Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive361

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

Noticeboard archives

Request for action in an Afd[edit]

I do not believe this Afd should have been raised as it does not meet any of the criteria for listing. I have said so, but the debate appears to be proceeding. Can an administrator please either close it, or tell me how or why my intitial objection was wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An early close would not be appropriate. Let the discussion run for the requisite five days, and a non-involved admin will close it as it needs to be closed. Corvus cornixtalk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
An AfD discussion may simultaneously refute the rationale of the nominator and urge deletion on unrelated grounds. An AfD can be called up for with any reason, within limits and common sense. —Kurykh 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have further discovered these statements [1] and [2] by the Afd nominator on the football project talk page. I think these demonstrate a bad faith nomination. Additionaly, this Afd was raised 1 hour after article creation, with absolutely no recourse to discussion or use of the established tags for resolving the (now of questionable faith) stated reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Purported procedural errors by the nominator do not have any impact on the existence of the discussion. If you're trying to get the discussion closed because the nominator is not acting in good faith, then the short answer is no, we will not close it. All of those arguments are supposed to be in the AfD, not here, and are arguments against deletion, not against the existence of the discussion. —Kurykh 04:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why have any policies describing how, when and why to list an Afd at all, let alone general policies such as good faith and use of discussion? I now have to both object to the nomination on policy, procedure and good faith grounds, while simultaneously validating them by having content discussions as well, when the article talk page has never even been started nor a single tag (bar Afd) has even been placed on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganging up on AfD participators doesn't help your case. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I ganging up? As I said above, the raising of this Afd means I now have to have a discussion on 3 different levels covering different issues, some relevant to an Afd, some not. Or would you rather I didn't try to defend the article's existence at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be substance in the discussion; by all means, continue to make your case for inclusion, continue to work on the article to address concerns if you can, but is there some reason the discussion shouldn't be allowed to continue? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no willingness to edit the article if the possibility exists that it will be summarily deleted in 5 days, and this then introduces the possibility that votes could later be cahnged, but the voters never return, giving an innaccurate picture of consensus on the final state of the article. I have already wasted enough time on it for it to be trashed after existing for 1 hour. Plus, there are already conflicting ideas on how to proceed, so there is no direction in which to proceed editing until the Afd closes, therefore the spurious nomination serves to kill developmentr for 5 days, meeting the nominators stated aim of bad faith discussion. Afd is not a venue for content discussion, which most of the Afd comments allude to. The principle is, why should an Afd nomination be allowed if it's creation violates several WP policies at the same time? Just how spurious does a nomination have to be? How did Afd process become elevated over all other considerations of collaberative editting? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TigerManXL for United States presidential election, 2008[edit]

User continues to make substantial edits to this page without providing any readily available, cited source. Reverts any undoing of his edits, proclaiming that whatever he claims is true can be substantiated by "turning on CNN." Is persistent, stubborn, and rude towards other editors. Has a track record of similar offenses with other articles, and has been blocked before. --Nkrosse (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that he violated the 3RR rule numerous times over today.--Nkrosse (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of his contributions to Wikipedia: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

He also violates the W:NPA rule here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkrosse (talkcontribs) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[WikiEN-l] mailing list[edit]

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

I would like to know how it is appropriate for editors to make defamatory comments about other editors on Wikipedia mailing lists with an expectation that the editor being defamed will most likely not see it. For example, User:Ansell found it necessary to refer to myself and User:Pedro as "irresponsible" parents for posting images of our children. Not as if magazines, TV ads, billboards, books, websites, etc don't have images of children. But somehow, in posting an image of each of my children in bathrobes makes me an irresponsible mother to the point that someone that doesn't know me from Eve feels vindicated in telling it to a group of my peers behind my back. I'd like to know if this sort of behavior is endorsed by the community. LaraLove 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I was the first one to post on his talk page. I was just flabbergasted by the lack of regard for other people's feelings as well as the quick jump for moral superiority. In fact, if it wasn't for someone telling Lara that the post was made about her, she wouldn't have known. I find that very shady. It wouldn't be acceptable if he told her to her face that she was a bad mother; why would it be acceptable on the mailing list? Mike H. Fierce! 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. And, I've told him so. That sorta thing doesn't really have a place here. SQLQuery me! 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that many of us have already commented at his talk page, I’d like to hear a response from him first – although I agree he was way out of line. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I know I'm not LaraLove, but I definitely don't want to hear justifications or him trying to defend his words, because they're totally indefensible. Mike H. Fierce! 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I kind of want to know what makes him think that these images make me an irresponsible mother. And what makes him think it's acceptable to voice that belief on a mailing list of my peers knowing that not only am I not there to respond, but no one was notified from the BRC that we were even the topic of discussion. They just started editing my subpage before someone else contacted us. LaraLove 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • In case my edit is the one being complained about here, I apologize for editing first and commenting on the talk page second. All I did was remove the title override and I didn't think that'd be a major issue, it didn't occur to me until afterward that you and the others who worked on the page might not know about the mailing list thread and some of the other stuff being talked about in it. Sorry about that. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • LaraLove, I agree that (at the very minimum) you should have been informed of the thread at wiki-en-L, preferably by the person who started it; and I too find that bald statement to be inappropriate. In fact, it never occurred to me that you hadn't been made aware, otherwise I might well have contacted you myself on reading it. I'm sure you're a fine mother. However, I am not sure if you are aware that a photo of Boy Scouts, hosted here and uploaded by a respectable editor, was recently found to have been used by another "adult oriented" wiki in a manner in which many people (myself included) found unacceptable. Indeed, it is my understanding that there were multiple complaints about the content in this wiki (there were other images of children involved) to the point that it has been at least temporarily removed from public access. The use of this photograph by the other wiki was perfectly legal; because of the licensing requirements of Wikimedia, anyone can use any of our photos in any way that they wish. While no doubt most people using Wikimedia or Wikipedia images does so in perfectly reasonable ways, there are sadly some people whose uses of these images would make your hair curl. From that perspective, and assuming the photos are indeed hosted here, you might wish to reconsider. That isn't a comment about your parenting, as I really think Wikipedia and Wikimedia could be a lot more forthcoming on the fact that once uploaded, the "owner" of the photo essentially gives up all control as to how it is used. Risker (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Lara, the kiddie porn industry *loves* new pics of kids, and they often take kids' heads and put them on to naked bodies to create more porn pics. Just an FYI, besides that it was inappropriate for someone to talk about you behind your back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Lara, suggest you read this regarding the wikia Risker mentioned. To be honest I was horrified and I don't even have kids. ViridaeTalk 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see this has nicely been packaged into a revision of the 'if she wasn't wearing that outfit...' scenario. It's not about a sodomizing pedophile with access to Photoshop, it's about public domain and other free-licenses. the_undertow talk 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, all I know is that the few people I have approached to provide photographs have asked me if I was out of my tree when I explained the GFDL license. I would certainly never post photos of children under the terms of that license. Then again, one of my friends is a cybercrime police officer. Risker (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't control what people do with any of my images. I upload them knowing that they can be used by anyone. However, I can't imagine my kid's images being photoshopped into kiddie porn legally, considering kiddie porn is illegal. The issue, regardless, is that I am not an irresponsible parent, nor is Pedro, for posting images of our children. LaraLove 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, and I wasnt trying to say you were. ViridaeTalk 06:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't referring to you. Merely refocusing the point of the thread. LaraLove 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have much to say. I stand by my comment that it is dangerous to put childrens pictures on the internet. Honestly didn't see that as causing a fuss, particularly as it was said two days ago on the mailing list and noone said anything there. Ansell 06:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You in essence passed moral judgment and called LaraLove and Pedro bad parents. Who are you to pass judgment on another person's parenting skills? And the fact that you defend your words, that's just so utterly contemptible. It makes me sick. Mike H. Fierce! 06:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And might I add, you said it on the mailing list and not to LaraLove or Pedro directly, which just reeks of cattiness. If you're going to go for the jugular, why try to keep it from them? They clearly weren't aware, and the fact that you more or less don't care that they're offended by your statement says a lot about you as a person. That's my moral judgment. Don't like it? Don't dish it out. Mike H. Fierce! 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This photo re-use stuff is scary. Anyway, one should not comment on the parenting skills of another. The person(s) making such comments should apologize. TableMannersC·U·T 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, the comment on "parenting skills" is completely out of place. There is another reason for not posting kids pictures online (especially not if their names are easily googled and/or Mummy or Daddy's pages have a high page-rank. The kids grow up, they turn into rotten teenagers and are (rightly so) horrified when their peers find these pictures that they feel are inappropriate. Trying to remove them from Google's cache is extremely difficult. But who thinks of this when uploading pictures? Better to put a picture of a tree or a stone on you page :) --WiseWoman (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the comments seem to be coming from people in countries where the faces of children in public are covered. Well, it is winter in Canada right now, so maybe they're seasonal comments. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ansell, when it was said is irrelevant. I was notified on this night. Perhaps no one caught it amongst the whiney mess regarding the BRC and the "css hack" that displayed a harmless redirect to a joke subpage which was advertised no where outside of Wikipedia and it's IRC channels. Your comment was inappropriate and defamatory. And WiseWoman, I seriously fail to see that as a realistic situation. LaraLove 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure why everyone is putting up a big fuss. If I was someone who was prone to taking offense to general comments I might be offended by people saying that because I don't say things to people face I am "catty" and a bad person. I still want to know if the person is aware that photos uploaded to wikipedia can be used in whatever way a person wants, provided somewhere they provide a link back. Absolutely no protection means any change is legal from a copyright perspective, even if it is illegal under child porn laws. GFDL'd childrens pictures are dangerous, full stop! That was the essential message to established editors who can be presumed to be aware of freedom of reuse and modification as the complete basis of wikipedia/GFDL.
As far as commenting to their face, I would have if I was made aware by anyone at all on the list that the comment could be taken in a bad way personally attacking the particular parents, instead of just expressing a humble, if objectionable, opinion (ie, humble as demonstrated by the way I finished the comment off in an abrupt fashion, that has been mistakenly taken for non-chalance to them as people, here). Personally it is quite distressing to have people attack you randomly two days after you make a one-sentence off-topic statement on the mailing list. Please don't jump to conclusions so much.
Sorry for offending anyone personally. I didn't realise people were so restricted to expressing opinions in what is normally a very fussy mailing list. Ansell 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for offending anyone personally. I didn't realise people were so restricted to expressing opinions in what is normally a very fussy mailing list.
That is such a "bitchslap" apology if I've ever heard one. "Sorry, but, you know, I don't feel bad." If you don't feel bad, then don't fake it. But be prepared for people to not like your opinion. Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to read it that way, but it sounds to me that Ansell is making perfect sense. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give everyone who doesn't comment on this now pointless section a barnstar. John Reaves 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that helpful? Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a joke, an attempt to quell this pointless cat fight. John Reaves 07:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Opinions regarding the personal traits of others are always screened and I'm amazed that this one wasn't. I imagine it's because you were smart enough to bury it deep in your message and the mods overlooked it. I'm shocked and horrified, not merely by your initial comment, but by the fact that you don't regard it to be out of line. The issue is not what Lara or Pedro are doing. The issue is you daring to call out people you don't know about a fundamentally sensitive subject such as how they parent their children. You would be censured for accusing people about their sexuality, gender or nationality, and I can't see how this is any better.
That said - I don't see this can be solved here, and mailing list mods should be contacted. That place is a cesspool anyway and things like this just make it worse. ~ Riana 07:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr, what ever happened to people not being so freaking sensitive? Was it kind of rude? yeah. It's something where LoraLove should tell Peter "hey, that's not cool". Making a post on ANI about it... dude, get over it. If Peter wants to apologies, he will. If he doesn't, get over it. Move on, it's not that bad. Somebody called you a bad parent behind your back? Quick, somebody call the waaaamubance! (see, that's uncivil. What Peter did was harsh, but not necessarily uncivil). -- Ned Scott 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove has been called a bad mother on Wikipedia in the past. Considering her past experiences, I don't think it's "sensitive" of her, and honestly, your comments don't help and just piss people off more. Was that your goal? Mike H. Fierce! 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, damn, Ned. Who knew that someone could be bitchier here than Mike. Well played. Now go back to obviously not being a parent and let the adults talk. LaraLove 07:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(to Mike) Past experiences? I am unaware of what you seem to be hinting at. Peter said that he believes that anyone who posts pictures of their underage kids on Wikipedia is being irresponsible. He did so in the middle of a discussion where LaraLove's pictures were being talked about. I'm just going to take a guess here and say... the comment wasn't unique to her, but just something that Peter felt in general. And you know what, that's not such a crazy opinion to have (I don't agree with it, but it's not "out there").
Some people think that stuff, it's not the end of the world. I'm religious, and some people think that religious people are stupid for believing such things. I flip them off in my mind and move on. My best friend is one of these people. Hey, what are ya gonna do.
(to Lara): You want to pretend to know about my family life, go ahead. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the past experience of already having to hear that a Wikipedia editor thought she was a bad mother, seemingly for no concrete reason at all. And honestly, I don't believe that he mentioned that "as a coincidence." He knew who was in discussion, and he made the comment. Whether you think it or not, it's absolutely rude, tacky, tasteless, nasty, catty, bitchy, etc. to actually voice it at someone. Plus, unless you're willing to have someone scrutinize how you raise your kids, they should just step the hell off. Mike H. Fierce! 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as inherently counterproductive to resort so directly and abrasively to ad hominem attacks when complaining about a vague comment that's already been apologized for. Getting cliquey is not going to solve this. Throwing around more insults is not going to solve this, much less so the same sorts of unfortunate comments about family life that got this whole thing started. Why don't we all calm down just a notch? Yes, bad things happened; no, we don't need to make that any worse. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry this is so distressing for you. First of all, you people are so concerned with the BRC but not concerned enough to mention anything to anyone who actually participates in it? Throwing around speculation and concern over a joke page that doesn't affect you, not bothering to get any details from anyone who actually knows anything about it. Then you have this genuine concern for the well-being of my kids and Pedro's, but no inclination to actually inform either of us of this important concern? You "still want to know if the person is aware that photos uploaded to wikipedia can be used in whatever way a person wants", I am "the person". Hai, I'm Lara. I already stated I am aware. Still so concerned, yet no desire to ask me. That doesn't make sense. LaraLove 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Re-focussing this thread back to Lara's original complaint. Had we been libeled as "poofters", "niggers", "religious nutters" or any other disgusting attack we'd probably be seeing a lot more direct input here.... However, I take great exception to being called a bad parent, and I take even further exception to the way it was done, where I could never have seen it and have a chance to reply (not that I'm going to even bother defending my parenting skills). I am appaled that this editor was too cowardly to address either Lara or I directly on our talk pages about his "concerns". Nevertheless, I think on reading the above the community agrees that it was an ill-considered comment and I would prefer to move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not having the conversation in a better place, that, and not being alerted to the fact by others who potentially saw something hurtful in the statement, make for a very confusing discussion of this issue. One, I don't like the fact that this was not taken up with me personally before it was brought here. (Leaving posts on my page and then coming here anyway before I respond doesn't impress me. Please don't take offense to that, I just prefer to discuss things in less public places, at least at first, as it doesn't create large amounts of confusion). I apologised on the mailing list and here. What more do you want? People were telling you about the dangers of this, as demonstrated by the wikipedia review link, before I got a chance to reply, but you are still asking what the dangers are. GFDL=Freedom=Loss of control=Children's pictures anywhere anytime without any explicit permission=Reflection on image poster. Thats what I was really trying to get at by my short off-topic comment which was not pursued by any of the participants, and I doubt even moderators, seeing as other participants left it alone, would have felt the need to sanction me for it, as they would have asked for a retraction/apology immediately if they saw fit to. I am not one who enjoys firestorm reactions to short comments. Cheers, Ansell 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Bluntly, and briefly as I can, as this is going off topic again. I don't care about a perceived issue with someone photoshopping a picture of my boy's head onto a naked child for the sexual gratification of peadophiles. I've often thought there's money to be made in flogging my parents entire collection of me in the nude at ages 1-5 to the sickos, as frankly I don't give a toss if they get their rocks of over it. The point is simple - if you were that concerned about "the dangers" why did you not approach Lara and I directly? Basically, you weren't, you made a throw away comment and you are now trying to defend it through a spurious argument that you are doing the best thing to protect our children - which is actually coming over as ever more offensive than the original comment. I said it above - you've made a mistake or error of judgment as it were, you seem to accept that it was a poor choice of words and that's it. Let's move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi just surfing in with another view. I didn't read Ansell's post on wiki-en, and whether he really did call people 'bad parents' in those terms. Some people are more guarded than others on the internet, and they can be shocked at what others willingly disclose. So I can see that he might have concerns about it, and the parents concerned might not- that's not either side's 'fault' or wrong perception though- just that people have different degrees of relaxation about what they disclose on the internet (for instance I would never share my legal name on my user page etc, but some people do so happily.) Anyway my point is, I can't form an opinion unless I have seen the post concerned by Ansell, and the language he used, whether he said 'bad parents' or instead 'I can't understand a parent doing that' or something. If you ask his opinion I'm sure he would let someone quote the relevant bit of his post here- as people are being asked to make a judgement/opinion on ANI, without knowing the wording (in context) of that on which they are commenting. If you are discussing it here it should be written out here or people who aren't on wiki-en list can't form an opinion, and no I don't want to join wiki-en, though I'm sure it's lovely, I'm on enough lists.:) As to it being Ansell going behind Lara and Pedro's backs- that's obviously a bit rude- on the other hand it could be that he wanted to discuss general issues rather than them specifically, which I imagine is a good use of wiki-en. But if he just wanted to use what they did as an example in discussion, he could have been more tactful and not named names. You see we really can't tell without having read his post. Merkinsmum 09:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this what you're looking for? Pedro :  Chat  09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here. "
And just to point it out for many people here, note how he specifically comments on the photo issue. He does not say that anyone is a bad parent over all, or makes any judgment for anything other than uploading pictures of them under a free-license. It's a very specific comment, and one that has been incorrectly translated as "bad mother". Doesn't make it ok, doesn't make it whatever, I'm just saying that the comment is being read into far more than it should be. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You appear to lack the ability to read sentences placed between other sentences. It's okay, I'll pull it out for you; "It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that." I said "irresponsible parent". Regardless, you appear to be completely oblivious to the point. If you're not offended, good for you. Step off, because of the two editors specifically referred to (the thread is about the BRC page, which includes three images of children; my two kids and "Son of Pedro"), both are offended. And both happen not to appreciate the "apology". kthxbye, LaraLove 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any admin action required here? Otherwise take it to the mailing list. Relata refero (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On the picture issue itself... can you spell "moral panic"? The GFDL (and any other license someone might place a picture uploaded here under) is a copyright license, it does not constitute a waiver of other rights [such as personality rights] nor does it allow people to do things that are illegal with the picture. Moreover, if bad people are inclined to do illegal things with pictures, copyright isn't going to be something that will stop them from doing so. —Random832 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


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

User:Egasa[edit]

Egasa (talk · contribs) has created a plethora of articles on non-notable magazines that read to me as borderline spam and starting to clog up CSD and AfD. The spam to me is not blatantly bad but I fear none of the articles would survive AfD. I am not sure if this constitutes disruptive editing. Any ideas on how this should be dealt with? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user. His talk page shows that he should be adequately aware of his disruption. Another poor creation will result in a block. LaraLove 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to know the rationale User:Catchpole used for calling nearly every one of those articles "valid stubs" when no guidelines were even remotely met. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed[edit]

Would an admin who has experience with rangeblocks please investigate the jumping-IP vandalism of 75.100.xxx.xxx. Two of the IP addresses he used tonight are User talk:75.100.84.36 and User talk:75.100.80.190. In the first talk page, he admits to jumping IP addresses to avoid blocks, and continue to vandalise. We need to nip this in the bud. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other IPs that have been used? It's better to have a narrow block than one that could possibly affect innocent users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those are the only two I have tripped over so far. The threats to jump IP addresses were what caught my attention on the first one; and the second one shows that he went through with it. It looks like it has stopped following the second block; but its a situation we should keep an eye on pending further problems. Consider it a "heads up" at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Also add User talk:75.100.87.206 and User talk:75.100.90.73. Mr.Z-man 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, after consulting with Alison on IRC about possible collateral damage, I've blocked 75.100.80.0/20 for 24 hours. So far all the IPs used have been in this range. Mr.Z-man 07:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lumberjake[edit]

Lumberjake (talk · contribs) is on a prod removal spree, using nonsense edit summaries and not even completely removing the entire subst'd prod template. I left a message asking for valid edit summaries, and was ignored. Corvus cornixtalk 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. This might encourage some communication. John Reaves 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation, but I would ask that you retract your allegation that the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody are "nonsense". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I declined the unblock request, just FYI. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not sure "removing valid prods" counts as disruptive since prods are, in some sense, there to be removed. I'd suggest that he be unblocked if he commits to using proper edit summaries when removing them in the future. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I hereby retract the allegation that the lyrics are nonsense (I love Bohemian Rhapsody), and caveat by saying that they're nonsense in this context. :) Corvus cornixtalk 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Wonder why he duped the page Rabbit bites to User talk:Lumberjake? Looks a bit like he's trolling is talk--Hu12 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I would have agreed for the prod to be restored, as it was seriously disputive removing every remaining prod from the category with idiotic edit summarries. Secret account 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I could go on and bitch about how unfair this is, but I think maybe I needed a day to calm down and sort myself (other things going on IRL too). I'm cool with it, in the past. Happy end. Lumberjake (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought re JohnSmith's apparent conflict seeking, and wikistalking[edit]

John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and myself have a long history of bitter conflict, edit warring, and we seem to disagree with each other about just about everything. This ongoing conflict eventually escalated into an Arbcom case where we were both put on a revert probation. There was wikistalking as an issue then. My concern is that JohnSmith’s appears to be back to wikistalking me, seeking to continue the old pattern of provoking conflict and drama, that is objectively disruptive to the articles where this occurs between us. I advise for him to follow the first suggestion of dispute resolution and avoid me--not go out of his way to clash with me. So I’m here to ask for guidance and bring it to attention of admins who might be able to help before things continue and get worse.

My positive good-faith comment to JohnSmith, "...I hope your participation here is genuine and not a repeat of your past wikistalking. In fact given our edit warring history resulting in arbcom (and the fact that we seem to disagree about just about everything) don't you think that it is odd that in all of wikipedia's thousands of articles you choose the one that I'm most active in? The first step is dispute resolution is simply to avoid the other person. I think that it would be wise, even if your intentions are good, to disengage from here since it will most likely just embroil us in further conflict, and we both have had our share of that by now, I'd hope.:)"

But JohnSmith's replies this way:“As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth.”[8] Why he comes to the one article I mainly edit to engage in conflict with me, is my main question.

Same thing with other articles: John Smiths appeared for the first time right after my edit and request on the talk page. See my request on talk here: [9] I restored a section taking out by User:Raggz, and provide a citation for support. I left a leave a message on the talk page asking editors to please hold off on making any more deletions as I am working to provide references to support the rest of the claims, of which I am familiar with.This is respected by editors, but guess who shows up? John Smith’s, for the very first time to this article. And what are his very first action to the article? To to ignore my request and delete a section: [10] I then respond to him on the talk page with this question but he ignores it:[11]

I’m disturbed by this pattern of engaging with me in endless arguments. I think someone should tell him Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that out of the over 2 million articles, why must he choose the main articles that I am working on, esp. given the very predictable negative result is that we end up in endless and asinine bickering?

Even if his intentions are good, it’s just a bad idea given our history, and it appears to other editors that he is doing this just to fight with me. I’ve asked that he disengage and avoid arguing with me, but he seems addicted to argumentation--with me. I’ve raised this point several times and asked him but he responds back by making personal attacks and assuming bad faith: “As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth.”

I bring it here because I can see it getting worse again, and resulting in general disruption to actual editing work on improving articles, which is the purpose I edit on WP. If nothing is done, at least I want to be on record here of trying to do something about it before it gets out of hand, and continues on into another arbcom case.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your achilles heel is your longwindedness. El_C 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a Wikibreak go edit something else, forget your WP:POINT, leave the man alone and he will leave you alone. Igor Berger (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try, thanks! El_C 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
El_C, I think he was referring to Giovanni. I don't think anyone could accuse you of WP:POINT and needing a wikibreak after a single sentence. ;) John Smith's (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni, the message you posted in italics was not good faith. If you had been truly meaning to say something pleasant you would have said something like "I hope that we will be able to put our unfortunate past behind us and work together on this page". What you did was to bring up the arbitration case (which put the same controls on each of us) and past allegations of wikistalking when there was clearly no need to.
Need I remind you that the only editor not involved in the page and who has no history with either myself or you who commented on my peer review request said that the didn't agree with Bernard's allegations against me being on the page because of you and suggested he strike them.
You are implying that if you edit a page I am not allowed to get involved with it. That is nonsense. I can take an interest in something with you not being an issue. Indeed your prescence on the Allegations article was not an issue until you made it one. I was talking things over quite happily with Stonesky and others. I have also been aware of it for a long time, but only recently felt I could move off the articles I've frequented in the past (e.g. Jung Chang) because you appear to have moved on from them and stopped edit-warring there.
You frequently complain I do not assume good faith but you do not show it yourself. If you want to avoid conflict, don't talk to me. If someone Bernard makes a snide comment as he did either don't respond or say that you think he's being hasty. Don't jump on the bandwagon because you think it's fun to have a swipe at me.
As for not responding on the other article, I was hardly going to stay up past midnight (my time) in the anticipation of you leaving a message. Or do you regularly stay up past 1am and expect others to do the same? And why was I on the page? Maybe because it's related to the allegations page? You are also misrepresenting what happened. You posted a message there well over 12 hours before I removed the text in question. How is a gap of 12 hours "right afterwards"?
If there's any drama it has been created by you. Take Igor's advice - wikibreak and then just leave me alone. John Smith's (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


I must disagree. While JohnSmith has largely been civil on that page, i must also agree with Giovannni's representation of the affair. The page is a magnet for Wikipedia activists who would like to see it deleted and -- in light of Giovanni and JohnSmith's past experiences -- JohnSmith has made some suggestions that bring up contentious issues from a very long time back. He has, unfortunately, also approached the page primarily from the perspective of someone who would like to see it or much of its content deleted. While we may be still working out these points of contention in a civil manner, i see nothing in his behavior or attitude that suggests exemplary mention for tolerance, cooperation, or contribution. Meanwhile, Giovanni's comments were direct, to-the-point, and based upon what must be a very sensitive subject for the both of them. Giovanni pointed out only that there were disagreements between the two of them that had resulted in disciplinary action and an agreement by each to try and avoid the other one. When Giovanni pointed this out, JohnSmith's declared that he had somehow been "personally attacked". His reaction seemed to me quite exaggerated and dramatic; moreover, Giovanni has been a more-or-less continuous presence on this page for a couple of years, whereas this is the first time i have seen the username JohnSmith's appear. Thus, it would seem to me that if JohnSmith's were truly seeking to avoid Giovanni then "Allegations...U.S." would be one of the very few places he would avoid like the plague.

Having said all of that, JohnSmith's has done nothing to personally attack me. His suggestions for the page have been met with our usual appeal to Wikipedia protocol and guidelines. Yet even so, if it is the case that he has agreed to avoid Giovanni then it would seem that he is now reneging upon that agreement in an egregious fashion. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there was never an agreement to avoid editing/commenting on pages the other has worked on. I would not decide to go somewhere because Giovanni was there, but his prescence on a page has never really been something I have thought about - if I am interested I will take a look at something and maybe edit. Generally speaking I do not seek to interact with him, preferring to discuss matters with other users if possible.
If he so wishes to have an "official" agreement that we stay away from each other, one that can be enforced by administrators, he should propose it in whatever place would be appropriate so that it can be discussed. John Smith's (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As I just noted on a user talk page where John was complaining about Giovanni, both of you need to chill and quit trying to get the other party in trouble. Either ignore each other or engage constructively. I'm sick of watching this disupte rampage all over the 'pedia. You're both better than that, and I think everyone who's been exposed to this pretty lame dispute is sick of hearing about it. You are both to blame (note: this means that no one is going to be persuaded by any argument either of you make to the contrary), and both of you should make the choice to "squash the beef" as they say and either work together civilly or avoid all interaction. If that cannot happen Gio and John might have to be forcibly separated in some fashion - hopefully without going through the whole rigmarole of a new ArbCom. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Entry for Millard Fillmore currently being vandalised[edit]

Millard Fillmore entry vandalism in progress now.

Edits include:

'Millard Fillmore is a fag'

'Millard Fillmore has no penis'

'Buttmuncher'

etc. etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.240.232 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... as if it's not enough to have been associated with something called the Know Nothing Party, or to have been the inspiration for tired political hackery in a duck suit... is there no end to the indignities to which President Fillmore is subjected? MastCell Talk 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know; on the other hand, has two of the most famous rock venues in the world named after him, so that's some compensation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
He's also the only president who arguably came to power because of too many cold cherries. Take that, Lincoln!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly... Chester A. Arthur's sub rosa connections to the iced cherry lobby, which dated back to his tenure as head of the New York Port Authority, were a major factor in his failure to secure the Republican renomination in 1884, ultimately leading to Grover Cleveland's rather narrow victory over James G. Blaine. It is commonly believed that if not for Cherrygate, Arthur would have wiped the floor with Grover Cleveland's sorry, philandering, inferiorly mustachioed ass in the general election. The role that iced cherries have played in American politics has generally been underappreciated by mainstream historians. MastCell Talk 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for action in an Afd[edit]

I do not believe this Afd should have been raised as it does not meet any of the criteria for listing. I have said so, but the debate appears to be proceeding. Can an administrator please either close it, or tell me how or why my intitial objection was wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An early close would not be appropriate. Let the discussion run for the requisite five days, and a non-involved admin will close it as it needs to be closed. Corvus cornixtalk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
An AfD discussion may simultaneously refute the rationale of the nominator and urge deletion on unrelated grounds. An AfD can be called up for with any reason, within limits and common sense. —Kurykh 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have further discovered these statements [12] and [13] by the Afd nominator on the football project talk page. I think these demonstrate a bad faith nomination. Additionaly, this Afd was raised 1 hour after article creation, with absolutely no recourse to discussion or use of the established tags for resolving the (now of questionable faith) stated reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Purported procedural errors by the nominator do not have any impact on the existence of the discussion. If you're trying to get the discussion closed because the nominator is not acting in good faith, then the short answer is no, we will not close it. All of those arguments are supposed to be in the AfD, not here, and are arguments against deletion, not against the existence of the discussion. —Kurykh 04:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why have any policies describing how, when and why to list an Afd at all, let alone general policies such as good faith and use of discussion? I now have to both object to the nomination on policy, procedure and good faith grounds, while simultaneously validating them by having content discussions as well, when the article talk page has never even been started nor a single tag (bar Afd) has even been placed on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganging up on AfD participators doesn't help your case. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I ganging up? As I said above, the raising of this Afd means I now have to have a discussion on 3 different levels covering different issues, some relevant to an Afd, some not. Or would you rather I didn't try to defend the article's existence at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be substance in the discussion; by all means, continue to make your case for inclusion, continue to work on the article to address concerns if you can, but is there some reason the discussion shouldn't be allowed to continue? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no willingness to edit the article if the possibility exists that it will be summarily deleted in 5 days, and this then introduces the possibility that votes could later be cahnged, but the voters never return, giving an innaccurate picture of consensus on the final state of the article. I have already wasted enough time on it for it to be trashed after existing for 1 hour. Plus, there are already conflicting ideas on how to proceed, so there is no direction in which to proceed editing until the Afd closes, therefore the spurious nomination serves to kill developmentr for 5 days, meeting the nominators stated aim of bad faith discussion. Afd is not a venue for content discussion, which most of the Afd comments allude to. The principle is, why should an Afd nomination be allowed if it's creation violates several WP policies at the same time? Just how spurious does a nomination have to be? How did Afd process become elevated over all other considerations of collaberative editting? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TigerManXL for United States presidential election, 2008[edit]

User continues to make substantial edits to this page without providing any readily available, cited source. Reverts any undoing of his edits, proclaiming that whatever he claims is true can be substantiated by "turning on CNN." Is persistent, stubborn, and rude towards other editors. Has a track record of similar offenses with other articles, and has been blocked before. --Nkrosse (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that he violated the 3RR rule numerous times over today.--Nkrosse (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of his contributions to Wikipedia: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

He also violates the W:NPA rule here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkrosse (talkcontribs) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Egasa[edit]

Egasa (talk · contribs) has created a plethora of articles on non-notable magazines that read to me as borderline spam and starting to clog up CSD and AfD. The spam to me is not blatantly bad but I fear none of the articles would survive AfD. I am not sure if this constitutes disruptive editing. Any ideas on how this should be dealt with? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user. His talk page shows that he should be adequately aware of his disruption. Another poor creation will result in a block. LaraLove 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to know the rationale User:Catchpole used for calling nearly every one of those articles "valid stubs" when no guidelines were even remotely met. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed[edit]

Would an admin who has experience with rangeblocks please investigate the jumping-IP vandalism of 75.100.xxx.xxx. Two of the IP addresses he used tonight are User talk:75.100.84.36 and User talk:75.100.80.190. In the first talk page, he admits to jumping IP addresses to avoid blocks, and continue to vandalise. We need to nip this in the bud. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other IPs that have been used? It's better to have a narrow block than one that could possibly affect innocent users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those are the only two I have tripped over so far. The threats to jump IP addresses were what caught my attention on the first one; and the second one shows that he went through with it. It looks like it has stopped following the second block; but its a situation we should keep an eye on pending further problems. Consider it a "heads up" at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Also add User talk:75.100.87.206 and User talk:75.100.90.73. Mr.Z-man 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, after consulting with Alison on IRC about possible collateral damage, I've blocked 75.100.80.0/20 for 24 hours. So far all the IPs used have been in this range. Mr.Z-man 07:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall[edit]

(cross-posted from WP:AN) Hello. This is to notify you of a formal request for recall concerning my use of admin tools, specifically, protection. I hate to stir up drama so soon after the most recent request, but I have decided to honor User talk:100%freehuman's request. You may view the process here; if the threshold for requests for me to step down is not met within 24 hours of the complaint, the process will proceed; comments are welcome on the talk page, litigants may post on the formal page, I only request notification on my talk. Thank you all. Regretfully, Keilana|Parlez ici 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has just registered today. Revert it. And, ignore it. Seriously, Wikipedia's community has enough drama. miranda 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that there is a chance that this is either a user you blocked or a common troll trying to create drama, right? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. 100%freehuman's edits to date do not look like those of a newbie, and I agree with Caribbean H.Q. that this may well be trolling. -- The Anome (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoah here, hold the phone. How about users opposing recall? Keilana is one of our better admins, if it were up to me, she stays. This sitch looks more and more like a troll with an axe to grind... Edit Centric (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The guy was editing under an IP and has a problem with a protection I made. I'm calling it valid and good-faith, if I really screwed up it'd succeed, no? Keilana|Parlez ici 08:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
With due respect (and I think you're an awesome admin!), I seriously think you may need to tighten your recall criteria. This one is largely vexatious, IMO - Alison 08:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Alison, I'll look over things. I actually significantly tightened them recently. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the above. If this can happen then the recall criteria is seriously flawed. It takes less than 10 minutes of going through your admin actions to see that this recall request is frivolous. Don't assume too much good faith. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
So he created a SPA for the single purpouse of having you desysoped? that should be enough to dismiss the recall request and try to discuss drectly. I really respect your honor code but the least we need are 'suicidal' admins, in this case a single protection doesn't justify a desysoping, everybody does mistakes and this certainly wasn't one, the user was trying to push potentially libelous material into the article, [19] protecting a page if there are BLP issues is common practice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That editor appears to be posting comments everywhere. Just other people's to other pages.[20][21] To be honest, I can't make out quite what (s)he's trying to achieve here - Alison 08:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
They are most likely the registered account of an IP that tried to insert this into the article of a Hillary Clinton associate. Pairadox (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the IP that I begged people for over an hour to block on two noticeboards yesterday? And then had to go on IRC to try and get done? Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Screw AGF. Why not just block this obvious troll account (100%freehuman)? I mean, just look at its bizarre edit history. JuJube (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a permablock on 100%freehuman (talk · contribs) for trolling. I also support Keilana significantly tightening up her recall criteria to prevent every Troll, Dick and Harry from creating drama every few days. The words "editors in good standing" added somewhere to the recall criteria would do it. Or just totally get rid of the drama-magnet that is recall. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 09:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Revert the recall request, it's an obvious troll. The user's account should be reblocked indef. --Coredesat 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually after seeing that the user is also impersonating the one that he is asking to recall [22], I support a indef for disruptive trolling. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely; if all the above requests were actually sarcasm, and I failed to pick that up, then feel free to unblock. · AndonicO Hail! 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't believe that was an attempt to impersonate. It was more likely just a poorly executed quote. The comment that was added with Keilana's sig was actually part of a comment left by Keilana here. --OnoremDil 13:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello I know Im new anddont no much or really near anything about everything I am doing the best I can since contributing to an article I have been wrongly blocked and band by Dreadstar and Keilana its all gone really crazy not at all how i thought adding to wikkipedia would be I dont know what iformation i should and should not put so Ill wait till im asked i guess. Thanks Kate 100%freehuman (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why recall is not a good process includes this type of action. Mercury (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that you were so willing to be recalled Keilana shows that you clearly don't need to be--Jac16888 (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, 100%freehuman is requesting unblock. I strongly oppose unblocking- see this attempted forgery of comments. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This would appear to be a similar situation to what I noted above. Keilana left that comment on User talk:AndonicO. It's a poor attempt at quoting, not impersonation. --OnoremDil 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that all the evidence supports that 100%freehuman is a SPA for trolling and the additional evidence collected by Nwwaew supports a permanent block. Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Clarify that even if it a poor attempt at quoting it still looks like trolling. Jeepday (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I could do a little clarifying myself. I'm not supporting an unblock. I just want to make sure that impersonation isn't used as the main justification for people supporting the block. --OnoremDil 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Block/Unblock Requests of User:100%freehuman[edit]

100%freehuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'm struck by the discrepancy between this block and the one being discussed in the thread just below ("Personal attacks by User:Koalorka"). Here we have a new editor, unfamiliar with the Wiki-way, copying and pasting comments in what seems to be an attempt to collect evidence for a case for recall. Indefinite block. Below, we have somebody using highly inflamatory language and accusing an admin of racialism fresh off a 24 hour block for similar comments, and they get off with a warning. Yes, it was a bad initial edit, and the subsequent edit warring didn't help, but it appears she was doing her best to abide by policies and guidelines and just didn't get the parameters of reliable sourcing. She's expressed contrition and confusion and a willingness to refrain from editing until more knowledgable. Anybody else see this as a case of biting the newbie? Pairadox (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I support an unblock. I think people are blowing this way out of proportion. If you go back and look through the history of this dispute, I think that 100%freepeople was all along requesting clarification as to why the edits on a certain page were considered "vandalism" and thus resulted in semi-protection. Keilana did make some attempts to explain this but mentioned her willingness to be recalled so often that 100%freepeople took her up on it. In fact, Keilana's responses brought up recall much more than they addressed the vandalism and semi-protection part of the question. I think that's not only not blockworthy, it's not even abusive, and may even be a valid reason for requesting recall with Keilana's lax requirements, not that I think this shows any need whatsoever to remove Keilana's admin bit. I just don't want to unblock without consulting at this point. Mangojuicetalk 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Unblock and watch. This seems way out of proportion, and a new user is very confused by this kerfuffle. Suggest someone with patience offers to mentor her, or point her in the direction of WP:ADOPT. Let's assume good faith. Neıl 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Two parties above appear to support unblocking. I tend to agree with that idea. Also, for what it's worth, I have offered to be an adopter, although no one's been stupid enough to accept me as one yet. I third unblocking the editor in question and offer adoption if that user wants it. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose unblock. It has already been hashed out that this was an SPA created for the sole purpose of de-sysopping Keilana. I have read through the edit history, the comments and the talk pages, and I don't buy this "I'm new here, I'm confused" line for one NY minute. (Sorry, I usually hold AGF high on the list, but this one has drawn a modicum of my ire...) If you unblock this account, keep a weather eye on this user. Edit Centric (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
But this was not an SPA for harassment. The article this user was interested in was semi-protected, so she registered an account, probably to be allowed to edit the article again. When she found that she couldn't edit the article right away, she went to Keilana to complain about it. Mangojuicetalk 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose unblock. 100%freehuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be requesting an unblock, Keilana's desysopping, and unprotection of Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) mainly for the purposes of adding a reference to Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) implying some sort of relationship with Hilary Clinton. I don't know why someone in Australia is so interested in adding this rumor, but we have to be careful of WP:BLP violations here. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think an indef block is warranted here. It was a good faith error on the part of the user to incorrectly quote, it was unfamiliarity with adminship and the recall process that led to user to request recall and it was a mistake on Keilana's part to agree to it (again) and begin the recall process on the complaint of a brand-spanking newbie who clearly doesn't understand what is going on. Avruchtalk 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, based on the above discussion, I'm going to offer the user a set of terms for being unblocked. Mangojuicetalk 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I do however note how the user is capable of writing grammatically and correctly spelled "Thank you for correcting your misunderstanding." even including a :), and then going on to at best nongrammatical and poorly spelled sections. Curiouser and curiouser. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking's not a good idea. Have a look at the conversation on WP:BLP/N#Huma Abedin: this is not someone who is willing to listen, this is not someone who has more than one thing they want out of this, this isn't someone we need to indulge. Relata refero (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support unblocking if he agreed to Mangojuices terms (listed on 100%'s talk page); however, he doesn't seem to want to do this... · AndonicO Hail! 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd also support unblocking if they'd be more coherent and civil. As I'm directly involved in Mango's terms, I'm not going to comment on the ones in which I am involved; adoption would be a good idea. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1px image DoS vandal is back[edit]

Pages that need deleting:

This is a deliberate attempt to DoS Wikipedia through the massive use of 1 pixel images (sample. I'm still trying to find the original thread where this cropped up before, it wasn't that long ago. Thanks. MER-C 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the pages and blocked the culprit. I don't understand the situation fully, but trust MER-C's judgement on the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I get it now - I just couldn't see the images at first! It's quite sneaky it's got to be said. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pages:

Another one, from a couple of days ago (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive359#User:Mp3tt - not the thread I'm looking for). These pages are safe, but you'll see the characteristic pattern in the history. I'll see if checkuser can refresh my memory. MER-C 12:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda surprised the user wasn't blocked - done now. Pages deleted, just in case people get jumped looking through page histories. Doubt we need that sort of charming individual hanging about. ~ Riana 12:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
From Jan 22nd, I think this was also Zzttr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who I indef'ed then. Pattern appears to be the same. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser result is in - IPs are now blocked but there are a bunch of accounts to be dealt with, if anyone wants to. The IPs are hardblocked for a month, so there's no hurry :) - Alison 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

bugzilla:12855. MER-C 02:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakon has deleted all the pages, and I have blocked and tagged all the ones that hadn't already been blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

31 JAN 2007 Non Tor or Non exit unblock[edit]

Resolved: all done.

Good morning. I have todays daily batch. These IP addresses are blocked as Tor, and are no longer Tor nodes and have been tested at random times, cross referencing the most recent Tor network status documents. Thank you for your help. Mercury (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IP unblock requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. User:SQL/TORUser2
  2. User:SQL/TORUser2
  3. User:SQL/TORUser2
  4. User:SQL/TORUser2
  5. User:SQL/TORUser2
  6. User:SQL/TORUser2
  7. User:SQL/TORUser2
  8. User:SQL/TORUser2
  9. User:SQL/TORUser2
  10. User:SQL/TORUser2
  11. User:SQL/TORUser2
  12. User:SQL/TORUser2
  13. User:SQL/TORUser2
  14. User:SQL/TORUser2
  15. User:SQL/TORUser2
  16. User:SQL/TORUser2
  17. User:SQL/TORUser2
  18. User:SQL/TORUser2
  19. User:SQL/TORUser2
  20. User:SQL/TORUser2
  21. User:SQL/TORUser2
  22. User:SQL/TORUser2
  23. User:SQL/TORUser2
  24. User:SQL/TORUser2
  25. User:SQL/TORUser2
  26. User:SQL/TORUser2
  27. User:SQL/TORUser2
  28. User:SQL/TORUser2
  29. User:SQL/TORUser2
  30. User:SQL/TORUser2
  31. User:SQL/TORUser2
  32. User:SQL/TORUser2
  33. User:SQL/TORUser2
  34. User:SQL/TORUser2
  35. User:SQL/TORUser2
  36. User:SQL/TORUser2
  37. User:SQL/TORUser2
#37 still identifying as a TOR node Dureo (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, User:74.208.46.15 is still a TOR proxy and should remain blocked. However, the first 36 should be unblocked. — Save_Us 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Tazlk pages need clearing (just delete them if there's nothing but a {{tor}} tag). I would but I've got my own list to plough through! Neıl 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. LaraLove 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Mercury, are the IPs on your list (User:Mercury/UnblockNonTor) the same ones that SQL auto-identifies with his bot daily on User:SQL/Funky TOR? Neıl 15:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I copy them then queue them for testing by my process. Then I post them, but if your going to work those directly, I'll stop posting them. Many thanks for your work. Mercury (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Posting chunks here will help get the backlog cleared quicker - I'd recommend carrying on. Neıl 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor disrupting editing with false claims of WP:PROMINENCE[edit]

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

I think that someone should look into user ScienceApologist behavior on the Deadly Nightshade page.[29] He is continually claiming WP:PROMINENCE as a policy when in fact it does not exist. It is disrupting some editors and they have asked him to stop, but he continues.[30] He even went so far to create the page WP:PROMINENCE (currently under AfD) which is a redirect to WP:UNDUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talkcontribs) 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And another slagging of ScienceApologist. No admin action required except to maybe ban Anthon01 from homeopathy articles for a period of time for constantly causing provocation on homeopathy articles. Lawrence § t/e 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 has been blocked 24 hours for attempted harassment. Lawrence § t/e 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And apparently unblocked. . .Ronnotel (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It was an 8 minute block. Quack Guru 21:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Clarification of Homeopathy Probation Edit Policy[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There appears to be no actionable violation of the probation. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has made two reverts where no consensus exist, one at 14:23, January 31, 2008[31]and the second at 19:29, January 31, 2008[32]. Finally OrangeMarlin has made the same revert once, [33] however ScienceApologist and ScienceApologist often work in tangent to further their POV. I request that the probation warning be enforced and the page be rollback to where it was at the time of the posting of the probation message. Anthon01 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to carp on so, you may find the forthcoming probation enforcement to be to your displeasure. east.718 at 21:35, January 31, 2008
No, an admin has rewarded his "carping on so" with a barnstar.[34] Sic transit Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify what the rules are here. I asked the admin who gave me the barnstar if I could placed this on AN/I without fear of getting blocked.[35] He responded yes.[36] I don't feel like I am being treated fairly. Anthon01 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You posted the same question to me,[37] and I suggested not stirring the pot.[38] Admin shopping and selective reporting of the facts is sort of disruptive. I recommend we look beyond it this time. Jehochman Talk 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly, Before they're forever banned? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Who is they? Anthon01 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that Anthon01 posted the question to Jehochman after he had started this thread and was chided for doing so by east. I don't think "admin shopping" is a proper characterization here. I believe that he was confused by east's warning and thus sought clarification from Jehochman. Anthon01, feel free to correct me if I am incorrect with my assessment.
I don't find PoupOnToast's comment here particularly helpful in any way. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's probably because the article prohibition encountered and failed it's first hurdle (which most pundits had predicted). Not really surprising that those who monitor these things have seen the same admin responses over and over again and when the Community tells them to act better....they don't. So the cynicism level increases. Shot info (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Which admin response are you commenting on here? Anthon01 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't close this yet as I have a commnet I am preparing. Anthon01 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I ask Bearian if I could place notice on AN/I without having to worry about getting blocked. 21:08 [39] Bearian had commented that he was going to take a break. So when he didn't respond,
  • I asked Jehochman thinking Bearian was gone at 21:19.[40]
  • Bearian gave me the go ahead on my talk page at 21:23.[41]
  • So I started posting it right after and with an edit conflict interspersed I finally posted it on AN/I at 21:26.[42]
  • On Jehochman's page he posted his response at 21:22 asking me to wait. [43] I didn't see Jehochman message until later. I wasn't admin shopping. Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is jumping the gun? Are the "cards stacked against me?" Is there a presumption that anti- alt-med editors are automatically right? My assumption was that content disputes don't give a anti-homeopathy editor rights over a pro-homeopathy editor. Since the probation warning yesterday I have not touched the Deadly Nightshade article. However an anti-homeopathy editor has reverted twice in the span of a few hours without any consensus. He has ignored editors on the talk page that are trying to work towards an agreement. Before yesterday I would have reverted his edit at least once. But due to the warning I avoided the article page completely and focused my attention on the talk page. Instead of touching the article page, I brought the issue to AN/I. What have I done wrong? Anthon01 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon1 and I are on opposide sides of most of the issues at play in the homeopathy article, but he clearly hasn't done anything wrong here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Block review requested, if you please![edit]

Clearsight (talk · contribs) - blocked this one indef, reasons given here. Only thing I didn't say there was that he'd managed 3 separate edit-wars in under a week. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I rolled back a couple of past edits while reviewing, as seems to be a singular POV SPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I just rejected his unblock request. So yes, I endorse this block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
He wrote, "User Stephan Shulz has been active on the same talk page from a differing point of view". I am just curious to know if you have been involved in this article in any way? He seems to be of the opinion that you shouldn't have reviewed the block as you're already involved and wants a completely uninvolved admin. I don't think that's terribly unreasonable to ask for. Bstone (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You can always look through Stephan's contribution history, which is public. I see no edits to Talk:Holocaust denial and one to Holocaust denial in his past 1,000 edits. I didn't go back further, but you're welcome to. MastCell Talk 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've last edited the talk page on September 5th. This user arrived here on January 25th. I've certainly discussed the topic previously, but I've not been involved with the user (well, with the account) in any way before this encounter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I endorse this block. --John (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I think this was a good block. The less editorial time consumed by querulous Holocaust "revisionists", the better. And since the Vermont Public Library editor is revving up again... MastCell Talk 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
From his talk page, he seems to be rather upset about being blocked and is expressing true desire to continue editing in earnest. Perhaps the block can be for a specific time (two weeks? one month?) and also require him to be adopted with probation? I believe we have an opportunity here to build a bridge. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, he would be. This edit is enough for me, thanks. Good block. Black Kite 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. That is indeed extremely disturbing. Bstone (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Support per his trolling and that edit linked by Black Kite. Lawrence § t/e 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec, response to Bstone) None of the other folks who have commented, here or on his talk page, have found the block particularly disturbing. I suppose if an admin willing to unblock and mentor this editor can be found, then that might be an option to be discussed. Still, given the finite nature of volunteer time and effort, and the historically disappointing returns on mentoring this sort of editor, I would be pessimistic. If you're looking to build bridges or help fledgeling editors (which is a noble endeavor), surely there are more worthy potential beneficiaries out there? MastCell Talk 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, a Vermont based vandal. There aren't too many people in our Green Mountain state, heck I probably already know the person! Avruchtalk 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're in the library and you see a guy on the computer next to you simultaneously denying the Holocaust, global warming, and HIV as the cause of AIDS, it's him. Tell him to stop. He's destroying all the goodwill towards Vermonters that your delicious cheddar and maple syrup would otherwise engender. MastCell Talk 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He sent me a pleasant enough email, that I responded to on his talk page, asking me to look into this. I guess he thought I was an admin (I'm not). The section right above my response includes him saying WP has libeled him. Legal threat? Lawrence § t/e 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. "This is libel" isn't a legal threat. "You're libeling me" isn't a legal threat. "I'm going to sue you for libel" is a legal threat. The block worries me a bit, but mostly only procedurally; needless to say, I'm biased. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians[edit]

There is a never-ending edit war at MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians. I tried to stick in an oar to leave it at a sourced version, but I don't know enough about this information to know whether the edits are valid or not. Nobody violates 3RR, but there are repeated reversions that need to be stopped. I'm backing out as I don't want to get into the war, myself. Corvus cornixtalk 00:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly a POV push about the identity of the MOWA people as Native American, not Cajun. the editor in question, User:Uuu987 is a single purpose account who clearly uses POV language to disparage any and all text about the white/black racial identity of the MOWA, in favor if the Choctaw identity. Although he has some sources, his writing is not the best by any means, and his aggressive disputation with the facts of the page is in no way helping. Other editors have appeared to remove unfounded material, but he seems intent on sticking it all back in. ThuranX (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Uuu987. Corvus cornixtalk 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

help with murray's dictionary[edit]

Just created article. The "D" in "dictionary" should be capitalized. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upperdoes39 (talkcontribs) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks--Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have been moved; however, shouldn't this just be redirected to Oxford English Dictionary? GlassCobra 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
See talk page for discussion Talk:Murray's_Dictionary--Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An Issue with an Admin[edit]

I am only posting this because I believe that the admin has become too personally involved, and that if someone else steps in, she will revert to being a good editor again. The admin in question is User:Vary. After editing on Cloverfield (creature), Vary had become involved in discussion over the naming. After injecting herself into a dispute about the use of the term "Cloverfield" to describe the creature or not here [[44]], she went over to another thread that I was in here: [[45]]. Following another user who you are in disputes with to another thread like that is exactly what is written on WP:STALK when it states: "Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption."

Why is that true? Because the information she removed were from properly cited sources who verified the opinion of another writer. The section was on the controversy over Article 11. According to WP:NPOV, both sides need to be stated to be fair. The paragraph even starts out saying: "According to author John Eidsmoe, who teaches constitutional law at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, ratification of Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli cannot be taken as Congressional assent of its statements.[4][5]" It is only appropriate to have other sources verifying that this his opinion and reinforcing his assessment on the importance of the Article. However, she removes the information and states: "v - the tone is clearly innappropriate - 'mere treaty'?" Instead of fixing the tone and making the paragraph appropriate, she just deletes, which goes against Wikipedia policy. When someone points out that "If tone is an issue, why not rewrite instead of removing sources that are proper and verifiable? " and actually rewrites the paragraph, she claims: "No. It's innappropriate to use this information in this way. " even though WP:NPOV makes it clear that it is appropriate.

The editor continued to remove wholesale properly cited information that is from those who do have multiple doctorates and published by groups like Oxford University Press, which is deemed verifiable under the verifiability guidelines. This continued until she provoked a 3RR, and then made claims of sock puppetry. After that, she then complains here [[46]] that she is being reverted over something that was deemed unverifiable. She used a citation that came from a member of the Rottentomatoes page: [47] for the document and [48] . The person, who she claimed: "There are blogs, and then there are blogs; not everyone who publishes content online is 'just a blogger.' My source for the 'claim' that Paramount published these notes is a reliable online film site, one of several which publish them as the production notes distributed to the media" although the only cite she uses is by a blogger page ([[49]] his home page is from a blog cite, and he is admittedly not a professional) and there is no author or copyright information to verify that it was from Paramount. Furthermore, the citation in question as not from a direct quote in the source, but an off hand comment written by an unknown source.

After pointing this out, she claimed "The way you're talking you'd think I was arguing in favor of beginning the article "Clover is a monster that first appeared in..."" [[50]] even though I have made it clear that I was only justifying how the term "clover" was not appropriate to be used in the context that it was used in the article, and nothing about renaming the page. I made that constantly clear, but Vary continued to claim over and over that I stated otherwise without providing any evidence to that.

I believe that the admin has become personally involved in this issue. Can someone help sort out this issue? Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, Wallbuilders is a known unreliable source. The owner of this company, David Barton has been criticized for making up quotes, and placing them in the mouths of the Founding Fathers. When challenged to support his made-up quotes he is cited as believing he saw it somewhere, or that he thinks it's what they would have said. I support removing anything they state as unreliable. If you'd like to discuss that particular aspect more, we have a reliable sources noticeboard here. Wjhonson (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Wallbuilders was not the only one being challenged. If you notice, the next one is David Homes, "publisher=Oxford University Press" which is a very reliable source. Another, "American Gospel", is by "|publisher=Random House" [51]. Those are two sources. Please notice that there were four books removed, and only one is needed to verify the statement that was removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree here with Shell Kinney. From a cursory review of the associated Talk page, the issue appears to be the relevance, and undue weight, of the included sections and not so much specifically their reliability. If you feel the issues cannot be resolved on the article's talk page, you might want to review our policy on undue weight, and/or open a discussion at the associated Talk page for Neutral Point of View.Wjhonson (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance to close an Afd early and userfy[edit]

I believe I have the agreement of the nominator User_talk:MickMacNee#The_Entertainers and a couple of involved admins at this Afd for early closure and userfication without prejudice, as per the suggestion sub heading. Am I correct in my terminology here? (my first time at such a non trivial Afd). I believe an independent admin can now close the Afd debate as delete without prejudice and userfy it to my space? I intend in future to recreate the article after a major edit of the userfied copy, under the same name, without prejudice. N.B. I'm unclear on the references to histories and talk pages in the userfication policy. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. The AfD is not going to be closed early. Just relax. Corvus cornixtalk 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih - Personal attacks and edit warring[edit]

Resolved: user blocked for 3RR--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is again engaging in personal attacks and threatens continued edit warring. [52][53] [54] [55] [56] This exchange is typical: This was in response to this admonition to follow policy on conduct and editing.

The user has already taken two blocks for this behavior. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User was blocked for 3RR violation. Considering the length and depth of the problems noted, there is a likelyhood that he may be taking an unhealthy ownership of the articles. If this continues, please make a note of as MANY problems as you can (diffs are GOOD. And article diffs are better than talk page diffs) and we will investigate further. However, please wait until this block expires before doing so, so that we can extend good faith to the user that they may return and stop after this block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Political mess?[edit]

I'm a bit concerned by many of the non-cinematographic contributions of user:Telecineman, given current political goings-on in the US.

Could I have some people help me out in checking his stuff for BLP and NPOV compliance? Thanks. DS (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of who? -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Bleh. I meant, user:Telecineguy. DS (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[57] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonflySixtyseven (talkcontribs) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Image renaming[edit]

per several threats against me, I have finished (mostly) a bot to rename images. primary testing will be on commons. please comment on commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Image renaming if all goes well I plan on porting the bot over here. if people are interested please help in the transwiki of related pages/templates. βcommand 05:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN[edit]

User has been continuing to mass remove pages (redirectification) and revert war (such as the one on Bulbasaur) despite objections and disagreements. His actions are not based on consensus and are WP:POINTy at best. Admin intervention is necessary as wikipedia is not a battleground.

-- Cat chi? 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • So you want us to block all the idiots who fill Wikipedia with cruft and then war with TTN's efforts to prune it down to manageable (and cited and policy-compliant) proportions? Good plan, but they will howl bloody blue murder, just as they do every time a massive uncited article on an item of fictional trivia is removed. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    Revert waring is disruptive. TTN revert wars among other things. -- Cat chi? 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe an injunction made by ArbCom to restrict these actions would be beneficial, in the meantime, I do not see precisely what admin intervention could be used? Please feel free to suggest something in particular, GDonato (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • White Cat, wait for the arbitration case to end. This is outside of the purview of this board as he is currently the subject of a new ArbCom case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    TTN is continuing to mass blank articles and continuing to revert war. That is disruptive. The presence of an RfAr is NOT a license allowing further disruption. It supposed to be the contrary. The RfAr may last for weeks or months. Tell me one reason why I should not mass revert TTNs reckless mass blankings (as per Wikipedia:Be bold#… but don't be reckless.). -- Cat chi? 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Because they aren't 'blanking', they're redirecting, leaving all content available to editors who want to improve a page, and because until the ArbCom plays out, any such actions, esp. in light of your un-archiving this section, which cautions you to let ArbCom settle out, will be seen by many as tendentious, pointy editing. You are not some neophyte, but an editor well aware of how Wikipedia works. You know that provoking others with POINTy reversions will only serve to draw out the ArbCom, by spurring on more and more commentaries, many of which will speak about your actions here. It is often said that patience is a virtue. I recommend you take that to heart. Since you asked for counsel before acting, it's no longer likely to be seen as BOLD. that's a few reasons not to do what you're considering. I hope you think about hem in depth before pursuing your plan. ThuranX (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    It is blanking. All content s removed. If a person redirects by removing all content on a random article (Say redirecting Canada to United States) we revert it. That person will most likely be treated like a vandal. Please do not insult my intelligence any more like that.
    Yes I know how wikipedia supposed to work. That is with consensus not through brute forcing ones own will. TTN is not acting based on consensus.
    If TTN's edits are perfectly fine as if it were a copy edit - something completely non-controversial, why is it a WP:POINT violation if I commit similar edits?If TTN's edits are not perfectly acceptable and even disruptive, I am quite baffled why the community refuses to act on it.
    -- Cat chi? 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    see User:SirFozzie/Get It Right for my feelings on it. An article merged for a couple days or even weeks is not cause for despair, anger, and yet another edit war that has already taken too much time of the community's patience and time. SirFozzie (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, 1 article is manageable but hundereds more is just problematic. Had TTN ceased mass blanking pages at least for temporarily there wouldn't be anything for me or someone else to revert. I am not trying to escalate the matter and on the contrary I am seeking to prevent further escalations by TTN. It isn't like I am in the business of mass revert waring on multiple pages. My comments were intended to be a figure of speech. -- Cat chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Because the community tried, and failed. That is why it went to ArbCom the first time. Now it's back at ArbCom, again. Something gets decided there, and the community works with it. If that doesn't work, it goes back to ArbCom (sadly). There's no action to be done that won't be stepping on the toes of the committee.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well, at least now I have something to refer to arbcom that may or may not compel them to a temporarily injunction. -- Cat chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom needs to do something about TTN—a temporarily injunction against continuing his redirect campaign while the case is ongoing would be tremendously helpful. If the ArbCom will not do this, we need an admin to step in and block him for disruption if he continues. Everyking (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ArbCom could give him a medal. And do you really think that an Admin blocking over ArbCom's decision would help the situation, or blow open a can of big fat worms? most, if not all of ArbCom IS admins, so you'd be looking at some sort of wheel war mess. Why can't the peopel spending so much energy on fighting this just go and find assertions of notability in the real world for the shows they want to keep as articles? I'm helping a guy right now fix up an I Love Lucy article. If episodes from 50 years ago can still have supporting evidence, then so can far more recent shows. If you really want to improve them, head down to the library, hit the various periodicals catalogs there, many index all the topics going back years if not decades. Since most of the shows being defended most vociferously are recent shows being defended by editors who grew up with them, those shows are most like to be the ones whose articles were indexed as they came out, and should be easily located in the library's archives. Photocopy the half dozen pages, note the publication info in the margin for citation, come home and include it. Heck, sign on AT the library and do it all from there. This is not rocket science, and I'm really sick and tired of the blanking accusation being trotted out every time TTN is accused, when we all know how redirects work in the history. ThuranX (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
See, this culture of people (same people) going out of their way in defending TTNs behavior while making every attempt to prevent any kind of review of TTNs behavior is adding to the disruption. Also the state and quality of the said articles is not the issue here. People are not given medals for revert waring. Arbcoms rulings are rather absolute. I presume you are new to the inner workings of wikipedia and what arbcom is. Per the rationale behind WP:POINT:
If you spot an article lacking proper secondary sources citation
  • do attempt to find a source and/or bring the issue to the attention of the general community
  • don't remove all content on all articles laking secondary source citation without even bothering to skim through the pages
-- Cat chi? 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't agree with you, I must be new? ArbCom didn't issue a cease and desist, or even a loud 'knock it off' to TTN, or that would be that. He's got policies and guidelines on his side, wide support for his actions, and at least some Wikiprojects and editors are listening, accepting redirects, and then working to edit towards better articles. That's all ideal results for using policy. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to send him an e-mail or something. Some of these situations are no big deal, but some of them are concerns that need to be looked at. At the very least, we need TTN to not appear as aggressive. Appearances are half the battle on Wikipedia, and his actions don't just effect him, but people's views on the guidelines being cited. That's not to say he needs to put up some fake smiles or anything like that. I understand TTN's frustration. I should have followed up on this more before we got to the point of needing even the first arbcom case. There's a lot of things.. timing and the way things are said.. that could be easily improved and allow things to go much smoother. And yes, on several of these he does need to just stop and discuss, but on several he's also citing legitimate discussions that back up his actions. It's.. a complicated headache. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a battle. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Cat chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
side comment.. "X are/is half the battle" is meant only as a phrase. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Which rather invites the question why so many people fight so hard to keep material that abjectly fails policy and content guidelines. You seem to be missing all the battling going on on one side of this dispute. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't agree that it "abjectly fails policy and content guidelines". And honestly, it seems like people opposing TTN do very little of anything that could be described as fighting. The response has actually been, for the most part, pitifully meek. Everyking (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not just TTN, but it's the other side harrassing the living hell out of him. Just stop this bs and let's edit the wikipedia. As for characters and espisotes, I agree with TTN there, but this is too much reverting, and little discussion. Secret account 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Why edit if the material could potentially be gone within a few years with just a simple button press? It's far easier to remove information than it is to add information on Wikipedia. TTN has shown me the light, and many others. With deletionists running the show and Guy berating 'fancruft' contributors with his always civil wit, adding to the any part of the mainspace is a waste of time. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Weather you agree with TTN or not, to put it mildly, is none of my concern. A lack of discussion is exactly the problem. TTNs edits are not based on consensus even if they may be the best thing since sliced bread. TTN isn't prone to discussion and instead to revert warring among other kinds of disruption.
There are many articles in violation of many and sometimes contradicting guidelines. In this case weather or not a guideline is violated or weather if such a violation is punishable by immediate and unconditional blanking/redirectification itself is disputed. Should we mass remove all articles that violates some random guideline? How about doing so while avoiding or making an effort to avoid all discussion?
If TTN is getting harassed, I'd like to see the evidence for that. Him getting harassed however is no excuse for TTNs continuing conduct.
-- Cat chi? 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletionists don't have time to put forth the effort to have a discussion. Discussion is too much work. Deleting and merging things like mad while having deletionist admins do all the work for him, sticking up for him no matter what, is the way to go. Maybe he'll make one comment on the thread to make it seem like he's listening, but nah, that's as far as it goes. Reading is too much effort. It's already been proven time and time again that he won't ever be punished for this behavior since so many people with the tools supports his every action, so there's absolutely no point for him to listen to these. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In this spesific case nothing is merged despite the merge claim. -- Cat chi? 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content issue[edit]

People seem to confuse or intentionally overlook the rationale behind this complaint so allow me to rephrase:

  • This entry is over the user conduct of User:TTN NOT over the content of the articles. Content of the articles is beyond the scopte of this entry.
    • This isn't the first time wikipedians had to deal with articles that may or may not have a problem with them. Resolving such issues requires the participation of the entire wikipedia community not just "inclusionist fans" and "deletionist anti-fans"
    • Articles neither have any legal nor urgent issue with them such as WP:BLP violations.
  • TTN is mass removing content despite objections.
    • Weather you call TNN's actions redirectification, blanking, mering, etc is besides the point
    • Weather or not the information is in the history log is besides the point. Thats like saying it is fine to randomly delete (via admin delete) articles which have some sort of non-critical problem with them just because they can be undeleted.
    • Creation of such redirects creates problems. Such problems include
      • The mass orphanage of fair-use images which creates a back log for admins
      • Possible mass creation of double redirects which may be hard to reverse as once bots process them they'd have to be dealt with individually.
  • Users actions are NOT based on consensus no mater how good or bad they may be
    • There is no agreement that all bad episode articles are to be purged on sight. If so please cite such a consensus.
    • There isn't an overflow of new entries given the current Writers Guild of America strike, and even then the rate of article creation had never been any way near at the rate of TTNs removal.
  • User revert wars (see history of Bulbasaur)
  • User avoids discussion on the "real matter"
    • User does not take part in the WP:DR process. User only has a single 2-line post in the previous RFAR and has no participation whatsoever in the current one.

-- Cat chi? 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, check this AfD close reason by an admin. Even he knows that TTN gets what TTN wants, so there's no point in opposing him. It's sad, but this is what the project has become. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "all the idiots who fill Wikipedia with cruft": Again, one user's cruft is another user's important matter. For example, I have no interest in football, and to me most football matter is footballcruft, and when reading the newspaper I skip over it, and when it starts in the morning TV news I often switch off; but I do not maraud around Wikipedia deleting or redirectifying the football articles. (And I suspect that someone will have to go through TTN's contributions list reverting his redirectings, if this discussion's verdict allows it.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[WikiEN-l] mailing list[edit]

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

I would like to know how it is appropriate for editors to make defamatory comments about other editors on Wikipedia mailing lists with an expectation that the editor being defamed will most likely not see it. For example, User:Ansell found it necessary to refer to myself and User:Pedro as "irresponsible" parents for posting images of our children. Not as if magazines, TV ads, billboards, books, websites, etc don't have images of children. But somehow, in posting an image of each of my children in bathrobes makes me an irresponsible mother to the point that someone that doesn't know me from Eve feels vindicated in telling it to a group of my peers behind my back. I'd like to know if this sort of behavior is endorsed by the community. LaraLove 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I was the first one to post on his talk page. I was just flabbergasted by the lack of regard for other people's feelings as well as the quick jump for moral superiority. In fact, if it wasn't for someone telling Lara that the post was made about her, she wouldn't have known. I find that very shady. It wouldn't be acceptable if he told her to her face that she was a bad mother; why would it be acceptable on the mailing list? Mike H. Fierce! 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. And, I've told him so. That sorta thing doesn't really have a place here. SQLQuery me! 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that many of us have already commented at his talk page, I’d like to hear a response from him first – although I agree he was way out of line. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I know I'm not LaraLove, but I definitely don't want to hear justifications or him trying to defend his words, because they're totally indefensible. Mike H. Fierce! 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I kind of want to know what makes him think that these images make me an irresponsible mother. And what makes him think it's acceptable to voice that belief on a mailing list of my peers knowing that not only am I not there to respond, but no one was notified from the BRC that we were even the topic of discussion. They just started editing my subpage before someone else contacted us. LaraLove 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • In case my edit is the one being complained about here, I apologize for editing first and commenting on the talk page second. All I did was remove the title override and I didn't think that'd be a major issue, it didn't occur to me until afterward that you and the others who worked on the page might not know about the mailing list thread and some of the other stuff being talked about in it. Sorry about that. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • LaraLove, I agree that (at the very minimum) you should have been informed of the thread at wiki-en-L, preferably by the person who started it; and I too find that bald statement to be inappropriate. In fact, it never occurred to me that you hadn't been made aware, otherwise I might well have contacted you myself on reading it. I'm sure you're a fine mother. However, I am not sure if you are aware that a photo of Boy Scouts, hosted here and uploaded by a respectable editor, was rece