Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive308

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Qestion about article name change[edit]

I was working on an article Zaojing (which was a DKY) as part of a group of specifically Chinese terminology for a group of architecture articles I am writing. Now another person took the contents out of the article, put the contents in his article and essentially deleted the article I wrote. He did this with no discussion and against my will. Is there a correct way of handling this situation, as his article is not the same as the purpose of my original article which is to build a library of Chinese architectural terms? His article uses classical greco/roman terms (and not even familar ones). --Mattisse 20:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have contacted him multiple times but he will not discuss. He just informs me after the fact. Is this right? --Mattisse 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really. There is an implicit requirement to discuss edits, if edits are challenged. See WP:CONSENSUS. If the user does not engage in discussions, that is disruptive behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:PalaceGuard008's account[edit]

I'm surprised that User:Mattisse has brought what seemed to be a simple merger and redirect of a duplicated article to ANI. However, I will try to give a detailed account of this episode. If I don't manage to finish it in one go, please allow me some time to finish this.

The incident arises from two articles, Zaojing and Caisson (Asian architecture). User:Mattisse later re-created an older version of Zaojing as Zaojing (Chinese). As a bit of introductory background, the two terms both refer to a sunken ceiling structure found in Chinese and East Asian architecture. Zaojing is the Chinese term. Caisson is a common English translation, deriving from a term used in Western architectural literature to describe similar structures in classical architecture. As disclosed by the references cited at both Zaojing and Caisson (Asian architecture), caisson is the commonly used term in English, although some (precisely one source cited in both articles) uses the term zaojing. The following is my account of what happaned:

  1. On 9 March 2007, the page Caisson (Asian architecture) was created: this is the original version (warning: contains a large, erroneously placed graphic) See here for a better version from 9 March 2007. This article was first linked from Forbidden City, and appears to have been created for that purpose. Since then, I have edited this article, as has User:Mattisse.
  2. On 5 September 2007, some six months later, Mattisse created Zaojing: this is the original version. From the beginning, this was better referenced than Caisson (Asian architecture). Notice, however, that most of the references cited use the term "Caisson" in preference to "Zaojing"
  3. On 5 October 2007, I noticed that the two articles dealt with identical subjects, and raised a merger-and-redirect proposal with User:Mattisse, who seemed to be the major contributor on Zaojing: this diff.
  4. User:Mattisse replied on the same day. On 9 October 2007, I made several replies to Talk:Matisse on this subject: see this cumulative diff.
  5. In the intervening time, User:Mattisse made a series of edits to Caisson (Asian architecture) (see here), with the goal of differentiating Caisson (Asian architecture) from Zaojing, but with the effect of rendering parts of the article non-sensical.
  6. Also in the intervening time, User:Mattisse edited the article Zaojing (this diff) and the titles of the sources cited at Zaojing (this diff) to remove any reference to the word "Caisson". Rather ingeniously, Mattisse disguises the latter edit with the edit summary of "removing irrelevant link" - indeed he did so, but he also changed the described title of this source from its correct title "Caisson Ceiling" to "Sunken coffer ceiling", which is not the term used by the source. He also changed the described title of this source from its correct title "Caisson Ceiling (Zaojing)" to "Zaojing".
  7. On 9 October 2007, I corrected the titles of these two sources at Zaojing, then moved the content and incorporated it into Caisson (Asian architecture) ([1]), before redirecting Zaojing to Caisson (Asian architecture): [2].
  8. On 9 October 2007, I made a series of replies to Mattisse's comments at Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture): [3] (one of which accused me of knowing nothing about Chinese architecture). User:Mattisse replied in one instance [4] entitled "Western bias in Chinese architecture articles", to which I replied: [5].
  9. On 10 October 2007, User:Mattisse rather cynically re-created an earlier version of Zaojing (i.e. before I edited it) as Zaojing (Chinese), redirecting Zaojing to that article: see original version here.
  10. User:Mattisse brought the matter to ANI and gave notice accordingly on my talk page: User talk:PalaceGuard008#I object to the redirect. Note that he had not replied to my final posts on User talk:Mattisse or Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture).

I hope the above presents a fair and complete account of our activities in respect of these two articles. If there is anything I have missed, please correct me.

Now to the merits of the dispute.

  1. That Caisson in the context of Chinese architecture means exactly the same thing as zaojing is established by many sources. Of the sources cited at both articles, only one prefers using zaojing. Most of the others use Caisson as the English term. I posted an example list of references that use "Caisson" at User talk:Mattisse#Zaojing and Caisson (Asian architecture). It seems to me that this is a naming conflict, and that the more common and English term should prevail, as I pointed out to User:Mattisse on several occasions. Furthermore, the caisson is not only found in Chinese architecture, but also (derivatively) in Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and other countries. It is more neutral to use an English term than a foreign (Chinese) term.
  2. Zaojing was from the start better referenced than Caisson (Asian architecture). This I acknowledged from the beginning of the discussion.
  3. User:Mattisse has taken a proprietary attitude towards the article zaojing. He claims it as part of his project to develop a library of Chinese architectural terms: User talk:PalaceGuard008#I object to the redirect. When I incorporated the (better written and referenced) contents from Zaojing into Caisson (Asian architecture), he accused me of "ripping off" "his" article into mine. Though he purports to "forgive" me for that transgression, I fear that this may be a misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia articles: while we all "adopt" articles and sometimes jealously guard them against others, the nature of wikipedia is collaborationist, and better contents from one article should be used in another where appropriate.
  4. USer:Mattisse has argued against this merger-and-redirect on ideological grounds, as seen from his freqent repetition of the need to combat Western bias on Wikipedia. While I appreciate these sentiments, nevertheless Wikipedia should report the state of academic understanding of the subject, and not seek to change it, for better or worse. It is neologistic to use a foreign term (even though it is the native term in this case) in favour of a more commonly used English term.
  5. User:Mattisse accuses me of acting arbitrarily. I admit I did not go through the detailed procedures of merging articles. In my defence, I would like to say that I had thought the matter very simple, as these are two articles, both short and stubby, dealing with the same matter; furthermore, after my incorporation, Caisson (Asian architecture) contains all the contents which Zaojing had included. However, seeing as User:Mattisse has now taken a strong objection, I will follow through with the proper procedures of a merger discussion.
  6. User:Mattisse continues to accuse me of stealing content from "his" Dougong article. In addition to what I have said about his propreitary attitude to "his" articles above, this is going too far. The contents on Dougong in the Caisson (Asian architecture) article had been there long before User:Mattisse created "his" dougong article. Even if it were otherwise, I am finding these repeated claims of proprietary interest in article contents quite annoying.
  7. User:Mattisse accuses me of not discussing/responding to his posts. As I pointed out above, he has not responded to my posts on talk pages. The only comments from him that I have not yet responded to are those on my own Talk page. However, as it was closely followed by this ANI post, I thought it best to reply here. Thanks, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just do the merge thing as requested. I did not know about your postings on your article page. Why would I look there? I did answer you extensively on my talk page and have sent several messages to your explaining my objection. Do the merge thing -- it is not just you (or me) who gets to decide. --Mattisse 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor's private info revealed[edit]

In this edit summary, Mccready (talk · contribs) has revealed the first name of an editor who has specifically alerted the community that his personal info is to remain private. Not sure of the intent here, but as I have been once blocked for a completely unintentional outting involving this same editor, I felt it best to make note of it here and allow this incident to go through the proper channels. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No block needed, but he needs to be warned. Davnel03 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Diff oversighted.--chaser - t 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. -- Fyslee / talk 02:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Needed[edit]

I received a long email (it was also posted on my talk page) that I reverted a user when they were trying to protect their privacy (revert in question). I think it would be best if an admin could delete user talk:216.165.38.65 and User talk:216.165.38.65 to satisfy their request (the vandalism warnings are nearly a year old, we don't need to keep this logged for any particular reason). Thanks, Carbon Monoxide 21:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page. I don't really see how that will help protect their privacy, but since it just comprised of outdated vandalism warnings I saw no harm in doing so. Will (aka Wimt) 22:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It appeared the user had a page created about them, and they didn't want their name on Wikipedia... that page has since been deleted. Carbon Monoxide 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan West article[edit]

I don't know what's going on here, I can't make any sense of it, but there's a lot of vandalism of this page. The subject apparently wants it deleted. I reverted back to a "clean" article (I think), but I think something else should be done. I just don't know what. --UsaSatsui 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to AfD it. He seems to be borderline notable, I think some of the information in the article is puffed up. • Lawrence Cohen 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree - yes the google test's unreliable blah blah blah but I'd expect it to be fairly accurate for someone in a media industry in recent years - I see a lot of Myspace & similar and not a lot of anything else, other than mentions near the bottom of hundred-name laundry lists. I suspect it would survive an AfD, though, due to the grammy nomination. Reeks of a vanity page, though.iridescent (talk to me!) 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think User:Ryanwestmusic who made the article is in fact Ryan West. Either way, it's up here now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan West. • Lawrence Cohen 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and protection[edit]

An edit war recently took place between User:PBD55 and User:ChrisO on Vergina Sun as reported on WP:3RR [6]. The whole relevant edit history can be seen here. ChrisO is an administrator and, as can be seen from the edit history, he protected the page when he was involved in the dispute, and the reverted edits were not simple vandalism or related to libel issues against living people. I am inclined to block both users for the 3RR violation, although it is now 24 hours since the dispute. However the bigger issue, in my opinion, is ChrisO's apparent abuse of the protection facility. I would welcome further input, before taking any action. Cheers TigerShark 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I lost my temper, protected it, realised I shouldn't have done that and unprotected it 17 minutes later. Obviously it was an error of judgment and I regret that - however, please note that I did act promptly to put the matter right. -- ChrisO 22:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO has acted promptly to put the matter right. I don't see any reason to prevent ChrisO from using the tools, or block his editing. Absent any pattern, I think we can call this resolved. Mercury 22:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments from ChrisO and Mercury, but I would like to get any further input so am removing the resolved tag for now. I take on board the fact that the decision was reversed 17 minutes later, but protection during a dispute is normally considered quite serious and it was not a action taken on the spur of the moment and then immediately reversed, in fact ChrisO reverted again during the protection - so I would encourage more community input. I do not have strong feelings on what the outcome of this should be, but I feel that it needs to be raised and possibly discussed further. Thanks TigerShark 23:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that he immediately realised his error and unprotected it means there is no issue, save the 3RR which you say exists (I haven't looked). I have accidentally protected pages I edit in the past, but I immediately unprotected them because it was a good-faith mistake. The Arbitration Committee will laugh you all the way back out the door you came in if you suggest any action should be taken against Chris. Daniel 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I will try to ignore the tone of your comment, which seems designed to cause a confrontation or humiliate me (or intimidate others) into not discussing this issue. However, when you call this a mistake, I assume that you are not suggesting that he pressed the wrong button, but rather that he lost his temper (as he states above). As I mentioned above this was not a quick flash of temper, reversed the next minute. Rather than "immediately realising his error and unprotecting it" the page remained protected for 17 minutes, during which time he reverted again and then unprotected with the reasoning that there was "no further need" for the protection. TigerShark 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are looking for. Shall we block him for a few days? I do not think ChrisO will repeat this. Mercury 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I am looking to give the community a chance to review the action of an administrator that could be considered very contentious. Nothing else. TigerShark 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure its contentious. But I'm confident this review is unneeded. I see you feel strongly about this, so I won't replace the esolved tag. Mercury 00:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

After investigating, it appears that ChrisO violated WP:3RR just prior after unprotecting the page. As a newer admin, I'm not sure what to do in this case. If ChrisO were not an admin, I would probably block for 24 hours. Ronnotel 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that as an administrator, you'd realize that blocks are preventative, not punitive, the edit war ended 27 hours ago (and ChrisO has not continued reverting, and said such above) and the disputed page has been protected, so blocks would not be appropriate in this case. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. See "Block Unblock" section at the bottom of the page. —bbatsell ¿? 01:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, the report at WP:3RR was submitted late and I off a day in my timing. I'll close it out. Ronnotel 01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

user:216.130.110.166[edit]

Resolved

3RR and blatant spamming of Noise music with myspace links. Artlondon 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV gets stuff like this done faster, but he's not active anymore. east.718 at 22:18, 10/9/2007

Tyler Warren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[edit]

Yesterday, I blocked Bushcarrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for three hours for this personal attack and a report at WP:AIV made by Tyler Warren. Upon reviewing the edits of Tyler Warren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), however, I came across this victory dance, this taunt, and several other instances of incivility. I warned him about this behavior and encouraged him to work on the encyclopedia, since his last 100 or so edits only contained about one or two mainspace edits. He replied with this message saying, "Just remember.....there's nowhere to run to when death becomes you." I asked if it was a death threat, and he said he's just quoting 50 Cent. (And since when was I a "homie"?)

I'm tempted to give him another block for incivility, but I'm a little too close to the situation now. I'd like someone else to review his edits.

As an aside, I noticed he's been writing to Summerluvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) a lot, and upon checking her contributions, I found one lone mainspace edit amidst a number of edits that look like Wikipedia is a social networking site. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

she only joined 2 weeks ago, perhaps some advice is appropriate.04:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Far more disturbing is the hive of similar editors abusign Wikipedia for a message board. Polarwolf, summerluvin, and all those others in the contribs list all seem to be more concerned with chatting each other up than editing the project. perhaps they should all be shown the door here, and sent across the street to the myspace/facebook supermall? ThuranX 04:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Block Unblock[edit]

Hello. I am considering unblocking this user as I have already protected the page and find the block unneeded. I've posted on the blockers talk, but the blocking sysop perhpas went AFK. Any suggestions? Regards, Mercury 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. 12-hour blocks for 3RR violations that happened over 24 hours ago, and, as you note, with the disputed page already protected. So much for blocks being preventative rather than punitive. I have no problem with undoing both blocks and encouraging both editors to continue their discussion on the article's talk page, which might prove fruitful. I wish I could help with the dispute, but I know nothing about the subject and do not speak the language necessary to review the sources. —bbatsell ¿? 00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Meh. ChrisO blocked himself again for the remaining 10 hours out of a sense of justice, because the other guy is also still blocked. I agree, both blocks should be lifted. Fut.Perf. 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, seems appropriate. Ronnotel 01:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not know the othe one was blocked, or I would have unblocked that one as well. Thanks for catching Fu Perf. Mercury 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bobtoo redux: legal threat[edit]

I blocked Bobtoo (talk · contribs) on Oct. 9 (see earlier "Marilyn Monroe" section). He now claims on his talk page that he has been "been contacted by an individual who is collecting evidance [sic]" so as to sue me (diff). Is this a loophole in WP:NLT (or an attempt at finding a loophole), since Bobtoo isn't the one pursuing ostensible legal action? Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely a legal threat. Mr.Z-man 03:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Block extended to indef and I also gave him a link to Wikipedia:Free speech. Mr.Z-man 03:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The block template says "temporarily". (Not that an indefinite block will have much effect: he already has enough socks [or friends with similar interests and similar spelling problems].) -- Hoary 03:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, that template really should default to indefinite. Mr.Z-man 03:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for the quick response. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Netmonger's incivil behavior[edit]

Netmonger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked once already for posting harassing messages to my talk page and sending a vulgar abusive e-mail to me. He has continued with his harassment against me and has recently made a personal attack against me here. This individual has also posted a couple of harassing messages to me here and here for filing an MfD for an inflamatory userbox here. Previously, there was one harassing message he posted on my talk page here. Fortunately, an administrator took that removed that off my page here. Just now, he has sent me another message here which I deem as a sarcastic post on my talk page. He is now trying to report me here for reporting him in regards to his vulgar harassing e-mail stating that I have made up the e-mail account and falsely reported him which his friends have flatly denied here. If there is a way for an administrator to confidentially check and confirm his e-mail to be the one sent to me by him it would be help. Also, if you would like for me to forward you the harassing e-mail he sent me for confirmation please let me know. Thank you. Wiki Raja 16:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, a Wikimedia Commons Admins confirms, that the harrasment email in question is from the confirmed email address of user Netmonger [7]. Sinhala freedom 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked 72 hrs, email too. Rlevse 18:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
<rant>Yet when I blocked him for a similar thing a few days ago, nobody would believe me or Wiki Raja, assuming that Wiki Raja had faked the email, asking me to jump through hoops to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the email was legitimate.</rant> Mr.Z-man 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)Actually, we suggested someone in a dispute with Netmonger might be faking it, or even a vandal could have created the email. The reason it was brought up is that this sort of thing has happened before. Since a developer has now stated that Netmonger confirmed the email address the nasty emails are being sent from and there is continued incivility, a block for the more recent personal attacks is appropriate. Unfortunately, GMaxwell didn't comment on the old thread until a week after the block happened. Shell babelfish 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All the stuff here was gone through on the old AN/I post and admin's deamed it not harassment. I have two questions to ask from you people;
  1. Did Netmonger really used that email account or not?
  2. You guys going to block him each time he reported to the ANI regarding this issue? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Netmonger is suspected in a similar case months ago and escaped from the checkuser by nominating the Rajkumar Kanagasingam for deletion.Regentsstag 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, this is one editor's word against another's. E-mails can be faked very, very, very easily. I have no knowledge of either editor, I am completely uninvolved, I'm just pointing out that without further evidence, that's a pretty serious allegation and block. Can it be backed up? —bbatsell ¿? 03:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[8]Here it was confirmed that Netmonger did register the email in Wikipedia from which the email to Wiki Raja was sent.But here in talk he states that the concerned email is not his and he was unblocked by an admin assuming Good faith .[9].With due respect ,I find this surprising as to why Netmonger deny that it was not the email which he/she had registered with Wikipedia at one point.Why did user Nermonger deny his own email account?Pharaoh of the Wizards 10:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well Netmonger says that he/she wanted to protect his/her privacy. I think we should AGF that this was really the reason even if it seems suspicious. As I've told Netmonger, it would have been much better if he/she had simply refused to confirm or deny the e-mail rather then denying and even going so far as to say he/she used his/her real name for the e-mail Nil Einne 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
About the authenticity of the purported e-mail... I suspect the purported e-mail would have an IP in the header. It would be possible for a checkuser to compare this IP to the ones used by Netmonger. While headers can be forged, I don't see how Wiki Raja would know Netmonger's IP so he couldn't add an IP he didn't know (i.e. if the IP is there it's very likely that Netmonger or someone using his/her computer sent the e-mail). However, if the checkuser confirms the IP is the same, this will basically mean Netmonger's IP will be known by anyone who has access to the e-mail. So this would not be possible unless Netmonger consents and even then should probably be considered very carefully before hand. Nil Einne 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
With due respect Nil Einne.I am sorry I beg to differ. Even refusing to accept or refusing accept or deny is okay but going to extent of saying this My email address is my actual name, which I cannot reveal here. I mail only to users whom I know personally[10] Makes assuming Good Faith for 2nd time difficult or Netmonger could have privately emailed the Admin and told him so.Further if your email and chatname is the same and your email is from a Popular service like Gmail or Yahoo.It only offers semi privacy as it is easy to guess and has happened in many chatrooms. Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If an email is sent through Wikipedia's "email this user" feature, it gives the IP of the Wikimedia server it was sent from. Mr.Z-man 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Further Netmonger [11] After this response I sent you an email requesting you confirm your email address ("Please send this email back to me.") and you did so, from yet a third email address unrelated to your Wikipedia username. Why did you use a different email address to respond to me?--chaser - t 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC) [12]
I find this very intriguing.Look username and email same from Yahoo or Google offers little privacy.But replying from an email which I do not know but unarguably offers greater privacy is intriguing.But refuse to accept an email account which the same as his Wikipedia name only makes it more suspicious and refuse to acknowledge his email account until it found out by Wikimedia Commons Admins [13] makes it tough to assume AGF .Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel User:Mr.Z-man and User:Wiki_Raja have been badly treated in all this [14]by the accuser who should have left Netmonger to defend himself. I really think the accuser should at the least give an unconditional apology to both users for such baseless accusations which contravene WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Sinhala freedom 01:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If the following lines are really coming out of his/her heart (on his/her talk page) - "And I posted a barnstar which I picked from Wikipedia barnstars here to cool things between us, they took it as a insult without even investigating whats it all about, this is really depressing", irrespective of all his bluff and vandalism in the past and present, the admin. could consider to unblock his account with the advice as Jimbo Wales himself said recently here in the eighth para to "excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby", IMHO.Regentsstag 11:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing pop trivia[edit]

Last night I removed large swaths of unsourced trivia from approximately 120 different articles. Most of them were located in a "in popular culture" section. Some messages were left on my talk page, most of them positive to the point of personally thanking me. [15] Today I'm being threatened with a block for vandalism for the same. If I felt I was being bold here, I might cite WP:BOLD for my actions. I'm not ignoring any rules, and I don't feel it's a bold measure to remove unsourced pop culture trivia which does nothing but shit on an article. Please review Burntsauce (talk · contribs) and you tell me if these sections belong. Burntsauce 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA says "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page" and WP:BOLD says "It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further". It's just your opinion, not backed up by current policy, that pop culture mentions are "shit on an article", blanking them en masse is disruptive anti-content behavior. --W.marsh 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As much as I despise those "in popular culture" and trivia sections, it's not the best idea to delete them rapid-fire without prior discussion. Raymond Arritt 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability is all I need. That trivia guideline (WP:TRIVIA) page changes with the wind. Burntsauce 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:V requires the challenge to be in good faith... you've made it clear you object to the section headers more than the accuracy of the hundreds of claims you've removed. WP:V doesn't justify removing anything that doesn't have an inline citation, it only justifies removals of content that, in good faith, you do not believe are accurate. --W.marsh 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Application of WP:V has NOTHING to do with what a particular editos happens to feel is accurate. WP:V exists to give a standard for inclusion that is not tied to the private opinions of Wikipedia editors. An editor's subjective judgment of truth has no importance in deciding whether unsourced material should be kept or deleted. Dybryd 01:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with your intent -- I also hate that crap -- but being headstrong about it now will just make for unnecessary drama, so I suggest you stop and talk instead. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Jpgordon. Inital rapid-fire removal per "popculturectomy" wasn't a good way to go about this. Is this stuff unverifiable and trivial? Perhaps (most of the stuff I saw was, but I didn't review every article). Still, actually taking some time to explain the removal rationale on the talkpage would have been a good idea.--Isotope23 talk 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I added the complaint, below, before I saw this. The attitude expressed above is clearly part of the problem. "nothing but shit on the article" is a combative way to describe other people's work, as is the brush-off about verifiability. It's never good to mindlessly delete entire sections of an article, much less from 300 articles all at the same time. As I explain below, I have reviewed the deletions and many of them deleted good and important content. Trivia is a controversial subject here. We don't deal with controversial subjects by stiff-arming everyone and contentiously deleting their edits. That there are valid articles with unsourced statements isn't even controversial - we improve them and don't mass delete. It's one thing to edit war on a single page. This is edit warring on 300 pages simultaneously. Utterly uncalled for, and if the user keeps doing it and says he/she won't stop, definitely should be blocked. Wikidemo 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikidemo, please STOP mischaracterizing my actions. They were completely in good faith. Burntsauce 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Burntsauce indiscriminately deleted 300+ "pop culture" related sections in a 90-minute span. I've reviewed about 30 of these. Some are useless trivia; others are simply useful information in an inappropriate list format, or legitimate pop culture sections.

After being pointedly warned, and having all of his edits reversed (also see last few subjects on Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections), he (or she) re-did all of the deletions. I warned him again, and he responded with an uncivil "get your head checked, yo". His edits have now been reverted a second time. Please block before he deletes them yet again. This is horribly disruptive and upsetting to a lot of people. Wikidemo 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop for the time being. Honestly, I don't think the undo (don't remember who did it off the top of my head) under the auspices of reverting vandalism was necessarily valid or well thought out either. At this point there are a lot of shenanigans from multiple editors in regards to this situation that need to be sorted out.--Isotope23 talk 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
They should all be restored without debate; the deletions were improper and WP:POINT. If people on the individual pages want to keep, delete, or integrate pop culture sections on those pages, they can do that page by page as they see fit. Wikidemo 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Bold, revert, discuss... the reverts were somewhat okay. But calling them "vandalism" while doing it was just as needlessly inflammatory as burntsauce's actions in the first place. --W.marsh 17:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it clear yet again that I don't necessarily consider Burntsauce's edits to be vandalism. I used the TW vandalism rollback function because it was the easiest way to roll back that many edits -- it only takes a single click. Burntsauce refused to participate in the discussions, where his edits were called disruptive by consensus, and instead performed his edits repeatedly across all the articles. He needs to participate in the discussions on his talk page and/or at WT:TRIVIA.

Equazcionargue/improves17:25, 10/9/2007
Even if it was for technical reasons, you were still seen making the claim of vandalism... if the tool makes claims you don't mean, you should modify it or use some other technique. --W.marsh 17:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That is patently false! I just logged on today. I am discussing my changes, as requested. To reiterate, when I made these edits yesterday I was being THANKED for them. Today we have this strange backlash of people who want to reinstate the trivia, despite the lack of sources and actual trivial nature of the material. Burntsauce 17:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Burntsauce, despite any characterization, if there is a discussion going on in which a consensus was reached that your edits were disruptive, you need to participate in that discussion before continuing to make those same edits. Please see WT:TRIVIA.
Equazcionargue/improves17:28, 10/9/2007
I've commented on this and on WP:TRIVIA above. See that instead. Burntsauce 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The consensus is that your edits were disruptive. If you feel that all pop culture sections need to be removed, WT:TRIVIA is the place to discuss that. Please do that first before performing such a categorical removal again. Thanks.
Equazcionargue/improves17:32, 10/9/2007
I for one applaud Burntsauce's edits, unreferenced and useless trivia lists are a plague. When he was asked to stop and discuss, he probably should have sooner. Mindlessly reverting the edits with autotools, incorrect accusations of WP:POINT and threatening blocks was the notably poor conduct here. Neil  17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I second that emotion, in spades (to mix metaphors). What's needed here goes far beyond "boldness" into the realm of insurrection, and I applaud the editor who crisped their crème. This flotsam and jetsam is making Wikipedia into even more of a gigantic bad joke than it already is. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If the matter is sources, then instead of removing, please look for and add sources. If it's a matter of content, then as long as some editors are willing to work on the material and the material is neither a copyvio or a hoax, we should keep it and improve it per the project's goal of making it so that "every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
TW by default has three rollback options for articles, two labeled "vandalism" and "good faith", and one without judgement. It would be hard not to notice this. If Equazcion has disabled these options, I would suggest they be restored so that rollbacks of edits performed in good faith are not all labeled "vandalism". / edg 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ten comments up:"I want to make it clear yet again that I don't necessarily consider Burntsauce's edits to be vandalism. I used the TW vandalism rollback function because it was the easiest way to roll back that many edits -- it only takes a single click. Burntsauce refused to participate in the discussions, where his edits were called disruptive by consensus, and instead performed his edits repeatedly across all the articles. He needs to participate in the discussions on his talk page and/or at WT:TRIVIA.
Equazcionargue/improves17:25, 10/9/2007
".

Block[edit]

Could someone please block him temporarily?

Equazcionargue/improves17:32, 10/9/2007
For what? Editing? Neil  17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The block was requested before I saw that he stopped.
Equazcionargue/improves17:40, 10/9/2007
Agreed - the user has agreed to stop and abide by a proper resolution. Wikidemo 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivial removals - going forward[edit]

If you read the heated exchange above, you will learn that I removed a large swath of unsourced pop culture and trivia sections from a number of articles. So where do we go from here? Is it right to "blind revert" back to the unsourced version?

Discussion is good and I understand that, but it can also be used as a method to stonewall the progress and improvement to an article. Let me get to the heart of my question:

  1. Should articles that had no sources and the trivial section removed, remain with the trivia removed, and then discuss?
  2. Or should those articles be reverted back to the UNSOURCED VERSION, and then discuss?

I've already done all the hard work yesterday. I'm going to take a Wikibreak for the remainder of the day, but would like to know what the consensus is on the articles I've made changes to. Burntsauce 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Until there's a consensus to change WP:TRIVIA to allow blanking of anything labelled "trivia/pop culture", I don't think running around blanking it on sight is a good idea at all. It's just flying in the face of lack of consensus. --W.marsh 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I hesitate to contribute to a flame war on someone's talk page, so did not add to the comments there. I have mixed feelings about wholesale trivia sections and laundry lists generally, but here a trivia section tag would have been more appropriate than wholesale blanking of articles. In the case of the articles on my watchlist that were hit, Burntsauce removed material that was actually relevant and interesting within the context of the article, and even if that is debatable, we were talking about very short lists containing at most 3-4 items, not things like massive lists of TV episodes or something. I consider Burntsauce's behavior to be Troll-like and for that reason, it needs to end. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Why have unsourced sections just sit? I've tagged articles for a while (with trivia and fiction cruft tags, and so on): and seen no improvement. If no one cares to improve the sections, they just sit? People are entertained by trivia sections, yet they refuse to source them or even clean them up much. I think that's a bit of a problem. Wikipedia is volunteer work, so we can't force people to work. However, if the problem isn't solved... why not remove the section? Keeping the mess isn't the solution here. Mass blanking isn't the solution either, as people will complain of course. Perhaps, move the sections to the talk pages to be cleaned up? The content will still be visible, and the article wont suffer in my view. RobJ1981 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The guideline specifically discourages dealing with these sections by categorically removing them, and the consensus at WT:TRIVIA is that Burntsauce's removals were not appropriate, and supportive of the rollback. This is not about whether or not the sections belong, but the manner in which they were handled. Removing all sections of a specific title at a rate of 2 per minute with no more explanation than "popcultureectomy" is not constructive or respective of other editors who might disagree with you on this very controversial subject. PS If we're talking about what to generally do with pop culture sections this isn't a discussion for ANI anymore, but for WT:TRIVIA.
Equazcionargue/improves17:40, 10/9/2007
At this point, it is probably most correct to leave the articles in whatever wrong version they are currently in. Burntsauce (talk · contribs) should be cautioned against wholesale removal of text with a summary of "popcultureectomy"; use more descriptive summaries and talkpages to explain removals of text, especially if it is a large section. To Equazcion I would simply say that if the tool you used to revert doesn't support some kind of customized summary message beyond "reverting vandalism", then you shouldn't use it in this sort of situation. If it does, you should utilize that functionality (I don't use twinkle, etc, so I have no idea what the capabilities are). I'd remind everyone involved to remember to assume good faith, particularly when it is clear everyone is trying to do what they think is best, even if your idea of what "best" is differs so greatly. I don't think at this point the situation is going to benefit from admin action. If I could offer advice though, I would say that for pop-culture/trivia sections it is probably best to tag them with WP:TRIV and a message on the talkpage that the section is going to be integrated/deleted in 1 week and invite any interested parties to boldly integrate verifiable information into the article. When that week is up, integrate anything that can be verified and is notable into the article narrative. Delete the rest.--Isotope23 talk 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - While in some cases he was perhaps a bit too bold, I generally support these deletions. They were not vandalism, and should not be called such, even by auto-summaries. I commented supportively on Burntsauce (talk · contribs)'s page because I saw he had deleted sections that had been tagged for months, yet despite the tag had continued to grow endlessly crufty. True, he could have been better about WP:CIVIL in some of his summaries and responses, but he has been warned for that and seems amenable to proceeding in a civil manner. On the articles I work on I will be going back and re-integrating any relevant bits that were cut, but in sourced prose. The cruft is still there in the previous versions. It's easy enough to copy and edit it if some of the deleted facts truly merit inclusion. - Kathryn NicDhàna 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay folks, if you are going to revert removal of unsourced data without finding a source first, fine, IAR and all that, but just remember that WP:V allows for the removal of such information. Burnt did not break any rules, nor is it evident he acted in bad faith. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not IAR. We have maintenance tags for a reason. WP:TRIVIA also specifically discourages wholesale removal of these sections as a remedy.
Equazcionargue/improves18:22, 10/9/2007
Burntsauce broke plenty of rules. All of these deletions ought to be restored. The people who are editing these articles can deal with them in due course, not people who swoop in and try to reshape Wikipedia to suit their liking. It's not restoring unsourced material without finding a source, it's a roll back of improper deletions. Wikidemo 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll reiterate what I said above, I don't see any "rulebreaking" here by either of the editors who were primarily involved in the core content issue. Both of them seem to be exercising what they believe to be a correct implementation of guidelines and policy. The problem is how they both went about it. That said however, I don't see any good reason to stir the pot more by undoing either the deletions or the restores that stand as neither were at the core improper. I'll also add that waiting around for the people who primarily edit these articles to deal with them isn't probably the best tactic... they are the ones who let them get into this sorry state in the first place.--Isotope23 talk 18:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside: Those of us who have expressed our distaste for cruft and trivia should drop by WP:TRIVIA and let it be known that the policy favoring retention of said cruft is not so "generally accepted" as stated there. Raymond Arritt 18:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've just clicked on a dozen of those articles at random, and I've yet to see a piece of information in the deleted sections that improved the article. Indeed, some of them are so ridiculously trivial and/or unsourced that if I'd stumbled over them myself I'd have deleted them on the spot as well. ELIMINATORJR 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at 30 and seen plenty of useful material that got deleted. Wikidemo 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

←Just another aside, User:Neil is now performing rollbacks to remove all the sections again. This is truly insane. I can't believe an ADMIN is doing this.

Equazcionargue/improves19:00, 10/9/2007
  • No - he's only removing unsourced material - see this diff [16] for example. ELIMINATORJR 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Was this before or after' blocking me for restoring the material he wanted to delete? Wikidemo 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd strongly suggest all revert warring on these articles be dropped now. This is going past WP:POINT into territory that I think is easily blockable.--Isotope23 talk 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm hereby removing myself from this. I am in shock that in such a controversial issue that's still under heated debate, an admin would do something to inflame it further. Settle this on your own. I just lost a lot of respect for the title of admin. I'm speechless.
Equazcionargue/improves19:09, 10/9/2007
You lost respect for an admin because he was enforcing Wikipedia policy? Er, OK. We could've done without the edit-warring, but Neil certainly has policy behind him here. ELIMINATORJR 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections" --W.marsh 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:V suggests removing unsourced trivia, though - Neil was leaving in anything sourced. ELIMINATORJR 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:V does not mention the word "trivia". Contrary to popular belief, WP:V is not carte blanche to remove any sentence without an inline citation after it... it speaks of challenging and removing claims that are actually in question, not just purging stuff you don't like. --W.marsh 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue; the question should always be "does this edit improve the article?". As Will points out below, a lot of the information removed is either original research, or just plain incorrect. ELIMINATORJR 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Then that can be removed as challenged, but unverifiable, information. The problem is, while some of that kind of stuff has been caught in the crossfire, the actual reason the purges happened was the stated desire to remove all sections labeled as trivia and pop culture, which is not backed up by policy, as you mistakingly claimed. --W.marsh 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Ah, hang on; I didn't say it should be removed because it was trivia, in that I agree that the idea behind the original edits was probably erroneous. I do believe, though, that the rise of trivia sections is a problem; for example, someone tried to add one to The Holocaust the other day, which is in really bad taste. ELIMINATORJR 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You said "WP:V suggests removing unsourced trivia" which is an incorrect statement. WP:V suggests removing challenged, unsourced statements... but doesn't deal with unchallenged trivia. --W.marsh 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes - that was badly phrased; I meant it as you say, just that in this case it was referring to trivia. ELIMINATORJR 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In this particular instance, it behooves an admin, who is supposed to remain cool-headed and objective in the face of conflict, to refrain from making edits that are currently the subject of heated debate. Are these edits such an emergency that they couldn't wait until after all this discussion settled down a bit?
Equazcionargue/improves19:19, 10/9/2007
As far as the above goes, WP:V says any unsourced content can be removed and restoration must be sourced (WP:BURDEN) - I haven't just purged the trivia (see [17] or [18] as examples). Neil  19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While I've been ec'd several times and my point already made, I would like to say there is no rulebreaking. In fact, I applaud Burntsauce for removal of trivia. Put simply, most IPC/CR/TRIVIA sections have no sources and are mostly WP:OR (which, like its sister WP:V) is non-negotionable. If not OR/!V, trivia, ninteynine times out of a hundred violates "Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information" Out of ten random articles I picked up from Burntsauce's contribs:

  • Superconductivity - it's a start. Still a bit of OR over the second paRagraph.
  • GEICO Cavemen - Unsourced. But not much OR.
  • Enoch Powell - Paragraph 2 is fine. The rest is either unsourced, or just media making fun of the man. Highly POV against him.
  • Gravy - popular food in popular culture? Wow, that's new.
  • Strained yoghurt - one item, wrong article. Not really IPC then.
  • Naqada - redundant to disambiguation.
  • Ugliness - most points refers to use of the word (even more ludicrous than what Stephen King in popular culture was redirected to), and the only thing I think should be there would be The Ugly Duckling.
  • Kettle Foods - being parodied is no measure of popularity.
  • Amphetamine psychosis - IPC on a medical disorder page is just wrong. Also the Requiem for a Dream point is classic OR.
  • Animal cracker - Shirley Temple's song is fine and should be integrated. The rest is just based on passing mention.

Burntsauce, I once again applaud you and urge you to flush Wikipedia of this nonsense. Consensus cannot override key policy. Will (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree there was no rulebreaking re - content. WP:V trumps trivia. - Kathryn NicDhàna 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. You can argue almost any point by claiming policy is on your side. If your position requires arguing that an established guideline on the point is wrong, and most people disagree with it, you shouldn't be deleting hundreds of article sessions, engaging in edit wards, or blocking users, over the issue. Aggressive editing based on idiosyncratic interpretation of policy simply makes one a loose cannon. Wikidemo 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Argument ad Jimbo, but unverified information "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". Will (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What I would do with excessive popular culture sections is either do the work needed to improve the article, or tag it. If it is really excessive, then I sometimes dump the material on the talk page and leave a note there requesting clean-up. That way the material is available for review on the talk page and there is no need to go digging around in the page history to find it if someone wants to work on sourcing and integrating the material into the article in a more resonable form. Note that only some articles are amenable to this. Some of the material needs to be marked on the talk page as unsuitable for the article. Sometimes a mention in another article is acceptable. One way of viewing such pop culture sections is that they are The Long Tail of the "what links here" web of connectivity. Take an article on a broad topic and browse the "what links here" list. Some of stuff linking to the article will be mentioned in the article (a backlink), some won't be. Sometimes just a one-way link is enough, as articles can't mention every last detail about a broad topic. As long as reader have other links and categories to allow them to head in the right direction, that should be enough. It's not really a case of verifiability, more a case of due balance. Minor stuff unbalances articles. Add more material and it might be OK to re-add the material as a footnote or small section. The really embarassing thing about pop culture sections is that it shows that Wikipedia is a good aggregator of information, but it isn't as good an editor of that information to decide what is relevant and what isn't. That is more to do with the standards and taste of editors, and can't (and shouldn't and needn't) be fixed while "anyone can edit". Sorry, got a bit distracted there. The key point is to consider putting material on the talk page, rather than just removing outright. Carcharoth 12:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin incivility[edit]

The user concerned has been notified of this discussion. —Random832 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't much like an admin calling me an idiot [19] and then erasing comments challenging that characterization [20]. This was a stupid (and minor) content dispute in an article about the inherently funny organ called the uvula. It's not worth a fight, there was no chance of my violating the 3-revert-rule on it, and I've stopped watching the page now, especially as he saw fit to protect it, which seems like an overreaction, but I'm not so concerned about that as I am about what I consider to be un-admin-like behavior. It's as though User:Tecmobowl had been reincarnated as an admin. A scary thought. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I had nothing to do with these incidents but I've just waded through this. The issue in question was Baseball Bugs restoring, and User:Alkivar (the admin) restoring and then protecting, the deletion of a pop culture section from one particular article, that was part of a now-reverted frenzy by User:Burntsauce (an unrelated editor) of indiscriminately deleting 300+ pop culture references in about 90 minutes. Baseball Bugs then complaints on Alkivar's user page - four times - but instead of responding or doing anything Alkivar simply deletes Basebal Bugs' comments from his talk page. This admin has a pattern of making non-consensus changes then indefinitely protecting his version of the article, an abuse of privilege. See his/her contribution history. Blanking requests and complaints is also wrong for an admin. Admins have a special duty to respond on their user page to people questioning their actions. Simply blanking complaints is un-admin behavior. I suggest someone counsel this admin formally or send him/her back to admin school. Wikidemo 16:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The protection is inappropriate and I will remove it. I despise these trivia sections with a passion and whole-heartedly agree with removing them anywhere and everywhere they are found, but the protection is obviously inappropriate. --B 16:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To the talkpage removals, please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. You are, in fact, not required in any way to respond to every message you receive. Also, according to that policy, removal of messages is allowed. To the trivia stuff, please see WP:TRIVIA. I agree, that calling people idiots, isn't very civil. SQL(Query Me!) 16:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
One other word - as inappropriate as protecting the article may have been, it is equally inappropriate to accuse Alkivar - a dedicated admin who acts in good faith - of being a sock puppet. --B 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do NOT accuse him of being a sockpuppet, nor do I even think he is one. I simply say that his uncivil behavior reminds me of Tecmobowl. I expect a higher standard of behavior from an admin than from an editor, especially an editor like Tecmobowl. And I expect a response to a fair question. His name-calling and stonewalling, refusal to respond, is what specifically reminded me of Tecmobowl. Admins should be better, much better, than Tecmobowl. Dropping to that level is disgraceful, especially on the part of an admin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, your comparison has then certainly derailed your initial complaint because plenty of folks read that as a passive aggressive accusation of sock puppetry. So whatever the merits of your concern, they've been essentially erased by the enmity your choice of words caused. Something to consider for next time. I offer no opinion on the merits of this case, this is a drive by response to the Tecmobowl bit, which i think was an unfortunate decision on your part in the initial post. It certainly does nothing to advance the conversation, and as you see here, has pulled attention away from your concern and dropped your 'cred in this conversation. - CHAIRBOY () 16:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I didn't read Baseball Bugs' post as accusing Alkivar of sockpuppetry, whatsoever. Sometimes a comparison is just a comparison. Newyorkbrad 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. I said "it was as if". That's a comparison, based on the false assumption that people would know who Tecmobowl was and understand the comparison. Nowhere did I say I thought he was a sockpuppet, nor did I think that, nor do I think that now. It was simply an analogy to a bad (and since banned) user. And I'm seeing that a number of users have issues with this admin, so comparing his behavior to that of a bad user still seems fair. And his continual refusal to respond speaks for itself. Maybe a short-term block would wake him up. I got blocked once for calling someone an idiot, so I don't do that anymore. Admins are not exempt from the civility rules, either. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
update - this user appears to have indefinitely and without warning blocked User:Equazcion, who was at the time engaged in rolling back the contentious edits discussed above. This was after the notice here, and after an admin had undone his edit protection of the articles mentioned here. Blocking users is supposed to be a last resort, and indefinite blocks without warning are an extreme remedy. For an administrator to do that in order to stop a good faith editor with whom he is having a content dispute is a picturebook example of abuse of administrator privileges. Another admin subsequently unblocked the user, but some damage was done - the rollback stopped halfway through. So we have 300 contentious edits made by a third party, half of which are reverted, and now everyone is afraid to do anything for fear of getting blocked or ending up in an edit war. I strongly suggest that this admin be considered for de-sysopping, or at least warned that this is no way for an admin to act. Wikidemo 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As the user who was blocked, I support this motion. An admin who is engaged in a content dispute with a user shouldn't be blocking that user -- especially indefinitely, by IP, and without warning, which I feel was particularly extreme.
Equazcionargue/improves18:18, 10/9/2007
Sorry to interrupt but holy shit. Indefblocking an established user for doing some reverts?! What the hell? Almost speechless... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So predictable. I say watch him do the same to my comment in a minute though, and lo and behold... —Random832 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Acting like that, I don't understand why this person is still allowed to be an administrator...
Equazcionargue/improves18:38, 10/9/2007
i think this should all go under one heading - we "pseudo-edit-conflicted" as i moved it. —Random832 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
discussion after move from above[edit]

Improper use of page protection in a content dispute, improper use of blocking in a content dispute. Use of rollback on user comments on his talk page. I think we have enough for a desysop, anyone want to try either arbitration or CSN (I think that a "community desysoping" is well within the bounds of "community sanctions" - or he could be banned from "in popular culture" sections - that's a topic ban, right?) —Random832 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting one way or another as to the matter in question, I don't think it can be done at CSN. The sanctions there are executed by admins, and admins can't de-sysop other admins. You'll need to go through Arbcom. Raymond Arritt 18:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Besides, CSN is currently at MfD and may very well not exist in a few more days. Raymond is right, you need to open an ARBCOM case if you wish to pursue this.--Isotope23 talk 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that arbitration and community sanctions would be a little to harsh and I also believe that it would be a step too fast if we want to get this right. Perhaps a WP:RfC/U would be a better course of action before we head ourselves into arbitration. That way we would have an addition backing if any case is accepted. nattang 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not involved at all in this situation, nor do I want to be, but the admin in question has already been the subject of an RFC/U. Skinwalker 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing with Skinwalker. Arbitration seems to be the only venue left. east.718 at 19:12, 10/9/2007
While I will not comment on the need for arbitration, I will admit that arbcom is the proper venue for this if the need is felt. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had direct dealings with Alkivar (that I can remember) but I seem to see his name often - and not in a good way. Has there been any communication with him or does he simply delete all talk page messages? I see he barely participated in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alkivar and also that two RFAs failed more than two years ago citing similar behavior. I don't know what other recourse there is if he isn't explaining anything. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Alkivar would respond to a admin conduct RFC? --Iamunknown 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Just continue the one that was recently in progress. Pile on if you want. This situation doesn't look good to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that there have been several RFCs tends to make me agree with (1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go'); without making any comment on the need for arbitration I think that is the appropriate venue if someone wishes to pursue this.--Isotope23 talk 19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The current RfC is mostly about incivility. The circumstances—mass tagging of images and mass notifications on Alkivar's talk page—however, are noteworthy, and I think most editors would become incivil. This is more about inappropriate page protections, inappropriate blocking, and also about being uncommunicative ... all more "admin conduct"-type things than incivility. (I say that "uncommunicative"ness is an admin conduct-type thing because of recent RFARBs where admins were admonished to be communicative.) --Iamunknown 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I want to throw in my two cents. I would like to know why Alkivar has done some of the things he's done. Unfortunately (it seems like), he is unwilling to make any comments. I say go to Request for Comment. The only other time when I got involved with Alkivar was when he indef blocked another user and protected their e-mail, despite being a good-faith editor. The user is unblocked now. Although it shouldn't be in this section, Burntsauce should of informed the related WikiProject that he was planning to remove a load of trivia sections from 300 articles. If it was something "controversial" (this to a certain extent is) he should of informed related WikiProjects before going ahead and doing it. Davnel03 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
An arbitration request has been filed: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Alkivar. nattang 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this the only time that he has used the admin tools in a questionable manner? He didn't revert the undoing of his administrative actions so unless he repeats any of them, this may be premature. --B 00:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have looked through his logs and found several other questionable actions. I am now convinced this is the correct course of action. --B 00:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How it should have gone, and how to repair the damage[edit]

Quite apart from he questionable actions of individual admins --the arb com case having been requested, and on arb already agreeing to accept it, is now the necessary way to go there. )

I come to this late, having been caught napping -- quite literally. But I noticed it early last morning, because a few of the articles affected were on my watchlist. I left a personal message asking Burntsauce to pause, and telling him forthrightly that i intended to go through the list of articles, restoring those parts of those articles that I thought defensible, while moving content into more appropriate places if practical--and also saying that i would in some cases revert the changes if there were so many items involved that they needed more extensive consideration. I said I'd go slowly, & it would take at least a day.
I also said that I considered what he had done technically justified per WP:BOLD, as the first step,and that revert would be the 2nd, followed by the third of discussion. But I also said that doing it in this dramatic fashion was not a good idea. At this point Equazcion lost patience, and said he would restore them all immediately (I didnt see this in time , or I would have asked him not to do that). Technically, he may have been justified, per the second step of the Bold-Revert-Discuss process. I could conceivably have used my administrative tools--and, believe me, I was tempted. A gross violation of the need for consensus, even if technically permitted is destructive behavior in a wiki. I could have reverted all the changes, protected, and blocked Burntsauce for perhaps 24 hours to prevent further destructive editing. But I knew that i was so involved in the effort to retain these sections that this would not have looked well. I might have survived arbcom, but my credit would have been greatly damaged, and I would have had difficulty in editing this material further. But I've never used anything other than persuasion to further my views in any topic; in fact, I very rarely use protection and blocking at all, except the most obvious spammers and vandals. I rely, just as I did before become an admin, upon persuasion. (I then went back to sleep to rest up for the extensive editing I thought I would do, after placing a request for help on the trivia project page. Later, upon seeing this, I decided not to complicate matters further.

My own position on this material has been expressed repeatedly at any AfDs, but I summarize here:

  • Trivia can in practice mean relatively trivial, or utterly trivial. But unfortunately it has been widely used outside WP to mean "collection of miscellaneous curious facts about a person or thing, some of which may actually be important but some are just amusing" and the use of our trivia sections copies this. We're stuck with the word, because the rest of the world uses it, and because of the intrinsic meaning it has a negative connotation to many sensible people, which is not always reflected in the material.
  • "in popular culture," however, is a respected academic term for a way of studying literature and society, and is to some extent the currently popular specialty, both in writing and in courses for students. There are some old-fashioned people who think it a diversion from serious analysis, but they are a small minority. Some seem to have gotten involved with Wikipedia and are trying to restrict us to their preferred limitations.
  • Sourcing for this material in obvious cases can come directly from the primary source, as it can for plots. When Superman is mentioned in a movie, Superman is being referred to. How important this may be needs judgement, as always, and it is right to base this judgement by sources from reviews or other discussions of the movie. But in some cases merely the fact that magicians appear in every computer game is relevant collection of obvious material to show their importance as figures in the medium.

My position of editing unsourced material is that sources should be looked for. It takes considerable time and work to properly source a long and complicated article--even if I fully knew all the places to go for sources, I would allow at least a days work for each long popular culture section,and , even so, would hope for assistance. Destruction is quicker. Removing unsourced material, like deletion, is a last resort. It is easy for find hundred of articles on almost any type subject and say--they have been here for a year, obviously they couldn't be sourced, let us remove them. And easy to do this for thousands of sections in articles on almost any subject. (I just found such sections in 8 of 10 random articles.) I do not use not use bots, but even without one, I could do any hundreds in a day--destruction that would require much longer to properly even reverse, and years of work to correct all the actual problems and remove the truly unsourcable. Any WP process if carried to extremes can be harmful. Most mass anythings done here have not been good ideas. Working faster than people can discuss is not in the longer run productive. Those who use wikilawering to justify these need to learn better--to use common sense and consideration. This is not a competitive sport.

What we should do now is return patiently to sourcing popular culture material. There aren't that many people with the skill and time to do so--and removing them from impatience is not the way to do anything at WP. I will believe those who delete them want to improve WP when the first try to source them. To his credit, Burntsauce has made made a number of such edits. He is not usually thoughtless. I had previously on his page offered to work with him on this material, and I remain willing. On a practical basis let a few good people continue to selective restore--on the basis of what appear worth the effort to sourcing. To his credit, Equazcion usually edits judiciously. And then let the editors more generally who know about the material be encouraged to source it. and let us develop clearer agreed guidelines--like consensus generally, they will be compromises. There is no room in a cooperative project for people who are too dogmatic to accommodate their colleagues. DGG (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Persuasion is best. Policies and guidelines are best used to back up arguments, not replace them. I wish all admins would act as you do, relying on persuasion and co-operative editing, and only use the blocking and protecting admin tools in cases of bad-faith disruptions. Your point about the study of popular culture being an established (if sometimes controversial) academic area is a good one. There are several peer-reviewed journals specialising in this area. Of course people should use these as sources, but unfortunately most are not open access and a difficult to obtain. We have an article on the Journal of Popular Culture. Other such journals are The Journal of American Popular Culture, The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. Those are not quite as established at the JPC (founded 1967), but it gives you an idea of what is out there. Of course, the articles in these journals are a world away from the collections of trivia being discussed here, and it takes effort to bring the two together, but no-one ever said writing an encyclopedia was easy. Deletion, now that is easy. Carcharoth 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with both DGG and Carcharoth's thoughtful, well-worded, and well-referenced opinions posted above. There is a great deal of value in this material and we just need to keep working to improve and source rather than destroy content that a sizable segment of our community is willing to devote time and energy on and that sees real encyclopedic value in the material as well. Have a great evening! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal information revealed, now in page history[edit]

Resolved

Please see this edit to Super Smash Bros. Melee. It was promptly removed, but it still remains in the page history. I think it would be safest to delete those two revisions of the page. You Can't See Me! 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Methinks WP:OVERSIGHT might be the best place to bring this up. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually it looks like it was already oversighted. Anchoress 00:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Much thanks! You Can't See Me! 00:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I deleted the two revisions, and killed my computer (and apparently caused a database lock) in the process. Sorry! Daniel 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that deletion, etc, applies to _versions_, not _diffs_ - the second one wouldn't have needed to be deleted. —Random832 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Pro-pedophile activism[edit]

Pro-pedophile activism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the subject of edit warring for an extended period of time. In an effort to help stop the edit war, I filed two 3RR reports regarding users on both sides. Both reports were incorrectly rejected, apparently based on a claim that although the three-revert rule, as written, does not require that each reversion concern the same material, it should be enforced as though it did -- see this report and this one. Since this article has been fully protected four times in as many months (and for one continuous period of nearly one and a half months), it is highly improbable that further page protections will resolve this issue. Also of concern is the fact that this article is being edited by a number of accounts which primarily or exclusively edit pedophilia-related related articles, and edit in a manner which favors pedophilia. See, for example, this edit, taking particular note of the edit summary, insofar as it indicates the editor's purpose. This problem is even more obvious on Human sexual behavior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where an "Adult-child sex" paragraph was created containing only information favorable to the practice -- which constitutes massive undue weight, since the practice is widely regarded as disgusting and immoral, and is additionally problematic because "Adult-child sex" is a neologism coined by pedophilia activists. However tolerant we might be of single purpose accounts in other contexts, operating a single purpose account to make Wikipedia articles more favorable to pedophilia is quite simply unacceptable, not only because such editing violates our neutral point of view policy, but also because articles biased towards pedophilia have a tendancy to bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Particularly in light of the latter consideration, it may be advisable to impose severe sanctions against problematic single-purpose accounts. John254 00:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

An article has now been created: Adult-child sex, and the edit-warring continues (redirects and so forth). Some truly novel, original approaches to this persistent conflict are needed. -Jmh123 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Where's NYB when you need him? east.718 at 02:05, 10/10/2007
I've removed that section from Human sexual behavior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Not that it doesn't merit a paragraph, but certainly not in that 'whitewashed' format. ELIMINATORJR 06:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This topic always needs the involvement of "uninterested" editors and admins to counteract and balance a group of editors who are "interested" in the pro-pedophile activism point of view. (That's PPA POV in shorthand). The PPA editors have discussed editing and gaming Wikipedia on forums, have used multiple accounts, and have persisted for years. Maintaining NPOV requires editors who can engage committed POV-pushers on an unpleasant topic. (No one ever said encyclopedia writing is fun.) I invite folks to help out by watchlisting some articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch#Articles, categories, and links list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

I only blocked one user User:Whig for disruption on Homeopathy. Please review this, I might have missed something in the revision history. Thanks, Mercury 12:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Request Protection of an Article[edit]

Please can The Islamic Schools Of Victoria be protected from editing by IP users? It has suffered a protracted attack of blanking and other vandalism from IP users over several days. Thank you. DuncanHill 13:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Nishkid64. In the future, please post requests like this to WP:RPP. Thanks, Caknuck 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I found the Request Protection page after posting here, then forgot to come back here and say so! DuncanHill 15:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Role account[edit]

I left a message and indef blocked (autoblock disabled, though). -- lucasbfr talk 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Edits from IPs on page Queen Elizabeth[edit]

3 IPs that I have seen have made continued vandal edits to Queen Elizabeth. These IPs all go back to British Columbia Systems Corporation [21][22][23] . The edits have been similar to each other and are either block avoidance, sockpuppet or most likely multiple people editing the page. The ips are

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

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

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

The vandalism seems to have slowed but as a precaution I thought I would report the IPs Rgoodermote 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like class is over. If they come back, we can do a little rangeblock. Raymond Arritt 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea, I will keep a watch on their contributes. Rgoodermote 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Period F[edit]

Hello,
This user account appears to have been created solely for the purpose of vandalizing articles. There has been only on edit so far but it was to vandalize the Burger King article.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 16:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

I have warned the user on their talk page. Should they continue to vandalize after receiving further warnings per that page I linked to, you can report them at WP:AIV. —bbatsell ¿? 16:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Max rspct and disruptive editing[edit]

I believe User:Max rspct is engaging in disruptive editing by constantly trying to delete anarcho-capitalist section in Anarchism despite longstanding consensus to include it.

First he was blocked for violating 3RR on this issue: (his block log; reverts: [24], [25], [26] + one deletion as anon).

Then he tried same thing again in july: [27], [28] (after User:Libertatia reverted him with explanation "longstanding consensus is for inclusion" he reverted back with edit summary "very funny").

Now he begins again: 09:21, 10 October 2007 (he deletes section on anarcho-capitalism without any explanation and marks his edit as minor), 16:11, 10 October 2007 (he reverts User:Brisvegas using popups).

None of his deletions was accompanied by comments on talk. -- Vision Thing -- 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The return of Amorrow[edit]

Some of you may have noticed a flurry of reversion and deletion in my recent changes and in the recent changes of others... some of you even asked me what was going on. Amorrow (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is back. It has become increasingly apparent to larger and larger numbers of people that he has returned. His contributions are not wanted here and by policy, should be deleted on sight. In some cases that includes entire pages speedily deleted, or AfDs of pages (that he is the only significant contributor to) speedily closed and the page itself then deleted. Note that I am not the only person deleting things... you may expect corroboration from others. All the socks of SallyForth123 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) are very likely him, because SallyForth123 is very likely him as well. Please be on the lookout for suspect behaviour. Please be on the lookout for potential socks, and seek assistance if you think you need it. There are always checkusers available on IRC and there are always admins available who are familiar with the edit patterns exhibited. We may make mistakes. If mistakes are made, bring them to the attention of the person you think made the mistake... let me apologise in advance on behalf of all, and I and others will work hard to correct them (restoring pages or comments caught in deletions by mistake, undoing tags, etc...) but this requires prompt, decisive action. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a clue... what are we looking for? SallyForth123's edits to me look like a long string of dull-but-valid minor edits — what am I missing?iridescent (talk to me!) 19:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the SallyForth123 account(s), but Amorrow's edits at the time he was banned are certainly rather distinctive. A lot of them have been deleted, but see e.g. this old version, as well as this revert by one of his socks from last year. See also Wikipedia:List of banned users#Amorrow, Template:Pinktulip and this old ANI discussion on the same subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who had to revert 1,597 of them, I'd seriously dispute they were valid - although they were minor. Orderinchaos 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Nod. I spotted the pattern in SallyForth and socks right away as soon as it was suggested... If you have seen his edits or those of his well known socks, after a while you will see the pattern too. A challenge here is if those of us that recognise the spotter characteristics get too detailed, he may possibly be able to avoid doing things which are dead giveaways now. Since he is so very corrosive to this site that he is "block on site, revert on site" by policy, we don't want to make it harder to catch him than we have to by giving things away. I'll say this though... if you see an editor that seems to have a misogynistic streak, if the very first few edits seem to show knowledge of our ways you wouldn't expect from a newbie, or if there's belligerence in tone to others at the slightest hint of questioning, if there are references you just don't get, or there are a lot of little edits to the same page, or an inability to stay away from certain subjects (successful women, for example, Bill of Attainder, and especially Wikipedia self referential topics like Essjay, Wikia, Angela, Jimbo, etc.), an inability to avoid taking cheap shots at established editors that new editors would not be expected to know well at all... ask someone whose been around a while what they think. Some of those are signs of puppets in general, true. But finding a tendentious trollish account by pattern and behaviour, blocking that account, and then determining it's the sock of another banned user rather than Amorrow ... that's not the end of the world, is it?. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I blocked user:Hoplon due to the strong similarity between him and SallyForth, RidinHood25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), etc. He's questioning the block. Perhaps someone else familiar with the user's pattern can review the block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I made a stupid mistake. I'd been looking at Roomsmight (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), but after I was called away from the computer I confused the account with that of Hoplon. I've unblocked and apologized to Hoplon, and will let more involved editors decide on what to do with or about Roomsmight. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
Yep, Roomsmight is a clear match, created in response to the last block. I've blocked it, reverted the TfD nominations, and applied some more IP blocks. Dmcdevit·t 10:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If Amorrow is using multiple accounts, they should all be indefinitely banned. Is there a checkuser link?--MONGO 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The accounts are getting banned as they are discovered... that's why this thread is here, to ask all concerned to be on the lookout and bring things to the attention of checkusers or admins. I don't at this time, believe that there is a case on WP:RFCU for this. That's not uncommon. If someone wants to start one that would be fine, but hopefully sock tagging will be sufficient. Some of Roomsmight's changes still need rolling back. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
All reverted now. ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Access to deleted articles[edit]

See also User_talk:Lar#Amorrow in which Everyking (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is asking me for access to articles and pages which are substantially or completely by socks of Amorrow, and in which I decline to grant it to him. He doesn't seem to want to take no for an answer, although I don't think there's an issue with that which requires any action by anyone else... I merely raise it for awareness since he may well ask other admins. If anyone is unclear as to why I think there is a potential issue with Deborah_Mayer they are welcome to contact me. As always, I invite review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Steindavida, again[edit]

User:Steindavida has been blocked for gross incivility and repeated addition of himself to Wikipedia articles despite his article having been deleted because he does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Since the day he was blocked, he has come back with anon accounts to re-add himself to Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver)‎, and to edit war and vandalize The Amityville Curse, so much so that the latter article was semi-protected. So now, daily, he comes in with a new anon account, edits Talk:The Amityville Curse so as to make personal attacks on another editor and re-edits Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver)‎, and every day his new sock puppet is blocked and his edits reveted. User:Golden Wattle has gone out of his her way to try to present a fair representation of Mr. Stein on the Amityville Curse article, but Stein has gone so far as to vandalize not only my User page, but Golden Wattle's as well. And now he's making legal threats, along with yet again another personal attack: [29]. Is there anything that can be done short of blocking all of the Toronto Bell Canada IP addresses? Corvus cornix 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT applies - an indef block should be handed down pending a retraction of the threat. Have you opened a suspected sockpuppets case or checkuser request yet? east.718 at 22:19, 10/9/2007
No, that was something I was hoping to avoid. :) Corvus cornix 22:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I must say I am a bit over it. The insults are gratuitous. The legal threats are actually of course pathetic but against policy. We can't of course block such a major ISP with a range block. I guess ongoing assistance from fellow admins in watching Talk:The Amityville Curse which is where he tends to show up and reverting and blocking on sight would be much appreciated. He has been warned, spoken to nicely, ... is obsessive and rude. Relevant IP addresses to date include 74.12.73.115 (talk · contribs) 74.12.75.105 (talk · contribs) 70.53.129.174 (talk · contribs) 74.12.76.176 (talk · contribs) 74.12.74.156 (talk · contribs) 74.12.79.3 (talk · contribs) 74.12.74.12 (talk · contribs) 74.12.77.252 (talk · contribs) 74.12.83.176 (talk · contribs) 74.12.80.17 (talk · contribs) There is no need for check user or sock puppeting since he is using IP addresses and is absolutely clearly identifiable on content focus and language - there ino attempt at disguise - the disruption is straight forward.--Golden Wattle talk 22:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
also 74.12.83.202 (talk · contribs) - just blocked by me --Golden Wattle talk 22:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody tried contacting Bell Canada yet? Caknuck 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
My past experience of contacting large ISPs was entirely unsatisfactory (Telstra Australia) - a total waste of time. They suggested I contact an administrator of the site - when I said I was one and was proposing a range block that took out the whole of the Telstra IP addresses to deal with this editor (subject to Arb Com decision) they were non-plussed but did nothing and the editor continued to harrass - these days she seems a little bored but still pops up from time to time. The language of Stein is strangely reminiscent though actually I find the possibility of a massacre near Gundagai a more plausible proposition than that I or any other editor have defamed Stein in any way (he claims I have defamed him by mistyping his name and suggesting in a conversation with another editor that he is a deluded chappie [30] - I stand by that claim: most recent evidence - he thinks I must know another editor merely because we both live in the same country [31] - Australia is quite large!). The issue with the massacre was the lack of reliable sources to cite as evidence thus the Gundagai editor's contributions breached WP:NOR. To write an article about this actor is also likely to breach the same policy in my opinion! Last night's efforts by Stein were 74.12.72.145 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - I am not quite sure why he was allowed to vandalise for 4 hours without a block :-( --Golden Wattle talk 21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Joel Beinin[edit]

I'm about to start pruning out a lot of personal attacks and name-calling in Talk:Joel Beinin, unless anybody objects. Corvus cornix 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't see any reason to keep it - I assume you're referring to the long bold text ramblings?iridescent (talk to me!) 22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Corvus cornix 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an Admin please sort this page/battling users out. User:Nishidani and User:Bigleaguer are getting out of hand now. Civility and rational discussion has totally gone. Comments from each other's talk pages are being copied and/or linked onto the article talk page (I've already deleted them). These two are going into meltdown. Personally I'd recommend they both get a temporary block if only to give them time to resharpen their claws! ---- WebHamster 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the page under attack from an anonymous user and then another user, both of whom engaged in highly POV editing, and blanking. The damage done to the text was, independently, fixed on several occasions by myself and RRoland. Since one of the two responsible User:Bigleaguer, also created confusion on his own user page, and made understanding what one earth was going on by repeated changes to both Beinin's page and his own tlk page, where proper calls, and, on my part, attempts at trying to reason the editor into behaving according to Wiki rules, were made.
I posted the evidence on Beinin's page, since that page was under attack by User:Bigleaguer . I regret that User:WebHamster has taken my attempts to settle this by civil and rational persuasion as implicitly uncivil and irrational. I am surprised that someone who has contributed to the Beinin's page, which has been under successive assaults by anonymous editors, someone who has repeatedly called for respect for the rules on BLP, should be considered on the same level as the person(s) who have repeatedly endeavoured to mess up that page. Still, I welcome any administrator in to examine the record, and make adequate provisions. The passage Webhamster removed (rightly, I was reconsidering posting it on Bigleaguer's own page), is as follows:-
==Annex.Bigleaguer's blanking of his Talk page where remonstrations were made about his behaviour here==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bigleaguer&oldid=163603332
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bigleaguer&oldid=163603148
Nishidani 18:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)tes
Note I am just learning protocol. Anyway Nishidani cleverly reinserted remonstrations minus the remonstrations against his remonstrations. Nice one Nishidani. The talk page on my account will stay up, hopefully with my answer to N. Why the caps?? 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As to the last remark. Bigleaguer's repeated playing with his and Beinin's talk page made tracking down the changes he made extremely arduous, and if in providing those links, I got the wrong one, I will stand corrected. Nishidani 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Herbert Dingle Page[edit]

Please keep an eye on the Herbert Dingle Page. There is a vandal by the name of DVdm who won't leave this page alone. He is posing as a responsible and regular wikipedia editor but he has a specific purpose of removing any kind of contributions that might in any way cast a shadow of doubt over Einstein's theories.

Herbert Dingle was an established scientist in the 1960's who challenged Einstein's theories. DVdm wants to water down this piece of history by removing references to the controversy and beefing the article up with biographical details.

Keep an eye on DVdm. I suspect that he uses sockpupets, perhaps Denveron and other IP adresses.

DVdm is posing as the good guy and trying to make out that other editors that are trying to present a balanced article, are actually the vandals. ( Brigadier Armstrong 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC) )

Herbert Dingle, huh? Never heard of the guy. He somehow sounds like the sort of person who would be the subject of a Twilight Zone episode... Mr. Dingle is a shy, ordinary man in the early 1960s who works in a boring job and is yelled at by his boss, henpecked by his wife, and insulted by his acquaintances at the bar... until one day he has a "Eureka moment" and realizes that he has a better theory than Einstein's... and he can use it to get the better of everybody who's been abusing him! But he'll discover that what it really gets him is a one-way trip into... The Twilight Zone! (Sorry... a bunch of TZ DVDs have just come up to the top of my Netflix queue.) *Dan T.* 12:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this some oblique way of saying that you are sanctioning DVdm's ongoing vandalism on this article? (124.157.246.207 14:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
I remember Herbert Dingle rather well. But he didn't so much think he had a better theory than Einstein, he just thought Einstein was wrong. This made other people very, very cross. So cross in fact that when they tried repudiating Dingle's ideas they got in a muddle and got their arguments all wrong. And Dingle then calmly pointed out their mistakes! These days he'd be dismissed as a troll. Thincat 15:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See below and archived intervention request and article talk page. - DVdm 15:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I didn't see this report, but I managed to find my way to this page via an alternate route and protected what is undoubtedly the wrong version.--Isotope23 talk 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
==> Perhaps you could restore the last version of 2-oct? There was some reasonable agreement over that one. Cheers and Thanks. DVdm 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't do any version changes on an article I protected. I've indicated at the talkpage that a request for unprotection should be requested if you disagree with the protection. This isn't a endorsement of the current version, I just think it is inappropriate for me to get into a content dispute on an article I protected unless there is a libel issue.--Isotope23 talk 19:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree! This user has deleted my posts every time about a new gravity theory relating to inertia in the article inertia by John Moffatt. Please allow my changes and stop DVDm from doing this- it really is ridiculous!

Protection of William Shakespeare (main page FA)[edit]

Additional admin input on how to handle to day's featured article would be helpful. William Shakespeare is an article that is usually semi-protected. However as it was todays' FA, I unprotected it. At 01:56, Alabamaboy reprotected the article citing excessive vandalism. Although I would have prefered to wait alittle longer, I didn't have any objection to that decision - the page had been vandalised over 30 times in less than 2 hours. Later today at 08:27 I decided to give unprotection another go as a different set of users would presumably be online. I thought this experiment reasonably successful, counting only a dozen instances of vandalism in the next 3 1/2 hours - comparable to the amount of vandalism the featured article normally receives. I was therefore surprised to find that Alabamaboy has reprotected the page. This seems unnecessary given present levels of vandalism and I think we should do our utmost to ensure the FA of the day is editable given it is the first page many come across of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Having had no reply from Alabamaboy, I raise the matter here - what do people think? WjBscribe 13:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Well of course vandalism goes down while the US and Europe are mostly asleep... I don't support unprotecting, vandalism will almost certainly be ugly now that more english speakers are awake. But I've always said the supposed benefits of leaving the main page FA unprotected are not anything near what they're trumped up to be. --W.marsh 13:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That's why I protected it again--the article had been hit hard in the last hour and a half before semi-protection was reinstated. As the admin who probably keeps the closest eye on this article, I can state that during the school year William Shakespeare is one of the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia. Anyway, this vandalism was well above what usually happens during a main page link and I feel it is justified. It's also worth noting that the vandalism continued after the semi-protection, just not from anonymous editors. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • In the last hour and a half before protection it was only vandalised 6 times! That's pretty low for a main page FA, speaking as someone who invariably watchlists the article of the day. WjB