of justice. Sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems the best thing to do in this case is discuss your issues on the arbitration talk pages, if the arbs wish to comment, they will do. Sorry, but bringing it here seems like your canvassing to get admins desysopped. I strongly disagree of your ascertaion that there's a grave and serious miscarriage of justice about to happen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Kindly review WP:CANVASS. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I just get the impression over the past 2 days that you are determined to see Ramas arrow desysopped, and the only way to do that is on the arbitration pages - on AN, you were leading people to your evidence and therefore your personal view on the matter - that's why I see it as canvassing, and it's certainy not unbiased with your active role in the case. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Our actions should determine our future and nothing else. As for your canvassing allegations, I must remind you to review WP:CANVASS again, this is a neutral venue and the community can comment in an unbiased manner. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I respectfully disagree that this isn't canvassing (if this was an RfA or AfD then I'm sure you would see it as canvassing), I'll let others comment instead. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that Rama's Arrow (who's on the other side of the case) also seems to be claiming the case is being closed prematurely (correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks clear from the discussion here), I don't see Nick's post as out-of-line. - Merzbow 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure none of you will like me for saying this, but I can understand the Arbitrators' rationale. As far as I can see, it was either a case of banning the lot of you or letting you all off the hook. I also rather think this is meant to be regarded as final warning.

And this silly nationalist bickering is a waste of time. Find some adorable ladies and fight over them instead, much more worthwhile. And do it off-wiki. Moreschi Talk 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC) And don't propose motions congratulating yourself in ArbCom workshops, either, it doesn't come across well.

I'm all for desysopping RA.--D-Boy 20:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Rama's Arrow blocked Anwar saadat, three days ago, for no reason at all, citing edit-warring as a reason, when there was no edit-war. Rama's Arrow also reverted Anwar on the pages on which he alleged that Anwar was edit-warring. The community ought to take a serious view of this. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Username blacklist[edit]

I just saw a user blocekd with something like this, so it made me think that it wasn't on it: Can an admin add on wh3els, on whe3ls, and on wh33ls to the username blacklist? --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of legitimate usernames that could be created with wheels in the name... I'd say no. alphachimp 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
But matching the string "on wh33ls"? -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's possible. The there's nothing against that in the username policy. We should be really careful about what we add. alphachimp 04:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
But if people are getting blocked for it... --Masamage 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
People will be getting blocked for names intended to imitate a known vandal, other names containing wheels etc. which aren't rather transparent attempts to troll won't be. --pgk 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The list should only be used for names which should always be blocked, not even for names which are usually blocked. If there's a chance of a legitimate name containing the text it shouldn't be on the list. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
But "on wheels" is in the blacklist. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I point out that if we are talking about the same bot/blacklist (HighInBC's bot) then being blocked is up to the admin who deals with the report anyway. ViridaeTalk 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • "Enumerating badness" doesn't work. The blacklist can never account for every contingency, and we should not fall over ourselves trying. >Radiant< 12:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the Mediawiki black list. Not HighinBC's. On wheels is in the mediawiki blacklist. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird category[edit]

Allo. I'll admit it, I don't know where to go for this, so I'm just sticking it here. I stumbled on a category that doesn't seem to belong as a category. (But, can you put 'speedy' tags on categories?) Anyways, take a look and see for yourself: Category:How_to_tell_if_a_person_using_one_and_what_to_do Bladestorm 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It links to club drug and contains material that someone pasted to the bottom of that article rather than trying to incorporate it into the article in an organized way. Apparently someone was confused about the difference between an article and a category. Michael Hardy 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Vista Governor's School[edit]

Can another admin please keep an eye on Mountain Vista Governor's School and its AFD. A bunch of school kids have been trying to include some silly nonsense, and even some attacks, in the article. A number of users have vandalized user pages of those who recommended delete at the AFD. I've blocked a bunch them and several IPs, and I would semi-protect the article if it weren't currently at AFD. Anyways...I won't be around for a bit, so an extra set of admin eyes over the next day or so would be helpful. Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN[edit]

206.131.72.0/22[edit]

I have blocked this range for one hour. It's registered to "St. Anthony School District" in Minneapolis, MN. Several page blanks and typical "students talking to each other" incidents prompted me to place the block. Each edit appeared to be coming from a different IP address, so it's either many students or a load-sharing masquerading router. In any case this prevented me from issuing warnings while being certain they were being received. --Chris (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

bugzilla:9213: even a static IP might not receive a warning. --ais523 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal/Comments[edit]

User:200.8.148.31, who appears to be relatively new to Wikipedia, created this page when trying to comment on a merge proposal sitting on the pages of Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal. Could an administrator transfer the comment to Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal and delete Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal/Comments if appropriate? Dr. Submillimeter 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That was fast. Thank you. Dr. Submillimeter 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing vandal logs from hacked account[edit]

A while back, User:Eternal Pink had his account hacked by a friend from college, User:Darkhero17. Pink has been around for a while and I know him pretty well as a very helpful contributor to WP:SM. Darkhero has also been in and out, and I'm confident that they really are different people; they behave differently, spell different words wrong, have different skill-levels with regard to using WP, etc.

Apparently what happened was that Darkhero watched Pink log in and memorized his password. After his own account was blocked, he used Pink's to create new accounts with which to vandalize, as seen here. All of those accounts followed Darkhero's behavioral patterns, not Pink's. He was imitating the "Dust King" vandal that caused us WP:SM so much trouble, as well as trying to frame Pink for misbehavior.

Darkhero has confessed his involvement ([26]), and Pink has changed his password, so I'm satisfied that most of the problem is dealt with. However, Pink is unhappy about the vandal account creation that still shows up in his permanent logs.

Since Pink's account was compromised, is there any way to remove those records and give him a clean slate? Who do we talk to about that? --Masamage 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is really difficult to go about expunging block logs. It is a developer's job, and also his prerogative.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
In this case it's not block logs but user creations logs. I suppose those are probably equally difficult. How would Masamage or Eternal Pink go about putting this request to a developer? ··coelacan 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That is the question, yeah. --Masamage 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It can only be done by someone with direct access to the database, in this case, developers. Developers have been quite unwilling in the past to modify or remove logs, because they form a historical record, but you can try contacting one at #wikimedia-tech. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, given that he was stupid enough to let someone else find out his password, I'm not sure he should have those logs removed from his account. Neil () 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If your account is compromised, that's your problem. I wouldn't expect much sympathy from the devs. --Tango 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Logs are there to show what an account did, that account did those things. People are responsible for their account. (H) 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
he was looking over my shoulder and I didnt see him until its to late so it wasnt stupidity ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"I didn't see him" is an excuse that doesn't usually work. By all means you can ask the devs, but given that you got your account back fine, and no real harm was done, I would suggest they will agree with me - just leave it be and find something better to do. Neil () 15:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point or not, going around calling people stupid is bizarre and totally out of line. --Masamage 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Describing an act as stupid doesn't necessarily equate to calling someone stupid. Neil () 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
True, but that's not what happened here. Saying that "he was stupid enough to let someone else find out his password" isn't describing the act as stupid. --OnoremDil 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"Frankly, given that HE was stupid enough to let someone else find out his password, I'm not sure he should have those logs removed from his account." the fact you said he referring to me means you where calling me stupid ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagry that "no real harm was done" If people who dont know what happened see the logs they will think im a evil sock puppeteer ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, they will see that you failed to properly secure your account, which they should. My user creation log looks wacko, but its just because I volunteer on the unblock-en-l list signing up accounts for people behind school and isp blocks. Just tell people who wonder whats up and no one will care. -Mask? 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
From my side, I can add a note in every created account stating they were created while your account was compromised. Not much, but at least if someone thinks you were abusing sockpuppets, it would prevent them from doing so. -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that sounds like a great idea to me. --Masamage 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Me two that would automatically people who read it straight thanks ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 10:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Do I have to do somthing to add thoes notes?? to the accounts? ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)



O RLY?[edit]

Resolved: YA RLY! EVula // talk // // 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Skrenpp66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) claims to be Pschemp. From this [27] I strongly doubt it. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lulz. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Unblock request declined. Riana 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
NO WAI! hbdragon88 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Usernameblacklist[edit]

I have some regex's I think would be nice for the username blacklist. Could anyone interested take a look over at MediaWiki_talk:Usernameblacklist and offer your comments? Thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn, sockpuppets and vote stacking[edit]

The revelation about Runcorn is quite shocking, but perhaps our best response would be to become less reliant on counting "votes". The object of all discussions are to arrive at the best decisions. If several people take part in a discussion and they do not add a convincing argument for their position, it should not matter if the argument was made five times by one person or one time each by five people. It is still an unconvincing argument. However it is possible to sway opinion by piling on comments to