Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive99

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

Noticeboard archives


Account termination - GH[edit]

Hello there. I am requesting that my account be terminated as soon as practical, so it cannot be logged into. Enjoyed my stay here, and thanks to all good admins an nice folk at WP. GH 11:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont be heading away GH, why not go away for a week or so and think about it.--Vintagekits 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Accounts cannot be terminated, for licencing reasons. However, you can add a {{db-user}} tag to your user page, and you can change your password so that you cannot remember it, if you wish to permanently leave Wikipedia. Sandstein 14:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You can also scramble your password. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Or... you can simply just not log into it. There is absolutely no need to do anything if you make the choice to not come back. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Refs formatting policy[edit]

Somewhere back I started on Wikipedia in April 2006, I looked up our refs policy and somewhere read that when formatting an online citation with no author, to place the website first. Now, I must have read this before September 2006, because when I wrote Jake Gyllenhaal I was already using this format. But I've been asked twice now during FCs where this policy is and I can't find it in any of our CITE pages. Did I dream this? Has it been deprecated? Am I looking in the wrong place? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't require administrative buttons - you might take future questions like this to the Wikipedia:Help desk. You might be looking for Wikipedia:Citing sources, or Wikipedia:Footnotes, or possibly the guidelines on a specific references template such as {{Citeweb}}. Mak (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to find the help desk as useful as a chocolate teapot, and my question requires a deep knowledge of policy, so I thought that admins might be better qualified to answer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree the help desk may not be the right place, but this isn't it either. I would suggest either the talk page WT:CITE or the policy village pump. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
(Now that I've added 'useful as a chocolate teapot' to my repertory, I must be careful not to wear it out with overuse.) --Wetman 00:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of thing that gets me a little frustrated. I hate it when people get so hung up on citation templates and the order in which these things go and reflists and what have yous, to the complete detriment of any actual work on the article. This is rather wankerish (see #20). Why not just IAR and let people do what the devil they want? Moreschi Talk 11:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


According to a close associate, Gaimhreadhan (talk · contribs) passed away after a long illness (see here). I have noted this on his user page and protected it, and invited an editor familiar with his work to write a brief memorial at WP:RIP. However, I seem to remember it was once policy to block the account of deceased editors. I can't see find anything mentioning that now though, is anyone familiar with the proper course of action in such sad circumstances? Rockpocket 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon the supposed death of HolyRomanEmperor, he was indef blocked, but it doesn't appear that there was any formal discussion undertaken. I'm inclined to think that, whilst there don't appear here to be many of the questions of veracity that ultimately plagued us with respect to HRE, we might do well to err on the side of not blocking; I can't imagine that there's any immediate grand danger of Gaim's account's being hijacked, and we usually don't, after all, block the accounts of users who have departed (although the reasons for that don't necessarily apply here). Once we are sure that Gaim isn't returning (perhaps we already are), there's really no harm in blocking the account, I guess, and some (perhaps exceedingly minor) benefit, but time is not of the essence, I'd say. Joe 04:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Joe is not wrong. There is absolutely no danger of Gaimhreadhan's account being hijacked. As one of the two executors of his estate (the other executor is not a Wikipedian), I think I am in an authoritative position to state that fact with absolute confidence. However, there were (and are continuing) unresolved issues of puppetry here.
I have requested that a non-anonymous, senior administrator or bureaucrat e-mail me to resolve these issues. After that issue has been resolved - (ie. I have established my bonafides, and EPA,) I will be able to state with authority that Gaimhreadhan's User page should be protected, but that (perhaps as a fitting memorial to his inclusionist philosophy and efforts at bringing the disparate communities and POV's together in a collegiate manner,) G's User Talk page be left unprotected' (but actively monitored to remove personal attacks and vandalism in line with usual Wikipeida policy.
I am sorry to be so "German" about this, but the correct time to protect Gaimhreadhan's User (as opposed to Talk page) is after the "non-anonymous, senior administrator or bureaucrat" has received the certified copy of Gaimhreadhan's death certificate from me giving the official date and time of death. That is the correct order, timing and procedure and anything less would be insulting to the happy memories I have of my friend and former colleague.

Right now, today, would also be an appropriate time for User:Tyrenius to either

1) apologise and retract her continuing snide comments or

2) put up the "smoking gun" e-mails that she claims (mendaciously/mistakenly) to have sent both me and G. Gaimhreadhan has already challenged her to do so several times (so there can be no issues of confidentiality) and I publicly repeat the same.

Personally, I have a strong preference for the latter - since that would demonstrate the flimsy basis on which she imposed another 13 day block for sockpuppetry on both G and I, but I can understand why she may be reluctant to reveal the truth.

However, if neither an apology nor the e-mail(s?) are forthcoming today then I formally request that she is de-sysopped and blocked for a period of 28 days for disrupting Wikipedia and/or WP:NOT#ADVOCATE

Lastly, it would be hypocritical if I did not also apologise for the drunken post I made on her user talk page. It does not excuse the language and I am not proud of my post, but it has been a very stressful period for me and, unlike G, I do drink from time to time. Frank.  W. Frank   05:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage unprotected as per your request above. Having spoken with you in person now, I understand the importance of your request here - Alison 05:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so there is obviously a larger issue here I was unaware of. Perhaps an administrator who is fully aware of the issues should liaise with Frank deal with Gaimhreadhan's pages when these issues have been resolved. Rockpocket 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I can do that as we're already in touch. Check your mail, BTW - Alison 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I had a look, but I haven't had any mail today which makes me think my mail server is on the blink (or I am very unpopular). I have changed my wiki-email to another address for the moment until it gets sorted out. Perhaps, if nothing arrives by tomorrow and its not too much trouble, I may ask you to resend. Incidently, there was something about death in our blocking policy for a while [1] (I was beginning to think I made it up). Rockpocket 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Just pmail me your email address. The one I have has a certain domain in it. - Alison 06:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. Rockpocket 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:This broken?[edit]

Resolved: Template appears to be working again. EVula // talk // // 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be selflinking e.g. on Squirrel. Ewlyahoocom 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed now [2]. Ewlyahoocom
It looks like it's still broken on that page to me. Wierd; because it works fine on {{This}}. --Haemo 07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Everything looks fine to me... EVula // talk // // 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial AfD closure - a heads-up[edit]

A particularly controversial AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is coming up for closure shortly. It's one of the most contentious AfDs I've seen in a long time, with over 100 !votes so far (currently with a slight majority for deletion). Given that members of WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine are heavily involved in the dispute, it's probably best for an admin with no involvement in those WikiProjects or subject areas to close the AfD, so that any claims of bias on the part of the closer can be avoided. The closer will need to have a fair amount of tact and diplomacy (which rules me right out :) as well as a strong grasp of policy, particularly regarding the nature of notability and original research, and ideally a willingness to think through the issues as elegantly as A Man In Black did in his closure of Daniel Brandt. Any volunteers? -- ChrisO 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look - no promises as whether to complexly merge anything! But, my word, I'd need to think about the closure, probably a day or so. Then again, maybe not. Moreschi Talk 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What a mess. Good luck to whomever takes this one on. MastCell Talk 19:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

^demon closed it as delete. Expect an equally messy DRV. —Kurykh 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. I'm reminded of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2 (ugh). -- ChrisO 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably... though I have to say, I was reviewing it too and I would have probably done the same thing, including offering the content for Hukou to be resurrected for use. There was some good info there, it was just supporting original synthesis and a neologism.--Isotope23 talk 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF, eh Chris? Tomertalk 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I AGF. The discussion in the AfD shows that quite a few people don't, at least in this case. We don't need yet more controversy and drama in this affair; that's why I suggested that someone wholly uninvolved in anything to do with the wikiprojects or subject matter should close the AfD. Believe me, I've been there with another article and I'd hate to see another admin facing the barrage of crap that I did. -- ChrisO 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You're suggestiong that no editor from WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine should not be allowed to close an AFD that involves those WikiProjects. That doesn't strike me as assuming good faith. You and I have very different ideas of AGF. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What I got from the post was that in having the closing admin be not from one of those projects, any disagree-ers wouldn't be able to use the argument "The closing admin was biased". I thought this was just an attempt to get somebody to close the discussion that would have the least likelihood of being called biased. Nobody suggested no allowing members of those projects from closing the discussion. Sancho 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. They could have closed it, but they would have got a load of abuse from one side or the other if they had. It's better all round to avoid that. -- ChrisO 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, actually, ChrisO, as a member of none of those projects, is setting himself up as a neutral party to close the relevant AfD as he sees fit, and is seeking approval here for his doing so...meanwhile directly impugning the reliability of any admins who contribute to those projects. The vacuous support in favor of this maniacal scheme is astonishing, to say the least. ChrisO is setting himself up as the pretended arbiter of neutrality, and people here, in what I can only believe is mind-boggling ignorance and gullibility, are proceeding to give him carte blanche to do so. If anything, this sort of lunacy should call into question the competence of those who go along with this moronic idea, and simultaneously call for ChrisO to be prohibited from having anything to do with the closure of this or any related discussion. Tomertalk 06:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? The AfD was closed four days ago - three days before you posted this - by two uninvolved admins. Don't tell me you posted this nonsense without even bothering to click on the link to the AfD? -- ChrisO 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a fair request designed both to mitigate complications at the inevitable DRV and (perceived or real) COI. I fail to see the problem with the request. --ElKevbo 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a fair call. Until(1 == 2) 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, not really, knowing the history there. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. It seems this mess isn't over yet - I've just come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, an AfD on a sister article which involves many of the same editors and all of the same set of arguments. It likewise needs closing. Again, I suggest an uninvolved closer for this one to avoid any claims of bias. -- ChrisO 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Closed that one. f anyone wants to discuss the close, feel free. ViridaeTalk 02:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I find it reasonable. The rename fixes most of my concerns, at any rate. >Radiant< 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if you mean Viridae's recommendation to rename the article, or the act of renaming which I performed earlier - the article is now at Tourist segregation in Cuba. Which did you mean? And do you have any thoughts on the new title? -- ChrisO 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaand here comes the DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. By the way, does anyone else find it really inappropriate that Leifern attempted to delete (!) the co-closer endorser's statement from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid? ([3]) -- ChrisO 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I would recommend a warning - although co-closers arent the norm, they arent disallowed, and therefore have no reason to be removed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The circumstances are quite amusing - from Hemlock's user talk page: "There was an edit conflict as I submitted my closure. I contacted ^demon on IRC to jokingly complain, and another administrator suggested I do an endorsement." It's actually quite fortuitous because it shows that two admins, operating independently, came to much the same decision simultaneously using the same policy arguments. -- ChrisO 07:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to pat the admins on the back for this one. While a DRV was inevitable, at least a clear, thought out, and substantial reasoning was put in the close so at least there is less to contest. David Fuchs (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd think so, but the opposing comments are getting steadily more insane - it looks like I've been fingered as "one of the ringleaders" (sic) of TEH CABAL. Apparently the rest of you are my sockpuppets, or something. It's sour grapes all round - not much good for producing anything other than a little whine. -- ChrisO 20:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO, how can you possibly believe these remarks are w/in the bounds of either WP:AGF or WP:CIV? To say nothing of WP:NPA. True, you're pontificating here to a "general audience", but in the process you're effectively besmirching anyone who happens to disagree with your rather disagreeable views and actions. If I were a British Parliamentarian, I'd probably yell "Shame, good sir, shame!", and with good reason. You are incredibly out of line. Tomertalk 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
After the 4th administrator showed up to endorse I was waiting for the cabal claims to start. I should start telling fortunes.--Isotope23 talk 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
We should prolly remove the mop icons and admin cats and all mentions of adminship from our user pages. Of course, then they would still hunt us down and claim we were an even more secret cabal, so I guess that wouldn't help either... I am actually amazed I didn't realize how much crap admins got when I got nominated back in the day. David Fuchs (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but now I'm horribly reminded of this. --Hemlock Martinis 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
That can only be possible if you truly have no concept whatsoëver about what's going on here. Tomertalk 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, um, nice to meet you too? --Hemlock Martinis 04:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What ChrisO conveniently neglects to mention is that he and his "cabal" are not a group of admins against a bunch of anonymous trolls. This is a dispute between ChrisO and his opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins in opposition to a bunch of other admins, a number of whom happen to be Jews. This is something that becomes obvious when the relevant discussion is read in full. It is not without cause that there are numerous charges of thinly-veiled antisemitism that have been made in the various relevant discussions, not only against ChrisO, but against a significant number of other editors, including a merry gang of uncharacteristically deletionist admins. Tomertalk 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we're discussing this business anyway, I feel I should mention that the issue in general is being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. -- ChrisO 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Two days late, eh? Tomertalk 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Tomer, you need to stop accusing other editors and admins of anti-Semitism unless you have some reasonable evidence of this. I mean something beyond the fact that you disagree with them. Right now. I'm not kidding. MastCell Talk 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've asked Tomer to retract his statement, which I regard as a nasty smear against several conscientious editors and admins. I'm not holding my breath though. In the meantime, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid has now opened. I've added some proposed findings of fact and evidence which may be of interest to editors who've contributed to this discussion. -- ChrisO 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 and personal attacks[edit]

(This thread and the thread above are not intertwined, whereas they essentially follow from the same issues)

Raul654 is a very passionate editor about global warming and has indeed started to call me a liar on the grounds that I am on the opposite side of his views or that I object to using op-eds in partisan publications as to support what he calls "reality" (see the very link that he provides above, for instance ([4]).

You will find no evidence of any serious edit war in which I have been involved (except for Raul's latest personal attack which I will discuss below), and that Raul's view of the negativity of my edits is usually constructed upon his strongly held opinions. Raul has lately labeled me as someone who "spreads lies all over these talk pages" ([5]). I attempted to remove it twice, but he reverted. I took the initiative to address this issue on his talk page but failed to have him retract anything.

Raul654 is an administrator and just like any other editor, he at least bears the responsibility to act responsibly and not to let his emotions take over.

I know that I am bold sometimes and that I have contrarian opinions on a few subjects, notably global warming, but this kind of bullying by an administrator is, I hope, out of place on Wikipedia.

Can the personal attack be removed and Raul be encouraged to make at least an apology or to temper down his emotions? Sorry that I had to bring this up here. --Childhood's End 14:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute seems to stem from content issues, where Childhoodsend may be a lone voice. This is not necessarily an impossible position from which to find consensus, but it is an easy way to dispute. On his talk page, I've invited Childhoodsend to find an univolved third party to help work out a resolution. I've also invited him to calm down, as it'd be shame to walk into a block for lack of civility and disruption. --Dweller 14:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, thanks again for the advice about finding an uninvolved third party. But.. where have I been uncivil?! I've been called a liar and someone who spreads lies all over the talk pages and I think I stayed calm nonetheless, but perhaps I missed something? And wasnt this attack at least uncivil? Please help as I obviously dont understand something... --Childhood's End 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I have no axe to grind. Amended. --Dweller 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with CE here. He has made some very fair points on the GW talk pages. Raul has responded with personal attacks and an attempt to get CE banned. As an admin Raul should know better than this. Iceage77 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that Raul654 has made a number of personal attacks in the past, often on misguided vendettas or emotions, as Childhoodsend states above. It should also be mentioned that Raul654 is a partisan in the global warming topics (unfortunately, with little knowledge on the subject), and has been blocked in the past for edit warring over such topics. ~ UBeR 14:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I was blocked once, months ago, for going over the 3rr limit without realizing it (The only time in 4 years of editing that I have been blocked). On the other hand, Uber has been blocked plenty of times for his trolling and POV pushing on the subject. UBeR is one of the the anti-science POV pushers on the topic. Raul654 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? I've been one of the few editors who have argued that only scientific sources should be used for scientific claims. You link comments made by yourself because you clearly have no ground to support your baseless claim. It has always been this way. You're wrong. Period. Just retract your statements and live your life knowing you did the right thing, and that'll be the end of it. As for the blocks, most of them come from you without any chance of review. Surprising. ~ UBeR 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Raul, you're in the wrong here. Pointing out a history of blocks by you suggests that you are not above abusing your powers to block those who disagree with you. David Fuchs (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong on all counts. 4 different admins have blocked Uber on 5 seperate occasions over a period of several months. So it's quite obviously not a personal vendetta. He's a long term problem user - a troll. He gets blocked a lot. No surprises there. See also this previous thread where he is taken to task by the community for general trolling. Raul654 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in that thread I asked you to show evidence to support your attacks. Not surprisingly, you had none to show. Today, you still have none. Just give up trying to ban those you dislike from Wikipedia. You've failed each time you have tried. Go on, pursue some other activity than user bashing. Thank you. ~ UBeR 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I did show evidence - your hit list, your harassment of WMC, the general POV pushing. You simply chose to ignore the evidence and now claim none was provided. Raul654 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. I replied to your accusations in a three paragraph response that could not even been addressed by yourself. You simply went on, stating that I am a POV pusher and that anyone who spoke against your meritless attacks and accusations was also a POV pusher. I presented all of my edits to global warming during that time, and asked where the POV was. Of course, there was none. Again, you're wrong. Give up and apologize and everything will be fine. Thank you. ~ UBeR 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Raul defines evidence as either 1- his opinions, or 2- material found in newspapers/magazines [6]. Fortunately for my carreer, I have never built my cases like this. --Childhood's End 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As an admin not involved in editing these controversial articles, I looked through the edit histories and didn't see evidence of any severe personal attacks. I did see some minor civility issues on the part of Raul, but nothing that's worth an administrator intervention. If any diffs can be provided to actual personal attacks, please provide them. Otherwise this appears to be an editorial disagreement and I don't see why an admin needs to get involved.--Alabamaboy 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The thread at Childhoodsend's talk page indicates to me that this pair of threads can be closed. Indeed, doing so is the best way of ending disruption, as further disruption is likely to be limited to these two threads. --Dweller 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer Alabamaboy's request, here are a few diffs that could count as personal attacks [7] [8], per WP:NPA#What is considered a personal attack? ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done"), but I will trust the judgment of the administrators involved here.
Anyway, I'd agree to close this down, but Raul chose to bring this now to the Community Sanctions Noticeboard, so I guess this will not end here... --Childhood's End 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems pale after being called an idiot and troll countless times by this user. ~ UBeR 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to push this affair any much further, but only as a matter of closing it for good, addressing any remaining issue and/or for my own information, I'd like to know how the following statements by Raul654 were not "personal attacks" as the concept is understood under WP:NPA :

  • "Here's just a sampling from the BS you have been planting all over this talk page" [9]
  • "Childhoodend's actions have made it quite clear that he is not editing in good faith. He is a POV warrior through-and-through, and mediation is not going to fix that." [10]
  • "it's not rant to collect your asinine comments and point out how they differ from reality - and that every word you write is a lie, including "and" and "the" " [11]
  • "He is a anti-science POV pusher" and "don't take my word for it that he's a hopeless POV pusher" [12]

I am not sure how this can escape WP:NPA but perhaps someone has a clue for me. To be honest, it has not been easy to face such derogatory attacks during the last few days, but I think I can say that I kept my cool and faced the tide against a very angry administrator trying anything to bring me down. Just asking for a follow-up here. If nothing's warranted, I'll abide with. Regards. --Childhood's End 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Webpage which is a cut and paste from Wikipeda[edit]

The following webpage [13] has apparently cut and pasted information from every article on American military ranks on Wikipedia. I have found sections cut directly from the articles on General, Colonel, Major, Captain, Airman, Airman First Class, First Lieutenant, and General of the Air Force. The danger is that people might think its the other way around and that Wikipedia editors have been taking stuff from this website. We already had a case where an administrator deleted General of the Air Force because it was a "copyright violation" against this webppage. Not true at all and its the other way around...this website has taken our material and posted it as its own. Some kind of notice should be put up so we don't have mass deletion of pages that editors have worked hard to create. Thank you! -OberRanks 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Send them an email explaining the GFDL and what they have to do. WP:COPY#Reusers' rights and obligations has a simple explanation of what needs to be done. I've restored General of the Air Force, based on the page history I agree with you. Prodego talk 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
See also WP:FORK#Non-compliance process. Newyorkbrad 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for being so observant, OberRanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been my experience that these sites just ignore such requests.Rlevse 23:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if they do you can enact the DMCA though the ISP. Prodego talk 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hence we need to be very careful when deleting our pages as "copyright violations". Check, check, and check again, that we copied them and not the other way around. Carcharoth 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not breaking the 3RR[edit]

I try to be pretty careful about not violating the three-revert rule. A brand new editor is making typical brand-new-editor, unencyclopedic, poorly written edits in a low-traffic article that's not on many editors' watch list. The edits are not vandalism, they are just bad edits. I've already reverted them twice and attempted to explain to the editor why the edits cannot remain. I am aware of WP:DR steps, but this isn't exactly a dispute. What do I do next? I don't want the unencylopedic language to remain in the article. I'm not necessarily asking someone to revert the edits for me; I'm generally asking what the appropriate step would be in this case and similar cases.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had this same problem. See #Confused and sometimes upset, above. --Eyrian 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to see if WP:RSN is of any assistance, as suggested above.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Another good suggestion, if it's a lower-traffic page, is to put a note at Wikipedia:Third opinion. This can help bring in uninvolved individuals to help correct errors that may be more complex than simple vandalism. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations[edit]

Due to a very productive new bot (thanks User:Coren) we need more admins and experienced editors working on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, pretty badly. If you can handle text copyrights, there will apparently be quite a few to handle there... just delete, tag, deal with, etc. Thanks. --W.marsh 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But as always, check, check, and check again that we copied them, as opposed to them copying us. See the section just above this one. Carcharoth 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah -- I've been editing this page for a while, and Coren's bot is very productive. However, there are zounds of edits, and since I don't have admin buttons, there's a limit to how much I can do right now. Plus, I have work and stuff -- more help needed! --Haemo 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I am on wikibreak, but it is good to see SCV growing :-) -- ReyBrujo 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Some help needed (image tagging)[edit]

If you accept it, your mission is to clear the following pages of deletable images by deletion, tagging or editing the image page and/or the image itself.

Have fun! MER-C 07:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you forget what we will have to post a bit later today after everyone tags... == Some admin help needed (images) == and we have to spend time deleting or otherwise addressing the concerns by the tags! :) —— Eagle101Need help? 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertising using Wikipedia pages[edit]

Is this what I think it is? It seems to be a (possibly cybersquatted) site with lots of adverts with Wikipedia content (see bottom of page and hover over the 'view full page' link) being used to draw people there? Carcharoth 16:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah, that's rich. Don't think there's much we can do about it, though... EVula // talk // // 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
They really should be giving credit to Wikipedia. Until(1 == 2) 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You're supposed to send the webmaster a GFDL notice. I bet the cybersquatter webmaster doesn't care about the legality of his site, so it's an action in futility. Sean William @ 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless you pursue the notices to the webmaster to the point where you can send a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP. Prodego talk 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing junk like that buried on the lower end of Google searches for a while. Not surprised that the 'view full page' link explains it. Go ahead and attempt contact with the webmaster. I hope that yields fruitful results, but get back in touch with me if reasonable efforts fail. I write a column. ;) DurovaCharge! 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, its simple, talk to the webmaster, if that fails, DMCA takedown will solve it, rinse and repeat for any future sites. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, one should remember that only he/she who holds the copyright to (at least some of) the material has a valid DMCA takedown claim; if, then, you've not edited (non-trivially) the WP:NOVELS text that appears to be copied here, for instance, you've not really any cause of action. In general, though, yes, any Wikipedian might do well to send a we'd appreciate your compliance with the GFDL letter, at least to those websites that one might reasonably expect to be interested in compliance (see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for a general discussion, and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance for information on the enumeration of possibly problematic sites). Joe 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for explaining. I'm not going to be doing anything, though... That's why I posted here. For someone else to do something about it! :-) Any volunteers, or anywhere better to report things like this in future? Carcharoth 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So how do we contact this site? I did some navigation and a Google search and couln't find any feedback or e-mail address for it. I suppose they sell ad space somehow, but how? DurovaCharge! 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[14]. Look what DNSStuff did... Now I am going to need to find a new WHOIS site. Prodego talk 04:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This stuff is standard search spam using JavaScript cloaking. They happened to scrape Wikipedia content this time, but they also scrape pages from my site and everybody else's. Sending a DMCA takedown notice is an utter waste of time. There are millions of such worthless pages. The owners hide behind anonymous registrations and offshore hosting providers. If a developer wants to contact me I can point out strategies for defeating scraper bots. - Jehochman Talk 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed proposel[edit]

this one needs views from a wider audience. Please feel free to go there and comment. Regards, Navou banter 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically the proposal is to switch from "4 days" to "4 days and 20 edits"? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Its all there in the talk page and proposal page, but I think so, yes. Comments are welcome there. Regards, Navou banter 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like the 420 crowd is attempting an excellent prank. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid merge[edit]

Looking at Talk:Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Proposal suggests a preference for merging by a margin of 9:3. Since the merge looks pretty straight forward (as much of the material is already in the target articles) I've done a partial merge by adding material to the target articles without removing anything from the "source". I wonder if a neutral editor (ie not involved with Wikiproject Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine etc) could review the talk page discussion and, if he or she agrees there is a consensus for a merge, redirect the article to Human rights in Saudi Arabia#"Apartheid"? Lothar of the Hill People 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about deletion[edit]

Hello, I had asked some questions about deletion on the policy talk page, but didn't get many answers, so I would like to ask a few questions here, as they concern administrators also. In this diff, Cbrown1023 is saying the closing decision for an AfD can be based on a vote count. I thought I had seen somewhere that AfD specifically did not work by vote count, which one is true ? I am asking because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonfly CMS, what I don't understand is that there are no third party links in that article, it's undeniable, as far as I can see. Yet the AfD still closed as Keep even though nobody gave any indication of notability. Also people are saying that article is still being written, yet it was started over 2 years ago ?! In the case of companies or products, if they can't provide proof of notability in over 2 years and nobody in the AfD proves notability, how come it is not deleted ? I have heard of how "I DON'T LIKE," is not a reason for deleting, is "I DO LIKE", a valid reason for keeping an article ?
I know about WP:DRV and have read most of the policy pages relating to deletion. I am not asking for anything to be done, just for some answers if possible please. If you don't like me asking questions, please don't ignore me, just tell me to stop asking questions. Thanks. Jackaranga 14:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it qualifies under Speedy Delete - A7. I have marked it as such. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be marked as a speedy deletion candidate or a prod candidate unless there is a reasonable expectation that the deletion would be uncontroversial. This article went through an AFD where there was a split among keep and delete comments. That indicates that it does not meet the 'uncontroversial' criterion for speedy deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think since there was so little feedback the admin should have relisted the AfD rather than a simple 'keep' for vote tallying sake. David Fuchs (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So is vote counting one way of choosing the outcome of an AfD? If there are not enough policy related arguments I guess they have no choice but to listen to the majority. Jackaranga 10:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I would have closed the debate as delete despite the fact there wasn't a single delete vote. Ceyockey - It qualifies under speedy delete. Clearly. The fact that 3 people at AFD miss that point dosn't change anything. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To clear up a misconception - articles should not be PRODded after a deletion debate; however, speedy deletion trumps AFD, hence anything that meets the speedy criteria can be deleted regardless of what people say about it on AFD.
  • Aside from that, I note that the principal arguments to keep on the AFD are "for procedural reasons" (which doesn't make any sense in this context) and "Is under active development" (which is irrelevant, and also inaccurate judged by the edit history). Based on that, the closing is doubtful.
  • And aside from that, after more than two years here, the article has very little content, no sources whatsoever, does not assert significance, the recent "fix" was adding copyvio text from the developer's site, focuses mostly on "features" in an advertising tone, and is plausibly linkspam. Hence, deleted. >Radiant< 11:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Turning page RFC into a virtual Arbcom hearing[edit]

I protest the turning of a neutral request for comments on an article into what is essentially an illegitimate arbcom complaint. See here. This is totally not appropriate. If editors want to make comments about text on an entry, that is one thing, but the RFC on me as an editor has just been delisted. It is outrageous that there now is an attempt to circumvent this by turning a page text review into an attack on me and my editing.--Cberlet 02:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the RFC was delisted once and this is just an attempt to sidestep that. I'm not familar with the issues here but I'm tempted to delete it unless the creator User:Thedagomar moves it into his or her user space. RxS 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagreed with the deletion of the user-conduct RfC, as did several other admins. However, starting a content RfC and then hijacking it to focus on the conduct of specific editors is a misuse of process. I agree with Cberlet and RxS that the content RfC is being used inappropriately, and deletion would be in order. I wouldn't encourage moving it to userspace, because a page like that in userspace (i.e. outside of the dispute resolution machinery) is essentially an attack page. MastCell Talk 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about moving it either, I went ahead and deleted it. If User:Thedagomar wants it back it can be restored into his userspace, but I agree that's not a good option. RxS 03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to object to the deletion of the RfC on the following grounds. The Remedies section was a boo boo on my part. It was meant to be a talking points section. This was a content RfC not the delisted conduct RfC. Dagomar 05:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't participate in the article RfC, because I think that this is a user conduct problem, not an article content problem. What is outrageous is the deletion of the user conduct RfC. Does this user (Cberlet) have some sort of free pass to violate policy? He is up to his old tricks again at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, re-inserting material from his organization's website that appears to violate BLP. --Marvin Diode 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting removal of admin[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid opened[edit]

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Chick Bowen afd close issues[edit]

How can an admin close an article at 14 keep / 11 delete at consensus: "delete"? In any event, please help us to restore this article at Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history. Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS. And you are aware that AFD's are not up or down votes, right? Corvus cornix 16:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I posted to interested parties, namely the various science projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and two science admins. That this was a poor close is obvious, however one counts consensus. For those of us who read science books at a great rate, there are full chapters and sections written on who is the father or mother of something, e.g. Hippocrates “father of medicine”, Lavoisier “father of chemistry”, Claude Shannon “father of information theory”. I wasn’t a main editor on this article, but can’t believe it was even considered for deletion (a vote that I didn’t know about). Science editors are going to be the ones who know the importance of these terms and this article. --Sadi Carnot 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Iasson requested unblock by e-mail[edit]

Back in May 2006, I extended User:Iasson's year-long ArbCom ban after another suspected sockpuppet (Gorbrown). I have now received an e-mail from Iasson, asking to be unblocked, and stating that he is not Gorbrown, and that a year-long ban has expired by now.

Since I am not an administrator anymore (I resigned them back in November), I ask that someone else consider this request and decide whether unblocking the account is appropriate, and if so, do the unblock.

For background I refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson, and note that there were several instances of ban evasion, including a host of "Bank of Wikipedia" accounts around. The original case regarded massive disruption to the VFD (now AFD) process and serious abuse of accounts. Personally, I have no strong opinion on whether this ban should be rescinded due to it's age, or whether it should remain in place due to the severity of the disruption. I have no knowledge on whether the claim of no ban-evasion attempts the past year is true or not. I'll entrust this case to the current admin corps. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did his email pledge to actually edit Wikipedia articles, and not to try to change Wikipedia policy on every AfD? And to quit making nonsense like Bank of Wikipedia? Corvus cornix 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO speedy noms[edit]

Just an FYI, I noticed Nasmformyzombie (talk · contribs) tagged quite a few articles on pornographich actresses for speedy deletion. I've not reviewed them, but the one I did look at wasn't a speedy because the article made a claim per WP:PORNBIO, so anyone clearing out CAT:CSD may want to pay attention to these. I imagine some of them are legit speedies, but they may not all be.--Isotope23 talk 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind...AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) is removing the CSD tags, which I take to be a decline of the speedy.--Isotope23 talk 19:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Made a comment on the user's talk page, after which he stopped (before the AN notice). I'm reverting about 8/10. There are some without assertions, but many have awards, etc. Since they're reasonably good faith noms, not vandalism, just edits by someone who didn't understand WP:CSD#A7, I theoretically should be using edit, rather than rollback, but since there are about a hundred of them, every click counts, and I hope to be forgiven that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

block user?[edit]

User:Din&tony has been active since July 13, 2007, but has only made a long series of nonsense edits to his/her own talk page. Not vandalism, per-se, but perhaps a misuse of Wikipedia. - Special-T 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A closer look indicates that the talk page is being used as a message board. - Special-T 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Er... I suppose full protection of the page would stop them (after the appropriate warnings, of course) there but that wouldn't stop them creating another account and doing the same again. Anybody have any idea what they are talking about? Anyway, I will stick a warning on the page and see what transpires. LessHeard vanU 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Malcolm has speedy deleted the page, although I note that it was previously deleted on 13 July. I wonder if protection is going to be needed? LessHeard vanU 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please salt this user talkpage - I have now deleted this twice this evening. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison 21:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Enciclopedia DG[edit]

A teenager (which by the wa got indef blocked for persisten copyvio uploading on commons earlier this year) setup his mediawiki installation at (well, not really well setup), and then proceeds to create an article about his website: Encyclopedia DG.

Enciclopedia DG or Encyclopedia DG is a Spanish language wiki encyclopedia, released under the GFDL founded by Diego Grez. It uses the MediaWiki software.

The article and site are complete vanity and has been deleted before:

   * 20:34, 13 August 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Enciclopedia DG" (spam) (Restore)
   * 21:33, 6 December 2006 Eagle 101 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Enciclopedia DG" (Per Criteria for Speedy Deletion, A7) (Restore)

Just letting you know, as the kid will probably recreate his promotional article, he even compared it to major forks like Enciclopedia Libre or Citizendium editing the "Wikipedia history" tempalte at [15] no matter that his site is much much more trivial and irrelevant than those selected there. As I said, just letting you know guys. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

kind of hard to add spam when the target got salted ;) Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone have a look please[edit]

I am near 3RR so I can't edit Eliseo Soriano which some editors seem determine to sanitise and smother with spam. User:Petersantos made 8 edits on Aug 14, all to the Soriano article. User:Vivinkid has made 26 edits to Wiki, 25 to Soriano on Aug 13 and 14. New User: has made only one edit to Wiki, to Soriano on Aug 14. New User: has made only one edit to Wiki, to Soriano on Aug 13. Moriori 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


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

This editor has racked up an impressive number of NPA, NOR, and similar warnings. Ignoring image license notices, the following is a brief record of the talk page history for this user:

  1. 20 February 2007: Tells AuburnPilot to "go shoot yourself"[16] Response:[[17]
    • Blanked user talk page with "my apologies" edit summary[18]
  2. 1 March 2007: On Talk:Jesus: "policy my foot, I'll do as I see fit. Don't waste your time wagging your finger, I won't respond"[19] Vassanya leaves civility note[20] and Welcome2[21]; Ecto leaves comment about Talk:Jesus comments on user talk page[22]; Response is "YEAH YEAH YEAH... move along nothin to see here"[23]
    • 1 March 2007 Esmehwp replaces talk page with "hello"[24]
  3. 21 March 2007: Edit wars on Zionism (sample edit summary: "disgusting attempt at whitewashing history reminds one of british colonization of tazmania")[25]; BrandonYusufToropov requests end to edit war[26] adds Welcome message[27]
    • 6 April 2007, Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[28]
  4. 13 April 2007, Ethan a dawe requests care regarding NOR and fact-checking[29], discussion ensues
    • 13 April 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[30]
  5. 30 April 2007 JuJube requests no edit warring on Baha'i Faith[31]
    • 1 May 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[32]
  6. 27 May 2007 Another request for sourcing and NOR[33] this time by Raymond arritt, which also includes note of BLP. Updated to include Astroturfing warning[34] Esmewhp declines discussion[35]
    • 29 May 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[36]
  7. 14 June 2007 Ultramarine warns against Wikistalking[37]
    • 14 June 2007 Esmehwp blanks page[38] replacing content with "hello"[39]
  8. 14 June 2007 Ultramarine warns against Harassment, adding 3RR warning[40]
    • 14 June 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[41]
  9. 14 June 2007 Ultramarine leaves note about RS, V, NPOV[42]
    • 14 June 2007 Esmehwp replaces content on user talk page with "hello"[43]
  10. 14 and 15 June 2007 Ultramarine suggest mediation[44]. Esmehwp rejects mediation[45] telling Ultramarine not to remove his/her edits, and no mediation would be indicated. Ultramarine reminds Esmehwp about WP:V[46] Esmehwp responds very rudely: "you think I don't know WP policies? don't do that again. read my writing. if you cant understand what I'm saying to you then there's no point in talking. LAST WORD: delete and you'll be reverted. FULL STOP"[47] Ultramarine tries again[48], Giovanni33 suggests compromise[49] Esmehwp responds with insults and accusations to Ulramarine[50] " I will restore deleted information if I feel the deletion is POV or if it detracts from the article. ultramarine thinks USA is the best country in the world and that is his dogma there is nothing anyone can do about it. it is not based on reason logic or facts its an emotional thing he is an ideological fanatic the only way to stop him biasing WP into his own dogma, is to stand up to him you cant compromise with fanatics I'm not going to run around finding sources for everything he disputes, he can add what he likes he can put up tags if he wants but he cant go around deleting things i'm going to stop him. (...)PS No Ultramarine I don't share your dogma so there's no point in mediation. (emphasis added) Discussion ensues, Utramarine points Esmehwp to Ad hominem, dispute is taken to AN/I(Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259#Wikistalking)
    • 15 June 2007. Most hostile page blanking yet. Replaced page with 'Hello GET off my user page ULTRAMARINE!!!! there is no point talking to this idiot you just have to fight him[51] Spartan-James reverted, adding vandal warning (incorrectly, unfortunately)
    • 15 June 2007 so Esmehwp blanked the page again, with the now familiar "hello"[52]
  11. 13 August 2007 Jossi leaves NPA warning[53]
    • 13 August 2007 and in two edits, Esme states "thanks already deleted" then replaces page with "hello"[54]
  12. 13 August 2007 SOPHIA leaves NPA warning regarding edits on WP:AE[55]
  13. 13 August 2007 KillerChihuahua (I) leave NPA warning regarding an edit on User talk:ThAtSo[56]

And here we are. Out of 400 edits, some dozen plus warnings on his/her talk page. Please note I did NOT dig through the rest of the contributions, but confined myself to the talk page of the editor with the exception of the Zionism incident. Check contribs if you are interested in more insulting edit summaries used by this editor, and more talk-page insults on article talk pages. I'd take this to Rfc, but as the consistant response of this user has been to blank the page to "hello" and modify his behavior not at all, sometimes with the addition of ad hom attacks, I don't see that an Rfc will have any effect either. Does anyone have any bright ideas on how to get through to this editor? Does anyone think Rfc might help at all? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alienus.
Regardless of identity, I have seen little from this editor but trouble. For example, he calls Christian editors "bible worshipping worms" who "will snuff out anyone who speaks against their love for jesus."05:17, 13 August 2007Proabivouac 06:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

if there is a fair judge here she'll see that I'm a so-so contributor with a bit of a temper but that i act in good faith and do care about WP, and if I make mistakes I always apologise and and I'm being persecuted by a bunch of christian zealots who are trying to scare me or something... yawn.. whatever... also user:Ultramarine is a really bad actor and only a close inspection of his activities over a long period of time shows what damage he does to article content. do whatever you want the only thing it can affect is my respect for the WP justice system.Esmehwp 06:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you all misunderstand the poor dear. As this post[57] shows, it's just a joke. Or a classic case of trolling. Either way, clearly disruptive editing. Talk page back at hello[58], I've restrained my impulse to add the comment "goodbye". .. dave souza, talk 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As the post for which I left a NPA warning included the gem "c'mon! jewish thinkers! why there's no such thing!" he seems to be an equal-opportunity insulter. Ok, which should I use as block reason when I indef block this editor?

  1. drop down reason of "Vandalism only account"
  2. Account being used almost exclusively for gross NPA violations and trolling
  3. Unrepentant troll

KillerChihuahua?!? 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The second suggestion looks about right. ElinorD (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Since I've not checked all the editor's contributions am unable to comment on option 1., option 2. seems most appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked with Harassment drop-down, +additional comment version 2. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte thread removed[edit]

Removed edit by abusive puppeteer Bonaparte (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) pasted from an open proxy with false user signature. --Irpen 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BOT2008BOT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a single-purpose sock used to solicit a block[59]. No comment on Anonimu's actions. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Just want to add that I support the indefinite block of this single purpose account.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I also support an indefinite block of Anonimu, 100% and more. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Best give Anonimu another block, he's just not getting it. reverting good faith edits as vandalistic, calling a non-banned editor banned, pot calling kettle black, and what appears to be OWNership on Nicolae Ceauşescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't think there'd be any loss in an indef-block, though. Will (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I meant the SPA that reported this. With regards to the account being reported (User:Anonimu) I haven't seen any change in his behavior whatsoever. Continued edit warring, false "rv vandal" edit summaries, ownership of articles, etc... I support any action any admin wants to take including an indefinite block if that is deemed necessary.--Jersey Devil 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed edits by abusive puppeteer Bonaparte (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) done through an open proxy. --Irpen 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A roster of editors whose activities in the project revolve around Transnistria, after several ArbCom hearings of the case, seek their main opponent to be blocked. That the thread was started by an indef banned account and "augmented" by an IP adds nothing to their argument. Seriously, this page does not belong to dispute resolution procedures. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A very useful tool[edit]

Worth checking out and saving.[60][61] DurovaCharge! 04:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Did we have to link to the blog :P. In any case, interesting tool. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Eh, now that I read the blog, its good, I'm just jumpy around blogs. Hopefully some people will be able to make use of this, though the data seems to be from a database dump, so it is by no means live data. —— Eagle101Need help? 05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone want to tweak the software? I've been trying to get in touch with Virgil for days. The basic value of this tool is incredibly useful. DurovaCharge! 05:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! I wish this had been available a long time ago. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just glad to learn that, whilst they're not too certain of where UBL might be, the CIA are quite knowledgable about a good bit, including how properly to feed domestic goats. Joe 06:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It also seems the CIA and I have the same sense of humour. :-D daveh4h 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bouncing an idea[edit]

I've written a user space essay that might be a good addition to WP:NOT. Please see User:Durova/Wikipedia is not an experiment in consensus reality. Feedback and improvements are welcome. DurovaCharge! 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with its content, though I might title it, "Wikipedia is not on the cutting edge" or something. The point being, as Durova has articulated, that Wikipedia changes in response to changes in human understanding, not in anticipation of them. I encounter this problem often enough that I'd support adding something to this effect to WP:NOT. MastCell Talk 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not precognitive? Wikipedia does not predict the future? Wikipedia is not a social trendsetter? (brainstorming names). Like the content. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about wikiality? DurovaCharge! 06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the corollary applies as well? By which I mean if sources we use now later disappear from the historical record, should we remove the sources because they can no longer be verified (and we can't be sure that anyone ever did verify them). I phrase this as "if society can't be bothered to keep a record of something, Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to preserve the record", or put another way "Wikipedia is not intended to be used to document past information that has since been lost". Which brings me back to Durova's point, which seems to be "Wikipedia is not intended to be used to document information that hasn't yet 'arrived'". If you get my meaning. Once the information has arrived, we can use it. If it disappears, we can no longer use it. This all goes back to Wikipedia being a tertiary source, not a secondary or primary source. Carcharoth 14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As stated at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I'd say Durova's essay is covered by WP:NOR, rather than WP:NPOV, though of course these are all related at some level. Carcharoth 14:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "if society can't be bothered to keep a record of something, Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to preserve the record" Wikipedia is not a time capsule? --Eyrian 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. That's a good way of putting it. Carcharoth 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Carcharoth, I'm trying to imagine an example of this happening: say, a website vanishes & all references to it (including those in the Wayback Machine) are removed; or say all copies of a book or article are destroyed, & all references to it also removed. I really can't see either of these happening to the kinds of sources I use. I need an example that couldn't arguably also be an example of a primary source. -- llywrch 20:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I was thinking more of the way people use obscure newspaper references to document current media events and celebrities. It may not be apparent now, but I think that in 10 years time or so, we may be surprised by how much information is 'lost'. I hope I'm wrong, and that the masses of information achieve some sort of order, and that the information is preserved, but I think that certain types of attenuation will take place as well. The Internet Wayback Machine helps, but what comes after that? Huge stores of old information may suffer the fate I see collections of old pictures suffer - they get bartered off to the highest bidder, and then it gets repackaged, and slowly but surely the information degrades. Not the literal information, but the organisation, especially with problems of backwards compatibility. Google Groups is an interesting case in point. Usenet message IDs used to be the way to identify old messages (and you can still do that), but lots of people now use the Google Groups message ID, which is different. The connection point between the two is in a Google database somewhere. Unless you have the date and name of the poster, you rely on the connections being maintained between the two identifying numbers. Those who subscribe to the en-wikipedia mailing list may remember what happened when the message-id system changed, and old links to previous posts were pointing at the wrong posts. The SNIPURL and similar services hold a store of information links. If those databases are lost, the old URLS become meaningless. On Wikipedia, links to old AN threads fail once the thread is archived, unless you link to a version section (though there is a bot proposed to deal with this). But to get back to the main point, another example is that I see people linking to information on current websites that is incredibly transitory - like the current price of a computer game. I think to myself "If someone comes back in five year's time and finds that the link doesn't work, how do they verify that information?" Some of the stuff mentioned on websites is hardly ever accessible once the website is revamped or redesigned, and not all wesbites are archived by the WayBack Machine. But if you use reliable, long-term sources, then no problem. Carcharoth 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The essay holds a great sentiment, but the trend it criticizes can't be wished away. Knowledgeable, experienced contributors are often driven off by solipsists and hacks, editors who couldn't care less about how NPOV relates to the real world. Even well-intentioned and well-informed editors can become predisposed to injecting bias after years of contribution and a false sense of entitlement. What practices would you suggest be put in place to maintain impartiality? Whats the best way to cure those who suffer from an immunity to reality checks? Maybe there is some way to encourage review of Wikipedia articles by respected, professional publications. The Nature study certainly had a positive effect. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and that's why I've come to think an explicit policy statement on that point would be a good idea. Some of the existing clauses approach the idea, but there's no specific wording targeted to address wikiality. I've seen university assignments that ask students to analyze Wikipedia as a phenomenon and specifically ask about how the concept of consensus reality relates to the site. To a lot of people that connection is intuitive. So volunteers expend a lot of time attempting to communicate how that's not what open editing is about. We'd be in a stronger position to communicate that if WP:NOT included a direct statement. DurovaCharge! 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The first pillar needs its own page. One simple paragraph that encapsulates this whole encyclopedia thing we're working on. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what "encyclopedic" means on Wikipedia has always been difficult to pin down. In many ways, it is defined by what is rejected. ie. by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. One of the difficulties is the not paper point, and the sheer size of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is effectively a broad, general encyclopedia, and lots of specialist encyclopedias, all rolled into one. Carcharoth 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and other problems regarding disruptive editing[edit]

User:HongQiGong edited the History of Japan article for the first time today, so that he could revert the page to a POV version. He has not taken part in the discussions I've launched over the dispute in question - I feel that he is trying to make a point by wikistalking me to push his own preference for BCE/CE.

Both HongQiGong and PHG keep insisting that BC/AD cannot be used because it is "Christian", despite the fact that WP:MOS indicates it is fine to use. Also there was a vote on having BC/AD replaced here, which was rejected. Discussions are going nowhere and both users seem determined to push their own POV.

This will seem like a minor point to many, but I feel that this constant fighting over a term that wikipedia recognises is fine is very disruptive and needs admin attention. I don't see how discussions can get anywhere because both users refuse to accept the wikipedia position that BC/AD is acceptable to use. Why have guidelines and community votes if no one respects them? John Smith's 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I had to check John Smith's contrib history in order to file Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Smith's. Yes, I believe the article History of Japan should use BCE/CE, as the history of Japan is non-Christian for the most part. John Smith's point that BC/AD is acceptable to use is moot - because BCE/CE is also acceptable to use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You had already filed the application - why did you suddenly join in the reverting? Why didn't you discuss it first?
Your argument that Japan is non-Christian is irrelevant as I already pointed out. The Community had a vote on that subject and rejected a proposal to only use BCE/CE in "non-Christian" articles. Also I was the first one to make the article consistent in terms of BC/AD - it was also the earliest style used in the first major contribution according to WP:MOS.
Your reversion is disruptive. If you had the best interests of the article at heart you would have joined the discussion and not reverted. The fact you reverted without comment on any of the talk pages shows you're just trying to push your POV and are disrupting the article. John Smith's 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That vote was on whether or not to adopt an official policy to use BCE/CE. There is no policy against its use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I never said there was a policy against its use. I said that some people tried to get BC/AD labelled "POV" and have it replaced by BCE/CE. The community has rejected the argument that BC/AD is POV and cannot be used in non-Christian articles. Just accept that and move on. John Smith's 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest an article content request for comment to settle the issue. You say to-may-toe and I say to-mah-toe... DurovaCharge! 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that will change anything. I've tried discussing the matter with PHG - he keeps repeating his justification. Hong won't even take part in the talk page discussions. However I will start one if the other users agree to stop reverting. John Smith's 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's really helpful. Now El:C is parroting this nonsense about BC/AD and reverting too. Does anyone take notice of wikipedia guidelines and community votes, or is it just a case of people paying attention when it suits them? I would have thought an admin would try to help resolve matters, rather than pouring petrol on the fire. John Smith's 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As I told John Smith, after he claimed that my reason "is not valid" because "the community had a vote," I hardly feel that this vote (of course, I ask, what vote?) invalidates my reason, not for History of Japan today, not for Mumbai two days ago, and elsewhere. I'm not sure why we need to have this obvious Christian dating symbol used in non-Christian entries. Maybe John Smith would like trying changing BCE to BC in the Israel entry. Let's see what consensus, not "vote," emerges after that. El_C 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to change anything on the Israel page, am I? In fact I am not trying to change the page in question, I am trying to restore the version that I made consistent. It is people like PHG, Hong and you that are trying to change the date entries.
On the Mumbai article you claimed that the general consensus is to use BC for Christian-related subjects (populations, countries, cities, ideas) and BCE for the rest of the world/'s history. Yet there is no general consensus - this is clearly outlined by the vote I mentioned that took place here. How can you have consensus when a majority disagree with what you allege?! So your justifications are wrong. John Smith's 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is consensus, last time I checked. This is a secular encyclopedia, not a Christian encyclopedia. Secondly, this is a content dispute, clearly not everyone agrees with your (John Smith's) assertions, and so you should take it to dispute resolution as Durova has already advised you. Thirdly, your incivility to El C hardly helps your case or your standing in the wikipedia community ('parroting this nonsense' is quite rude.) Suggest you move along now. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Enough with a vote from May 2005, it's now August 2007. As I said, from having a watchlist with close to 25,000 pages, the trend seems to be increasingly for non-Christian entries to be dated as BCE and Christian-related ones as BC. There's also the (largely pro-BC/AD) trend to keep whatever the original was (and I used BC/AD in many of the articles I authored, about non-Christian populations, incidentally; mainly as I don't really care). But I see the amount of energy, and sheer edits, that the issue still takes. Mainly, there should not be edit warring over it, that's be the bottom line. El_C 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for being a tad rude, El C. However, if you don't want there to be an edit-war you could set an example and not revert the page again. Cheers, John Smith's 19:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. We do not let one-edit-only ips have their way in this project, sorry. El_C 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine - I agree with you. I was concerned you were entering the wider confrontation. John Smith's 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone sprotect that article? There are several one-edit-only ips revert warring. El_C 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 week. MastCell Talk 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

14th August[edit]

Ok, this is getting silly. Both User:HongQiGong and User:KillerChihuahua are wikistalking me at History of the Americas. Can someone please get the wikistalkers off my back? It's bad enough when a user does it - Hong tried to allege last night he only knew about my edits on History of Japan because of the check-user report he ran, but I edited the page long after he filed that. But I honestly don't feel secure if an administrator is going to stalk me too. John Smith's 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you confined yourself to the debates, now spread across several pages, and stopped mass editing articles to your preferred dating system, no one would have to revert your contentious and divisive edits. Also, please stop canvassing for support. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I was not "mass-reverting" - I made the article in question consistent. Also I don't know why it's wrong for me to make an article consistent, but it's ok for someone like you or Hong to revert the whole thing. That seems far more divisive than what I did on the History of the Americas page.
As I explained on your talk page I asked a few people who've worked on Japanese articles if they had any thoughts - that was it. I was not canvassing for support. John Smith's 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, thank you. This is all about one issue. If I was wikistalking, I would be reverting his edits that are unrelated to the current content dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What can I say - I'll credit you with subtlety. John Smith's 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, can you please stop wikistalking me! You're now reverting my edits on Chola Dynasty. As anyone can clearly see, Æthelwold's version here had inconsistent terms. I made them consistent using the earliest non-stub version as a template that used the terms - it is you that are mass reverting.

Can someone please take him in line. It is ridiculous for me to have my edits rolled back when I'm making inconsistent articles consistent. John Smith's 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles) has not concluded, but is currently strongly in favor of the date format which you oppose, I can only suggest again that rather than trying to do an end-run around this, you confine your efforts to the debates you started and cease your personal campaign to change articles to your preferred format. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not relevant, given I am not editing China-related articles - the China Project can't impose guidelines on the whole community. Where terms are inconsistent in an article it is perfectly acceptable to make them consistent using the first major contribution/non-stub as a basis. You seem to think it's ok to wikistalk someone because you disagree with their edits - but it isn't. John Smith's 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note Hong has now joined in the wikistalking on Chola Dynasty here. That now makes it two articles for both users. When does it "officially" become wikistalking? Three? Four? John Smith's 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note 2 Hong has now wikistalked me on:

That makes it six articles for him. John Smith's 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think much of the dispute started at Talk:Jesus. It almost seems like John Smith's is the only one who wants to see his edits upheld as much as he does. Then he spread the dispute over to Chinese history-related articles by editing those articles to his preference, and then he proceeded to also edit articles to his preference across a number of other articles. The dispute is also being discussed in Talk:History of Japan. I am now fixing his edits. I think something needs to be done to stop John Smith's campaigning. It's very disruptive. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to undermine me. This did not start on the Jesus page - it has gone on for many months, originally on Talk:Japan where some users tried to push BCE/CE on to the article. Later on I went to edit some Japan-related history articles to try to get consistency across articles and then the project. It was only later that I went to the Jesus article.
You are coming up with cheap arguments to justify your wikistalking. If my edits were that objectionable users who haven't taken part in the BCE/CE vrs BC/AD debate would have rolled them back - I think that happened once, and that person certainly didn't roll back all my edits on this area. Every other time it has been someone like yourself that has taken sides. Given you have such a visible POV I don't think you have any credibility to accuse me of campaigning. The fact other people haven't followed me around shows the tolerance of most people that agree with the use of BC/AD. The fact multiple pro-BCE/CE users have followed me around shows their lack of tolerance, though I know others are far more respectful and don't do that. John Smith's 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikistalking? ROFLMAO. Pushing POV across several articles indicates a need to make certain it doesn't happen everywhere. It's hysterical when an editor, who's been shown to push a certain POV, whines about wikistalking, just to throw off the scent. Well, now I'm watching you too John Smith. I guess I'll be accused soon. I don't actually care, because it's so funny. You've made my day. Accusing KC, a well-known administrator on this project, of wikistalking is like accusing me of believing in the myth of Jesus. Never going to happen. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Orange, I might have thought you had some credibility if you were impartial. The fact you jumped in on the History of Japan article and accused those that support BC/AD were "Christian POVing once again" shows you are not neutral. Unfortunately it appears that believers in BCE/CE band together to pick on those that are happy to use BC/AD and won't take bullying quietly. John Smith's 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note 3

KillerChihuahua is now doing exactly what he accused me of - disrupting the project (as he put it) by changing stable articles:

*Cemetery H culture *Vedic period

This seems to imply that there's one rule for administrators and another for ordinary users. John Smith's 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can tell from the diffs that he is only making those articles consistently use one format. That has always been your concern, no? Why are you complaining? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My bad on the first two. But on the third, he changed all the terms bar one. Now User:JoshuaZ complained on my talk page that I did the same thing. So are you saying Josh was wrong to bring up that particular article? If you're going to talk about the templates, I raised the issue on MOS and the response was that consistency does not apply to between articles and templates, or articles in a series. John Smith's 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The navigational template on the right side of the article uses BCE/CE. He made it consistent with the template. In fact that's exactly what he said in his edit summaries.[62] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no policy or guideline that a template is the basis for articles' styles - it's ridiculous, especially if the articles were created before the template. If anything it should be the other way around. As I said, when I raised the issue at MOS the response was that conformity between articles, etc should not be forced because there is no clear "superiority". So claiming template styles is a reason to unilaterally change all bar one term is not a valid reason to force articles to conform to it. If Josh was correct to reproach me K_C should receive the same treatment as I did. John Smith's 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest John Smith's, if your top priority is consistency, I'm not sure what the problem is. The article is consistent right now, regardless of what the template shows, regardless of how the article used to read, regardless of how related articles read. If your concern is consistency, then that concern has been addressed. What does it matter to you whether the article uses BC/AD or BCE/CE? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hong, that's very nice but you don't seem to care about that. I made articles consistent that you (and K_C) reverted. Don't expect me to follow a principle you're not interested in. I have used consistency as a reason to edit - you had no reason to reverse my changes and put in your desired slant. You were wikistalking me, plain and simple. Don't try to dodge responsibility. John Smith's 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My reason to revert your changes is that I would like to see non-Christian-related articles use BCE/CE. On the other hand, your main priority seems to be consistency. You went around changing articles to use BC/AD in the name of consistency, and I am opposed to the use of BC/AD in the articles you edited. So when an article is consistently using BCE/CE, I don't see why you have a problem with that. Please read WP:WIKISTALK#Wikistalking. I am not editing to cause you annoyance or distress. I am editing in accordance to how I feel the articles should read. And as you pointed out, I've edited Xia Dynasty and Shang Dynasty to use BCE/CE - check the histories of those articles and you'll see that I've edited those articles before I ever even stated an opinion about this date issue. Those articles are on my watchlist. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
So you're admitting you have an agenda? That would be against WP:MOS, which says one should not change a style in such a way. Also are you going to argue that Sino-Roman relations and Indus Valley Civilization are on your watchlist? I argue for consistency, though I may have a preference for BC/AD - that doesn't mean you have a right to override my changes. John Smith's 20:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually read the MoS concerning this? It says that the format shouldn't be changed "unless there is significant reason for the change." I believe this is a significant reason for the change. WP:WIKISTALK#Wikistalking specifically states that following an editor around to cause annoyance or distress is wikistalking. I am not out to cause you any annoyance or distress. Yes, I have an agenda, and it is to improve WP articles. I am opposed, as others have been, to your mass conversion of certain articles to use BC/AD. And in fact, John Smith's, anybody has a "right" to override any of your changes unless the person is in danger of violating 3RR. Even IP editors have this right. What part of WP being an encyclopedia that anybody can edit don't you understand? So again, if consistency is your top priority, then what's the problem? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
And if you had read MOS you would know that BC/AD is an acceptable term - there are no caveats. So in that case you shouldn't be overriding my changes. If you think you are in the right, go start a conversation on MOS and we'll see whether you get consensus or not. The fact is you won't, which is why you are arbitrarily mass converting. You are also twisting the facts - I am not mass-converting all articles. Generally I have been making them consistent where there was no consistency. It is you that have been mass-converting. You keep pretending you aren't wikistalking, when it's obvious you are. You're just trying to save your own skin. John Smith's 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware that MoS says that BC/AD is acceptable, in fact it also states that BCE/CE is acceptable. It is decidedly neutral on which format to use in and of itself. And given that I believe there is a significant reason for change, I have not violated MoS at all, since, and I repeat, MoS states that it shouldn't be changed "unless there is significant reason for the change." I am also well aware that you have been making articles consistent, consistently using BC/AD that is. I am opposed to having those articles you edited to use BC/AD, which is why I changed them to BCE/CE - which, again, is well within MoS guidelines. My edit keeps consistency, if only that it makes the articles use BCE/CE, and justifiably so in my opinion. Also again, WP:WIKISTALK#Wikistalking states that wikistalking is following an editor around with the intent to cause annoyance or distress. You can keep making an empty and unfounded assertion that it is "obvious" I am wikistalking if you like, but I certainly disgree with the accusation that I am intent on causing you distress or annoyance. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said, if you think you're not doing anything wrong go talk about it on MOS. When I tried to create consistency by editing articles and templates, you reverted me and insisted we talk about it first. Yet if you think you're correct you reserve the right to edit unilaterally - what hypocricy.
Of course you would deny you're trying to cause distress of annoyance - one would have to be a pretty foolish wikistalker to admit it. John Smith's 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't even make sense. If I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong, what reason have I to talk about it on MoS? And my most current edits regarding the dates have preserved consistency, so what's the problem? That agrees with your own agenda of consistency, correct? And no, I have no intent on causing you distress or annoyance. Other editors are free to agree with you and disagree with me, of course. Your accusations are, in the end, baseless. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't want to go to MOS because you know your arguments will be shot down, or you will fail to gain consensus. That's what wikipedia is supposed to be about - gaining consensus. But you only want consensus when you oppose something. If you support it you think it should happen straight away. I think my accusations are far from baseless - if they were you would have left one comment and then disappeared. The fact you keep coming back shows you know there is substance to what I've said. John Smith's 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Would someone userfy this and / or close it? Its a content dispute, and I'm in this thread so it would be inapropriate for me to close it but surely some Admins are getting tired of this taking up AN space? I would have closed it some time back had I not been involved. This is the wrong venue for this. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, please stop this back and forth on the AN. Please resolve your personal differences elsewhere. As for John Smith's, I'd seriously suggest that you stop editing wikipedia for the sole purpose of switching between CE to AD. Please note: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names. If I were you, I would consider dropping this matter, or at least stop editing the main space in this manner. There are currently a number of talk page discussions on going, and continuing this editing pattern is only getting more and more disruptive. If you honestly cannot look past CE vs. AD, then I would suggest, when you find an article that a) you would like to change or b) is inconsistent, go to the talk page and start a topic. Do not edit the article before a consensus is reached by editors who are involved with that topic. You are edit warring on multiple articles, and spreading controversy every time you jump to a new article. Surely there are much more productive ways to participate here at wikipedia than changing between from CE to AD (I don't think any of your edits have been the other way around, have they?) Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks for your response. Actually I self-reverted myself on Indus Valley Civilization when it was pointed out I'd changed most of the terms over. On Christianity and Buddhism I did make the usage consistent in terms of BCE/CE. On Template:Middle kingdoms of India I also added a CE term where it was missing (for clarification).
If I should not be editing in regards to BC/AD without consensus, why can K_C and Hong edit for the purposes of putting BCE/CE in without consensus? In some cases they were doing so on articles I hadn't been editing. I understand you are just trying to calm things down, but they are not helping either. Indeed Hong actually declared that he doesn't think he needs consensus to change an article to sole BCE/CE usage. Are you going to ask him to gain consensus first as well? Also what sort of an example is an admin like K_C setting if, again, he is going to take the dispute on to other articles? I'm not complaining that I'm not having my way, only that two users appear free to do what I'm asked not to do. John Smith's 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
First, KC uses female pronouns. Next, yes, the controversial naming convention guidelines applies to everyone. This situation seems to need deescalating, so I'd suggest than anyone involved in the dispute put a hold on edits which will most likely be controversial. Those who are upset with our guidelines should perhaps make a proposal on the guidelines page. I understand that there are a lot of articles that have inconsistencies (i.e. they use both BCE and BC), so it isn't reasonable to expect every individual article to have a talk page discussion. I believe what some editors have already done (i.e. started a centralized discussion on a wikiproject) is a right move to get a broader consensus for a number of articles within the project's scope. Maybe even a bot could be created to do this task in a more objective manner? or maybe not. All I know is that recent edits on all sides of this dispute have come under scrutiny and therefor everyone should proceed with caution, focusing on discussion and consensus over rash editing. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 00:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging reliable sources[edit]

Resolved: Burntsauce now knows where to go

Apologies for bringing this to the administrators noticeboard, I'm sure there is a better place for this (and if so please point me in the right direction). How does one judge reliable sources? I have found a site which appears on 2522 different Wikipedia pages, called [63] and am finding that a large number of articles are relying on this site as not just their primary source of information, but the sole source of information. Considering that anyone can pay the $25.00 to submit a profile to this site, and then in turn have it used to source a Wikipedia article, I have my doubts as to its reliability. Is this cause for concern, or no big deal? Burntsauce 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Double Accounts[edit]

I beleive this shows the use of two accounts does anybody else see it? [64] ExtraDry 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUSPSOCK is the more appropriate forum for this. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)



Swatjester extended block to indefinite.--Dweller 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just given this user a block, but the more I read of his edit record, the more concerned I am. My block was for incivility and racism, but a perusal leaves me thinking he's a very disruptive user. I welcome comment. --Dweller 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, endorse keeping an eye on him. I'm not sure if his past history (I didn't go too far) indicates a need for a bigger block yet. --Golbez 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Arrgh, second edit has a summary instructing others not to "get rid of" the page created, or Savoie would "be furious".[65] I agree with the concern, this looks like a huge issue. OTOH, this is his/her first block. Try to keep an eye after block expires, and suggest reading up on NPA, CIVIL, NPOV, OWN, etc. It is possible Wikipedia will be a learning experience for her/him and s/he'll become a civil contributor. If not, warn, block, repeat until done. Good luck. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The racism, admin-impersonation, WP:OWN issues, edit warring and incivility bothered me. When I spotted that he's named himself after some gruesome murderer, I became very bothered. All this... yet his complete edit history doesn't even fill one screen yet. --Dweller 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well if you want to indef, I for one won't reverse you. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... generally if someone is tossing around insults and racist comments and impersonating an administrator, I'd likely indefinitely block them right off the bat, regardless of whether it was their first block or not. If they don't have enough sense to know not to be an idiot (really, where and when is it not unacceptable to insult people and impersonate an authority figure?), they can go edit somewhere else. :) EVula // talk // // 21:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-blocked indefinitely. SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indef block. - Philippe | Talk 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the bots[edit]

It looks like CorenSearchBot and User:Polbot are having a difference of opinion. *sigh* Keegantalk 17:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Does CorenSearchBot have an exception list or something similar? Mackensen (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If it doesn't now, I imagine it will after this. Keegantalk 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

More than 3 reverts? 24 hour block. And consider blocking their owners too. Pour encourager les autres if nothing else. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Quadell saw the same thing and blocked the bot as I was on my way over after posting this. It's set for indefinite until Coren can work out the bug. Keegantalk 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Damn that ByngBot! Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I love this sort of thing. One of the more amusing things I've seen on Wikipedia was a couple of bots having a revert-war over which version of a "test" article was less vandalistic. Fighting only ceased when I CSD'd the article and an admin came along to delete it. Moreschi Talk 18:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't resist.[66] ;) DurovaCharge! 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ooh! Bot wars! Soon to be made into a major motion picture. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I claim copyright for having first initiated a "War of the Bots" ANI thread ([67]). Sadly, on a topic that is still not resolved as of today... Fut.Perf. 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Coolness! Let's collect the examples and create a new WP:LAME section. It's hilarious and nobody's feelings get hurt. DurovaCharge! 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Cool maybe, but in fact the case I mentioned is still making feelings go hot. Currently debated at Talk:Ingria and WP:BOWN. Fut.Perf. 19:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, there are much better bot wars. Such as when you get bots that dont revert if there were the person they would revert to, but get stuck in a war with 3 other bots. Funny to watch, especially if they are approved for 10+epm. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have links to examples of those sort of bot conflicts - they sound... interesting! Carcharoth 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I raised this same issue over at ANI (though I was 5 minutes later and failed to noticed the block had been done). Is AN more bot-orientated? :-) Oh, and Polbot ran into MartinBot the other day. See here, but this was more due to its owner messing up a test. Carcharoth 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no topic requirement between here or ANI. I raised the issue here because I didn't require admin intervention since I am one; 'twas a heads up and not so much an incident that needed looking into. You did the proper thing. Keegantalk 02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On a serious note[edit]

The point about the bot war thread above should really be that CorenSearchBot seems unable to distinguish between Wikipedia copying from website A, and Wikipedia and website A both copying from source B. This is a serious problem if source B (as in this case) happens to be public domain information, but website A give the appearance (to the humans editors clearing up after CorenSearchBot) of claiming copyright on the text. I can't emphasize enough that those clearing up after CorenSearchBot (and similar bots) must critically examine each case to determine whether Wikipedia, the other website, or another website altogether, is the original source of the suspected copyvio. Carcharoth 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CorenSearchBit does have a whitelist, but look at User talk:Coren to see the number of false positives. Of course, it may be that the bot is finding a large number of positive matches, but someone should do an analysis to estimate the percentage of false positives. Carcharoth 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
How come none of these issues some up during trial (even though it had one of the longest trials I have seen), and it all comes up later? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
For the same reason that beta-testing doesn't shake all the bugs out of commercial software: once something goes live, it gets a lot more usage in a hurry than it ever did in development. --Carnildo 03:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Wherebot has had similar hiccups. They will be fixed. Just gotta stay on their creators. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
From looking at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, CorenSearchBot (along with the other 2 bots) is reporting far more true copyvio's then false positives. The articles are not being tagged for automatic deletion. They are being tagged and listed for investigation. I agree that admins need to be careful to ensure public domain material is not deleted, but that is true of any copyvio tagging. CorenSearchBot has exclude lists for sites & users and Coren has actively been working to reduce false positives. I don't see a significant problem and benefits here outweigh the drawbacks. -- JLaTondre 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)