Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive135

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Request for an indefinite protection of Extraterrestrials in fiction article[edit]

Due to persistent vandalism,i hereby place this article Extraterrestrials in fiction on the Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive135 to have it protected indefinitely please,Thanks.Earlymen message me! 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for removal of indefinite block of Keepthefactsinwikiplease (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)[edit]

Hello, AMA advocates Amerique (talk · contribs · logs) and Addhoc (talk · contribs · logs) acting on behalf of Keepthefactsinwikiplease (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have been unable to determine the supposed violations of WP policies that have merited an indefinite block. The blocking admin Nlu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has indicated s/he would not contest someone else reducing the block, however s/he is not personally inclined to reduce this block. In this context, we would be very grateful, if there was a further review of this block. Thank you,--Amerique 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Addhoc 10:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain page move[edit]

There was a survey being taken at Talk:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain as to whether the article at Catholicism in Great Britain should be moved to Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain. As it appeared that there would be no consensus for the move, JzG aborted the vote and moved the article to agree with his own previously stated POV. -SynKobiety 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From the talk page the matter appears more complicated than that; please don't bring half-told content disputes here. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not intend to be misleading. I was just trying to follow the instruction: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes. Are administrators exempt from WP:AGF? I brought this issue here because of what appears to me to be an administrators abuse of privilege. Would another unbiased administrator please look into this? -SynKobiety 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the page history [1] is very suggestive. Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) appears to be move-warring. Furthermore, I'm surprised this is an issue at all. Catholic is ambiguous. Roman Catholic is not. Why is this here again? Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't bring this here to inquire about an administrator's POV about the content: A survey was being conducted to address that. An administrator chose to abort the vote in progress in order to push his POV (one with which Mackensen apparently agrees). Are administrators given the charter to override users when they disagree with the users? -SynKobiety 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
When it comes to matters of common sense and clear factual accuracy, I should imagine they are - that's why the community made them admins. Some catholic churches are seperate from the Roman Catholic Church. If the article is about the Roman Catholic Church and not inclusive of those Catholic churches that do not recognise Rome (and Rome doesn't recognise them!), then there it should remain. Crimsone 04:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What you believe to be common sense and clear factual accuracy may be seen by others as biased POV, whether or not you are an administrator. That is why a vote was being taken. Is an administrator entitled to ignore a vote in progress and impose his own POV? -SynKobiety 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article was moved unilaterally in a copy-and-paste move. I fixed it. One of the editors involved in the move war states on his User page his agenda the "Defense of the Catholic Church in the use of her name". Do not bring your battles to Wikipedia. All other articles on the national RC churches are at Roman (only Canada and Great Britain are out of step with the convention, I started a discussion on moving Great Britain to be consistent with the rest, there is already a discussion at Canada). Voting is evil. The last move created double and triple redirects, most of whicih I think I have also fixed. In other words, I did what an admin is supposed to do: fixed up the mess caused by editors on a mission. Guy 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the concept that "naming conventions of pages" is not subject to a vote. Once a norm has been established that should hold sway. Just because "k.d.lang" likes to downcase her name doesn't mean we should. Just because someone decides that the "Catholic church based in Rome" is the only legitimate one, doesn't mean we do. The standard is "Roman Catholic Church of xxx" and that's what should hold. Don't be a scone. Wjhonson 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually when it comes to personal names we should depict them the way they want. In fact v/v kd lang, it says right at the top of her page that the first initial of her name is cap'd due to 'technical restrictions' in the Wiki software. The 'l' is lowercase. Anchoress 10:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest a 'move lock' would be appropriate here to stop the POV pushing, and move waring. But since I've already expressed opinions on this issue, I won't be the one to do it. 'Catholic' is a ambiguous/contested title - and it is not NPOV for us to describe one denomination as the Catholic Church. Keep it at Roman Catholic, and note that the denomination in question usually self-designates by the contested title. --Doc 10:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I came here because of a procedural issue, which is exactly the kind of thing where I thought adminstrators should hold sway. What I have found is that there are many administrators who feel that their place is to enforce their own POVs instead of enforcing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. There is more consideration about what the policies and guidelines mean among users in the discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Church than has been exhibited here by administrators. Of course, administrator JzG has shut down a survey being conducted there also. He tells us "voting is evil." WP:NCON says otherwise.
The title I gave this section has now been censored twice. It was originally Administrator JzG aborts vote in process. Please excuse me if that violates some procedure, but show me the guideline it violates. -SynKobiety 01:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I too am concerned by an edit by admin. JzG. In this edit [2] this vote was closed prior the announced closing. It included the comment "Thylacoleo's summary at the end of this section sums it up perfectly. Please note: voting is evil." This to me is not the way admins. usually close debates. JzG was strongly involved in the debate. --WikiCats 13:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this is not the first time JzG has done stuff like this. He has abused his administrative powers before. Fresheneesz 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make note of this: Administrator Code of Conduct: Consensus "Wikipedia works by consensus. One of the tasks of an admin is to implement that consensus. As such, if a discussion has led to consensus for a certain version or action, an admin should not ignore that to revert to another version or perform the opposite action, if they prefer that for whatever reason." --WikiCats 14:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Rory096[edit]

Something odd is going on with Rory096 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). If you check his contribution history, he seems to be running a bot to add templates, but then all of a sudden you see these three edits: [3] [4] [5]. It's a very strange looking (at least to me) edit history. There seems to be some past history that I am not aware of. Can somebody look into it? -- Gogo Dodo 04:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He isn't running a bot, just making many minor edits. The other edits are apparently part of some IRC joke. JoshuaZ 04:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. I noticed that Teke just blocked him for 15 minutes. And I did read Rory096's response on his talk page. If this is some joke and admins are involved, I am very disappointed. -- Gogo Dodo 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a joke that admins are involved in. I saw the tail end of Rory acting batty on IRC and discussing these edits, so I hit his shutoff button that's on his userpage. The block was to calm him down. It can be extended if he continues, no problem. Teke (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could get some explanation either here or on IRC for the people who use that method of what is going on here. JoshuaZ 04:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here would be better than IRC; not everybody uses IRC. -- Gogo Dodo 04:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't either but since this seems to be IRC centered I presume it has a chance of being resolved there. JoshuaZ 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Rory was talking about being bored, and then went to do the Cats. Then, randomly, he mentioned his odd edits and in a matter of a minute after looking I went and temp blocked, he said he was going off for a bit. There's really not a whole lot to what happened; it was as quick and confusing on IRC as it was here. As I said I just hit the shutoff once I gathered the pieces that he provided willingly; I invite him to comment further or for another administrator to extend the block if necessary. Teke (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He's just being stupid, and he's keeping it out of the article namespace, so it's not a big deal. Don't make a bigger flap out of this than you have to.--SB | T 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He was making minor edits because he was bored, resulting from a conversation about trolling on IRC. Shadow1 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I have a feeling this isn't about redirect categorization. --Rory096 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is totally unacceptable! Let me suggest that social networking take place on a social networking site. I hear there are many of them to choose from. This is supposed to be an encyclopeida, not a social scene for in which to make "joke" edits out of boredom! There is plenty of realy work to do, and here's a bunch of wasted efforts Pete.Hurd 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This entire thing has been blown completely out of proportion. I made those edits as a joke that affected nothing encyclopaedic. I was in the process of self-reverting when Gogo beat me by a matter of seconds. Nothing malicious happened; my edits were completely harmless. Yes, there's work to do, but that doesn't mean that every editor should be forced to do whatever has to be done every second he's on Wikipedia. Might I remind you that editing, especially editing the encyclopaedia portion, is completely voluntary? There's no harm in edits like those that I made- do we ban "vandalboxes" because anyone editing those isn't editing the encyclopaedia itself? That would be silly, because if we weren't allowed to have a bit of fun here, the rate of editors burning out would almost inevitably go up exponentially. --Rory096 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The wasted time wasn't yours, it was all the people chasing after you trying to figure out what was going on. They could have been doing other things than playing an unwitting part in your joke. Pete.Hurd 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, this has been blown out of proportion. If this was never put on ANI, it would have saved Gogo's time, JoshuaZ's time and your time. As soon as I showed that it wasn't malicious it should have been dropped. --Rory096 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a joke, I was on IRC, User:Jasabella said that his userpage redirected to "Bitch", then Rory actually redirected it, thats all. Just a joke no one died, completely over exaggerated--Coasttocoast 22:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about freaking out over nothing. I like the IRC crowd, I spent a lot of time on there. They do this. A block? You've got to be friggen kidding me. Self professed vandalism to a userpage of two people in a joke? That's the sort of thing that shows how our community interacts, keeps level and has fun, an important part of life. Next time this sort of thing comes up, unless someone actually complains, have some fun yourself. Everytime someone reverts take a shot or something. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For those not on IRC like myself, it was not being blown out of proportion. There was no indication that it was a joke until after I asked about it. Look at it from the point of view of not having the information from IRC: User redirects another user's page to "Bitch" with the comment "vandalism". The targeted user has not edited since July 8. How is somebody not on IRC supposed to figure out that it's a joke? Then the same user makes another vandalism edit with references to an infamous vandal and then returns to sign said vandalism. How else am I supposed to interpret this without any information from IRC? -- Gogo Dodo 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Gogo Dodo is saying some important things that doesn't seem to be getting through. The subtext of the IRC crowd seems to be "look, if you're not on IRC, then you shouldn't be concerned about apparent vandalism, or bot misbehaviour, just leave it to us, the in-crowd, cuz we know what's really going on". Saying things like "I like the IRC crowd, I spent a lot of time on there. They do this." sends the opposite message, something like "hey, we're just a bunch of clowns who should be kept far away from admin tools". Pete.Hurd 16:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"I like the IRC crowd, I spent a lot of time on there. They do this." Makes us sound like clowns who shouldn't have admin bits? Wow, and here I thought IRC was a old, respected protocol used to discuss and further many, many collabrative efforts. Hate to see what you'd say for a RfA where the user admitted to playing solitaire once in a while... -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that under the circumstances it was certainly a good idea to ask me what I was doing. However, once I replied to you and told you it was a joke, there was no need to take it to ANI. --Rory096 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are we still discussing this? There's nothing more to see or fix. It's a waste of time that could be spent fixing actual problems, as I see it. Luna Santin 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to keep adding to the conversation, but I'd like to clarify a few things. First, I think the two admins involved (Teke and JoshuaZ) did a fine job. After they clarified the situation to me, I have no complaints. Second, I put this whole thing on WP:AN/I because at the time, I did not know what you were up to and I thought it would be best to take care of the situation immediately instead of waiting to find out what was going on because you seemed like a bot gone wild to me. While I was typing here, you were replying to me and it was not until after I hit Save did I look at your reply. Finally, I agree that this case is closed. -- Gogo Dodo 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mexican politicians and BLP[edit]

All my previous interactions with administrators have been highly negative, but I'm posting here anyway, just for kicks.

There's an ongoing, lively debate on Vicente Fox (mostly), Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and Felipe Calderón about whether WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPA are policies, or just really bad ideas.

Pgk, Geoffrey Spear, Chacor and Hseldon10 believe I am a "dictator of Wikipedia" [6] for insisting that sources actually support the content. For example, my first edit to Vicente Fox removed a long diatribe about "racist comments" made by Vicente Fox. Notice no references or sources were provided[7]. I removed ([8]) the assertion that Fox's "campaign promised to provide every Mexican a job in Mexico" when the source provided[[9] did not mention this claim or anything close to it. Hseldon reverted those two edits with no explanation[10]. I then removed all and only unsourced content[11]. Hseldon10 then made extensive edits re-adding the content to an amazing assortment of dead links and obscure Spanish-language sources[12] followed by a wonderful edit from Joseph Solis of Australia that completely undid my enforcement of BLP by adding in other unsourced content I had previously removed[13]. I reverted these edits[14]. For the next ten or so edits there was relative peace with Bnguyen adding a reliable source to Fox's controversial comments and I removed a few references linking to blogs - forbidden by WP:RS. The next twenty or so edits consisted of a revert war between Hseldon and various vandal anons over when Fox's term ends. The details are irrelevant. At this point I went through all of Hseldon's "reliable sources" and realized I had been duped. I altered the content to actually reflect the sources here[15], removed a pov eulogy to Fox here[16] that was sourced to Fox's state of the nation speech[17]. I removed several more broken links and obscure Spanish language sources[18]. Since then Geoff Spear and Pgk (twice) have reverted my edits. Chacor is now claiming I'm violating WP:OWN and is demanding an WP:RFC[19]. He refuses to call me by my username and instead refers to me as "yyyyyy." The comments on the talkpage are a wonderful assortment of personal attacks. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, you do realise "yyyyyy" is easier to type than "Ya ya ya ya ya ya", right? Btw, just to point out WP:RFCU - here. Also, this is a content dispute, not an administrative problem. (See also)Chacor 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Chacor is engaging in sockpuppetry, in addition to the myriad of other policy violations. Is this not grounds for blocking? How did this user ever become an administrator? Ya ya ya ya ya ya 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya ya ya ya ya ya blocked 48 hours[edit]

User:Mike Halterman has blocked Ya ya ya ya ya ya 48 hours for WP:POINT for this. – Chacor 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. Ya ya ya was being highly disruptive -- Samir धर्म 03:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User's talk page history - protection? – Chacor 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just noting that the user removed Samir's reason for declining the unblock request he left on his talk page, and left an abusive edit summary. I reverted it, but the change can be found in the link Chacor gave. --Coredesat talk. o_O 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Upped to indef[edit]

Mike has upped it to an indefinite block. Could other admins please review? Cheers. – Chacor 03:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't using the blocking time for what I intended, instead trying to stir up more shit with myself, Chacor, and other editors. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"He wasn't using the blocking time for what I intended"? Are you serious? That's a grounds for an indef, not following your intent? He made three contribs after being blocked. [20] [21] [22]. No legal threats, no threats of violence, just one replacement of the unblock template, some continued incivility, and some personal attacks. A lot of people get angry when they are blocked: you've put them in a little holding pen and many people respond to the shock by lashing out. This level of lashing out on a blocked user's own user page shouldn't be used to justify any block extension, let alone an indef. Reduce the block back to the original length and protect the talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not rolling it back. If someone else wants to do it, they're more than welcome. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason we should allow disruptive trolls to edit. – Chacor 05:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with *that* in general. I'm only able to evaluate so much information at a time; so far, in response to the request to review, I've looked at what's happened since he was blocked 48 hours, under the assumption that the 48 hour block made sense at the time. If it did, then what he's done since then does not justify an extension to indef. Are we saying the original 48 hour block was too lenient and he should have been indef'd from the get-go? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] Indefinite is a long time. He may well have acted in a way that makes us all unwilling to shorten the 48 hour block, but it takes a lot to justify blocking someone indefinitely. Respectfully suggest the original block be restored. Metamagician3000 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done so. He has had constructive edits prior to these and, while I was also angered by his lashing out while blocked, I don't think an indef is warranted based on that alone -- Samir धर्म 05:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, I apologize, but after checking his user talk, why the hell did he want to talk to me? I didn't even do any reversions at pages he editted (IIRC). Ryūlóng 10:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw on WP:3O that people are asking for an informal mediator. When Ya ya ya ya ya comes off his block, I'm willing to lend a hand and maybe try to mediate the content dispute (leaving any personal attacks/whatever else in the hands of the capable administrators here). Captainktainer * Talk 11:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A block is a shock. If a blocked user "lashes out" or "tries to stir up shit" on his talkpage, I suggest you try just looking the other way. Please see my argument in the thread immediately above, concerning a blocked user who reacted a lot more rudely than this one: "Admins have too much power to be so fucking touchy." Bishonen | talk 12:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

This user is apparently, or at least allegedly, Freestylefrappe. From the unblock mailing list:

Ah... the eloquence of the administrator...
A lovely little comment from the administrator who blocked me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=74653272&oldid=74653083
Double standards? Of course.
-Freestylefrappe

++Lar: t/c 13:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The user asked me to look into this. When I did I found that the "content dispute" was over whether WP:BLP applies to completely unreferenced claims that Vincente Fox is a racist and having Wikipedia itself state (rather than attributing it to someone else) that Fox frequently says things which "demonstrate his inexperience or lack of culture." In my judgement... BLP does apply here. To put it mildly. My first thought was to simply delete the page entirely as suggested by BLP, but instead I reverted to a version which seems ok and protected it. Protecting a page you have edited (just that one revert) is bad, but in the circumstances... (with users edit warring to keep the accusations of racism unreferenced and admins upholding it) I thought that page ought to be locked down until this gets sorted out. I have just now seen that I've above been accused of 'bad' admin action (what, no note to my talk page?) for undeleting and expanding an article on a place rather than just re-writing it from scratch... no doubt this will be another example of 'crimes' on my part, but c'mon. We blocked the guy who was trying to add valid references? Like this one... where he replaced a blog ref with one from CNN. But not to worry, after he was blocked they put it back to having no references at all for that section! Yippee! --CBD 14:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
His block has nothing to do with the article. His block was for violating WP:POINT at WP:RFCU. – Chacor 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, someone is going to have to explain that to me. There was an IP edit. You accused him of making it to get around 3RR (which doesn't apply to WP:BLP violations anyway)... he accused you of making it to 'frame' him for such. You requested RFCU's against each other. I see incivility and failure to assume good faith. Where's the WP:POINT violation? -CBD 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The request filed by Ya ya is clearly retaliatory, which checkuser frowns on. Moreover, we'd never accept it anyway, because he was trying to out Chacor's IP address. I wouldn't be surprised if this is FSF, since he pulled the same trick on me last January. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So far as I know it is FSF. He has said as much and I see no reason to doubt it. However, it seems odd that if two users accuse each other of making the same IP edit we only consider the first accusation. Trying to 'out' someone's IP address also doesn't make sense to me. That would only happen if the checkuser performer revealed it... which they wouldn't. --CBD 17:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed we wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact that he asked. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD I don't think any reasonable person would fault you for trying to get Vincente Fox in compliance with BLP, (in fact, full marks!) but this incident doesn't seem to be primarily about that, it seems to be primarily about FSF's behaviour and sockery. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Joehazelton - Violations of 3RR & deceptive edit summary.[edit]

User:Joehazelton has violated the three-revert rule in the Peter Roskam article. This user has been previously blocked two times for multiple violations (3RR & civility).

  1. 9/07/06 #1
  2. 9/08/06 #2
  3. 9/08/06 #3
  4. 9/08/06 #4

I don't have the time to completely review this user's edit history, but I am certain you will find repeated violations.

Also, the edit below provided a deceptive edit summary. It stated removed more list cruft but in fact it added back content which had been deleted based on the objections of two other editors.

I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks. Propol 05:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick review looks like this is an edit war between two sides of an election campaign (2006 Congressional election — Illinois) , with the editors using the articles as campaign platforms:
Both are recent accounts, which seem to be single purpose (2006 Illinois Congressional elections) — ERcheck (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
ERcheck, would you please reexamine the situation. If you review my contributions, you will note that I have made edits to multiple political candidates of both parties from several different states. I have a general interest in politics and my account is by no means a single purpose account. Also, I would like to point out that I have not engaged in edit-warring. I have never been warned, let alone blocked. I always make every attempt to follow Wikipedia rules. On the other hand, User:Joehazelton is clearly a single purpose account, has been blocked twice before, warned dozens of times by other editors and administrators, and as demonstrated by the links above has clearly violated the rules (3RR and abusive edit summary). Also, I disagree with your assessment of my being pro-Duckworth. I have, however, objected to User:Joehazelton including many disparaging items about Duckworth in the Peter Roskam article. Frequently blogs have been used as sources, or negative quotes from Roskam about Duckworth - clearly items not of encyclopedic quality. I stand behind all of my edits. I am not asking anyone to choose sides; I am simply asking for the rules to be enforced! Again, I ask that this user be blocked. I appreciate your consideration. Please help me. I want a high-quality NPOV article. Propol 15:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
ERcheck response:
  • With respect to Propol's response here:
  • Propol's edit history: Propol's first edits were on June 16, with 3rd edit (on same day) to the Peter Roskam article. While there have been edits to a number of other articles, the vast majority are to the Roskam and Duckworth articles. Yes there have been a few edits to other articles — 6 other Illinois candidates, one Kentucky candidate, one Indiana candidate, and the CRNC chairman; 2 Democrats, rest Republican. "Single-purpose" with respect to Duckworth and Roskam may not be the most accurate description; Propol's edits do focus on current political candidates, for the most part in Illinois. Propol's interest appears to be in Illinois and nearby politics and with a focus in Wikipedia on one particular race in which there has been public mudslinging.
  • With respect to edit warring: A definition is "two or more contributors' repeated reverts of one another's edits to an article." Propol and Joehazelton have been reverting each other's edits on the Roskam article. I see 3 reverts (within 24 hours) by Propol of the open letter.
  • Additional comment's on Propol's ANI report:
  • With respect to the 3RR rule, the report reverts, all fall outside of the 24 hour time frame between consecutive reversion. Note: 3RR violations should be reported to WP:AN/3RR.
  • With respect to the "abusive edit summary", the text is "removed more list cruft". Propol's edit summaries include "Revert whitewash", which is no less contentious than "cruft". I don't agree that is is deception (although it was not full disclosure). Joehazelton, while adding some info, did remove a link to a DCCC page criticizing Roskam. AGF, "list cruft" could refer to that link. (In my opinion, that is an inappropriate, biased link.)
  • With respect to the inclusion of blogs (not considered to be reliable sources), you have included Eric Zorn's blog as a reference. Eric Zorn may be a columnist for a mainstream newspaper, but do you know that his blog is subjected to editorial scrutiny and fact checking?
  • Concerning the basic issues here:
  • Content dispute, maintaining NPOV in articles on current Congressional candidates: Please see the Administrators' noticeboard section on Dispute resolution. In reviewing the edits and the talk page discussion, a neutral third party might be of help.
  • Propol and Joehazelton's dispute: There are talk page discussions between the two — none too friendly. Though both editors may have the motive of seeing a fair treatment of candidates, the situation with respect to the Roskham article has become personal. I do suggest that both take a cooling off period from each other.
  • With respect to Joehazelton's conduct: Though some tempers have flared (incivility), he has shown some willingess (see his talk page) to discuss the issues. I'm not willing to block for 3RR for the reported activity. Incivility / personal attacks (by either party) should not be allowed to go unchecked.
ERcheck (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
ERcheck, thanks for taking a closer look at the situation. I have just one minor response to your comments, you noted that I used a blog by Eric Zorn as a source. That is correct; however, this blog was published in the Chicago Tribune and was subject to fact checking and editorial review. Really, it's more of a column than a blog. They only call it a blog because readers can post responses to the article online. I don't think an online response would qualify as a reliable source, but the original article itself does. User:Joehazelton doesn't seem to see the distinction between this and other blogs found out there. This, amongst other issues, has lead to a contentious debate. I assure you that I am trying to work in a collaborative manner, but Joehazelton is really exhausting my patience. I welcome a fresh set of eyes on the article. Thanks. Propol 15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
ERcheck To respond to the Eric Zorn blog, he is a well known Chicago Tribune Journalist with a "hard core" bias towards Dupage County Republicans and has, an aggressive style and philosophy of Advocacy journalism(which in of it self would violate publish Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. I feel that Eric Zorn Blog editorial comments and the spin of facts to try to establish a link of disreputable and unethical behavior is Non sequitur or False Cause as well as just his opinion (Mr. Zorn's) and as such is not under very strong editorial review by the Chicago Tribune and I would classify his website as a blog. I feel Propol addition of this is, spurious and not consistent with Encyclopedic content. Also, in closing, the patronizing and condescending comments of Propol, have not been very AGF.Joehazelton 22:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked user JB196 using AOL sock puppets[edit]

JB196 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) who was indefblocked recently for trouble making, harrassment, insulting of editors and admins and ignoring all warnings has begun to use sock puppets to continue his crusade to get his own articles deleted by spamming citation templates to information he himself posted, most specifically Vic Grimes and Texas Wrestling Academy.

205.188.116.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

152.163.101.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

152.163.100.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I won't go into the saga of JB as it would include just about every admin page, several articles and several talk pages but suffice to say he's never going to learn. –– Lid(Talk) 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

205.188.116.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - new puppet –– Lid(Talk) 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that this notice was blanked by 205.188.116.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) recently who I am assuming is another sock[23]. –– Lid(Talk) 04:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why I forgot this as I though it was odd but before I noticed the changes to the pages I received a test4 warning on my talk page from a random AOL IP for no reason, 205.188.117.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I didn't put 2 and 2 together until now and am assuming it's another puppet. –– Lid(Talk) 04:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, 152.163.100.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) tried blanking this notice [24]. Perhaps yet another sock? --physicq210 05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Another two socks 205.188.117.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 205.188.116.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). –– Lid(Talk) 05:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous 152.163.100.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). –– Lid(Talk) 05:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And more

152.163.100.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

152.163.101.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Also another attempt to blank the section here. I don't think he liked the fact I added the story to WP:LAME[25]–– Lid(Talk) 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It goes on and on and on and on - 152.163.100.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). –– Lid(Talk) 15:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
And yet another blanking: 64.12.116.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). [26] --physicq210 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Instead of listing a bunch of AOL IPs that'll probably just change, can't you just ask for semiprotection on the affected pages? —Whomp t/c 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'm not involved in the dispute, but just reverting and reporting blankings of this notice. Other people/parties are involved in whatever dispute they are having. --physicq210 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Done, but I also think the use of AOL sock puppets by a banned user to the admins needed reporting which is why I posted it here. –– Lid(Talk) 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a report that this was blanked for the fourth or fifth time [27]. –– Lid(Talk) 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Privacy Issue ?[edit]

In User:Essjay/Archives/41 under the heading "User:Compaquser" a real name of a person was written against Wikipedias Privacy Policy and under "The "right to vanish" Policy by User: Kirjtc2 on August 4,2006 . This should be erased as the policy should be enforced. Especially if they have departed Wikipedia . I find this to be a poor repesentation of Wikipedia .--204.225.122.150 23:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you need an admin for? Remove it yourself. --Golbez 01:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No, please don't edit material in other people's User space. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, he removed it anyway. Essjay hasn't been around in a long time and I was about to do it myself, as I think he more or less trust me. I would recommend not reverting unless Essjay wants to himself. It's pretty small potatoes all in all. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Daniel Brandt making anon edits[edit]

69.149.104.45 (talk · contribs) is making talk-page postings claiming to be Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs), who has been banned for legal threats. *Dan T.* 03:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. JoshuaZ 03:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Another one: 69.149.104.17 (talk · contribs) *Dan T.* 05:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And blocked. Would anyone object to a range block of 69.149.104.*? JoshuaZ 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
*looks around* I don't see any objections :) — The Future 07:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP official policy: "While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." This policy appears to be a smokescreen. At the very minimum, there is no enforcement, and no provision for redress if a subject of an article feels that he is prevented from implementing the policy. There are numerous admins on Wikipedia who contend that a banned user who is the subject of an article forfeits this welcome, and has no right to "correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." That makes this BLP a dead letter, and it isn't worth the pixels it takes to display it. Remember, it takes only one admin to ban a user forever. I was banned by Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 because I was trying to explain that a new federal criminal law affects many Wikipedia editors. I appealed my ban to the mailing list and have proof that my appeal was received, but my appeal was ignored. I have been repeatedly reverted while attempting to correct information on my article. --Daniel Brandt 68.90.165.190 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This IP has been temporarily blocked to implement the ban on Daniel Brandt. Gwernol 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on Jews for Jesus[edit]

Could someone (other than admins already involved) pleased review the Jews for Jesus. Most editors haven't violated 3RR, but there's been a lot of edit warring and reverting without discussion. Even some experienced admins appear to be warring there. Justforasecond 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see any issues with our current administrative response. The article is, and will continue to be, a hot button issue for many editors. Our best course of action is to encourage discussion between editors, and invoke appropriate sanctions against those (from either side) who knowingly violate policy. alphaChimp(talk) 05:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I second that. An alternative (or complementary) solution would be to just take it through the dispute resolution process. It seems more like a content dispute, which doesn't really belong on this noticeboard. --physicq210 05:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree Alphachimp. Editors that discuss civilly are fine, but those editors violating policy, such as edit warring or incivility should be sanctioned to prevent this from continuing any further. Justforasecond 05:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To that end, I'd encourage you to report any editors violating policy to the appropriate venue (e.g. WP:AN3). It doesn't matter if said editors are admistrators. alphaChimp(talk) 06:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh I'd be happy to but I couldn't find a noticeboard for edit warring? Justforasecond 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Violations of WP:3RR go to WP:AN3. Pages needing protection from vandalism go to WP:RFPP. You might also be interested in checking out WP:DR. alphaChimp(talk) 06:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks -- is this the correct place for edit warring? (edit warring that doesn't reach the "electrified fence" of 3RR?) Justforasecond 06:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
One doesn't have to make 4 reverts to violate 3RR. WP:3RR mentions that editors skirting around the policy either by using a different account or by reverting exactly 3 times repeatedly may be deemed to be in violation. The policy itself explains it better. WP:AN3 would be the correct place for such reports :) Crimsone 06:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just pulled up the exact quote - The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. --Crimsone 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 evading block again[edit]

Arbcom banned Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back using another anonymous IP at 69.230.41.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- Gogo Dodo 05:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Noticed and dealt with, via another ban reset. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Shangwen Fang[edit]

A new user, Prior400 (talk · contribs), whom I suspect to be Shangwen Fang himself (due to his claims of familiarity with Fang's family history and career), has been removing large chunks of references to a cat abuse incident that Fang became infamous for, while adding POV statements praising Fang. I've removed a large number of them while trying to restore NPOV-ness, but I'd like folks to look at the article as well as the history to see if protect is warranted/necessary. (I do not feel comfortable protecting the article myself.) --Nlu (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's willing to look at this with a different set of eyes -- please also review whether the unsourced sections (that Prior400 introduced, and which I tried to NPOV-ize) should stay at all. --Nlu (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotr Blass[edit]

Piotr Blass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (and anonymously under 69.163.189.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) has been consistantly been recreating articles about himself in the mainspace for the past few months, beginning with Piotr Blass, going to Piotr blass, and currently at Piotrek Blass and now and Piotrus Blass. Something needs to be done about this editor, who has recreated this article over nine ten times, once after userfying, and once after an AFD. This is getting ridiculous now. Ryūlóng 06:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldn't he be warned (if not blocked) for blatant disruption? --physicq210 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)¢
I have just done so now. Ryūlóng 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kyereh Mireku[edit]

Kyereh Mireku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has once, again, tried to get a bot created, including making a userpage for it, even when it is not even registered or scripted, or approved in anyway on WP:BOT. This time, it is User:MayorBot. Ryūlóng 08:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find any evidence of User:MayorBot, account actually being created so I've tagged the page User:MayorBot for speedy deletion.--Andeh 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
God...Now he's gone back and made another pointless template. This kid is way too young to be doing much of anything on Wikipedia; he has not been listening to our warnings, and continues to edit unconstructively. Ryūlóng 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Google bug sufferer requests assistance[edit]

Could someone revert the Jainism article, which has in the last few minutes has been vandalized, my browser has the google bug problem, so unfortunately, I'm unable. Thanks, Addhoc 12:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Addhoc 13:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Entry for St Mary the Virgin, Ewell[edit]

Please ring me to discuss the wiki entry for the church on <phone number redacted> It would be appropriate to delete this, once actioned.

Thanks

Church Webmaster

Is this about the vandalism to Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell and Organ of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell by a now-banned user? If so, that has been fixed. Guy 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I did notice an uncited negative statement on the page about the organ, which I removed. Demiurge 14:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the phone number quickly. (I'm not an admin so I won't do it myself.) Newyorkbrad 14:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Stalking incident, Need immediate help[edit]

I have a SERIOUS stalking problem. A user, User:Peartdrumsticks,who started as a GIPU, and then registered, who kept adding a commercial link to the page Rush (band) and Neil Peart, and whose links were repeatedly reverted out, began confronting the editors removing it, on their pages. I asked him to stop, because he was acting quite hostile. He re-edited a single comment time after time to reflect whatever new wording he wanted to use to seem innocent, even after I'd replied. When told how to communicate on a wiki talk page, with multiple entries, he became MORE hostile, and told me he'd edit however he wanted. I told him I was done talking about the issue because of his hostility, and I placed all his harrassment into a single archive, found here User_talk:ThuranX/Special_archive_1. He was asked again to stop, and I continued to add his material to this archive. things kept getting worse, and I decided the best thing would be to tell him that anythign further would result in me seeking administrative help. I soon had to, and went here Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Harassment. This still wasn't enough. This mornign I received an E-mail from him. He titled it 'Batman', and the message body was 'hello ThuranX' and a big smiley face. I can ONLY take this as a serious and possibly criminal stalking action, as it means he had to track down my alias by searching the internet for ways to find and contact me. The 'batman' reference I believe refers to his 'detective skills.' He has requested total removal from Wikipedia under the 'right to vanish' policy. I take this entire action as a criminal act of stalking, and I want to know HOW I can deal with a wikipedian so angry he can't make money here that he's taken to stalking me outside of Wikipedia. I also do NOT want his account entirely deleted, so that if needed, the material is available for law enforcement research purposes. Please respond promptly, because I'd really rather not have to go to the local police for assistance with this stalker. Thank you. ThuranX 15:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I still need help, he now has found my real name, my address, and is attempting to sue me for discussing his harrassing behaviors. I'll wait another couple hours, then repost all of this on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Again, please help. ThuranX 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Is an admin addressing this situation? It might be best dealt with off-wiki, but it shouldn't be overlooked as seems might possibly be happening. Newyorkbrad 23:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Peartdrumsticks claimed he was leaving the wiki and had his userpage and talk page deleted. Since he continued to mess wtih ThuranX's archive pages, supposedly in the spirit of m:Right to Vanish, I blocked his account indef to help him with his going away. I'm continuing to receive emails which have escalated to threating, all caps and lots of bold text and colors. On wiki, he seems to have been stopped; I'd suggest ThuranX block his email address to avoid further distress. Shell babelfish 00:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Indef Banned editor[edit]

Hello Admins, the banned editor User:Tallboydoctorpepper and User:Tallboydoctorpepperthesecond has surfaced again as the imaginatively monikered User:Tallboydoctorpepperthethird and has already indulged in some minor vandalism. Rockpocket 18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Naconkantari 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

User is refusing to talk[edit]

User:KarlBunker reverted my good faith edits to telepathy, and deleted my message asking why. He reverted me agian, violating 3RR, whitch I'll report later. If he refuses to talk and continues to POV Push, what can I do? -- Selmo (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We have ways of making him talk. Seriously, though, I believe short blocks can be handed out to stubbornly uncommunicative users. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And this is on telepathy? Maybe he's trying to make a point... Tom Harrison Talk 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Somebody try and contact the two parties telepathically to work it out! *Dan T.* 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've left him a polite note telling him to discuss the conflict, hopefully he doesn't remove that one, too. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sargonious' vandalism/trolling[edit]

Can someone please block Khoi Khoi (talk · contribs) and Shazuko (talk · contribs)? It appears that both of these users are sockpuppets of Sargonious (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked by FayssalF for a week. During his block, he has continued to evade it almost every single day... I'd just appreciate it if some admin action could be taken here. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Both done Jaranda wat's sup 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was really fast. I also think it's high time that someone look into Sargonious being blocked for a longer period of time, as he clearly hasn't improved his behavior since last week... —Khoikhoi 18:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Guillen, WP:NLT, WP:NPA[edit]

Please see [28] and Special:Contributions/Guillen. This use has been blocked before for personal attacks and is back at it again. His repeated attacks on my faith are getting old. Could I request that an administrator deal with it accordingly? BigDT 19:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked indef, was an sock master, and came back for obvious personal attacks, just an troll. Jaranda wat's sup 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

911 article[edit]

you better change that last sentence ASAP !!!!


The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks were planned and carried out by the United States government.

Misuse of policy template for questionable proposed policy[edit]

A proposed policy, and yet in userspace: User:Kelly_Martin/Policy_council. When the template has been removed by three consecutive editors, Kelly has replaced it each time.

Kelly having a history of unilateralism when it comes to policy since wikimania, the proposed policy is alarming enough on it's own, seeking to limit who creates policy and how policy is amended, while being drafted in userspace away from an unsuspecting community and proper community input, but it gets worse when one considers that recent IRC discussion on this topic at #wikipedia Kelly proposed that all policy needs to determined by a small group of policy makers in face-to-face meetings funded by the foundation, and away from the community and its' input, led by Kelly Martin and Kim Bruning. Viewed in this light, Kelly ignoring calls for this proposed policy to be placed in the Wikipedia namespace, then edit warring to keep its' proposed policy template while hidden away from community review is simply unacceptable. I'd like to hear what regulars here have to say about this before I try to remove the template again. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 23:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly should not edit war, even in her userspace- this cannot simultaneously be a proposal AND a page that only she can edit. However, I don't see that what namespace it's in is a big deal. Discussions of the merits of this (IMO appalling) proposal belong elsewhere, of course. Friday (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems a somewhat pointless edit war. If this proposal is to be put before the community, then it'll obviously need to be publicized, so there's no problem with letting it sit in her userspace for the time being. Conversely, if this were to be a fait accompli from the WMF, the location of the proposal wouldn't matter in the least—so there's still no problem with leaving it in userspace. Kirill Lokshin 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. The Land 23:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of where it is, it needs to be discussed and other people have to be allowed to edit it, so I suggest that Kelly moves it to project space so that a discussion can begin. The Foundation would presumably want to know the strength of feeling about it, Kirill, if they were to involve themselves in any way, so that's why it needs to be in project space, or at least publicized and open for editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If it were a fait accompli from the WMF, community participation would not be an issue. It's a fait accompli from Ms. Martin that I'm concerned about. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering the level of community involvement being proposed—elections, WMF support, that sort of thing—I think that concerns about this being imposed by any single individual are somewhat far-fetched. (At the very least, there would need to be enough support from the stewards to get rid of the dissenting admins! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh for heaven's sake. Please stop removing the "proposed" tag from what is, wherever it may be in Wikipedia's namespaces, clearly a policy proposal. This is an utterly ridiculous and petty little squabble. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm about as worried about all this as I am an invasion of Michigan's Upper Peninsuala by Canada. People work up policy ideas in their userspace all the time. The assumptions of bad faith flying around here are staggering. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • So what exactly is the problem with people being reminded that "This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy""? Demiurge 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing whatsoever. I'm in favor of it being marked as such. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk about a tempest in a teakettle. It's a subpage of Kelly's userspace. What does it matter whether it's labelled a proposed policy or not? Stop reverting Kelly in her userspace. --Cyde Weys 23:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy template is not being misused, so it should be left alone. There is nothing wrong with her drafting a proposed policy in her userspace. If you think the policy itself is questionable, then question it. Mexcellent 00:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Response[edit]

I'm still very confused about all this. This is a policy proposal under development. The {{proposal}} tag specifically covers this possibility. I really can't come up with a rational reason for the passionate insistence that it is wrong for a draft page in user space to have the {{proposal}} tag. And given some of the comments above, I find it extraordinarily hard to assume that the objections being levied at the mere existence of this proposal are truly offered in good faith -- especially the charges of "unilateralism" and of attempting to engineer a personal "fait accompli" for a proposal that would create a majority-elected body whose principal function is to recommend policy to the community. I did say that I would seek to get Kim Bruning drafted to the council.

I've already told the people who are so vehemently objecting to it being in user space that they can move it. Radiant! removed the tag in what appears to be me to have been "good faith" because it appeared to have been "stale". He was mistaken, however, and I reinstated the tag and solicited preliminary comment from a variety of people. Some of those comments have been fruitful (thanks, Alison), and have led to what I think is a better proposal. However, I was not quite ready to take it fully "public"; I should think that that should be a choice I get to make (but apparently not). So, I invite anyone who feels that this proposal should be debated in full now, before I've decided to move it for discussion, is free to move it to an appropriate page in Wikipedia: space.

Oh, and FeloniousMonk, this proposal in no way limits how policy may be created or changed. I suggest you reread the proposal, as you are clearly mistaken about that. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no issues with why {{proposal}} should'nt be used in the user namespace. El_C 00:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
But isn't there an issue with an edit (which Kelly later says seems to have been a "good faith" edit) being reverted with the edit summary "kindly stay out of my userspace"[29] when the page is described as a proposed policy? AnnH 01:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. The editor in question is quite capable of negotiating on this with Kelly. There's no need to bring every piddling little spat to this forum, which is already groaning with serious problems requiring actual administrator attention. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, if I wasn't assuming good faith, I'd say this sounds a lot like a 'let's get Kelly for this' thread. --Doc 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly protests that she does not understand why people are upset, and she, and many others, present this as a conflict over the placement of a proposed policy tag. These people are missing the point. What is at stake here is very simple - the degree to which transparency and equal participation are core values at Wikipedia. Like many others, I believe that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and a semi-anarchic wiki-community second. Nevertheless, it is our being a semi-anarchic wiki-community that distinguishes this from all other encyclopedias. And participation and transparency are essential to the integrity of the wiki-community. This is the issue. I and many others feel that Kelly's proposal would represent a major move away from these values by creating a small, institutionalized group with excessive power. Many of us feel that there should be some limits to editing policy pages, but placing them in the hands of a small group goes against the essense of Wikipedia. I and others like JoshuaZ have stated these objections (politely, I believe) on the proposed policy talk page. But the problem goes deeper. The way in which Kelly has forwarded this proposal is emblematic of the thing I and others so dislike about the policy - by placing it in her namespace rather than a wikispace, she is suggesting ownership of the space in which the discussion of the policy is to take place. I think this is why so many people felt that it was inappropriate to designate this as an official proposal as long as it was in her userspace. No one has advocated any kind of censorship - simply the position that if it is in her userspace it should not be considered an official poroposal yet, and if she is ready to make it an offical proposal it should be moved to a Wikipedia space. I suggest that people care about this so much is not because the placement of a tag is such a big deal, but rather it served as a metaphor, a symptom, of the greater issue, to what extent is does wikipedia belong to everyone or just a few. The way Kelly responded to these concerns just confirms the validity of these concerns - she was dismissive of any criticism or request to handle it a little differently. Again, this is the opposite of the wikipedia spirit where no one owns an article or a policy, and people should deal with one another in good faith in order to facilitate the collaborative process of wikipedia. Kelly's actions suggest a disregard for these values. Someone has criticized SlimVirgin for bringing up an IRC conversation, but in fact this IRC conversation once again illustrated the danger in Kelly's approach, because the IRC conversation lacks the ease of access and transparency of a discussion on a talk page. Kelly told me that she had not been keeping the proposal a secret and has been discussing it for nearly amonth. Really? How many people have been participating in this discussion? Where is it? If you look at the talk page of the proposed policy, which is where all this discussion ought to take place, more than half of the discussion is from today, not from the past four weeks. Hardly evidence of a transparent process and a discussion over policy with broad participation. This is the issue, folks, not whether a tag belongs on the page or not, that is just symbolic of the real issue, which is Kelly's disregard for the transparency and participatory and inclusive ideals of the wikicommunity, ideas her very proposal would subvert. As our community grows we increasingly face two challenges, the increased incidence of vandalism and trolls on the one hand, and new efforts to create more bureaucracy and a less open process and concentrated contol in the hands of a few. The former is a real problem, but the latter is not the solution / it is an equally dangerous problem Slrubenstein | Talk 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, so who decides precisely when we stop being transparent. If I work out a policy idea in my head, is that too far? What if I transfer it to paper and solicit ideas from several friends who are Wikipedians, am I going to get my own thread where everyone accuses me of sneaking behind their back? The fact is, it doesn't matter what state the policy/guideline is in, the community can comment and make changes when they get a hold of it. Shell babelfish 04:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
SlR, I agree with much of what you say, but I think in this particular case, the proposal draft will have to be proposed on the project page at some point, anyway. At that point, equale participation can commence. We don't have tags for unofficial proposals, so I don't see any harm in it being listed as a proposal. It will __not__ be ratified, however, as policy straight from her userpage and onto the project page (!). It will undergo the same length of discussion on the project page as any other proposal, even if there is an influx of support from those comfortable enough to edit her userspace (and I am not among them). El_C 04:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. I would never have guessed that by creating a policy proposal draft in plain sight in my user space, I exhibited "disregard for the transparency and participatory and inclusive ideals of the wikicommunity". I had no idea that drafting proposals in the plain light of day was so subversive. I shall endeavor in the future that I am more careful to ensure that any proposals I might make are drafted entirely in private and discussed solely through backchannels, lest I find myself acting in a manner that does not further transparency, broad participation, or inclusiveness. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you are not being shown sufficient good faith. You placed it in the category, which leaves it open to review and editing by interested parties; it appears that you attempted to make changes to the article based on others' feedback, which is in keeping with the wiki spirit. I am fairly confident that, if someone made a productive content-related edit, you would have allowed the edit to stand. Bear in mind, however, that making a claim on something in your userspace that is, in theory, being brought to the notice of the community through the proposed policy/guideline/whatever category was not likely to make many fans; I don't think you meant "stay out of my userspace" quite the way it's being taken, but for various reasons certain segments of the community are not willing to assume as much good faith as one might wish. But really, as long as you're willing to foster discussion on the talk page and consider useful edits to the policy, I think people should just chill a little. I also hope that you were being sarcastic about moving proposal drafts off-wiki; that would be a sad end to this little tale. Captainktainer * Talk 07:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
AGF is not suicide. Kelly has, in fact, acted with disdain, lack of transperency, and unpredictability toward established editors fairly recently, so the concern that she will attempt to do something ... shall we say unexpected with the draft on account of it being a {{proposal}}, is not entirely unreasonable. While I, myself, do not share those concerns, I am able to understand the basis for these. El_C 10:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So, wait a moment. You're telling me that there are people who hold some belief that I have some unique, unexplained ability to change policy, perhaps via some sort of eldritch superpower? And that the current hue and cry is out of paranoid fear that I might inexplicably exercise this alleged superpower so as to cause my proposal to be implemented without discussion and against the wishes of the community? I'm flattered. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't be. I think there are those who think there might be an attempt to circumvent in some way the normal processes of policy proposal. This does not imply success, but it does imply conflict. As mentioned, I don't share those fears in this case. El_C 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't that, essentially, the crux of the allegations at the recent images-related RfC? That particular incident, I think, illustrates the effects of (and, for some, a source of) that particular fear of unilateralist action. In that particular case you formulated a policy and acted on it, claiming (and receiving) support from discussions at Wikimania. It was at least perceived as a unilateralist action. You explained why that wasn't necessarily the case, but that central lack of congruence in editing styles- "edit first, form consensus later" versus "form consensus first, edit later" - is, in my opinion, one of the reasons for the suspicion and interference in this case. Captainktainer * Talk 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The recent RfC regarding fair use abuse was the result of a combination of people who don't understand how policy is made on Wikipedia, people who dislike (or even fear) me personally, people who like to throw rocks at admins for doing what admins do, and people who just like a good fight. In any case, in that instance I was purportedly criticized for acting without consensus. In this instance, I am being criticized for attempting to build consensus. If people are going to criticize me whatever I do, I may as well do whatever I want and simply ignore the criticism, which in this instance seems even more baseless than it was on the fair use abuse RfC; at least there there were some vaguely credible complaints regarding civility. Here it's just a blatant display of the assumption of bad faith on the part of a small but vocal group who seem to be in abject fear of my purported extraordinary power to alter policy on the English Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Kelly, I tried to stay out of that RfC and I thought your policy suggestion was a good one. However your attempted method of constructing the tightened fair use policy was unilateral and unnecessarily divisive. Furthermore, many established editors expressed concern over that behavior and it is unreasonable to dismiss them all as "combination of people who don't understand how policy is made on Wikipedia, people who dislike (or even fear) me personally, people who like to throw rocks at admins for doing what admins do, and people who just like a good fight". And while I do see the concern here to be at best a minor policy issue, the users who have pointed out that this is symptomatic of a larger problem may be correct. In general if you approached things in a more diplomatic way we might get a lot more accomplished without these long, drawn out dramas. JoshuaZ 07:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you don't get it. I could be more diplomatic, yes, but then I'd be far less effective. I'm actually very effective in accomplishing what I want to accomplish. Yes, it's true, typically any effort on my part to accomplish anything is surrounded by a huge mass of drama. None of that has any impact on my effectiveness, though, and it's not even really a disincentive for me. I personally actually find the drama rather amusing, and I think it's beneficial for Wikipedia in the long run, too, because it exposes the drama queens to the community so that the rest of us know who not to trust. I'm apparently being stalked by dozens of editors who apparently have nothing better to do but look for things to go after me for -- and they will come up with things to go after me for no matter how diplomatically I do it. It's certainly not reasonable to require an editor to stop editing simply because other editors are stalking him or her, looking for opportunities to create drama. Seriously, do you really think I'm at fault here simply because I created a policy proposal draft in my user space? Kelly Martin (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You'd first have to try being diplomatic, or else I think it's hardly credible for you to so confidently proclaim how successful being undiplomatic is working out. Thus, drama is a double-edged sword that may indeed follow from that approach. But, as for finding drama beneficial: we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to agitate, expose, be amused by, etc., real or imagined drama queens. Which is why it is important to communicate in straight forward and clear manner, with a helpful, friendly tone. El_C 04:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) It is perfectly valid to create a draft of a proposal for a policy under user space and I don't see any benefit in pressing Kelly to do it off wiki. Some concerns this draft may rise is it's inclusion into Category:Wikipedia proposals due to the template tag. Maybe the proposal tag could be substed and then the cat inclusion disarmed. Or we might change template:proposal in such a way that it doesn't add pages to Category:Wikipedia proposals if they are in userspace (can be done with m:ParserFunctions). An example of a namespace dependent activation of category inclusion can be seen in the code for temlate tfd. --Ligulem 07:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the real issue here is that some people are simply afraid of me having anything to do policy at all, and start banging gongs and drums as soon as they see me sneaking up on a policy page. (Although, oddly enough, nobody reverted or even commented on my reorganization of the blocking policy the other day. Did I really sneak that one in under the radar?) Frankly, it's getting old. Don't we have policies against stalking? Kelly Martin (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this page serves no harm, perhaps after working on it a while Kelly will see there is no point in finishing it or abandon it all together. It can be on userspace because kelly is unsure if they even want to proceed with prosoing it. I say leave it for now, eventually the community will have a say, I doubt they will decide to give away their power anyway. --User:Zer0faults 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the proposal itself (see positive and negative aspects), but I don't see any harm in 'where it currently resides'. Always seemed kind of a weak issue even on the 'article space shortcuts' and 'userboxes in template space' debates to me. Does it really matter what it says to the left of the colon in the page title? If/when the proposal 'goes active' for community discussion we can discuss. Until then it's a proposal in progress and arguing over whether it should have to wait until 'left of the colon' says 'Wikipedia' before having the proposal template on it seems like quibbling over the minutiae IMO. --CBD 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem, CBDunkerson, is that that page is now featured in Category:Wikipedia proposals. If it is such, it needs to be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. If it is only Kelly's sandbox, then it should not be listed under that category. All Kelly needs to do is to remove the category from the subst'ed template. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
How exactly is that a problem? 65.127.231.6 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not clear on that, either. My proposal is, in fact, a proposal in development, and I don't see why it's wrong for it to appear in a category for such entities. Perhaps if I were obsessive-compulsive (or just anal-retentive) over things like what appears in a category, I might feel differently. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
What kind of weird process wonkery says that policy proposals under development have to be in a particular namespace? Why? Where's the common sense behind that? Does anyone seriously believe that people's User: namespace implies ownership? I admit that I utterly fail to understand any objection to the location of this proposal, and I think anyone objecting to its location should keep their eye on the prize, and drop that objection like a bad habit. It's utterly unproductive. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Besides, it's moved now, so everyone's happy, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
THIS IS BLOODY RIDICULOUS. Let Kelly have her userspace page for a proposed policy, and let me have my userspace page for proposing an alternative to RfA. This does not belong on ANI, and looks like little more than a lynch mob. — Werdna talk criticism 06:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur... If this wasn't a lynchmob, nobody would have even NOTICED it in her userspace. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any spelling or grammatical errors on the page? —Centrxtalk • 07:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I agree that she can develop whatever proposals she wants in her own userspace. If she ever seeks to get them accepted by others she'll have to move them somewhere else, if she hasn't already done so by now, and then there'll be plenty of opportunity for people to oppose, support, suggest amendments, ignore, or whatever they want to do. I'm not sure why this is considered a big deal by anyone. Metamagician3000 09:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no lynch mob. There is simply a few editors who believe that the "proposed policy" tag should be added only after the proposer has worked it through enough to his/her satisfaction that it could be moved from the proposer´s user page to a wikipedia page. That´s all. Some people reject this view as unnecessary - well, okay. But just because we disagree on this doesn´t make one group (or the other) a lynch mob. As for drama queens, in this entire discussion I see only one, Kelly Martin. So, she has had her day (or two) as a minor center of attention. I hope she enjoyed it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD reverses valid DRV decision[edit]

Now going completely against the policy he claims to be inviolable, CBD has recreated Bad Eisenkappel out of process even though it was deleted and then had its deletion unanimously endorsed at DRV. Evidently it is ok for him to ignore process, but not for anyone else. pschemp | talk 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears CBD did the correct thing. The town does exist, right? El_C 00:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This should be a fairly simply one. If there is really a town called Bad Eisenkappel at those approximate coordinates, then obviously Deletion Review got it wrong. If not, then CBD is being a bit overkeen. And yes, fuck process. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, the article is now significantly longer than, Eisenkappl (slov. Zelesna Kapla) is located in Austria in Völkermarkt (district)., which was the entirety of the previous article. Dragons flight 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why this article should not exist. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with what CBD did. DRV is not infalliable. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason he should be complaining about other people's out of process deletions and technicalities then as was done earlier this week. Good to know. pschemp | talk 01:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What an odd series of events. Nice article. --Zer0faults 01:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have asked the user not to violate WP:POINT again in a casual manner. --Zer0faults 01:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not point, I beleive the article should remain deleted. pschemp | talk 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is that? I am sorry your reason an article on a real town should be deleted is because CB did it out of proccess, however thats not a AfD appropriate reason. If this was deleted by accident and missed in review, then why exactly should it return to deleted status? --Zer0faults 01:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He also called not one but two people trolls [30] (edit summary) which according to him is a personal attack and admin abuse. --W.marsh 01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. What happened to assuming good faith? I think Pussy Galore probably meant ever word sincerely. pschemp | talk 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Whats this have to do with the DRV? --User:Zer0faults 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I can start a new topic then if it bugs you so much. Maybe I should go back and resection all those long conversations up there where someone goes off on a different subject? I wouldn't want anyone to be confused. pschemp | talk 01:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If there is a complaint about a personal attack the proper forum is WP:PAIN --User:Zer0faults 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about a personal attack, its about a double standard. Or do you think its ok for CBD to tell people not to use the words trolls and trolling, and then do it himself after lambasting wmarsh for doing it? If you do that's fine, you are allowed. pschemp | talk 01:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You said this was about the town, the section is, a user above then complains about the usage of the words troling to describe them, thats WP:PAIN. I am not sure about the confusion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Zer0faults, please change back your sig as you did above — so that my sigh of relief wouldn't be for naught. El_C 01:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that the out of process restoration is not the big issue here, really, although the article is not worthy of life. What matters more to me is that it's a demonstration of what we've all been saying, no one is perfect. CBD would do well to remember htat and perhaps cut his fellow admins a little slack instead of attacking them on the talk pages of disruptive users. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV endorsed the deletion not because it wasn't a real town, but because the article was effectively contentless. I've re-deleted it. I won't do it again, of course, but my suggestion would be that if this town is deserving of a real article, that someone actually write a real article, rather than a stub that says "X is Y." If no one can be bothered to actually do that, then I really can't be bothered to cry crocodile tears over the poor abused baby article, cut down in the prime of its life. Nandesuka 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming the town dosen't exist? El_C
This is rather strange. If the town exists, why not let the article exist? Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, DRV said make it larger. CBD already made it 3 times larger than what DRV endorsed, and I would have happily said it was a border community with a population of about 2800 [31]. Dragons flight 01:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
nevertheless Nandesuka got it in one. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I also have some content to add, however I am not sure if its already noted as the article is deleted. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ye gods. This is another non-issue. The town exists; therefore its article should stay. Please find another forum to crusade against short articles. — Dan | talk 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was restored by Rdsmith4, who beat another admin (not me) to the draw. Please stop pointlessly deleting this article. It isn't going to work. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Rdsmith edit-conflicted my undelete. ;-) The town exists, and there is absolutely no reason we shouldn't have an article on it. It is really that simple. This is not a valid CSD G4 or WP:SALT candidate. As said before, this should be a non-issue. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The point you are missing here all is that the original author of the article had MONTHS to recreate it with content, at which point no one would have complained. However, he refused to until he got his way with the original article being restored. Indeed he spent those months whining and complaining about admin abuse rather than writing a decent article. And now, by restoring it, and writing it for him, we have sent the message that that kind of behaviour and manipulation is ok. pschemp | talk 01:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You should be happy that Wikipedia did not lose an important article on an actual location, if anything this drama helped expand an article. I am happy when Wikipedia grows in content in general. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[Zer0faults, see sig comment above] We do not make such a point at the expense of the encyclopedia, on a town entry, pschemp. El_C 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually it was Tobias who refused to rewrite it not me. If anything his refusal to do it until he got his way is what hurt the encyclopedia. Note also I didn't vote to delete the original. I objected to the ignorange of process when just this week CBD blasted me for not following it perfectly. the article is just an example of this. pschemp | talk 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)pschemp | talk 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So this is entirely personal issue. Accordingly, please take it to the relevant user talk pages, and discontinue this conversation. — Dan | talk 02:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Should I go remove all the other personal issues posted on this page too? Though I hardly think an admin behaving badly is a personal issue as its discussed at lentgh in threads up above where I was accused of not being perfect. pschemp | talk 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The point here to me is merely this... we all make mistakes and we ought not to rail about failure to follow process in one instance and then fail to follow it in another. Better to have some balance and not be so quick to judge other editors, which point I think is lost now. Hopefully CBD will realise that, and cut more people more slack. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sorry edited a few after Tony did, just havent edited the actual settings yet, 2 minutes, thanks for reminder. --User:Zer0faults
What's wrong with an article about a place that says "X is a village in Y at Z?" For heaven's sake, this is a place. It was probably here before we were born, and it will probably still be here when we're all dead. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeping this is a no brainer. This is exactly why we should not let silly squabbles get in the way of the encyclopedia, which I remain convinced is around here somewhere. Friday (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely we have a name for short articles on places - {{stub}}s, or possibly even {{geo-stub}}s. Are you arguing that they should all be deleted? What is wrong with a short article on a place that actually exists? -- ALoan (Talk) 05:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing, as long as the "place" isn't, say, one guy's house! :) Xoloz 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi - DRV closer here. The deleted article didn't even bother to "X is Y"; it said "X is in...", but didn't even bother calling the place a "town", or calling it anything at all. If someone has a draft now in good faith calling this a town, that's fine IMO. The DRV does not then apply. Xoloz 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Xoloz, please don't take my action as an implication that your DRV close was improper. You followed the clear consensus and it wasn't clear that the article was about a town... unless you are familiar with German place names like Bad Mergentheim, Bad Lausick, et cetera. I just couldn't imagine that anyone would object to an expanded article on an encyclopedic subject once sufficient info were added to address such concerns. --CBD 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
We definitely need DRV closers who are prepared to admit that they have brains and that on occasion the use of a brain is not only unavoidable but desirable. . --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The DRV was shot down unanimously because of blatant WP:POINT. Only a couple of days earlier the same editor used DRV as a soapbox to attack admins and editors over the deletion of a Pilcomayo Department microstub. When I actually created an article on the department to stop the stupidity it turned out that it took me 14 researched edits to revert the damage the editor had wreaked in 30 seconds. This was quite properly closed by Xoloz. ~ trialsanderrors 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And quite properly recreated by CBD, who was willing to expand the article on a real place. -- SCZenz 10:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. ~ trialsanderrors 15:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv and Peter Tatchell[edit]

I know it has been going on for a while, but User:Dbiv is editing Peter Tatchell despite the ban imposed by ArbCom. The editing is happening right now, and User:Calton is reverting; he is also saying some things in edit summaries he perhaps shouldn't. User:Freakofnurture is reverting as well, although he is not being so harsh in his edit summaries (he is using rollback).

I am not taking sides on this issue, but 1. Dbiv's edits are undoubtedly useful to the article 2. Dbiv is undoubtedly in direct violation of ArbCom's ruling and 3. There is an revert/edit war going on right now. Someone braver (and with protection/blocking tools at their disposal) than me might want to go and sort out what is happening. Batmanand | Talk 15:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a tension here. We've been put in the ridiculous position of reverting good edits. I never saw why the article ban was necessary and it's clear that we're actively harming the encyclopedia by keeping it in place. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally, in the next few minutes, 3RR violations might well happen from both users. Batmanand | Talk 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The only "edit war" going on here is blind canceling out of David Boothroyd's (User:Dbiv) positive contributions. While it is a bit understandable that editors want to help enforce an ArbCom decision it strikes me as more sensible to merely mention Dbiv's editing of the article somewhere (ie: here) rather than just blindly edit out his beneficial edits. In the interest of full disclosure I happen to generally disagree with the ArbCom decision to ban Dbiv from editing this article for a year. A better solution (imho) would be to have placed him on revert patrol for the article. (Netscott) 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I find it to be a dark and scary road when we start deciding which arbcom decisions we ought to ignore. For the record, I've also warned Carlton for his part in this, and may issue a brief 'cool down' block shortly. --InShaneee 15:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tony Sidaway's comments below. Are adminstrators obliged to enforce every ArbCom decision? Obviously there will be those who will say yes but if in ignoring all rules an editor is benefiting the encyclopedia why should they be penalized? Also just as an editor can be banned under "community patience" logic, why not have the inverse apply? (Netscott) 16:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I would ask why can the issue of a lifting of their previous decision simply be brought up to the Arbs instead? --InShaneee 16:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It was. Batmanand | Talk 16:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. Though that link does raise some interesting points. --InShaneee 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Previously Tony Sidaway spoke about David being a positive contributor that the project would suffer to see him leave (a statement that I agree with). This whole story goes hand in hand with that. (Netscott) 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is now lacking references because of the reverts. This is beyond absurd. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) I've currently blocked Dbiv for one week and noted so on his ArbCom page. If the ArbCom would like to rollback their decision, I'll be more than happy to unblock. --InShaneee 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • For my part, I've re-added the references, in the interests of promoting the encyclopedic quality of an article. I would note that I'm not presently under any kind of sanction, at least none that I'm aware of. Mackensen (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I decided this morning, after giving Dbiv a warning, to stop trying to enforce this remedy. Administrators aren't required to enforce arbitration remedies, and in my view if I performed such enforcement in this case I would not be improving the encyclopedia, but probably making it worse. Ignore all rules applies here. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
But the question surely is this: would you, or anyone else who disagreed with the remedy (or at least have stopped enforcing it) actively revert someone who reverted Dbiv's edits? Or would you reinsert them as "yourself" (as opposed to a rollback)? Or are you going to just stay out of the whole sordid affair? It's a toughie... Batmanand | Talk 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That's also a question of politness--rolling back a sysop is beyond rude (although we've all done before, as a survey once showed). Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
They're good contribs, there's no arguing that. I'm all for putting back in what belongs there. --InShaneee 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't revert to retain well sourced, neutral and balanced information inserted by User:dbiv. I wouldn't revert to avoid retaining it either. I wish he would place his information on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 16:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Since he is currently blocked, I'm adding the following text from Dbiv's talk page:

Since the axe of the Arbitration finding fell I have continued to edit the article, and no-one has actually criticised the substance of my edits. They have all been accepted in the article. I am not going to put edits through a 'filter' of the talk page; such a suggestion is an insult given that I wrote most of what's there in the article at the moment, and it's also pointless given the fact that no-one outside the Arbitration Committee seems to believe I will actually be disruptive. (The Arbitration Committee itself has refused to offer any true explanation of the article ban, however). Even if they do believe that I might be disruptive, then there are mechanisms in place which allow control - article-specific probation, or even general probation - w